We Must Trust the Technology
After more than 70 years of using computers in American elections, technology's benefits will not hold the country together if facts are not trusted.
On election night in 1956, a pivotal moment in the history of elections, the Remington Rand Building on 4th Avenue became the center of attention. Television viewers tuned in to CBS for updates on election results, and what they saw was a glimpse into the future. The blinking and flashing lights of a UNIVAC (Personal Automatic Computer), a technological marvel of its time, were shown. But that was just a facsimile of the UNIVAC. The real UNIVAC, the one about to change the course of elections, was located at the Remington-Rand plant in Philadelphia.
The election results were phoned to CBS correspondents in New York and then read over the air. The control room in Philadelphia was a beehive of activity. Over 100 people worked on teletype machines, reviewing stacks of paper and others at one of several control boards.
Raw data came in on teletypes. (If you don’t know what a teletype machine is, I’m talking to you, so look it up!) People processed this data and then broke it down into districts. That data was transferred to UNIVAC via digital recording magnetic tape and placed in one of 10 servos, an automatic device that uses error-sensing feedback to correct the performance of a mechanism. It typically includes a sensor, a controller, and an actuator. UNIVAC then translates that information. UNIVAC compares current and accumulated data and outputs answers according to the information received.
This event helped solidify the role of election forecasting and demonstrated the growing reliance on computers for large-scale data analysis. It was awe-inspiring. However, this was not even the first time computers were used in American elections.
For the first time, a computer was used during the 1952 election between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. CBS used UNIVAC to predict election results. On election night, UNIVAC 1 predicted a landslide victory for Eisenhower with a significant probability, contradicting many analysts who expected a close race. That prediction was so surprising CBS executives hesitated to report it initially, but as the results came in, they aligned with UNIVAC 1’s predictions, thereby establishing credibility for the computer’s capabilities.
During the 1956 election, skepticism was still high. But that was expected. Voters (or anyone else) had little computer experience, so skepticism over 70 years ago would seem a natural reaction to something so new and groundbreaking. The 1952 and 1956 elections marked a milestone in the history of computing. It demonstrated the practical use of computers and data analysis in election events.
***
As far as technology is concerned, we have made significant improvements since then. Electronic voting systems that use Direct Recording Electronic (DRE Machines) and optical scanning combine the reliability of a physical ballot with the efficiency of digital counting. Combine all this with tabulations and reporting software, Prediction and analysis tools, big data and machine learning, and security measures anchored by cybersecurity methods and blockchain technology. Our elections have made considerable improvements in election voting regarding safety, accuracy, privacy, and transparency.
However, cutting-edge technology has yet to fix America’s ills. As I wrote this article, Republican candidate Donald Trump appeared in an interview on television in the other room, and I listened. At the same time, he stated he won the election that he lost. Technology be damned! It makes no difference that there is no evidence of cheating on a large scale that would make it easy to cheat on a national election.
And further into the abyss, Trump has stated that if he loses the upcoming election, cheating could be the only reason he is not elected. Technology is dismissed in broad strokes and replaced by minor anecdotal evidence. It is weird because Americans certainly are not disdainful of technology.
Many technologies used in elections have parallels in everyday applications where America places high trust — technologies such as banking. We have no trouble with electronic fund transfers, which we use almost daily without issues. We trust technology to keep our health records. We book flights without the help of humans at all, and we are never sent to the wrong place. Corporations use Point-of-Sales systems to manage inventories that provide a seamless shopping experience for all of us. We rely on email and send personal information, as well as classified and even business information, daily. We store our most personal and financial information in the cloud without a second thought.
However, when it comes to accuracy in voting, many Americans draw the line on trust, even though they already use the same technology without any reservations or complaints. It can be argued that election outcomes have higher stakes consequences than anything I mentioned above. When you add political polarization that is so toxic, not only in the streets but in the Capitol Building, the strength of facts has weakened to a point where it has no noticeable cache, even when it involves safety or death. I’m part of it. I think of January 6 as a direct attack on democracy. My neighbor says it was just good Americans exercising their right to protest.
There will come a point when we must trust technology. We should not believe in technology as if it were a religion but trust it the same way we trust it with our money and health. As much as I do not want Trump to be President, I will go by the results of the people and accept him as President. However, Trump has already stated that he can only lose if the other side cheats. And he uses words that indicate violence will ensue if he is not elected, even if there is no evidence to support his claim.
Some things need to be done better regarding voting transparency. Solutions such as publicly accessible codes, community audits, Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs), and educational campaigns that inform voters about how the systems work are just a few of the actions we can take to build trust better in our voting systems. I am not going to fight the Trump supporters with guns, hate, and anger; I am going to fight them with education and technology. I am not concerned about Trump winning the election. The American Presidency power is overrated. They get blamed for things they have no control over and credit for things they have done nothing of benefit for. America still has guard rails to keep Presidents in check, and it has not totally disappeared despite all of the doom-sayers out there. However, the problem of separation and violence will be much more significant if he loses. And if that is the case, I hope Americans will trust the technology.
