Advertisement

- High Point Enterprise Editorial

4/14/04

"I think it is a fabrication and has no foundation in reality."

- George Gilbert

Guilford Co. Board of Elections

4/11/04

Hmmm...

As one of those much-maligned critics of electronic voting machines (EVMs), I find these statements puzzling. Gilbert is, I'm sure, a fine election director; but I must ask what are his credentials for competently evaluating computer hardware and software? I also ask why there are two different standards of proof on this topic: one for voting machine salesmen and one for computer professionals critical of the machines?

These professionals have established that EVMs are poorly designed, poorly programmed, and lack the most rudimentary security to prevent tampering. Critics such as Bev Harris have caught EVM maker Diebold lying to the public and lying to election officials. We have demonstrated that all of these machines use Microsoft Windows software at some stage of the vote tallying process, and hardly a week goes by when Microsoft doesn't issue a patch to fix the latest security hole.

Of course, as we all know, Windows software never crashes or gives incorrect results.

We have also proven, conclusively and with hundreds of examples, that EVMs do fail to function properly, even during normal operation.

We critics come to the table with hard evidence. The voting machine salesmen come to the table with glossy brochures.

Whom do you believe?

Imagine for a moment that you suffer from kidney failure. You go to the hospital for treatment, and a hospital administrator tells you that he has bought the best dialysis machines in the country. These machines will make old-fashioned kidney transplants unnecessary. Your doctor comes in and begs to differ. First, nothing can take the place of a real kidney. Second, these new machines have lots of problems the manufacturer have kept hidden. While the machines have been certified, the manufacturer made uncertified modifications, then sold them to the hospital administrator as certified.

The administrator calls your doctor an alarmist and accuses him of fabricating his charges, despite the fact that medical professionals from all over the country have validated his concerns.

Whom do you believe?

You may accuse me of going a bit "over the top" with this analogy, but it's exactly the situation computer professionals face when they criticize EVMs.

I'm one such professional. I've 20 years experience in the computer field, fixing them, building them, writing about them and teaching about them. I've been "in the belly of the beast" and seen the actual Diebold code. I've been privileged to work with Bev Harris, the voting machine industry's most feared critic. I have heard the lies, the excuses and the rationalizations.

Repeatedly, I hear the same refrain from election officials: "The machines are thoroughly tested, are perfectly accurate and cannot be tampered with." The words are spoken with a cocky tone, a tone similar to that of NASA bureaucrats before Challenger and Columbia. Of course, this isn't about risking a spacecraft and fourteen lives; it's about risking our democracy and millions, perhaps billions of lives.

Graveyards, both figurative and literal, are filled with folks who put blind faith in technology. I'm no ignorant yahoo, "terribly affeared of them new-fangled cypherin' machines." I'm a systems engineer with practical experience with computers and their limitations.

So, rather than dismissing or belittling us, our captains of state and industry just might want to pay attention to the iceberg we are pointing out. Unsinkable ships have an annoying habit of sinking, and computers do make mistakes.

David Allen is a PC systems engineer and contributing writer to "Black Box Voting," which was published by his company. He lives in High Point and may be contacted at david@plan9.org.