US Raises Voting System Concerns, India Defends Its EVMs
Tulsi Gabbard Recommends Return to Paper Ballots
April 12, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence in the United States, has raised concerns about the vulnerability of electronic voting systems (EVS) in the country. Her remarks have, interestingly, prompted India’s Election Commission (ECI) to issue a statement reaffirming the integrity of its own electronic voting machines (EVMs).
During a Cabinet meeting led by U.S. President Donald Trump on April 10, Gabbard claiming that the U.S. intelligence community had evidence showing that EVS could be exploited to alter election results. Therefore, she advocated for a return to paper ballot-based voting to mitigate such risks.
The ECI chose to respond to the discussion, though through an official speaking anonymously to media, drawing a clear distinction between the two technologies, as reported by Hindustan Times.
In the United States, EVS refers to a combination of different machines and processes that often involve private networks and can be connected to the internet. This opens up potential avenues for interference or remote manipulation. By contrast, Indian EVMs are standalone devices with no capability for internet, Wi-Fi or infrared connectivity, according to the official. This isolation is deliberate, making remote hacking virtually impossible.
The ECI claimed that Indian EVMs have withstood judicial scrutiny, including by the Supreme Court, and are subjected to multiple layers of testing and verification. Before polling begins, mock polls are conducted in the presence of representatives from all political parties, allowing them to test and inspect the machines.
Furthermore, since the implementation of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, over 50 million paper audit trail slips have been verified and matched with electronic results in full view of political parties, reinforcing trust in the system’s accuracy, the official was quoted as saying.
The VVPAT is a system used alongside EVMs that allows voters to verify that their vote has been recorded correctly. It generates a paper slip showing the selected candidate’s name and symbol, which is visible to the voter for a few seconds before being securely stored for possible audits.
From a design perspective, Indian EVMs consist of two units: a control unit and a ballot unit, connected by a cable. The control unit remains with the presiding officer or polling officer, while the ballot unit is placed inside a voting compartment for electors. This separation, along with physical oversight during elections, allegedly reduces the chances of tampering.
The ECI further noted that the EVM design has been evaluated rigorously from its initial formulation through pilot phases, using statistical benchmarks and stress-tested against worst-case scenarios. The Commission argues that both the design and operational processes ensure reliability.
The ECI noted that Indian EVMs employ unique technologies and processes that are not comparable to systems used in other countries.
However, concerns around EVM manipulation have persisted in India’s political discourse, especially since the 2009 general elections. At that time, several political parties alleged that EVMs could be hacked or manipulated to sway election outcomes. While technical experts generally maintain that India’s EVMs are secure, they also caution that no system is infallible. Insider threats—such as tampering during transportation, storage, or handling—remain possible, particularly if procedural safeguards are compromised.
In 2013, in response to growing concerns, the Supreme Court ordered the introduction of VVPAT. Although this system adds transparency, it hasn’t fully settled the debate. In a few instances, mismatches between VVPAT slips and electronic tallies have sparked renewed questions about the dependability of the machines.
