Expose Inherent Uncertainty, Don't Ignore It

I wholeheartedly agree, Dave, that we should do what is necessary to object to secret vote counting and expose poor administrative practices that fail to maintain adequate security procedures, chain of custody, or that allow inaccurate hand counting.  Some ideas include: 

* support the recount

* videotape the ballots when counted

* forensically examine the machines

* perform a top-to-bottom audit that includes all consideration of chain of custody and security issues.

Dave writes,  

I appreciate Nancy's point that a re-count can be self-affirming as a stamp of approval. But the really important thing to realize is that:

This is the very thing we should seek to take on, and in as many ways as possible.  

This idea that some modicum of public acceptance will settle in and endure to future elections is the very thing that we are now poised to prevent.”  (emphasis added) 

Exactly.  The election results have been posted and no one, NO ONE, can assert with certainty the results are accurate. Salon.com’s Manjoo thinks he can, while simultaneously praising activists for being careful not to assert that fraud occurred. 

Hey, Manjoo, the same standard applies to you, as well.  You cannot assert that fraud DIDN’T happen, since self-erasing malware could have been inserted. That’s the terror behind inserting machines between a voter-prepared ballot and the count of that ballot. Inherent uncertainty prevails. 

While technocrats would have the American public believing we should implement all kinds of second-count audit and security protocols to ensure the first count was accurate, they all miss the point. Public elections can and should be transparently counted the first time.

Over the past couple centuries, the best minds understood that it is the FIRST COUNT that must be secured, as Andi Novick recently noted based on her research into election fraud history.  

Finally, Dave, I am thrilled to read about how early revolutionaries dealt with a bogus judicial system: 

Raphael describes a resistance tactic mirrored throughout the colonies where courts were shut down by citizens who forced judges to rule by locally written charters. The alternative for the judges who wanted to continue under King's Law was often public humiliation such as tar and feathering. 

Given how:

·         the US Supreme Court decided to shut down the 2000 Florida recount (a later ballot count by NORC revealed that thousands of ballots with clear intent for Gore were not counted in accord with Florida’s voter-suppressive election laws);

·         Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell certified the 2004 electors BEFORE the recount occurred; and

·         Congress swore in their chosen candidate from the Busby-Bilbray race BEFORE the election was even certified by local authorities, which the judge in that case upheld

·         A 15% undervote rate in the Jennings-Buchanan Congressional race in Florida didn’t convince the court to allow a source-code review, further institutionalizing secret vote counting.

we can have little confidence that the judicial system will rule on behalf of democracy.

Meanwhile, let's expose where the uncertainty exists in our election system.

p.s. I love the new VCC logo! 

by Rady Ananda (109 articles, 258 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 866 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 3:09:59 PM