Technology has two sides of a coin, it was built to make human’s life easier and and simpler. But it also has its dark side, if we talk about crime. It also happens when it's applied in politics.
The technology usage was first applied in the election system called Voting Machines, built to ensure each voter is provided with a smooth, uncomplicated voting experience. The goal is to make the election process more accurate, more accessible and more user-friendly.
Until the Chief of Russia's Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov said differently. The voting machines have not been designed to provide a receipt for voting or any documentary evidence of voters. The process is very much closed to the public while the operators of the machines have the opportunity to add or to drop votes in favor of one candidate or another.With no evidence at all!
However even with a receipt as evidence, there is always an open door to fraud. For instance, people can use it to sell the voice, but of course a paper ballot is a hard copy evidence when we want to see the real number counted for the votes.
Another fraud possibility comes from the hackers. The computer science and security experts stated that with equipment worth US$10 and limited knowledge of technology, someone could easily hack one quarter of the voting machines. We talk about The United States of America, the world’s greatest democracy. And still can not ensure all the votes will be counted.
Another strong criticism came from Victoria Collier who claims that the voting machine has been outsourced to a handful of corporations that operate in the shadows. “The government officially agreed on the contract although the voting machine vendors refused to guarantee their products will work or not, or whether the machines will be fit to count the votes. So it is possible and reasonable to say that the voting machines are subject to manipulation.”
Nobody ever questioned the oddity related to election technology. Even when the public found out that in the 2004 election, Kerry got only 38 percent in Ohio precinct, while the exit polls indicated that he should have received 67 percent. The official said that happened because of sampling error. Back in 2000, in Volusia precinct, Al Gore got minus 16,022 votes.
Due to the reasons above, it is obvious that even with international observer's present in a few states in the US, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, Missouri, and D.C, US elections are not guaranteed to be fraud-free ones.