Pros and Cons of Connected Voting Machines

Technology and innovation impact nearly every aspect of our lives, including how we vote. Are connected voting machines a good idea or a security risk? There are a few key points to consider on both sides of the issue. Here’s an overview of the pros and cons of connected voting machines and how they could impact voter trust. 

Connected voting machines have a few benefits, especially when it comes to convenience. Votes can be instantly transmitted to final counting hubs. There is no physical handling or mailing of ballots. Plus, all the votes are automatically counted electronically. Results can be reported much quicker than counting paper ballots by hand. 

Electronic vote counting has its own advantages, as well. Sadly, ballot counting has become a highly stressful task over the past few years. People who work in or volunteer for election operations roles have faced harassment and even death threats in recent U.S. elections. Ballot counters can face accusations of tampering with votes or even committing fraud. 

An electronic ballot counting system could help alleviate the pressure and harassment thrust on election workers, officials and volunteers. Of course, any electronic ballot counting system would need to be subject to audits and intense security checks to ensure no fraud, tampering, errors or hacking occurs. 

It is also worth noting that connected voting machines present possibilities for making voting more secure. For example, control over personal data and identity protection are major concerns when it comes to consumer technology today. The same goes for voting — most people would want to know if someone was falsely using their identity to cast fraudulent votes. 

Connected voting machines could implement a system that immediately but securely reports that a certain person has cast their vote while keeping it anonymous. This would prevent any other connected device from submitting a ballot using that same identity. An automated identity protection system like this isn’t possible with paper voting. Of course, this system would also require intense security measures and audits to ensure it was unbiased and trustworthy. 

Connected voting machines may make it more convenient to vote and track results, but there are some drawbacks. Like any other technology, connected voting machines are at risk of hacking. Phones, laptops and even connected cars can be hacked in a similar fashion. Connected voting machine manufacturers may work hard to ensure their devices are secure, but it is never a 100% guarantee. 

A big part of the issue stems from a lack of visibility. When someone submits a paper ballot, volunteers monitoring the polls can clearly see that that person signed in, filled it out and turned it in themselves. The voter can see it go into a scanning machine or secure box where it will be stored for counting. A hard paper record shows that that vote is legitimate and was cast for certain candidates. 

Digital voting strips away most of this physical visibility. Even if people go to a physical location to vote using a connected machine, they can’t see what’s happening inside it or its software. 

Unfortunately, this makes it relatively easy for bad actors to tamper with voting machines and go unnoticed. It wouldn’t be easy, but it would certainly be possible for a hacker with enough resources and knowledge. Rates of cybercrime have been on the rise in recent years. Even organizations as large and well-established as the Red Cross have been hit with advanced ransomware attacks. It’s not difficult to imagine a hacker, particularly a nation-state, taking a stab at election technology. 

An important aspect of connected voting machine security is implicit trust, the ability for people to simply believe the machines are secure. When someone turns on their iPhone, they generally understand it’s safe. People typically implicitly trust their cars and coffee makers, too. They may not know exactly how these machines work, but they are familiar enough with the technology to know it will operate safely. 

The voting system is already struggling to maintain implicit trust among voters. Surveys by Pew Research Center have found that confidence in the voting system has eroded over recent years, becoming heavily dependent on who wins and loses elections. This means the U.S. and other nations need voting systems that will strengthen their belief in the legitimacy of elections. 

People need to implicitly trust that the voting system they use is genuinely secure, regardless of who they are voting for or who wins. Even if connected voting machines were hypothetically unhackable, they would still be ineffective if voters did not feel they could trust them. The lack of transparency and the ever-present possibility of hacking makes it highly difficult to establish that confidence. This is a major drawback for connected voting machines. 

Connected voting machines may have their benefits, but the lack of transparency and potential for hacking pose serious problems. Of course, other technologies have evolved to be more secure and trustworthy over the years. The same could be possible for connected voting machines. 

Ultimately, the best solution might be to establish a varied voting system. Some people can use connected machines if they choose to or use secure online or traditional paper voting. It might be possible to tamper with one technology, but it is much less plausible that someone could successfully hack numerous methods at once.