The United States has a long history of voter suppression. So does riling up our citizens to give the impression that this time is worse and why [insert topic here] means your vote won’t/can’t/shouldn’t be cast. Yet cyber security is a new consideration for voting. And because of that, the very topic of cyber security is a prime candidate to build distrust in the integrity of our elections. This distrust can be used as a weapon to discourage voters and reduce turnout. To compound this, cyber security can be intimidating and difficult to understand to the layperson or, frankly, to a professional. This means that cyber security challenges may be easily misunderstood.

So let’s touch on several key nuances of cyber security in U.S. elections to stay informed on our current situation.

U.S. Voting Infrastructure is Decentralized

The United States’ election processes are run by state and local election officials in thousands of jurisdictions. Each of these locations are responsible for administering statewide voter registration databases and for managing and securing the election infrastructure. This means voting districts with a higher population may prioritize automated tallying, whereas districts with more distributed voting locations may focus on greater connectivity to allow results to be reported more quickly.

This also means that security varies widely. While the Department of Homeland Security may provide threat intelligence and assessments upon request, it is not directly responsible for securing these systems. While multiple systems may make it more difficult for a single entity to hack simultaneously, inconsistent security standards ultimately make it easier to compromise. Yet looking forward, centralized guidelines, regulations, and audits can provide a structure to improve general election security, and Congress may exercise judgment in seating a member that was elected in error.

Internet Connectivity on Voting Machines is Risky

While certainly not the only risk, voting records may be more easily tampered with when results are tallied on distributed, Internet-enabled machines (although storing equipment in low security areas such as high schools, for example, does not help.) These machines may be protected by firewalls (i.e., a network security system that monitors and controls traffic based on predetermined security rules), for example, yet these are not foolproof.

In fact, the general consensus is that we should shift our voting systems to use optically scanned paper ballots. While this might seem like a step backward, a paper trail that can be audited at random intervals allows us to confirm that our voting machines are accurate.

Congress is Unlikely to Help Secure Voting

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have proposed several bills designed to protect U.S. elections from hackers. None of these bills have yet been signed into law, however.

In June 2019, the House of Representatives passed the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act which is now blocked by the Senate. The Act, if signed into law, would mandate that states use voter-verified paper ballots in federal elections. Other bills have been proposed, as well. The Protecting American Votes and Elections Act would require, too, that states use paper ballots in U.S. elections and ban internet, Wi-Fi, and mobile connections to voting machines. The Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines Act would require the Director of National Intelligence to inform Congress about any foreign interference in elections within 60 days of any federal election, among other notifications.

Many of these laws would come with funding. And unfortunately, without financial support, it will be difficult for many localities to upgrade their systems. It is expensive to acquire and certify a new voting device or systems, and many districts are already financially stressed.

Mail-in Voting Rules Vary by State; Risk of Fraud is Low, However

Many states are attempting to make it easier for citizens to vote absentee by mail. This is, of course, due in part to Coronavirus. However, each state has its own rules for mail-in voting. Yet every state now offers some form of absentee voting, and members of the military have long voted absentee. Currently, more than half of the states have adopted “no-excuse absentee balloting,” which allows anyone to request an absentee ballot. Yet some state voters need a valid reason, such as illness or living temporarily outside the state, to request a ballot by mail.

Voter fraud is a very low risk in this situation. And just as before, a risk-limiting audit can confirm that computer totals match the mail-in ballot results. In fact, Georgia once audited their primary results and discovered cases of double voting. While this did not appear to actually impact the results of the election, it does show that we are able to achieve some transparency into voter fraud (malicious or not) through audits.

Foreign Intelligence Groups are Focused on Dividing Us

It does not, in fact, matter who is elected (at least to our “enemies.”) What matters is that we are too distracted by internal strife to effectively push our own national agenda on a global scale. And that means that even the topic of cyber security has, can, and will be used as a weapon to impact our voter turnout. As offensive security expert Dave Aitel has said, “attacking the trust of a system is often as good as attacking the system itself.”

Dr. Haseltine, Chairman of the Board of the US Technology Leadership Council, wrote an article in 2018 explaining how and why the Russians hacked our 2016 presidential election and ultimately why “Russia wins if they don’t get caught and Russia wins if they do get caught.” This is, in part, because our political climate is already so incredibly divisive that political interests would outweigh national interests. In other words, as long as Russia can convince one party or another that the election results are suspect, we will be too busy fighting each other to show up in the international arena. This is partially why it is so important to make sure any discussion on election security is grounded in fact (and fact-checked).

Voting is About More Than the Sticker

If people become convinced that elections aren’t fair and that their participation doesn’t matter, “rule by the many can give way to the tyranny of the few,” says Florida Atlantic University’s Kevin Lanning, PhD, in “Why do we vote?”. “America is a great country, and we’re great because people from so many different backgrounds can and do participate,” he notes. “That greatness is at risk when significant groups, in significant numbers, don’t participate as they could.”

As we see, there are challenges to voting and cyber security. Yet there is every reason to remain positive and keep an eye on solution-oriented news and updates. Our system is not broken. Imperfect, yes, and in need of greater attention. Until we can move the behemoth of our collective consciousness toward a more effective system, we have to work with what we got. And whether or not you believe in our political systems, evidence indicates that voting may even contribute to your personal happiness.

High speed internet is increasingly required to access foundational components of daily life, including medical information, employment opportunities, and educational resources. This dependence intensified with the COVID-19 pandemic as many in-person services closed and shifted to virtual domains, and an overwhelming majority of households have engaged in some form of distance learning or virtual work over the past several years. Yet despite this increasing digital dependency, many countries lack consistent high speed internet access, including the United States (OECD, 2020). This inequality is most often represented by the phrase “digital divide.” While the digital divide includes multiple factors, the following analysis focuses specifically on geographic availability.

Current Situation

Data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reveals that in 2018, deployment of broadband services was 98.8% for U.S. urban households and 82.7% for U.S. rural households, showing a 16.1% difference (Federal Communications Commission, 2021). Data from the Census Bureau demonstrated a smaller difference in broadband subscription in 2018. Specifically, 86.1% of U.S. urban households and 80.8% of rural households subscribed to broadband services, indicating a difference of 5.3% (Martin, 2021).

However, researchers at BroadbandNow suggest the actual number of households without broadband access is double the FCC’s figure (Busby et al., 2021). This was determined by assessing a large swath of randomly selected addresses against nine major internet service providers’ “check availability” tool. The organization suggests that this discrepancy arose from the FCC’s use of Form 477 reports, in which internet providers self-report deployment. “Providers can claim to serve the population of an entire census block if service is provided to just one household in that block” (Poon, 2020). So, while one house may be able to reach a wired line in rural areas, a distant neighbor in the same census block may not be able to do so.

Discussion

When considering high speed internet access and affordability, Reddick, et al. (2020) developed five key factors to assess the digital divide: 1) geographical disparities, where low population density discourages infrastructure development; 2) telecommunications competition, which can make high speed internet more affordable but is often lacking in rural areas; 3) profit-based discrimination, wherein lower demand by minority households result in an ongoing barrier to entry; 4) technology deployment cost, which includes installation, operation, and maintenance of networks; and 5) socio-economic factors, in which age, education, income, and race may limit ability to afford subscription costs. As demonstrated above, there is a clear geographical disparity between rural and urban areas in the U.S.

The associated cost of broadband access for rural residents varies significantly (Lai et al., 2020). This makes it difficult to determine the extent that telecommunications competition comes into play. However, there are only one to three providers of high-speed access in most areas, necessarily restricting price competition (Porter, 2021). Technology deployment cost is notably different depending on geographic location, with the cost for deploying a network infrastructure 80% higher in rural vs. urban areas (Rendon Schneir & Xiong, 2016). Furthermore, Reddick’s study indicates that profit-based discrimination contributes to this divide, although the case study was focused on the urban area of San Antonio. And regardless of geographic location, cost is a consideration: half of non-broadband users report that they cannot afford a monthly subscription (Anderson, 2019).

Socioeconomic factors in the rural vs. urban divide are not as straightforward as the research may indicate, however. Rural households with broadband subscription nearly match deployment with a 1.9% difference between the two. This is much lower than urban areas which show a 12.7% difference between subscription and deployment. This could indicate that despite higher poverty rates in rural areas vs. urban areas (U.S. Census, 2019), cost may not be a primary inhibitor. However, the larger divide in urban areas indicates the opposite, and high rates of subscription may be in part because rural households rely on broadband to stay connected to services and opportunities that are in distant locations (Lai & Widmar, 2020).

Yet geographic considerations aside, the U.S. Census reported higher rates of internet subscription was correlated with higher income and education. Lower subscription rates were associated with people who rent (vs. own), have limited English language skills, and are disabled (Martin, 2021). Additional research indicates that age, race, and gender are connected to this digital divide, as well, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of the challenge (Reddick et al., 2020).

Policy Implications

While there is a significant coverage gap between U.S. rural and urban households, it has been steadily improving over the past decade. For example, the FCC reported that the gap between urban and rural rates of access decreased 14% from 2016 to 2019 (FCC, 2021). Looking to the future, the FCC established the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund in 2020 which allocated $20.4 billion to bring high speed internet service to unserved or underserved census blocks, with phase one targeting approximately five million homes and businesses (FCC, 2020). Regarding data collection, the FCC has already taken action to address concerns around its data quality. A rule was created in April 2021 referred to as “Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection,” which requires providers to submit more detailed deployment assessments than the previous Form 477 moving forward (National Archives, 2021).

Several of the pandemic relief acts incorporated funding for broadband infrastructure improvement, as well, including portions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. This in turn led to the creation of the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program ($3.2 billion) and Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program ($1 billion), which temporarily provided internet bill subsidies for qualifying residents of rural and tribal lands (Tolbert & Snead, 2021). While the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program ended in December 2021, the long-term Affordable Connectivity Program ($14 billion) has replaced it although with reduced benefits. Additional support can be found through the American Rescue Act of 2021 with the Emergency Connectivity Fund ($7.1 billion) to temporarily support certain educational institutions improve broadband infrastructure (FCC, 2022).

Solving for geographic infrastructure inequality is only one piece of the “digital divide” puzzle, however, which this legislation attempts to address. There are even more proposals to address this issue, including the Biden-Harris Administration’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s America Act, and the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (Tolbert & Snead, 2021). Yet budgets are necessarily limited, and tension arises between who is and is not deserving. The focus on rural broadband access is controversial in that it potentially neglects urban areas which have higher population density (Porter, 2021). However, redistributing funds to focus more on urban areas, while also clearly needed, can have unintended consequences, such as driving population movement from rural to urban locations (Atta-ur-Rahman et al., 2016). Given these considerations, potential policy solutions should include increasing access to broadband, improving availability of internet-enabled devices, and improving digital literacy for all geographies (Eruchalu et al., 2021). In addition to governmental policies, organizational initiatives should account for these areas, as well, as outlined further below.

Increasing Access to Broadband

In addition to the current efforts to extend network infrastructure to rural areas, government subsidies for broadband subscription can help reduce cost barriers. Or even better, broadband connection could be paid in full. Barring that, however, access may be extended via existing community infrastructure and programs. For example, internet hotspots can be established in libraries, schools, and community centers (Eruchalu et al., 2021).

Improving Availability of Internet-enabled Devices

Broadband internet is only the first step in accessing online platforms. Associated technology must also be available. For example, the NYC Department of Education provided over 500,000 tablets to students to enable virtual learning the pandemic (Stringer, 2021). Hospitals may also consider distributing devices to patients who need access to virtual care. Community centers such as public libraries already often offer in-person access to computers, yet they could expand this to include rental equipment. They could also offer office space for those who need privacy for virtual meetings that they may not be able to get at home (Eruchalu et al., 2021). And finally, device ownership screening can become more standard in education, employment, and healthcare settings. This is an area that social workers can be attentive to, as well.

Improving Digital Literacy

Populations with low digital literacy are less likely to use online resources (Reddy et al., 2020). As previously discussed, this can have significant impact on these individual’s wellbeing and ability to prosper. Companies, particularly those providing critical services (e.g., hospitals), should consider partnering with community-based organizations to develop skills-building programs (Eruchalu et al., 2021). In addition, social workers can focus more attention on their client’s ability to use technology, recommending educational programs or assistance where needed.

Conclusion

Broadband internet access can lead to beneficial outcomes such as more informed decision making, social development, and economic growth (Jayakar & Maitland, 2016). It has also become a necessity for daily life (Eruchalu et al., 2021). And because of the COVID-19 pandemic, “cities across the globe are struggling to close the digital divide quickly to help mitigate the effects on the health, education, and economies of their communities” (Reddick et al., 2020, p. 1). Yet while the urban-rural divide is a significant challenge, it is also one that currently receives considerable political attention. And while access to infrastructure is more dependable in urban areas, broadband internet use is still variable and associated with systemically marginalizing factors such as age, education level, race, and socioeconomic status (Martin, 2021). A more comprehensive approach should be the focus moving forward, and broader social justice initiatives, such as universal basic income, racial justice, and access to health services, will help to close the digital divide.

Sources

Anderson, M. (2019). Mobile technology and home broadband 2019. Pew Research Center.

Atta-ur-Rahman, A. S., Parvin, G. A., & Shaw, R. (2016). Impact of Urban Expansion on Farmlands: A Silent Disaster 7. Urban disasters and resilience in Asia, 91.

Busby, J., Tanberk, J., & Cooper, T. (2021). BroadbandNow estimates availability for all 50 States: Confirms that more than 42 million Americans do not have access to broadband. BroadbandNow Research.

Carlson, A., & Isaacs, A. M. (2018). Technological capital: An alternative to the digital divide. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(2), 243-265.

Eruchalu, C. N., Pichardo, M. S., Bharadwaj, M., Rodriguez, C. B., Rodriguez, J. A., Bergmark, R. W., & Ortega, G. (2021). The expanding digital divide: Digital health access inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. Journal of Urban Health, 98(2), 183-186.

Federal Communications Commission (2021). Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report.

Jayakar, K., & Maitland, C. (2016, July). Broadband 2021: Report of the interdisciplinary workshop on the development of a national broadband research agenda. In Workshop Report-Broadband 2021.

Kichloo, A., Albosta, M., Dettloff, K., Wani, F., El-Amir, Z., Singh, J., & Chugh, S. (2020). Telemedicine, the current COVID-19 pandemic and the future: a narrative review and perspectives moving forward in the USA. Family Medicine and Community Health, 8(3).

Lai, J., & Widmar, N. O. (2020). Revisiting the digital divide in the COVID‐19 era. Applied economic perspectives and policy, 43(1), 458-464.

Martin, M. (2018). Computer and internet use in the United States: 2018. US Census. Computer and Internet Use in the United States.

McElrath, K. (2020). Nearly 93% of households with school-age children report some form of distance learning during COVID-19. U.S. Census.

Mouratidis, K., & Papagiannakis, A. (2021). COVID-19, internet, and mobility: The rise of telework, telehealth, e-learning, and e-shopping. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74.

Poole, G. A. (1996, 29 January). A new gulf in American education, the digital divide. New York Times.

OECD (2020). Science, technology and innovation: How co-ordination at home can help the global fight against COVID-19.

Poon, L. (2020). There are far more Americans without broadband access than previously thought. Bloomberg CityLab, 19.

Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: A review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT), 11(2), 65-94.

Saad, L. & Wigert, B. (2021). Remote work persisting and trending permanent. Gallup.

Stringer, S. (2021). Audit Report on the Department of Education's Controls over the Distribution of Remote Learning. City of New York: Office of the Comptroller.

Wolinsky, H. (1996, March 17). The digital divide. Chicago Sun Times.