The debate over the security of electronic voting systems received a fresh fillip with Elon Musk wading into the EVM debate. The richest man in the world (he keeps moving between first and second position) and CEO of Tesla Motors, also owner of X.com (formerly known as Twitter) suggested in a tweet that “We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high.”
This drastic suggestion by such a high-profile global influencer set a war of words between Musk and Rajeev Chandrasekhar, India’s former junior IT Minister. Rebutting Musk’s claims, Chandrashekhar said, “It was a “huge sweeping generalization…that implies no one can build secure digital hardware.”
He said the opinion of Musk may apply to America and other countries where they use regular computer platforms to build Internet-connected voting machines” whereas “Indian EVMs are custom designed, secure and isolated from any network or media.”
Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav supported Musk’s concerns, with Gandhi calling EVMs a “black box” and Yadav citing technology experts on the dangers of EVM tampering.
One may recall that the Supreme Court, on April 26, 2024 upheld the electronic voting machine (EVM) system of polling and rejected a plea to revive paper ballots. The Court emphasized that blind distrust of an institution or a system breeds unwarranted scepticism and impedes progress.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta also declined the petitioners’ suggestion to allow electors to leisurely examine paper slips from Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units before inserting them into the ballot boxes. The ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Election Commission of India have consistently defended the security and reliability of EVMs.
There is a difference in how hacking is perceived by technologists like Musk and the general public. For Musk and the techies of Silicon Valley, hacking is seen as a form of creative problem-solving and innovation. It involves modifying or repurposing technology to make it do something it was not originally designed to do.
In India, hacking is often seen as bypassing security through networks. The problem is there is no definitive answer on whether Indian EVMs can be hacked. Lack of public information on EVM security fuels this uncertainty.
Adding to the mystery and ambiguity on the issue are various claims by social activists and NGOs who demonstrate step-by-step procedures to prove that EVMs can be hacked. These are widely available on social media. One important technical point is that Indian EVMs are not networked, which reduces the traditional hacking risks as hacking would require physical access and institutional manipulation.
The debate on EVM security has wider implications and touches political and moral issues of transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the electoral process in democracies. Some suggest a complete scrapping of the electronic voting machines due to their potential vulnerability.
Others emphasize improving and ensuring the security of EVMs through custom design, isolation from networks and tweaking the process of EVM counting through VVPATs. Lack of transparency leads to distrust and insecurity. The EVM debate must be settled once for all to protect the health of our democracy.