Computers Could Be Key to Taking Kinks Out of Voting.

LIKE many voters, my friend Mauro was puzzled by the electoral escapades in Florida.

It wasn't the tightness of the race that struck him, or the legal dispute over a particular punch card ballot that duped voters into backing the wrong candidate. Instead, Mauro, a native of Italy, is amazed that little strips of cardboard still have any role in electing the leader of the world's most technologically advanced nation.

"To me, you know, voting here seems very.., old," Mauro told me the other day. "In Italy, everything is on computers."

So why isn't that the case here? While it's true that the Italians had a head start in many areas - architecture, art and meat sauce come to mind - we Americans are supposed to be the computer whizzes. We also pioneered the democratic process, showing the world it was possible to rule a nation by popular vote.

Recent developments suggest it's about time we encourage those two subjects, computer technology and voting, to get a little, better acquainted.

Election equipment differs state to state and county to county, where it is overseen by local officials whose budgets generally don't include funds for new machines. If the old stuff worked well enough last time, it'll likely be around in another two years.

Most counties have moved beyond hand-counted ballots to the punch card system that has attracted such scrutiny in Florida. By now you've probably read plenty about the failings of such systems, which often miss votes because the perforated pieces of cardboard don't always separate from the ballot.

Making mistakes

More forward-looking counties have traded up to "bubble ballots," which rely on the same optical scanning technology you remember from your last standardized test. If everyone fills out the bubbles completely with an approved writing device (did you remember to sharpen a No. 2 pencil?) the system works fine. But voters sometimes fill in the wrong bubbles or make other mistakes, and the process of verifying problem ballots takes too much time.

With either system, it can take days to count every vote - and that's before someone requests a recount. Any system that relies on groups of old ladies sorting pieces of paper by hand is exactly the sort of system that computers were supposed to replace.

So why haven't they? Partly because computers are expensive. But that complaint seems less relevant now that capable Net appliances are available for a couple hundred dollars a pop. Besides, the new president owes it to the nation to push for federal subsidies to improve voting technology.

Election officials also have legitimate concerns about security and voter privacy. But it wouldn't be difficult to design a secure system that allowed people to vote anonymously on computers set up at polling places. On-screen ballots could be large and colorful, reducing the chance of confusion. And the results could be stored redundantly and sent to a central location over a secure Net connection.

Immediate results

TV networks wouldn't need to project winners and losers, since they'd be available immediately after the last vote is cast. Recounts would be unnecessary, but they could be conducted quickly from data stored offline to prevent tampering. Errors would be possible, of course, but not nearly so common as they are today.

Internet voting advocates would say such a system should be extended to home computers, allowing people to cast ballots online without leaving home. I don't doubt such a system would work, but it would put those without home computers at a disadvantage unless they had an equally easy opportunity to vote by mall or telephone. Encouraging votes from home also erodes the shared ritual of voting in public on Election Day, a practice that ought to endure through efforts to update the process itself.

For an example of how computerized democracy might work, look to Italy. As Mauro tells it, you wait in line to vote on a colorful ballot displayed on touch-sensitive computer screens.

"It's very easy," Mauro says with a bit of pride. "Nobody could be confused."

And there's one other benefit that sounds good right about now: "Right away," he said, "everybody knows who won."