Opinion: E-voting shadows

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

To expand a bit on today’s e-voting editorial, a couple of early field reports on Election Day illustrate the whiff of uncertainty raised by the new touch-screen machines. Reports of problems in at least five states -- Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- suggested that poll workers in some precincts simply weren’t ready to handle the technical side of the new machines. The problem was compounded in some areas by shortcomings in the hardware; for example, some polling places in Colorado used laptop computers to hold voter-registration information, and when the power unexpectedly went out, there was no back-up in place.

The glitches are in a small fraction of the polling places nationwide, and it appears that a large majority of the people using the new touch-screen machines did so without problem. But it’s also clear that a notable number of precincts went into this election with inadequately trained workers and procedures that weren’t properly adapted to the new technology. As anyone who’s ever used a PC for a living will point out, you have to assume that computers will crash and plan accordingly. That means a well-planned back-up system, the most important element of which is a paper record that voters diligently verify before they walk away from the machine.

Personally, I hope the problems today aren’t widespread enough to raise doubts about the results (although we’re already seeing some partisans doing exactly that). But I also hope that the glitches already seen persuade states to require this kind of voter-verified paper record, and to teach voters to double-check this record in states that have required it.