Technological innovations always meet with both enthusiasm and scepticism. No matter what it is, there are always pros and cons to be considered. However, when it comes to the electoral system, the very foundation of a democratic society, extra care is needed. A debate is a prerequisite before we trust voting, a citizen’s duty, to machines. Electronic voting is a potential minefield and last week’s parliamentary optimism can turn sour if we do not give serious consideration to problems experienced by nations that have adopted such a system.

There are major issues to be raised about electronic voting machines (EVM), but the one that has divided public opinion is the voter verification audit trail (VVAT). It has been questioned whether there should be a paper trail, which remains unprovided by most machines.

In this year’s US elections, one-third of the electorate will cast their votes electronically, but without a physical proof. This rules out any recount. Critics of e-voting claim that it would leave the elections open to massive fraud. If there is a problem with the machines themselves, manual recount will be useless. The democratic Primaries, earlier this year, registered problems, like frozen screens (they used touch screen voting machines) and malfunctioning computers.

But electronic voting really changes the democratic process when it comes to spoiling the vote. Absent in the US machines, the government in Mauritius has proposed to consider it. Why it should even be discussed is itself questionable. The null-vote button should be a feature of all voting machines. As the difference between political parties blurs and ideological choice becomes restrained, the ballot paper allows the voter to protest by registering an invalid vote. It also makes provision for an abstention. This aspect of voting is often underestimated and the electorate should demand its right to cast a null vote.

<B>The paper trail is a must</B>

If the absence of a paper trail and the question of a null-vote button are not serious enough, then some of the findings from the US system are more troubling. Independent software experts found that Diebold, a company which produces voting machines, had posted the software source code on its website. They found ways to manipulate the code to produce fraudulent results. When the company discovered the flaws, it fixed them without alerting the election officials. All these have been previously reported in The Guardian, but Diebold rejected all the claims, saying that its machines were safe and continued to lobby states to install its machines.

This is exactly what computer scientists fear. Companies, having ties with politicians, could produce software that could be biased. The electronic voting system exposes elections to hackers, computer viruses and power cuts. While the voting machines themselves are not questioned, it is the software installed on computers that will tabulate the votes, which could be compromised. Experts warn of faulty machines leading to inaccurate tallies that even a manual recount (if there was a VVAT) would not rectify.

Furthermore, if as the government has announced, the machines have been tested in the Medical Council elections, then it should be known whether they were run in parallel with a paper ballot. It is the only way to prove that the machines are reliable. And if the machines are chosen to replace the traditional ballot paper, election staff should be properly trained, so that they can use the system properly and allow the secrecy of voting.

The indelible ink used must be tested beforehand, so that we do not run into the same fiasco like Afghanistan, where people discovered that they could wipe it off and vote multiple times at certain polling stations. A massive campaign will be needed to ensure that the population is aware how to vote.

However, Mauritius has an advantage over the Americans as we will use Indian machines. They are much simpler than the touch screen version. They were used in the last general elections on the sub-continent and there were no problems identified. This is because they are much simpler than the US makes.

Bharat Electronics Limited, which is reported to be providing the machines is a State-owned company that also makes military defence equipment, and their voting machines have proved reliable. E-voting will also give much quicker election results than the ballot box.

Electronic voting machines probably coincide with modernity. But we should be aware that they will cost money and, if the government is to be consistent with its line of tighter finances, the ballot box is still a healthy alternative.

The explicit propaganda tool</B>