Technology can't solve Florida mayhem
November 20, 2000 12:00 AM PT
by Richard L. Brandt
It's a great time to be alive, isn't it? We have what may be the closest presidential race in
U.S. history, possibly the most drawn out and most litigated decision, and the greatest
political show on Earth. It's the best entertainment you can buy -- and the two major
political parties are footing the bill!
But what's all this talk about chads and punch cards? That stuff went out
in the 1970s. It makes one wonder if we can't put any better technology
into the election system. I mean, c'mon, punch cards? I feel like I'm back
in high school taking a standardized test or something. I wonder if George
W. managed to vote for himself!
There is an enormous amount of technology out there. Encryption
technology is pretty foolproof, except that the FBI wants us to leave a
back door open so they can take a peek and make sure none of us are
causing any mischief. (Do you think that applies to electoral mischief as
well?)
Forget your voting password? Never fear, we have biometric technology
to make sure you're the voter you say you are. Just scan your eyeball or
check your fingerprints. I wonder how voters would feel about being
fingerprinted to vote. (See "Biometrics let you forget your password.")
If George W. ends up as president, I'm sure he'll want to computerize elections. He's so
concerned that hand recounts in Florida would result in "mischief" taking place. Personally, I
would think cheating on the recount should be described more along the lines of "federal
felony" than "mischief." But never mind. He's convinced that computers can do a better job
counting votes than people can. I would never be so cynical as to suggest that the only
reason Bush believes in the computer count, or that Al "Internet" Gore believes in the hand
count, is because Bush leads in the tally.
New ballots, same old problem
And, indeed, there is a real possibility that someday we will be able to vote online. It makes
a lot of sense -- as long as every voter in the country has a biometric scanner and a
computer connected to the Internet in their homes. (See "Tiny steps toward online voting.")
But here's the thing. This is a problem that technology cannot really solve. Computerized
voting and counting would be just as inaccurate as a human count. It would work fine as
long as we don't have another election where the electoral vote is as close as Bill Clinton and
a new intern. But have another squeaker like this election, and you'll suddenly see half the
nation claiming that the damn computers are electing the wrong president.
And given the fear that technology instills in about three-quarters of the population, I don't
think this nation would accept a computer system electing our president through a possible
glitch. It's bad enough that this election is going to be determined through human error
Technology can't solve Florida mayhem
page 2: To err is human
There's a simple reason why technology can't help: Humans are still involved. Computers
probably rarely make mistakes if given the right data to work with -- unless they're using a
brand-new generation of microprocessor from Intel -- while humans usually do. Humans
make mistakes. They hit the wrong switch. They accidentally delete files. Security systems
are constantly hacked simply because people fail to use the protection available to them. If
people were more reliable about such things, we would have eliminated the spread of AIDS
by now. (See "Florida ballot was a case of software override.")
What do you think the odds are of a nationwide Internet voting system running smoothly
when millions of people cast votes in one 12-hour period? Even if the system uses
Transmeta (TMTA) chips and Linux software? About as high as the odds that George W.
Bush could get a perfect score on a graduate-level standardized vocabulary test. Without
studying.
The problem with this election is not due to a flawed design on a Florida ballot, or
miscounted votes, or obsolete technology. The problem is that it is not possible for any
contest to be any closer than this one was. The problem is that George W. Bush is too dumb
for even the American public to give him a mandate, and Al Gore is too dumb to beat even
George W.
But when every vote does count, it's guaranteed that we will find the flaws in the counting
system. Humans are simply not perfect.
Learn from the mayhem
There is a lesson here for those of you who are helping to feed the technology revolution.
You must assume that nothing will ever be perfect. OK, you might want to try and make it a
little more perfect than a Microsoft (MSFT) operating system, but never assume that your
products will come close to being used properly by the majority of the population.
Given that the user interface for most technology devices and software is a thousand times
worse and several million times more complicated than the Palm Beach County ballot, it's
absolutely amazing to me that there isn't a huge technology counter-revolution. Everyone
involved with technology should keep that Florida ballot in mind when creating the interface
between human and machine. If perfectly normal people can screw that one up, how will
they deal with your new product?
Technology does not solve our problems. It simply makes them more interesting.
No, the solution to both the major political parties' problems in this election is simple,
non-tech and entirely human. The Democrats should cede the election to Bush. And in four
years, they should put Martin Sheen on the ballot. If the measure of a great president is
someone who can "act presidential," as Ronald Reagan demonstrated, well, then Sheen
already has proven he can handle the job. And he doesn't need any more technology than a
reporter with a TV camera.
Richard L. Brandt is the senior contributing editor at UpsideToday. If
you would like to submit a letter to the editor regarding this story,
email online@upside.com.
upside.com
upside.com
steve |
