Voting Machine Security
The history of voting dates back in 460 BC in the republic of Athens, marking the first democracy built around “Rule of the People.” In contemporary society, freedoms are rarely based on the design of the governments such that when they are too small, they collapse from outside, and when too big fall comes from outside. In American history, democracy kicked off in 1776 through restricted to less than 50 landowners. Voting systems has advanced with stages such as; all males allowed to vote in 1868, ban on racial discrimination in 1870, women permitted in 1920 and 18 years and above allowed to vote in 1971. In contemporary society, they have been used as in West Virginia 2018 midterms. In the Voatz application in Oregon and Utah, loopholes to the security were noticed that hackers could use to view and adjust votes. Security experts agree that in contemporary society, it is impossible to conduct a secure election. A similar case in Los Angeles County 2020, where the exercise used system with vulnerabilities caused by the lack of prior exposure, devices could boot and fail to adhere to government guidelines. The company in charge had a record of cheating, explaining that if a hacker can communicate with the machine, there is the possibility of manipulating it to lie in the future. Its past investigation can describe characteristics of vulnerable voting systems; over 35 voting systems have been left online, an individual buying two voting machines, and found 2012 elections data. The modern voting machines considered efficient apply Windows CE comprising of USB ports. The invention of ElectOS, a software model project with the foundation of the vote project, is the attempt to modernize election technology. The main objective is ensuring transparency in voting and voter registration.
Interesting Fact
The most profound fact is the manipulation that takes place in modern voting systems. It seems that contemporary elections are turning to be complicated, thus requiring administrators that possess an exceptional digital system. It is interesting that with cyber tools, just one individual can decide for the rest of society. If one person can access and manipulate elections results, it implies that it is hard to place faith in future modifications. It is a reflection of the future implications of electronic voting machines with the possibility of undermining confidence in democracy. The current voting patterns are more complicated compared to the old ones where the voter’s number was small. The contemporary society has expanded with a high population, demands, implementation of democracy has contributed to call for the electronic voting machine. It shows the danger ahead in social stability and faith in democratic institutions marked by previous cases such as Los Angeles and West Virginia, where the voice of majority has been undermined.
Lessons
The initial lesson is that the elections are expected to be more complicated in the future; this will call for more training and education on administrators. Cyber attacks are the central challenge in the modern electronic voting systems. The advanced technology and advancement have made it possible for specific individuals to manipulate the system with their expertise to manipulate the results in their interests. The consensus is that the gap between electronic administrators’ information technology skills and the ability to identify, mitigate, and respond to the attacks. Therefore, there is a need to develop the election administrators with appropriate expertise to deal with the emerging threats in a fair election. The state and local elections personnel are highly reliant on the system vendors to install and maintain election systems. However, these authorities lack adequate resources and abilities to verify credibility in conducting elections.
The information also demonstrates the need for voter-verifiable paper ballots that is details of every vote cast. The fact that the voting machines are controlled by a software program that is vulnerable to cyber attacks underscores the need to address the vulnerabilities. High ranked with hackers with enough resources either by the foreign government, or radicalized groups can compromise the American Voting System. It emphasizes on the need to verify every ballot paper that is not subject to the software. The approach is the best to maintain voter decisions that will remain similar even if the machines are compromised. The ballot papers play a vital position in implementing reliable post-election evaluation to not only determine authenticity but also rectify loopholes in case of manipulation. In case of suspicion on election integrity, it is possible to go back and find the evidence. However, if there is a heavy reliance on the electronic voting machines, it will erode the confidence with democracy.
Additional Information
Remote access software is the program applied by system administrators in accessing and controlling election gadgets either through the network or entity network. Election systems are supposed to be tight secured irrespective of whether they are connected to the internet or otherwise. It should be out of the loop for anyone since any individual that succeeds in accessing can manipulate election information. Also, for the states that use touch screen voting technology should consider substituting with paper ballots and optical scanners (Claaassen, Magleby, Monson & Patterson, 2013). Alternatively, it can be addressed by channeling resources to machines that provide paper ballots verification. The main problem is that states have no control over individuals that offer absent ballots through internet platforms such as emails, fax, and social media. It turns complicated for the voter to verify whether the vote cast is the same recorded by the election clerk. The department of homeland security’s cybersecurity division tries to discourage the adoption of online voting at any government level (Root & Kennedy, 2017). It is almost two decades since the electronic voting systems were introduced, leading to mass adoption by states. The computer scientists have released reports indicating that the machine is vulnerable to hacking. The designers of the electronic voting machines failed to consider installing robust security in their system, leaving loopholes. However, manufacturers, vendors, and election officials have refuted the claims of the possibility of hacking citing not connected to the internet.
Claassen, R. L., Magleby, D. B., Monson, J. Q., & Patterson, K. D. (2013). Voter confidence and the election-day voting experience. Political Behavior, 35(2), 215-235.
Root, D., & Kennedy, L. (2017). 9 Solutions to Secure America’s Elections. Washington: Center for American Progress.