Editor’s note: Besides following tech developments, our author is a musical composer (Juilliard-trained). He has provided a musical composition for you to listen to while reading this column. This piece is called “Be Upbeat and Vote.”
Berkshire County has an excellent record of safe and accurate voting. This is, to a large extent, due to the work of the Election Lab research initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It researches various aspects of elections, including voter behavior, election administration, and the impact of technology on voting, and applies science and technology to improve the electoral process. Ultimately, it aims to enhance the integrity, efficiency, and accessibility of elections for the entire United States and worldwide.
In Massachusetts, the lab collaborates with local election officials, sharing bright ideas and research that can help enhance voter engagement and streamline how we run elections. By diving into the numbers and trends, the lab helps localities understand what gets folks excited about voting and how they can make it easier for everyone to participate. We can think of the lab as a helpful guide that ensures our elections are secure, accessible, and maybe even a bit more enjoyable.
As you would expect from an organization with Technology in its name, MIT creates tech, and voting machine tech is one of its particular interests. Of course, MIT takes a data-driven approach, using analytical superpowers to spot trends and behaviors that can help inform policymakers and election officials alike. Researchers at MIT also try find ways to use technology to boost voter turnout and engagement, and to figure out how election laws shape our choices. They also collaborate with government agencies, nonprofits, and fellow academics to publish reports and policy tips that will turn their cutting-edge findings into action. They roll up their sleeves to educate and engage the community on electoral issues.
On another front, a company called Election Systems & Software, the largest manufacturer of voting machines in the United States, produces a machine called AutoMARK, designed to help voters with disabilities—like those who are blind or have low vision—cast their ballots independently and confidently. In the Berkshires, as well as elsewhere In Massachusetts, polling locations are equipped with AutoMARK machines.
While these trusty machines have served us well for almost 20 years, there have been occasional hiccups like printer jams or setup errors. For example, on the day of the 2016 presidential election, Nona Haroyan, a person with low vision who is also a leader of the Bay State Council of the Blind, arrived at her polling place early that day and snapped on the machine’s headphones so she could hear its audio cues. She then clicked its arrow-shaped buttons marked with braille to select her candidate. She thought she had finished voting, but then her ballot would not print. She had to wait roughly two hours for the cartridge to be replaced. Poll workers offered to mark her ballot for her, but she wanted to vote on her own. Because of examples like this, to keep things running smoothly, election officials in Massachusetts now conduct pre-election tests and keep backup machines on standby, ready to jump in on Election Day.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) runs a Testing and Certification Program that assists state and local election officials by providing voting machine testing and certification. This program is a requirement of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, legislation that created the EAC and mandated that the Commission provide certification, decertification, and recertification of voting systems and the accreditation of voting system testing laboratories. This legislation marked the first time the federal government oversaw these activities. This step allowed states to procure new certified voting systems without the added expense of independent testing and certification. While states are not required to participate in the program, some have enacted laws or regulations requiring participation.
Before the passage of HAVA, voting systems were assessed and qualified by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a nonpartisan association of state-level election directors nationwide. These voting systems were tested against the 1990 and 2002 voting system standards developed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). With HAVA’s enactment, the responsibility for developing voting system standards was transferred from the FEC to the EAC, and their new iterations are now the EAC Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.
As a technologist, I personally feel great satisfaction when everything works as intended and when all citizens are able to collaborate in a polite, civilized, educated manner. I am pleased to know that members and companies in the tech community help make this possible.
