What the CIA’s Venezuela Memo Actually Says About Voting Machines

President Trump’s July 16 address promised long-awaited proof that foreign actors had manipulated the 2020 U.S. election. Among the declassified documents released alongside the speech was a CIA assessment examining nearly two decades of intelligence on Venezuela’s electronic voting system.

Rather than validating years of allegations about voting machines, the report reaches a far narrower conclusion.

The CIA found that Venezuelan officials had developed some capability to manipulate electronic voting systems domestically, but it also concluded that there was no evidence they had done so or that such technology had been used to carry out large-scale electronic fraud in Venezuelan elections. Most significantly, it states that neither Smartmatic, the technology provider, nor the Venezuelan government had the capability to manipulate the outcome of an election outside Venezuela.

That distinction between possessing a theoretical capability and demonstrating that it was actually used is the central finding of the report, and one that was initially overshadowed by the political narrative surrounding its release. Much of the subsequent media coverage, however, has examined the document critically, challenged the claims surrounding it, and clarified what the assessment does and does not establish.

The six-page assessment, which does not identify its author or disclose the sources allegedly relied upon in preparing it, reviews intelligence collected between 2004 and 2020, a period encompassing every Venezuelan national election conducted using electronic voting. Although it is an anonymously drafted document based on anonymous sources, it does not establish, even after examining nearly two decades of reporting, that electronic vote manipulation occurred. The report notes, however, that with respect to the 2020 National Assembly election, a source judged that the Maduro government did not need to resort to electronic fraud because the opposition had largely boycotted the vote and the regime had already neutralized much of its political competition.

This does not mean Venezuela’s elections were free or democratic. For decades, international observers, including the Carter Center, repeatedly documented serious shortcomings that undermined the integrity of the electoral process. Across multiple election cycles, they cited the misuse of state resources to benefit the incumbent, the overwhelming dominance of state media and unequal access to broadcast coverage, restrictions on opposition campaigning, and the use of government institutions to tilt the playing field. More recently, the Carter Center concluded that the 2024 presidential election failed to meet international standards of electoral integrity and that the electoral authority demonstrated a clear bias in favor of the incumbent. These criticisms point to an uneven electoral environment, not to evidence that electronic voting machines altered votes.

The assessment also revisits Smartmatic’s role in Venezuela. While the company has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories, the CIA notes that Smartmatic ultimately broke with the Maduro government after publicly accusing it of inflating turnout by more than one million votes during the 2017 Constituent Assembly election and subsequently ended its operations in the country.

Perhaps the report’s clearest conclusion concerns allegations that Venezuelan voting technology was used to influence elections abroad. The CIA rejects that claim outright, concluding that neither Smartmatic nor the Venezuelan government possessed the capability to manipulate election outcomes outside Venezuela. That finding is consistent with conclusions reached by international election monitors, post-election audits, election security experts, and several U.S. courts.

The declassified memo does not paint a flattering picture of Venezuela’s electoral system. It describes an authoritarian government, political manipulation, and longstanding concerns about electoral integrity. But on the question that has fueled years of conspiracy theories, whether electronic voting machines were used to rig elections in Venezuela or abroad, the CIA’s own assessment does not deliver the evidence many expected. If anything, it points in the opposite direction.

Trump’s Venezuela Theory Revives a Core Contradiction of 2020

 

Photo: Donald Trump at Truth Social

 

Over the weekend, former President Donald Trump posted videos and statements promoting a claim that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro was involved in fraud during the 2020 U.S. election, suggesting Venezuela helped tilt the outcome in favor of President Joe Biden. The claims surfaced amid renewed attention on Maduro following his capture and quickly circulated across social media.

Taken at face value, Trump’s assertions lead to a striking implication: if such fraud occurred, it would raise serious questions about the effectiveness of his own administration in safeguarding the U.S. electoral system.

In 2020, Trump was not an outsider challenging a system controlled by others. He was the sitting President of the United States, serving as commander in chief and overseeing the federal government, including intelligence agencies, the military, and entities responsible for protecting critical infrastructure. Election security fell squarely within that responsibility. If the system had been compromised at a national scale, the failure to prevent or detect it would rest largely with the administration in power.

Trump’s renewed focus on Venezuela deepens the contradiction. If Maduro, a leader who could not even sustain electoral manipulation in Venezuela without it being quickly exposed, were capable of covertly influencing a U.S. presidential election, it would suggest an extraordinary vulnerability in American election security that few experts consider plausible.

Some versions of these conspiracy theories go further, alleging that U.S. votes were transferred abroad for counting, including to countries such as Serbia. If true, such claims would point not just to interference, but to a breakdown in election oversight, cybersecurity, and interagency coordination at the federal level.

This framing leaves little middle ground. Either the claims are unfounded, or accepting them requires acknowledging a profound failure of governance under Trump’s presidency. It is difficult to reconcile allegations of massive, undetected interference with assertions of strong leadership and effective national security management.

Ultimately, Trump’s revived allegations resurface a contradiction that has followed his post-presidency narrative for years. The more expansive the alleged fraud, the greater the implied failure of the administration responsible for preventing it. In challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 election, Trump also invites renewed scrutiny of his own record in protecting the democratic institutions he once led.

VVSG 2.0 Becomes a Reality: First Voting System Certified Under New Guidelines

On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) announced a milestone years in the making: the first voting system has now been certified under the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0. With this certification—awarded to a system submitted by Hart InterCivic—VVSG 2.0 officially transitions from an aspirational blueprint to an operational reality for U.S. election administrators.

This moment provides the perfect opportunity to highlight how VVSG 2.0 is driving a new era of voter-centered election technology in the United States, turning long-standing principles into concrete, certifiable reality. 

Central to this shift is VVSG’s long-standing principle that voters—not machines or procedures—are the most important actors on Election Day. Designing a system that ensures that every voter gets to cast their ballot and that their choice is accurately captured preoccupies election managers in any modern democracy. The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) is an important framework that places voters at the center of election design.

More than a technical standard, VVSG embodies a philosophy that combines accessibility, security, and transparency to ensure elections serve the people. 

The VVSG initiative traces its roots to the early 2000s, in the aftermath of the controversial 2000 U.S. presidential election. Issues with ballot counting, inconsistent machine performance, and accessibility challenges highlighted the urgent need for national standards. In response, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 created the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), tasked with overseeing election reforms and developing voluntary standards for voting systems. The first VVSG, released in 2005, focused on reliability, basic accessibility, and security, laying the foundation for a more uniform and trustworthy election process.

While early VVSG versions emphasized technical compliance, later iterations recognized that voter experience is equally critical. VVSG 1.1 and subsequent drafts expanded requirements for usability, accessibility, and transparency. Features like multilingual support, screen reader compatibility, and alternative input methods ensure that voters can cast ballots independently and confidently. By prioritizing the needs of real voters, the guidelines aim to reduce errors, shorten lines, and build confidence in electoral outcomes.

VVSG 2.0, the current standard, builds on these principles while integrating lessons from cybersecurity, usability research, and election audits. It requires voter-verifiable paper records, enabling independent audits and providing tangible evidence of every vote cast. Systems must meet strict security protocols, including encryption, access control, and secure software updates. Interoperability standards ensure machines from different vendors work seamlessly together, while modular designs allow jurisdictions to adopt new technologies without sacrificing integrity.

A concept closely associated with voter-centered design is software independence. This principle ensures that even if a system's software is compromised, the election outcome cannot be altered undetectably. VVSG 2.0 raises the bar for election system security and transparency by instituting software independence as a mandate. This pragmatic approach balances rigorous security with practical feasibility, making VVSG applicable across jurisdictions of varying sizes and resources. 

The development of VVSG has always been collaborative. Election officials, technology vendors, accessibility experts, and security researchers contribute to shaping the standards, ensuring they address real-world needs. This inclusive approach reinforces a fundamental truth: elections gain legitimacy when the systems supporting them are transparent, secure, and inclusive. 

From its origins responding to ballot controversies in 2000 to its current standards promoting security, accessibility, and auditability, VVSG gives shape to the principle that election technology must combine human-centered design with layered security measures to build a system serves democracy, not dictate it.

Just What Makes the U.S. Elections Tick?

 

Like clockwork, Americans gird for their presidential elections every four years, an impressive undertaking that combines time-honored traditions with contemporary nuances. The 2024 presidential election is the 60th presidential race since the nation’s founding in 1788. Subsequently, the U.S. has elected its president in the prescribed time without fail, a custom that has weathered time and occasional turbulence, and has given the rest of the free world an enduring gold standard in the democratic transfer of power.

Decentralized System

One curious fact is that while most countries have centralized electoral systems, the U.S. election infrastructure is a vast network of over 10,000 jurisdictions. State and local authorities are autonomous, setting their own rules, processes, and technological solutions. One may indeed wonder how this fragmented approach can even work, but an army of 800,000 poll workers ensure that millions of votes are cast and counted accurately across these jurisdictions.

Electoral College

Winning the White House requires navigating the byzantine terrain of the Electoral College, another feature unique to the U.S. With 538 electoral votes up for grabs, candidates must secure at least 270 to win. While most states are “winner-takes-all,” Maine and Nebraska are outliers, using the Congressional District Method that distributes their votes proportionally, which add more layers of complexity and unpredictability to the race.

Key Dates

The U.S. election is governed by important dates, as follows:

· Election Day: The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, an unbroken tradition since 1845.

· State Certification: Within a week to a month post-election, states finalize their results.

· Electoral College: On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors cast their votes.

· Congress Certification: January 6 sees Congress officially count and certify the electoral votes.

· Inauguration Day: January 20 marks the swearing-in of the new president, ushering in the next chapter of leadership.

Ballots

American voters today have a variety of options at the polling booths:

• Hand-Marked Paper Ballots: About 70% of voters still opt to use these ballots that blend tradition with tangible verification.

• Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs): Used by about 25% of voters, BMDs offer a digital edge to the voting process.

• Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Systems: Accounting for 5%, these systems streamline vote recording, processed primarily through optical scanners for efficiency and accuracy.

Turnout

Voter participation has been on an upswing, peaking at a 66% turnout in 2020—the highest since 1980. With some 246 million voting-age citizens, the electoral landscape is dynamic, especially with more and more states enabling same-day registration, lowering barriers and empowering the electorate.

The U.S. election process is an interesting interplay of historical precedence and adaptive innovation. Rooted deeply in the nation's democratic ideals, it remains innovative enough to meet the evolving needs of its citizens. As technology advances and societal values shift, the American electoral system remains a testament to the indomitable spirit of the United States.

Experts warn of dire consequences if election management boards not funded enough

During the recent US National Conference of State Legislatures, the director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab dropped a bombshell about the United States’ 10,000 local electoral management boards (EMBs), majority of which he said are being “woefully underfunded,” leaving them ill-equipped to address a raft of problems that has vexed US elections in recent years.

Election expert Charles Stewart III, who heads MIT initiatives to conduct scientific analysis on election technology, election administration, and election reform, placed the cost of nationally administering a presidential election somewhere between $2 billion-$5 billion.

Stewart III stressed the imperative for state and local governments to pony up the funding for EMBs, which are grappling with a host of concerns such as a high turnover rate among poll workers, harassment of poll workers by radical groups, and intensified cybersecurity threats.

The Cost of Conducting Elections

In his 2022 paper “The Cost of Conducting Elections,” Stewart suggested how election officials themselves could be abetting the problem by “making do” with what they have.

“They often express pride in pulling off the complicated logistical maneuvers necessary to conduct elections on a shoestring budget. One consequence of the frugality imposed on election administration is that services provided to voters vary considerably across the nation,” Stewart said.

“Some states and localities flood mailboxes with voter guides, use the most up- to-date equipment, and deliver information and services on sophisticated websites. Others provide only minimal services to voters, rely on voters to figure out the details of voting on their own, and use equipment that is no longer manufactured or is incapable of being updated with the latest security patches,” he added.

Underfunding also a global concern

A paper by ACE Project suggests that EMB underfunding not an exclusively US phenomenon but is also a growing concern worldwide. The paper posits that EMBs from Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, and Liberia, among others, are not getting the needed funding from their governments and are merely relying on international donors for substantial amounts of budgetary support, as well as technical assistance.

The report is critical of this dependence on external help. Apart from sustainability issues, the report cites how reliance on external funding could be problematic as conditions that donor agencies impose on EMBs could hamstring their work. Moreover, requirements from their own governments may make it difficult for EMBs to do a proper accounting of the donated funds.

The report goes on to state that, while inadequate funding may not necessarily trigger violence directly, inadequate resources may force EMBs to make concessions that can compromise the integrity and security of elections, leaving them vulnerable to disputes that can in turn feed violent conflicts.

“For example, core cost deficiencies may affect an electoral process’s technical integrity; lack of diffuse funds will limit the engagement of supporting agencies, especially those with the task of providing security; and a lack of integrity funds at the disposal of an EMB may harm the legitimacy of the process,” the paper said.

What can be done? 

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) perhaps summed it up best when it made this reminder: “Elections are an investment, not an expense.”

In an article on its website, the intergovernmental organization said that for all citizens of the free world, election costs should be thought of as the public investment that sustains democracy.

“The ‘return on investment’ that is associated with democratic and inclusive elections, supported by other key components of a democracy, can be measured in terms of social stability within a nation,” it said.

“By contrast, countries that underfund investments in their democracy tend to be associated with ineffective public administration (including election administration); low levels of voter turnout; high levels of election fraud, manipulation and voting irregularities; limited freedom for news media to scrutinize the exercise of power; inconsistent access to justice, civil liberties, social rights and equality; corruption and unequal enforcement of laws; and public dissatisfaction with political parties, legislatures and governments,” it added.

For International IDEA, the funding of national electoral processes is the sole province of the national government, and that donations, either from donor countries or the international community, should be shunned.

“Election financial assistance by donors should always be considered temporary, even though it may be necessary during post-conflict or transitional periods,” it said.

The article exhorted those who support and wish to safeguard democracy to ensure that discourse around election costs is publicly debated and “placed in a context based on facts, law and agreed societal values.”

How Income Affects Voter Turnout in the US

 

A report by a non-profit group Washington Center for Equitable Growth has suggested a causal link between income and voter turnout in the United States, shedding light on how the longstanding income divide in the country could be derailing initiatives to ensure that all voices are heard in the political process.

The 2021 report titled “The consequences of political inequality and voter suppression for U.S. economic inequality and growth, ” which also discussed race-based voting gaps, revealed how higher-income citizens of the United States are more likely to vote than their lower-income counterparts.

“Between 1978 and 2008, wealthier Americans were 65 percent more likely to vote than those with low incomes. In 2016, a presidential election year, eligible voters with annual incomes of less than $50,000 voted at a rate of 55 percent, while 80 percent of those with incomes of more than $150,000 voted that year. Households earning less than $15,000 made up 13 percent of all households in 2009 but comprised just 6 percent of the electorate in the 2008 election,” the report said.

The authors cite how lower-income Americans might be less inclined to practice civic engagement due to the following reasons -- they are less likely get paid time off from work, are more likely to regularly move their places of residence, are incarcerated at higher rates, and are more likely to face unstable transportation and child care arrangements.

The report likewise discusses how voting behavior can actually influence the outcome of economic policy. Studies have shown, for example, that states with higher levels of income based voting divides are less likely to enact policies that benefit low- and middle-income Americans.

The existence of a feedback loop between economic inequality and voting inequality was also described by the report, detailing how economic inequality can lead to lower turnout among low and middle-income Americans, which in turn can birth policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. This can further exacerbate economic inequality, creating a vicious cycle.

“Those who enjoy market power are, not co-incidentally, often the same citizens who enjoy outsized political influence, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates economic inequality, instability, and slow growth. Stated simply, a healthy economy requires a healthy democracy,” the report said.

The authors of the report argue that reducing electoral inequality is essential to reducing economic inequality. To short circuit the deadly feedback loop, the study urges policymakers to consider reforms to the country’s voting system to equalize access to the polls and ensure the electorate is truly representative of the country’s economic and racial diversity.

Specifically, the authors propose to:

· Ease voter registration requirements, potentially even making them automatic

· Enact same-day voter registration in all states consistent with those states that lead the nation in voter participation, where average turnout was more than 10 percentage points higher than in other states in 2012

· Restore voting rights to those with felony convictions, reduce wait times, guarantee paid time off for voting, and reestablish federal oversight through a restored Voting Rights Act.

The report urges policymakers to study how the measures taken by some jurisdictions including the expanded use of vote by mail and ballot drop boxes, could work to reduce income biases in election participation.

Washington Center for Equitable Growth is non-profit research and grantmaking organization advocating evidence-backed ideas and policies to promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth.

Election integrity and speed election results publication

 

A full week after polls closed in the US midterm elections of 2022, the counting had yet to wrap up in many counties and states. The drawn-out count had the nation on tenterhooks as it awaited results in battleground states that could dictate the makeup of Congress. For many Americans, the delay brought back fraught memories of 2020 when it took several excruciating days for the winning presidential candidate to be determined.

News consumption has changed drastically in recent years. With social media circulating information worldwide at lightening speeds we have become accustomed to immediate access to information. In this context, election authorities are asking Americans to wait an entire week while diligent poll workers process paper ballots – an impossible ask.

The speed of election results is a variable that needs to be evaluated urgently by election commissions. It’s no longer enough for election officers to facilitate voting and counting votes accurately. Together with voter participation, or the security and accuracy of results, speed is a key variable to preserve election integrity. In the absence of results, information voids will be filled with conspiracy theories of all kinds.

One of the main causes of the delay in the US is the large number of voters who choose to participate using the modality of voting by mail. According to data from the US census, in 2020, 43% of voters exercised their right by sending their ballot by mail. The rising popularity of vote by mail is clear evidence that voters appreciate convenience. Yet, this is a voting method that presents many challenges for those who administer the election. Each envelope received must be reviewed to validate the voter's signature, and then be passed through an optical scanner that registers the voter's vote. The use of drop boxes in some jurisdictions also holds up the process as it necessitates physical retrieval of ballots and segregation into correct precincts.

Although participation rates in the US soared in the last couple elections, for decades it trailed that of many other industrialized nations. According to a Pew Research Center study, election participation in the US ranked 31st among OECD countries. Facing participation declines, election authorities prioritized participation and promoted voting by mail. The increase of division and polarization that surround our elections, and the ubiquity of disinformation should make election officials reconsider their priorities.

The 2022 midterm elections have made it abundantly clear that authorities need to implement technology-based solutions to speed up vote counting and processing. It is time to give voters who want the convenience of casting their ballot remotely the option to vote online. Estonia, a Baltic nation with a long-standing tradition of fighting Russian hackers could be a good example to emulate. Since 2005, Estonians have had the option to securely cast a ballot online or to head to a polling station to cast a ballot with pen and paper. Online voting is now the preferred voting option.

Allowing voters to cast their ballot online would decrease the number of ballots election workers process manually. Results could be immediately published on election night. This small, yet important reform could go a long way fighting the disinformation that abounds in the critical hours of election night.

Conspiracy theories, a staple of US elections

 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a statement on November 12 calling the last elections “the most secure in American history,” thereby directly contradicting the claims of the president who appointed them.

Bafflingly though, 88% of people who voted for Trump falsely believe Biden did not legitimately win the election. This, according to a The Economist and YouGov poll.

Conspiracy thinking around elections is nothing new in the US. Joe Uscinski, professor at Miami University specializing in the study of conspiracy theories, noted that conspiracy theories about election fraud are, in fact, a regular fare in US elections. “What we found was a regular stream of voter fraud accusations over more than 120 years that seemed to recycle endlessly”.

What is entirely new is a sitting president stoking the rumors himself. Where conspiracy theories usually swirled and died on the fringes, 2020 saw the theories being mainstreamed as the rabble-rousing Trump breathlessly claims of being ganged up on by deep state, Zionists, globalists, and other shadowy groups.

One of the theories being floated is that the software used to count the votes in the US is secretly controlled by Smartmatic, a company founded in the US in 2000. The rumor goes that ES&S, Dominion, Hart InterCivic, Scytl and Indra – all prominent election technology companies – are mere fronts of this evil company that the elites are using to control democracies around the world. Expectedly, Scytl, Smartmatic, Dominion, Indra have all denied the rumors.

In a recent marathonic and evidence-free press conference, Trump’s “Elite’s Strike Force” hit almost every conspiratorial keyword, from George Soros to Fidel Castro, from China to Cuba, and from The Clinton Foundation to the Chinese Communist Party.

Sidney Powell, who was present at the conference but was later disavowed by the legal team for concocting rumors that are too bizarre even for them, went as far as to claim to have evidence that “this came from Venezuela, from Nicolas Maduro, from Hugo Chavez, from Cuba, and from China which has significant interests in Venezuela.”

The idea that Hugo Chavez, dead since 2013, was able to steal the elections to overthrow Trump, has clearly just become the gold standard of preposterous claims.

This is not the first outrageous conspiracy theory Donald Trump has fanned. Uscinski writes that the president had “flirted with 9/11 conspiracy theories, proposed conspiracy theories about Syrian refugees, and accused Mexico of conspiring to ship murderers and rapists across our borders. His main claim to fame however was pushing the Birther theory in 2011.”

As unhinged and incredible the theories are, what’s worrying is how they are further eroding whatever trust the people have left in government. Americans have the terrible burden of preventing this from leaving a lasting scar on democracy.

Is mobile voting empowering the U.S. election technology?

Voting mechanisms have come a long way since the days of Ancient Greece when casting stones was a way to choose Athenian politicians. Many simple but effective systems created thousands of years ago have been used right up to the present day.

The last few decades have seen a movement towards more computer-based voting systems, especially after the contentious 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. By creating these electronic systems, it was hoped that casting ballots would be easier and more secure for voters, and the results would be more accurate.

Nevertheless, as election methods in the U.S. are primarily left to the individual states, some are experimenting not only with electronic voting in the polling stations. They are also developing mobile options and new approaches designed to enhance the voting experience.

Two examples from the US

West Virginia is one such state attempting to roll out a new e-voting system. This pilot program, aimed to be an entirely internet-based voting experience, was tested during the 2018 midterm elections among military members serving out of the country. A company called Voatz developed an application that uses facial recognition and scans a sanctioned photo to confirm your voting status. The company claimed its blockchain technology was sufficient to guarantee the integrity of the vote tally. However, security experts have expressed serious reservations
.
According to its developers, the mobile app "uses biometric authentication to identify individual users before allowing them to mark an electronic ballot, and the votes are then recorded in a private blockchain." It began as a trial in May 2018 during the primary elections, targeting overseas voters in two countries. While the trials were successful, they also have raised much controversy.

Los Angeles County started developing an innovative voter-centered election system expected to launch by the 2020 elections. The Registrar-Recorder County Clerk has been working, since 2009, on an initiative called Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) to replace its aging voting system. The non-proprietary, publicly-owned solution aims to be responsive to the needs and behavior of a diverse electorate and focuses on accessibility and human-centered voting experience. The County is working with Smartmatic in this project. The company will be responsible for the interactive ballot display, which will allow voters to mark their choices on their mobile device and then scan in their QR code in person for fast and easy voting at a vote center.

Ultimately, the concept of innovating in election technology with blockchain has shown to be worth more than mere experiments. Mobile voting with the use of a safer and verified interface is an opportunity for Election Commissions to eradicate voter fraud as well as boost turnout. The technology could enhance convenience for citizens even in the diaspora, notwithstanding the time and distance. It would as well be quite beneficial to convey transparency, minimize the electoral expenses, streamline the counting process, and guarantee that all votes are counted.

Securing elections in the United States

Protection of election integrity has been keeping poll authorities around the world busy lately, especially after important elections of 2016 (e.g. US Presidential and Brexit) have revealed how vulnerable this democratic exercise is to the remote manipulation of external powers employing newfangled technologies.

The menu options for those wishing to disrupt a democratic election have grown in recent times thanks to rapid technological advancements. From misinformation campaigns using platforms like Facebook and Twitter, to “real” hacking of email servers to compromise political parties.

The perception that voting machines can be hacked from afar have also made election commissioners and voters alike jittery. A recent poll conducted by the University of Chicago revealed that 8 out of 10 respondents were concerned with the possibility of hackers breaking into electronic voting machines and tampering with votes.

For the last year or so, large technology companies such as Facebook and Twitter have been taking actions to tackle the fake news problem. In the Philippines, for example, Facebook has started to crack down on pages and accounts peddling fake news.

Election experts, on the other hand, recommend two key actions to strengthen security of voting machines:

- Implementing voting machines that print a VVPAT: The use of paper vouchers allow voters to verify their votes and give auditors an easy way to compare electronic results vis a vis a printed copy.

- Allow audits after the close of voting: auditors should be able to randomly select voting machines, paper vouchers and other elements involved in the election to confirm that the votes agree with the printed minutes.

The Government of the United States is already taking actions to modernize its electoral system. Congress has recently awarded 380 million dollars to states for this purpose.  

This is a big step in the right direction. Yet the task of protecting the vote must include everyone – electoral authorizes, technology companies, civil society, and the general public.

Only in this way can a secure, transparent, and credible electoral system can every be truly realized.

The US elections technology oligopoly

 

Last week we learned from the Wall Street Journal that “Election machines used in more than half of U.S. states carry a flaw disclosed more than a decade ago that makes them vulnerable to a cyberattack”. A startling development, considering that the midterms are around the corner, and that China has allegedly joined the list of foreign powers trying to meddle in US elections.

Although the reason why a flaw of this magnitude is still present is manifold, recent studies point at the concentrated structure of the industry as one of the main causes for the poor state of the US election infrastructure.

In 2017, a Penn Wharton professor, Lorin Hitt, and a team of six students published a report titled “The Business of Voting”. According to their findings, “the industry is dominated by three firms that are moderate in size and neither publicly nor independently held, limiting the amount of information available in the public domain about their operations and financial performance. Meanwhile, the customer base is highly fragmented, with election technology decision-making dispersed across more than 10,000 county election officials.”

The three firms in question -Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart Intercivic- control approximately 92% of the voting machines used in the US. The existence of an oligopoly which controls US elections is undoubtedly a problem that needs to be addressed. 

As pointed out in the Wharton study, the lack of competitiveness leads to an inefficient market.  “First, the companies can exert their market power to lock-in clients”.  And second, “the industry’s high degree of concentration reduces investment in making voting machines more secure. The three incumbent companies can easily cooperate in carving up the existing market. And little outside competition, according to the authors of the report, means “limited incentives for innovation”.

The inefficiencies of this oligopoly have become evident in recent weeks.

On September 26, the city of Chicago awarded a 10-year contract for approximately $31 million to Dominion Voting Systems. The decision to purchase technology from the Canadian-based company was made months ago following a public bidding, yet the acquisition of technology is now being questioned. ES&S, the largest manufacturer in the country, filed a lawsuit against the county and the office of its chief procurement officer on September 25. According to ES&S, the “proposed voting system was not compliant with Illinois law, and likewise could not meet the requirements [of the request for proposals], because it had not been certified by the Illinois State Board of Elections.”

A similar episode is unfolding in Louisiana where ES&S is accusing state officials of favoring Dominion during the bidding process. In June, it was revealed that ES&S “had coaxed state and local elections officials —including South Carolina's election chief— to serve on an “advisory board” that gathers twice annually for company-sponsored conferences for at least nine years.”

Ethics experts have questioned this practice, labeling it as potentially corrupt. “This is a massive promotional opportunity for ES&S,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C. “It’s highly inappropriate for any election official to be accepting anything of value from a primary contractor. It shocks the conscience … I think it compromises their integrity.”

To cope with the shortcomings of this inefficient market, the Penn Wharton study recommends:

• Buyer coalitions, which can give jurisdictions greater bargaining power for getting vendors to provide systems that are both better priced and more customized to their needs;
• Open source technology, which proponents believe may catalyze the development of new competitive markets in voting systems solutions;
• Modified certification processes, to support a move to modular voting systems built from less expensive commercial off

It is time to take action.

New votings apps seen to increase turnout

For decades, election authorities in the U.S. have been puzzled over the dwindling number of people turning out for elections. Whether the reason is lack of interest, or lack of access to polling centers, or some other impediment, low voter turnout is proving to be such a pain point that it has received the attention of various sectors, even the developer community.

Recently, several innovative mobile applications have been released that aim to smooth the voter registration process. One such notable app is the appropriately-named Register to Vote which allows citizens in California, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts to register simply by scanning their state IDs.  It promises to complete the whole process in thirty seconds. The app’s most obvious benefit is the elimination of the cumbersome step of having to physically go to a registration to sign up.

Another app takes the chatbot approach in helping voters register.  HelloVote allows voters simply enter their mobile phone number on this site, or text HELLO to 384–387, and the app takes them through the filling out the voter registration form for their state.  Some states allow direct electronic submissions while some states require voters to fill out a form that HelloVote will send back via via email or snail mail for later submission to the local electoral body.

It’s not as if anyone is likely to forget when Election Day is. But sometimes little nudge helps in to actually go out and cast that vote. TurboVote provides that impetus by sending text and email reminders. Voters get a notification the day before election day complete with ballot information and information on the nearest polling center.   What’s even more interesting is the TurboVote Challenge, which get top companies and leading organizations into a a nonpartisan advocacy to increase voter participation.

Reversing the voter turnout downtrend is a tall order yet innovation could provide just the needed spark to get voters trooping back to the polling centers.

“We have to fix that”

Long lines at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library
on Election Day in Washington, DC (Getty Images)

During his acceptance speech on early Wednesday morning, reelected President Barack Obama addressed the need to fix the US electoral system. Speaking before a crowd of cheerful supporters, he said "I want to thank every American who participated in this election, whether you voted for the very first time, or waited in line for a very long time, by the way, we have to fix that."

Although this was probably one of the few times the electoral system has been part of an acceptance speech, the problems encountered are not new. Since the Butterfly Ballot scandal in 2000, hundreds of incidents have been reported by authorities of all levels, election watchdog groups, media and citizens.

These elections were marred by long lines across the country, but especially in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Poorly trained election officials were misguiding voters in relation to ID requirements to vote. Deficient voting machines, like the one caught on a video in Pennsylvania giving Romney votes cast for Obama, also made the voting experience cumbersome.

Although President Obama’s intent is quite plausible, the road in which he is about to embark might turn bumpier than expected. HAVA, the Electoral Assistance Commission, Universities across the nation, ONG’s, have all made considerable efforts to improve the US electoral system, yet they have been unsuccessful confronting the conflict of interests that exist between States and the Federal Government, and the inconvenient level of partisanship that electoral bodies have shown across the nation.

In a recent interview by Rachel Maddow, Rick Hasen, Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine, and author of "The Voting Wars," made it quite clear. Although the constitution provides the mechanisms to create a national authority to advance the reforms needed, the political will from all stakeholders to produce such transformation is still missing.

Rachel Maddow articulately stated “voting is a Federal issue, with federal laws to protect it…. Elections are a state affair”. Congress has on its hand the possibility to transform the system, however, letting congress, or any other institution conduct elections, would mean letting go some power and attributions the States hold at the moment. Looking at recent history, both parties have been imposing over the population all kinds of laws and regulations to affect the voter base of the other party. It is part of the Voting War Hasen mentions in his book. For example, and according to Professor Hasen, long lines were a deliberate effort by Republicans to depressing democratic turnout. By cutting back on the number of days and hours early voting was available, Republicans were, allegedly, hurting democratic votes.

In Florida, Republican Governor Rick Scott, signed a law shortening the number of days for early voting to eight from 14. This was one of the main reasons it took Floridians so long to vote and to obtain results.

If Obama is to take Mr. Hasen’s recommendation, he has to create the political momentum to have Congress assume the authority granted by the constitution to set rules for congressional elections. Then, he could proceed to ask States to follow the path of Congress.

In spite of the threat posed by a possible fiscal meltdown, a nationwide debate on the healthcare reform, and a lagging economy, Obama must find the time and energy to impose the political agenda needed to fix the electoral system, if the US is to continue showcasing its democracy as an example to follow.