Touch Screen Voting and the Space Shuttle

High-tech promise, high-tech failure

After a long hiatus the Space Shuttle is flying again. But it’s now clear that the Shuttle program has been too costly, hasn’t lived up to expectations, and is headed for the junk pile - an ultra-expensive, high-tech solution which has failed to deliver on its promise. Election officials rushing to purchase touch screen voting machines should consider how the promise of new high-tech solutions often results in an expensive high-tech failure.

Most people assume that when it comes to technology, new is always better than old. But an "old" technology can also be a mature, proven, and reliable technology. The Shuttle was designed to replace the “old” technology of expendable rockets. Promoters of touch screen voting machines intend to replace the “old” technology of paper ballots.

But an “old" technology is not necessarily a bad technology. Just because a given technology is newer (and more complex) doesn't necessarily make it better, more reliable, or cost effective. In fact, when a new technology is more complicated than necessary for a given task, its use can be a step backwards in terms of reliability and cost.

We see this with the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a newer technology capable of doing things that can't be done using expendable rockets (e.g., in-orbit repair missions), but that does not necessarily make it the appropriate technology for all missions. If all you need to do is to put a satellite into orbit, an "old technology" rocket is a much more reliable, safe, and cost effective solution. And while a touch screen with an audio interface may be needed to enable persons with specific disabilities to vote (e.g., the blind and those with certain mobility impairments), it is technological overkill for the vast majority of voters. And, just like the Shuttle, touch screen voting machines will prove to be a step backwards in safety, reliability, and cost.

When the Shuttle program was announced, its goal was to make "expensive" expendable rockets obsolete for Earth orbital missions. It was obvious, we were told, that the Shuttle was going to be cheaper because it was reusable and minimized the number of disposable parts. The argument was "we won't be dealing with all those expensive expendable rockets”. Today we hear an eerie echo in arguments for touch screen voting machines – “we won't be dealing with all those expensive printed paper ballots".

But the Shuttle has not proven to be cheaper or more reliable than "old” rocket technology. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. The Shuttle is a much more complex system than required for most missions, and the ongoing costs have been much higher than anyone anticipated. The Shuttle technology was oversold, just as touch screen voting technology is being oversold.

Complex, high-tech solutions like the Shuttle and touch screen voting machines should be reserved for those tasks where additional complexity is necessary. For routine jobs, like putting a satellite into orbit, or filling out a ballot, tried and true "old technologies" are more appropriate, reliable, and cost effective.