During the 2024 presidential election season, it’s essential for voters to understand the crucial role technology will play in determining the next commander-in-chief and president of the United States.
Election results increasingly rely on advanced technical systems to count and tally votes accurately. We’ll explore the different voting equipment used across the country and review both the successes and failures of this equipment.
History of voting equipment and voting governing bodies
The methods used for voting have evolved significantly over time. Early methods included voice voting and the Acme Voting Tabulating Machine in the 1880s. In 1892, lever-operated voting machines allowed voters to pull a lever to vote. By the 1960s, punch card systems had become common.
In the 1970s, the National Clearinghouse for Information on the Administration of Elections, within the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Federal Election Commission’s Office of Election Administration guided voting processes. A significant shift occurred in 2002 with the Help America Vote Act, leading to the creation of the Election Assistance Commission to oversee voting equipment and procedures.
Types of voting equipment
Modern elections rely on several key components to ensure secure and accurate voting, including handwritten ballots, Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) and electronic tabulation equipment. Sometimes, internet voting is allowed for specific voting populations or circumstances.
Ballot Marking Device (BMD)
A BMD is an electronic tool that assists voters in marking their ballots. It provides a user-friendly, accessible interface for selecting choices; however, BMDs do not store or transmit votes. Instead, they print a paper ballot of the voters’ preferences, allowing voters to review their selections before submission. BMDs are accessible, often including features such as headphones for audio ballots, touchscreens with large print and Braille for visually impaired voters.
Tabulation with Voting Equipment
Tabulation devices count votes cast using optical scanners or electronic counting systems. Examples of this equipment include Optical Scan Systems and Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Systems. The process for using tabulation voting equipment includes scanning handwritten or electronic ballots, storing and counting votes into secure memory and report generation that shows total votes. Some tabulation voting systems can transmit results to a central location for reporting.
Optical Scan Voting Systems include:
- Batch-fed optical scanners.
- Hand-fed optical scanners.
- Hybrid optical scan/BMD.
- Hybrid optical scan/DRE.
In this system, voters select candidates by filling in an oval, completing an arrow, or filling in a box. The ballots are hand-fed or highspeed batch-fed into an optical scanner.
DRE systems
DREs allow voters to select candidates using pushbutton, touchscreen or dial. These systems are accessible and equipped with audio-tactile interfaces, headphones to read the ballot and sip-and-puff devices for voters with dexterity impairments. DREs can include Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) printers, allowing voters to confirm their selections before submitting them to computer memory. If an audit or recount is required, the VVPAT is used to verify votes.
Remote Ballot Marking System (Internet Voting) facilitates the electronic marking process for a ballot. The ballot is then printed and returned by mail or dropped off at a designated location. Submitting ballots online is not allowed due to cybersecurity risks, privacy concerns, voter authentication, auditability, vulnerability of personal devices and lack of a chain of custody.
Comparison of voting equipment by state/territory
Verified Voting provides nonpartisan guidance to election officials in the U.S. and its territories in the use of technology in elections, best practices, post-election audits, chain of custody procedures and other areas related to voting security. In addition to guidance, Verified Voting maintains databases dedicated to state laws, regulations and procedures for post-election audits, and a database for voting equipment. Among these tools is the Verifier. The Verifier is a data set that tracks voting equipment in real time and provides maps, visualizations and equipment searches for voting equipment.
The image below shows a breakdown of the 2024 election equipment by state and territory. Curious about your state’s voting equipment? Explore the details for your state or territory to see what systems are in use and how they contribute to secure elections!
For a deeper dive into election technology, check out the detailed breakdown of election day equipment and voting equipment manufacturers. Explore how the systems work, who makes them, and the role they play in ensuring secure and accurate voting. Take the opportunity to understand what’s in use in your state and how it compares to others—your vote matters and so does the technology behind it!
Successes, failures and challenges of voting
Over the years, voting technology has encountered notable failures and ongoing challenges. One of the most infamous failures was the 2000 Florida election, where issues with “hanging chads” led to miscounted ballots and a lengthy legal battle over the presidential results. In 2022, Maricopa County, Ariz., faced a malfunctioning vote tabulation machine, causing extended voting hours. Similarly, in the 2019 election in Northampton, Pa., touch screen machines undercounted votes in a local judges’ race. In 2023, barcode printouts from these machines did not match voters’ selections.
Despite these challenges, there have been significant successes in improving election efficiency and security. For example, Ohio reduced vote-tallying times by investing in better voting infrastructure and providing additional training. Colorado has become a leader in election security by using Risk-Limiting Audits, a statistical method to ensure vote accuracy and build voter confidence. In 2020, despite intense political scrutiny and multiple recounts, Georgia’s certification of its election results was a landmark moment for election integrity, reinforcing confidence in the state’s election processes.
The ongoing challenges in voting revolve around balancing the adaptation of new technology with the need for security and public trust. As elections increasingly rely on digital systems, cybersecurity threats pose a significant risk, highlighting the importance of audits and transparent processes. Ensuring that technology empowers voters while safeguarding against manipulation or technical errors is a hurdle election officials will need to continue addressing for future elections.
Featured image: Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
Edited by James Sutton & Steven London
