Marketing trust in free and fair elections
You know a story is reaching critical mass when it shows up on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. This weekend, the Gray Lady noted that serious questions are emerging about Diebold, the maker of roughly half of the electronic voting machines in the US. This follows the resignation of CEO Walden O'Dell earlier in the week, and the filing of a securities fraud suit against the company. But most concerning are the results of a Florida test showing that election officials and insiders can change the results of an election without anyone knowing. Noted in another article is the fact that another hacker was able to add 60,000 hidden votes to the central tabulation facility.
The central problem inherent in today's electronic voting machines is that there is no way for a trusted third party to validate that the results of an election reflect the votes cast in the election. Without paper ballots or similar audit systems that can be verified manually without the electronic black boxes being involved, we simply have to accept manufacturer assertions that the machines work as intended. Somehow, only in electronic voting is Ronald Reagan's admonition to "Trust, yet verify." ignored.
There will undoubtedly be many technical debates on the security issues here. But there is a larger marketing and communications job to be done too. Democracy works when people trust that elections are fair and their vote counts. If voters don't trust that the results reflect their wishes, the system falls apart, and faith in government erodes.
Both states and federal government agencies need to start building trust in the 2006 mid-term elections now, or face a complete lack of faith in the results. One step in that direction would be to establish a single set of standards for electronic voting, including creating an audit-able paper trail. Such was the recommendation of The Carter-Baker commission this year. But more importantly, the government has to start talking about its commitment to fair and verifiable voting, and not leave solutions to for-profit companies. After all, elections shouldn't go to the lowest or highest bidder -- they should be won by the people that get the most votes.
In today's technology-laden culture, sometimes simpler truly is better at convincing people that systems are fair. We put in place a system of paper ballots and purple ink for Iraqis to vote with. Why can't the US have a system that is equally as simple and easy to verify? Until electronic voting companies can answer that question with something other than "Trust us", this question won't die.
The central problem inherent in today's electronic voting machines is that there is no way for a trusted third party to validate that the results of an election reflect the votes cast in the election. Without paper ballots or similar audit systems that can be verified manually without the electronic black boxes being involved, we simply have to accept manufacturer assertions that the machines work as intended. Somehow, only in electronic voting is Ronald Reagan's admonition to "Trust, yet verify." ignored.
There will undoubtedly be many technical debates on the security issues here. But there is a larger marketing and communications job to be done too. Democracy works when people trust that elections are fair and their vote counts. If voters don't trust that the results reflect their wishes, the system falls apart, and faith in government erodes.
Both states and federal government agencies need to start building trust in the 2006 mid-term elections now, or face a complete lack of faith in the results. One step in that direction would be to establish a single set of standards for electronic voting, including creating an audit-able paper trail. Such was the recommendation of The Carter-Baker commission this year. But more importantly, the government has to start talking about its commitment to fair and verifiable voting, and not leave solutions to for-profit companies. After all, elections shouldn't go to the lowest or highest bidder -- they should be won by the people that get the most votes.
In today's technology-laden culture, sometimes simpler truly is better at convincing people that systems are fair. We put in place a system of paper ballots and purple ink for Iraqis to vote with. Why can't the US have a system that is equally as simple and easy to verify? Until electronic voting companies can answer that question with something other than "Trust us", this question won't die.
Technorati Tags: Diebold, e-Voting, Voting Machines, Communication, Voting, Communications, Marketing
posted by Carl Howe at
12:02 PM
| View blog reactions
| 
