On 10/15/01, the U.S. General Accounting Office released "Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation", which addresses reform measures regarding the voting administration, voter registration, voting technologies, and vote counts and certification in federal elections. It is one of a series of reports to Congress in response to the issues and perceptions raised during the contested November 2000 Presidential election, in which some 57% of voting jurisdictions faced some problem conducting a fair and/or accurate vote. Chapter 7 (pages 312-345) addresses the issue of the Internet's potential to remedy perceived difficulties with present-day approaches in balloting. Current polling sites came under attack last November for continuing to prove difficult for persons with disabilities-- as many as half were estimated to be inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Those individuals who could make it inside a polling station found great difficulty utilizing the punch cards and butterfly ballot options available in some locations. There are also those who currently find it difficult to utilize voting booths with levers and switches unassisted, due to visual impairment or lack of motor function. Technology-based remedies to current voting shortcomings range from outfitting current polling locations with advanced voting technologies, developing public kiosks with electronic balloting terminals accessible to registered voters, and enabling Internet voting from American households. The arguments pushed in favor of various reforms include the convenience and time-savings they may offer, the potential increase in security and reliability, and the reduction of costs to localities The report notes that the best evaluations of Internet voting and balloting so far have shown approval generally by those familiar with the basics of computer and those who have regular access to such technologies-- particularly at home, especially younger voters and those in higher-income brackets. Such familiarity with technology, however, is not enjoyed by all Americans, especially likely in light of the Department of Commerce's Fall 2000 digital divide statistics regarding persons with disabilities, a population representing roughly 22% of the U.S. population, yet only half as likely to have access to the Internet. While 25% of Americans without a disability have had least had contact with a personal computer nearly 60% of people with disabilities have not. Needs differ, moreover, for those individuals with disabilities who do have regular Internet access. Unless there is an alternate set of assistive technologies, a mouse and keyboard, according to the report, may prove just as daunting as levers and paper ballots to the blind, those with motor difficulties, and persons with severe learning disabilities. So utilizing public kiosks or equipping current polling stations with advanced voting equipment may wind up serving less as a solution and more of a barrier to participation unless tools such as screen readers, icon-based touch screens, and motion-sensor technologies are adopted. Assistive technologies, however, would add to the cost of technology purchases required by localities. Localities might also argue that because special technologies would only be used for one specialized purpose, they might not be worth the investment. Thus, advanced online technologies might be relegated to the list of other voting reforms-- such as motor voter, early voting, and mail-in ballots-- which have yet to result in sustained voter turnout after their adoption. The GAO report finds potential fault for currently perceived problems within the general voting population's lack of ability (or willingness) to follow instructions, as well as confusion by voting authorities around proper polling place procedures and unclear rules. It is suggested that addressing the training needs of voters-- particularly in conjunction with the actual voting experience itself-- could help with a number of current shortcomings. What the report highlights, however, is that the emphasis on voting technologies, without attendant emphasis on improved voter outreach and education, improved rules and administrative, and substantive demonstration of technologies by more localities, cannot be considered a viable stand-alone solution. For example, is what makes the concept of a digital certificate any less daunting to a voter than the current format of a punch-hole paper ballot? In weighing whether technology-based voting system reforms are both feasible and appropriate given current perceptions, practices, capacity, and resources, the report discusses the notion of "ease of use" as a core component of the public accessibility to voting. Without ease of use, voters cannot easily comprehend what is required of their participation, and the voting system in place cannot accurately capture voter intent. A voting system that cannot accurately capture the voter intent runs great risk of being perceived as unwelcoming-- if not fundamentally unfair. Such perceptions may, in turn, hamper participation by the broader public, and leads to a loss of confidence in a vital form of public participation. The report is serves as an assessment, rather than set of recommendations, of various reform proposals. It does, however, raise issues regarding the Internet's ability to substantively open up the voting process to citizens without favoring certain needs over others-- or perpetuating "digital divides" along underrepresented segments of the broader voting population. If, however, young people are potentially likely to embrace Internet voting, why don't they participate in voting currently? With national voter participation around 50% of the registered electorate, and around 28% of young people registered to vote, it's no wonder many groups are concerned with the level of youth civic participation in the electoral arena. A June 2001 study regarding that "get out the vote" (GOTV) voter mobilizing effort was conducted for the Pew Charitable Trusts by Yale University political science professors Donald Green and Alan Gerber for Youth Vote 2000 is a non-partisan coalition of 100 national and more than 1,500 state and local organizations, community-based and student groups. Through the coalition, volunteers helped to organize 100 candidate forums for young people, register one million youth voters, and utilized phone banks to target their 18-30 year old peers registered to vote in a number of areas-- especially five communities in Colorado, New York, and Oregon with one telephone request to simply vote. The study found that the GOTV efforts involving young people as outreach volunteers with their peers-- especially in the remaining days of a campaign-- made the targeted youth voters nearly 8 percentage points more likely to vote in the 2000 presidential election than those who received no pre-election prompting. One of the most interesting sets of figures Gerber and Green raise is that it took 12 actual contacts to generate one actual vote. They then assign, for the sake of argument, a dollar figure of $10 per hour for a GOTV phone banker to make 10 contacts an hour, which would mean a cost of $12 for each potential vote. They then postulate that for $6 million, an entity could target the roughly 5 million young voter population and gain a potential 500,000 voters in the process. David Broder, in his 6/13/01 Washington Post article, cites an earlier study by the authors. That study focused on a mayoral election, in which professionals from a commercial phone bank firm without ties to the targeted communities repeatedly contacted voters. The result: no appreciable increase in the likelihood of overall voter turnout. The earlier study, however, found that those voters who received door-to-door visits were more likely to vote. Broder notes that personal motivation efforts-- particularly enlisting grassroots volunteers to connect with their neighborhoods and communities-- may matter more than "conventional" approaches (including direct mail, phone banks, and television ads), which in addition to costing more, ironically emphasize a certain distance, if not disconnect, from the electorate. The June 2001 report is currently incorporating data on youth-led phone-based GOTV efforts in Colorado and Florida, and in-person GOTV efforts in Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon. A post-election survey was also conducted on young voters in other areas to see if the voter mobilization activities actually encouraged continued participation in the electoral process, versus one-time participation. The Youth Vote coalition has also been at work during the 2001 election cycle to increase youth voter participation in 25 locations in America. So what the GAO and Green and Gerber have identified, in short, are a problems of self-fulfilling prophecy that no single reform alone-- no matter how exciting-- can solve, at least for underrepresented populations in the voting process. Because they are not explicitly targeted for their participation until the time to vote is near, and because the forums where their participation occurs does not factor, much less accommodate, their needs-- young people and disabled voters are being told that their participation is not welcome. Resources Cited "Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation" 10/15/01, U.S. General Accounting Office [Adobe Acrobat required] Fall 2000 Digital Divide Statistics National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce "Getting Out the Youth Vote: Results from Randomized Field Experiments" June 2001, Donald Green and Alan Gerber Youth Vote 2000 6/13/01 Washington Post David Broder