Voters in the recent Iowa caucuses and Tuesday's New Hampshire primary will rely on paper ballots as they have for generations. In the very next primary on January 21, South Carolinians will vote with backlit touch-screen computers.

In an age of electronic banking and online college degrees, why hasn't the rest of the nation gone the way of the Palmetto State? The reason is simple and resonates with the contentious debate that has yet to be resolved after at least 15 years of wrangling over the issue of electronic voting. No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions—in this case, electing a U.S. president—can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless e-voting systems are used.

Electronic balloting has yet to reconcile two conflicting needs in the polling place. Any election must proceed under a cloak of anonymity. But if a recount is required, election officials must go back and reproduce a verifiable audit trail. No account number ties the transaction to an individual, as it does when you transfer cash from checking to saving. What tangible proof then is there that those 5,734 votes really registered at the elementary school on Main Street? "If you have a machine collecting and recording votes with an electronic ballot box there's no way to go back after the fact and see if the machine made a mistake, whether through malice or simple software error," says Stanford University computer science professor David Dill and founder of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan election watchdog.

Electronic voting has its share snafus to prove the case of the doubters. In 2006 voters in Florida's 13th Congressional District election learned firsthand that there is little recourse when e-voting election results are in dispute. That year Democratic nominee Christine Jennings, who lost the election by 369 votes to Republican Vern Buchanan, claimed that 18,000 votes went uncounted in the district. Without a ballot paper trail to follow, the matter was left to the courts and Buchanan held onto the seat.

"They couldn't audit the election because there was no way to evaluate the machine's accuracy," Dill says. "It's like you have a worker who's doing your accounts who is very smart but not very trustworthy. If you have some independent way of checking the numbers he started with against the numbers he finished with then you don't have to trust him, you can double check his work and catch any major errors. That's what we need for voting machines."

How do you cast your ballot?
Voters can cast their ballot in a variety of ways, depending upon the method adopted by their election district. This includes paper ballots, punch cards, two different types of touch-screen electronic voting system (one that prints out a receipt verifying your vote and one that does not), optical scanners used to digitize paper ballots, or some combination of these.

New Hampshire, like nearly two-thirds of the country, has a paper ballot system that voters mark up and turn in to election officials who count the ballots either by electrical scanners or by hand. With the optical-scan approach, if the ballot is not filled out properly or is unreadable, the scanner will not accept the vote and the voter can fix his or her ballot before leaving the polling place, Dill says.

2 Comments

1. 1. 3rdof8 10:02 PM 1/9/12

   I have always been suspicious of South Carolina's voting results given the state's demographics, median household wealth and its consistent Republican leanings. Total electronic voting provides the means to fix elections at the highest levels.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. priddseren 10:46 PM 1/9/12

   The need for secrecy out weighs any concern for convenience or ease on the election officials. With the already questionable elections in various states the last think the people need is to hand the politicians any sort of system that would allow them to fix elections. Electronic voting methods are certain to lead to voting fraud and lead there with ease. At least with paper systems the volume of paper necessary to fake to have an effect is so great, the ability to commit fraud is reduced just because it takes so much effort. Electronic voting just requires a couple of hackers.
   
   So how to do it, paper only which produces the verifiable trail. Marking with a pen is probably the best to reduce nonsense like Al Gore hanging chads. Still, there is some responsibility on the voter to make sure their pen mark or chad punch out are correct.
   Another good method is mail in votes. Though some anonymity is lost because a liberal bent on exposing the voting practice of non-democrats could record what they pull out of the envelope but once the envelope and the vote card are separated, we have both an audit trail and confirmation we have one vote from one legal voter. It is easy enough to employ vegas casino count room security to ensure fraud or loss of anonymity does not happen.
   
   Whatever chosen, electronic voting is a certain way to a mess, either fraud and fixing if elections or worse, the loss of anonymous voting. Losing the anonymous vote is worse because it is certain if how you vote is public knowledge, you will be met with attacks and abuse from other voters as Union voting has proven many times in the past. If anyone in a union thinks you voted the wrong way, the next thing you know people are in your front yard threatening you. Imagine that 100 times worse if democrats could figure out who is not voting in the insanity of socialism or religious fanatics thought you were not voting for their insanity.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this