I AGREE wholeheartedly with 快猫短视频 that it would be foolhardy to trust technology blindly in elections that could change the world (14 February, p 3). A fundamental part of democracy might be lost if we were to follow those US states which intend to trust e-technology at its present level of development in the forthcoming presidential elections.
The British government says that security and secrecy are at the top of its agenda. But what can be done to ensure e-voting systems are tamper-proof and free from fraud? I asked Philip Hope, who has the title of e-champion in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is responsible for the UK鈥檚 electoral modernisation programme.
Hope replied that at the May 2000 local elections in the UK, 32 local authorities introduced new voting methods which included three small-scale tests of e-voting machines. Since then, there have been a further 27 pilot schemes involving e-voting machines in polling stations and also remote e-voting via the internet, telephone, text messaging and interactive digital television. By May 2003 some 1.5 million people were able to vote electronically, he said.
Advertisement
The minister added that the government 鈥渋s aware of the need to ensure that accurate election results are produced, and to give voters and electoral administrators confidence in them鈥�. He also said that it uses external organisations to undertake quality assurance reviews of the technology used in each pilot. Moreover, the government has access to the computer programs used by the suppliers. Returning officers in charge of constituency elections can test the systems to satisfy themselves that they are fit for use. Once all testing is complete, systems are locked down to prevent manipulation, and the returning officers keep the electronic keys that activate the systems.
Hope explained that the system logs are monitored during voting so that any evidence of hacking or other fraudulent activity can be identified. Paper records of votes cast can be used if a manual recount of votes is required. These are sealed up at the end of voting in a similar way to the process at traditional elections, he added.
Finally, Hope said, the whole process is evaluated by the independent Electoral Commission, which has a statutory responsibility to report on every electoral pilot. It also makes recommendations at the end of each year. 鈥淭ogether with our own assessments of the pilots, these recommendations inform a continual process of improvement in e-voting technology and implementation,鈥� said Hope.
The government claims that, as well as keeping an eye on any problems the US has with e-voting, it is developing a British approach. I am happy that the UK is testing the performance of e-voting technology and its application in a controlled way. However, I can鈥檛 help but feel that national general elections are far too important to be left to computers alone.
