Trending

Advertisement

Roost: Several factors threaten elections

Share

Donald Trump says a lot of reckless things, but the most incendiary utterance to have passed his pursed lips is the claim that the November elections will be rigged. As much as we take them for granted (most years), fair and free elections are the cornerstone of democracy, and by questioning their integrity, Trump’s comments, paired with his supporters’ likely reaction should he lose the election, risk destabilizing the foundations of our governing system.

Apart from politically motivated Supreme Court decisions, rigged elections come in three basic flavors: voter impersonation fraud, tampering with voting machines and cyber threats such as hacking. According to elections experts, the actual rate of voter impersonation fraud in US elections is close to zero, so we can dismiss that tempest in a teapot.

However unlikely, voting machine tampering is an actual threat, even though machines are far and away more tamper-resistant than a manual paper process. Manual paper elections have a long history of failures (remember the hanging chad?) mainly due to the fact that results depend on flawless behavior from many players (poll workers, witnesses, political parties, etc.), as well as on the proper filling of forms and statements, information transmission and safe transport of materials to tabulation warehouses.

Now for the good news. The latest generation of voting systems ensures up to four independent ballots of record, any of which can be tallied independently to ensure outcomes are verifiably correct. Auditing is the single best way to guarantee confidence in election results and fortunately many states require an automatic audit in close elections.

As for cyber threats, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State, 1) to date, there has been no indication from national security agencies to states that any specific or credible threat exists when it comes to cyber security and the November 2016 general election; 2) a national hacking of the election is highly improbable due the country’s unique, decentralized procurement process; 3) most states publicly conduct logic and accuracy testing of their machines prior to the election to ensure that they are working and tabulating properly, then they are sealed until election day to prevent tampering; and 4) voting systems certified by the federal Elections Assistance Commission are not connected to the Internet, and 5) voting systems have been vigorously tested against security standards by the EAC.

The two biggest threats to the November elections have nothing to do with voter impersonation, vote tampering or cyber threats.

First, there is a statistical likelihood that one or more legacy voting systems malfunction and will fail to produce accurate and reliable results in 2016. Forty-three states are using machines that will be at least 10 years old in 2016. (Imagine using a 10 year-old desktop computer running Windows Vista). Nearly every state is using some machines that are no longer manufactured and many election officials struggle to find replacement parts. Everyone agrees these systems are outdated. The problem with replacing these systems with more reliable and cost-efficient voting machines that run off commercial off-the-shelf hardware is a lack of money at the state level and of political will at the federal level.

The greater threat, however, is the loss of confidence in the integrity of the elections process. Hackers need not hijack a voting machine or tamper with machines or software to undermine confidence in election results. Merely an unfounded claim by a “credible” source, such as a presidential candidate, that an election has been tinkered with could delegitimize the outcome in November, thus setting in motion a constitutional crisis the likes of which we’ve only heard about taking place in the developing nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Skepticism is not a bad thing when it is channeled in a purposeful manner, rather than for personal political gain. Every citizen should ask questions about the election process and encourage elected officials to do the same and do more to make it better. True patriotism is more than a lapel pin. It is demanding laws that require multiple election audits; it is taking the time to witness pre-election testing of the voting systems; it is emailing your elected officials and demanding new cost-efficient, sustainable and transparent voting systems. It is volunteering to be a poll worker. And it is voting for a president who puts country before ego.

Amy Roost is a former Poway resident who now lives in Encinitas. She works for an elections software company headquartered in San Diego.

Advertisement