We will never have a basis for confidence in reported results when the votes are counted in secret.All machines do this – all machines must go.
Votes counted in secret are a hallmark of tyranny, if Robert Heinlein is correct that “secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny.” Votes counted on easily hacked software-driven systems do not provide us with “definitive” outcomes, as Jeane Kirkpatrick explains. Instead, machines are “technical obstructions to make the right of voting insecure,” violating NY case law. Secret vote counting provides us with no basis for confidence in reported results.
Machine fans, or defeated hand-count fans, argue that we must be “politically realistic” in our quest for election integrity. The argument goes that politicians aren’t considering hand-counted paper ballots, so to succeed in our agreed goal of honest elections, we have to accept machines.
What they call political “reality” is merely fatal compromise.
To believe that what politicians want is the only course open to us is to deny the vast power of the will of the people. A 2006 Zogby poll determined that 92% want transparent elections. A February 2008 poll found that 78% disapproves of Congress. Clearly, corporate-sponsored Congress has no intention of doing the bidding of We the People, so whatever options Pols put on the table are necessarily suspect.
Distracted
Other election integrity activists ignore the entire issue of how our votes are counted, as they work to confront other, less immediately-serious failures in U.S. elections.It’s like fiddling while Rome is burning, because music soothes people.No doubt:
That fictitious entities known as “corporations” are legally permitted to contribute to campaigns turns elections into one dollar-one vote. Because I have fewer dollars than most Americans, my vote is worth less.This is not democracy, but plutocracy;
That privatized, monopolized mass media deliberately deceives the public, so we have a woefully misinformed electorate who, when they do vote, vote against their own best interests;
That candidates are selected in behind-the-scenes machinations and are funded by the same special interest groups provides Americans no real choice in most races;
Computerized, centralized voter registration databases needlessly expose Americans to identity theft, as well as provide election officials and party operatives with a means to target their disenfranchisement efforts;
Redistricting and voter ID laws allow for targeted disenfranchisement by election officials and party operatives; and
U.S. electoral management bodies have a long and brutal history of election fraud extending back at least as far as 1742.
Each of these factors alone defeats democracy, and reduces U.S. elections to carnival shows that give politicians the appearance of legitimacy.
I have no argument with remaking the entire U.S. election system.But if the vote counts aren’t authentic, no other change will make any meaningful difference.If we can at least get accurate vote counts, as voters intended and as democracy demands, then we have a fair shot of working out these other, more complicated, features that encompass best electoral management practices.
“Negotiating with your hands”
Still others (myself included) would demand transparent vote counts, now, as the primary and crucial first step toward integrity.If politicians won’t give us what we demand – transparency – then we create it ourselves.
The election integrity movement is not the only social justice movement plagued by “political realists” who would compromise our position into meaningless reform such as low-percentage audits. In Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein contrasts two separate disasters that culminated in very different outcomes based on which reality was accepted, and thus, which strategy was pursued.
In the 2005 Katrina disaster in New Orleans, power holders successfully kept poor residents from returning to their apartments. As recently as two months ago, citizens were tasered and jailed for resisting the destruction of affordable housing. Land developers now stand to make substantial fortunes from the land grab. (Here we see Derrick Jensen’s 2nd, 4th and 5th Premises holding true.)
In the 2004 Asian tsunami, a different scenario played out. Klein writes:
“Dozens of coastal villages were flattened by the wave, but unlike in Sri Lanka, many Thai settlements were successfully rebuilt within months. The difference did not come from the government. Thailand’s politicians were just as eager as those elsewhere to use the storm as an excuse to evict fishing people and hand over land tenure to large resorts.
“Yet what set Thailand apart was that villagers approached all government promises with intense skepticism and refused to wait patiently in camps for an official reconstruction plan. Instead, within weeks, hundreds of villagers engaged in what they called land “reinvasions.”
In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Focused mainly on elections, her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a legal investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor. She currently serves as a senior editor at OpEdNews.
All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Tell the truth anyway. Sign this petition: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ny_levers_petition
Great article. You’re right. If we want to control our government, we must take action to make sure that the votes are counted right on election night. As you mentioned, post election day audits, recounts, and contests have shown that those in power will break the rules to cover up for the fix. For another example, see my article How to Take Action on Holt and Fix Our Elections to learn how the law and the evidence were ignored in the biggest election contest in U.S. history http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_070919_how_to_take_action_o.htm
Not only is counting votes in secret dangerously unwise, it’s unconstitutional. In case you're reading this and you don't already know that counting votes in secret is unconstitutional, don’t keep yourself in the dark any longer, see Project Vote Count’s Election Newshttp://www.projectvotecount.com/ElectionNews.aspx and
For information about action being taken in Florida, Texas, and Ohio to make sure that our votes are counted accurately, see Project Vote Count www.ProjectVoteCount.com Jump into the fray to make sure our votes are counted accurately. It only takes one day to make a big difference!
To learn why it is really important to maintain control over our government and to learn about another key check that we once had to control our governors and protect ourselves against abuses of power, read What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back?http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm
by
Mark Adams (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 180 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 1:59:22 PM
I'm glad I was a part of the action in Florida, Mark. Thanks for organizing it. There's much better training to be done - mistakes made in Broward were made in Ohio previously, and blogged about.
Rather than reinvent the wheel every time citizens get involved in Election Day observation, polling, videoing and investigating, we should probably develop a step by step manual. I'm working on one, but am so busy with paid work that I'm way behind schedule.
Certainly a detailed manual needs to be developed before November.
by
Rady Ananda (109 articles, 255 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 833 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 4:21:37 PM
Sorry I didn't get back soon enough with the site to the quote. I'm pouring through these wonderful old cases (looking for more quotes for us and more precedence for the court) and that means I don't respond as quickly to email. I didn't see it till today. So here's the cite and the entire quote:
PEOPLE v. WOOD (NY Court of Appeals 1895) 148 N.Y. 142, 42 N.E. 536
"The object of elections is to ascertain the popular will, and not to thwart it. The object of election laws is to secure the rights of duly-qualified electors, and not to defeat them. Statutory regulations are enacted to secure freedom of choice and to prevent fraud, and not by technical obstructions to make the right of voting insecure and difficult."
If we keep recalling what we as a nation once knew and you keep reminding us with your poignant articles that continue to inspire me, the popular will -- will break through.
Thanks
andi
by
andi novick (52 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 7:26:19 PM
I love Rady - She seems passionate and intelligent, but she continues to leave out some logical points when it comes to her election platform. Although she is adept at highlighting the problem, and appropriately likening our situation to horrific circumstance, she consistently runs light on solution. Though it would be great if the people seized power, banished the machines, and returned to the days of retail rather than wholesale election fraud, we have to keep our eyes on the reality ball. This is not defeatism, this is appropriate strategy.
The most glaring ommission in Rady's latest is again, as has been her consistent line, to ignore the source code / citizen oversight aspect of the tabulation process. It is truly sad thet Rady's exuberance for HCPB apparently blurs her vision on real reform. Better minds agree that while we must always have a complete paper ballot, overfocusing on that point to the exclusion of addressing the source code issues is movement suicide. To make matters worse, this short sighted agenda seems to be controlled by fundraising types who have mixed interests and corporate ties.
For years I have advocated a bridge between hand counters and the open source community. Some leaders, like Bev Harris, have seemingly understood that the solution approach should be a bigger tent. We all want a proper vote count, and should unite as proper activists. Please, Please, Please Rady- Start including a call for open source if using electronic systems of any sort- that way if we get the paper ballot, and an electronics are somehow involved ( which is most likely ), the public will be able to investigate the software code for bugs- Best regards- Brent Turner
by
Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 10:14:42 AM
Who can tell whether the code used on a machine counted the votes accurately? Some experts could if they actually had access to the machines before someone had the opportunity to replace the code which flipped votes with an honest tabulating program.
Should we hope that a dream team of honest open source code programmers jump into the fray to check the code on election night and that a dream team of honest bureaucrats magically decides to be helpful instead of covering up for the secret vote counting computers? Of course, there is an alternative that doesn’t rely on these impossible dream teams because almost everyone can tell what is marked on a paper ballot.
In both cases, it takes people who want to make sure that the will of the voters is expressed in the official results, but in the latter case, there is a lot better chance of success because hundreds of thousands of times the number of people have the ability to make sure that the count is accurate when the ballots are cast on paper and counted in public. Furthermore, if someone wants to rig an election with hand counted paper ballots, they have to get thousands of people involved in the rigging instead of just a few programmers and a few corrupt bureaucrats who are happy to take some cash and look the other way.
If you don’t want to just sit around hoping for a dream team to save you, get up, stand up for your rights, and help by supporting Project Vote Count’s efforts to conduct citizens’ exit polls to make sure that the votes are counted accurately or to produce evidence that they were not. It’s the only thing that we can do right now to make sure that we have the power to control our government. If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. So, are you an activist, a talkavist, or even worse, an active obstructionist?
Prove that your intentions are honest and that you will act. Show your true colors by supporting the efforts to help make sure that the votes are counted accurately in Texas and in Ohio, take action and sign up with Project Vote Count today at www.ProjectVoteCount.com or show your true colors by failing to act when called. Actions speak louder than words! Rady has proven that she will take action to make sure that our votes are counted accurately, will you?
by
Mark Adams (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 180 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM
Assuming that machines will continue to be used, even though it is unconstitutional to count votes in secret, and that people will continue to vote in rigged elections that they KNOW are rigged, is defeatism.
As long as we are willing to vote in rigged elections, we will never get honest elections. Parallel elections are fun, but they don't count. They're like recounts and audits in that they cannot unseat an unelected candidate.
I understand that people need to FEEL like they're doing something, so selling vaporware, pursuing litigation, running parallel elections, and even the simple act of voting in a rigged election, lets people feel that they are doing something. And they are. They are legitimizing a totally corrupt system that is engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is amazing what people will accept if you just give them a car and a TV set. The U.S., which used to pretend to hold itself up as a beacon of democracy and human rights (in those days our death squads were covert, unlike today when they operate openly), now accepts the necessity of torture and crimes against humanity, and there are literally hundreds of articles here on opednews discussing which war criminal candidate might be a tad less evil than the other war criminal candidate.
The Germans had nothing on us.
"If elections could change anything, they'd be illegal." --Emma Goldman
"Don't vote--it only encourages them." --Old IWW slogan.
"Voting IN rigged elections, is voting FOR rigged elections." --Paraphrasing Rady Ananda
When computers count the votes, the only person who HAS a vote is the one who programs the computers." --Mark E. Smith (me)
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 98 diaries, 1301 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM
and that to vote on a machine is to vote for it. And, of course, I don't accept open source because I don't accept secret vote counting - which is Brent's "defeatist" posture of "realism."
Having experts review the software still leaves out the vast majority of the public, since we are not software experts. The open source solution calls for the use of experts, which still obscures the vote count from the public. It is like switching seats on the Titanic.
But I can't do nothing. Right now, parallel polling does not overturn results - nor can I say I think this is the main reason for Election Day actions by advocates of democracy.
Instead, the point of parallel polling (and Election Day investigations), whether they be called citizen exit polls or parallel elections, is to train the public in how to run a hand-counted paper ballot election.
We will NEVER get this unless we deliberately implement it ourselves. We can't get from A to Z without taking the necessary steps to train the public.
A = government run elections conducted on machines
Z = citizen run hand-counted elections
I harken back to a TrainingForChange.org essay on the necessity of creating parallel institutions to replace the fraudulent ones as they crumble under the weight of corruption. We implement parallel structures by training the public in administering such parallel institutions.
Without it, we leave society to fall into chaos.
by
Rady Ananda (109 articles, 255 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 833 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 12:14:58 PM
Rady says the open source does not give the public an opportunity to witness the code- - Rady- please educate yourself regarding the open source community- These geeks are the greatest !!!- They are self cleansing- and number in the millions !!! Get on board !!!
by
Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 1:38:34 PM
I agree that hand counted paper ballots is the best way to go. Yet to get there will be having elections with all the corrupt equipment we oppose!
There is an important part of the formula you have left out: open source voting software. Elections that are conducted on clean equipment with open source software are far more secure than those that are not.
The truth is that we are going to be using machines to count the ballots for the foreseeable future. If we make them open source, they'll be vastly safer and better for the public than if we don't.
Brent Turner says the author is "light on solution" by advocating hand counted paper ballots because she doesn't promote "open soure" software in voting machines. To the contrary, Rady offers the correct solution to the problem of rigged elections. Public oversight of hand counting. No other solution solves the problem of malicious software code. Open source is a sham because it still allows software into the polling place. We want an open count not open source.
Hand count paper ballots in public.
Michael Richardson
by
Michael Richardson (81 articles, 15 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 2:43:55 PM
I am a retired citizen who never was an activist until after election 2004, not a fundraiser or corporate type. Whoever your "better minds" are, I'll bet they told ML King not to rock the boat either.
Rady, and other hcpb advocates like me, are not interested in reform of a vote counting system that is in the hands of private companies who count the people's votes on propretarily controlled secret software. With your offered "reform" of open source codes, the same system of private corporate control of our vote counting will still be in place. Such a system is at least antithetical to our democratic system, if not illegal. To speak against your system is the height of common sense. You are the one who is ranting.
Since you can't build a bridge incrementally over a chasm, we the people want to take a "legal quantum leap" to return to ourselves the hand counting of our paper ballots, with all the transparency, certainty, and voter confidence that process can give.
We refuse to accept your defeatist atitude that we can't get what we want, what is our right to want. We will get it only if we go after it , and go after it we will. We will not be deterred. That's the people's right. What wrong with what's right, Brent.
by
Judith Conoyer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 5:36:54 PM
Consider this issue in the larger context of empowering citizens, rather than in the narrow context of trying to salvage a totally dysfunctional elections charade. After all, as presidential candidate Mike Gravel has written, "The central power of government in a democracy is lawmaking –– not voting. He who makes the rules controls the game." http://www.ni4d.org/concept.htm.
What we need to do is change the rules of the game, and that takes citizens empowered enough to force the change.
I like what Rady has written because it encourages citizens to become more conscious of the charade via the suggested parallel elections, investigations, videos, etc. To the extent they do so they lift themselves up above blind participation and become critical participants. Generating critical consciousness is the first step on the road to achieving positive institutional change.
But this is what I don't like about the Open Source position: It seeks to placate our concerns by appeal to authority. It wants us to abdicate our responsibility as conscientious critical participants in elections and remain as passive subjects, trusting the software experts.
The next step, which Mark has taken, is to withdraw consent and participation from the system entirely. Mark is not a critical participant in the system, he is a critical opponent of the system. He is a critical opponent of the system because he knows that the system is a fraud, a sham, a charade.
For those wondering how this attitude figures in finding a solution, I think it is only a matter of the number of citizens and the volume of opposition that separates critical opposition from change-inspiring rebellion.
If the electoral reform movement were to establish and stand firm behind principles of fairness and transparency, then simply get big and loud, I think the desired changes might be forthcoming. The point is, if the social system does not provide an institution through which institutional change itself can be managed, the only option is the messy option - open rebellion. Isn't that the lesson of history?
So it takes citizens, lots of citizens, empowered enough to know what laws they want; which laws are the just and fair laws; and that they aren't going to get them any other way.
National strike anyone?
Viva la revolucion!
by
Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 66 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 5:42:50 PM
Here are some of the problems that open-source code cannot solve:
* Possible bugs in the code.
* Possible corruption of the code after it's in the machine.
* Possible malfunctioning of computer hardware. (For instance., memory cards.)
* Possible misconfiguring of the machines, to handle the candidates andcontests in each particular election.
At best, open-source code can help ameliorate one of those problems, the first one.
Open source makes sense economically, plus it's more likely to be get thoroughly debugged and improved.But as a techie, I still draw the line at letting machines produce the final count.Problems like the ones mentioned above pose too much of a risk..
I'm not mollified by the argument, "Well, we can always go back later and check the paper ballots." The counter-argument has already been fairly well laid out elsewhere: Judges sometime block recounts; the choosing of precincts to get audited is not always "random"; recounts are rare, and hackers can take advantage of that fact; and so on.
If we believe that the real solution to vote-counting problems is full transparency, let's not illogically waste time trying to wrest it from inherently non-transparent devices.
Your position seems to be "Let's live within the prejudices of our current legislators, until such day as more enlightened and courageous legislators arise and mandate handcounting for all elections."
Is that a fair statement?If so, when do you envision such a day coming about?And do you feel we should feverishly be pushing our legislators to bring that day about as soon as possible--perhaps even in a few months?
P. S. I've heard that the OVC system prints bar codes on its ballots.I presume these are intended to reflect the votes on the ballot and are to be scanned as the means of counting the votes.
Bar codes are not voter verfiable, and they're not infallible.Are voters to trust the bar codes because they trust the software, and to trust the software because someone tells them it's trustworthy?If so, this is taking us further and further away from simple "trust-your-own-eyes" transparency, and taking us deeper and deeper into faith-based voting.
P. P. S.I currently have no "mixed interests or corporate ties," and I'm definitely a failure at raising funds. ;)
by
Roy Lipscomb (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 6:26:59 PM
Who can tell whether the code used on a machine counted the votes accurately? Some experts could if they actually had access to the machines before someone had the opportunity to replace the code which flipped votes with an honest tabulating program. Of course, almost everyone can tell what is marked on a paper ballot.
In both cases, it takes people who want to make sure that the will of the voters is expressed in the official results, but in the latter case, there is a lot better chance of success because thousands of times the number of people have the ability to make sure the count is accurate. Furthermore, if someone wants to rig an election with hand counted paper ballots, they have to get thousands of people involved in the rigging instead of just a few programmers.
by
Mark Adams (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 180 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 7:24:44 PM
Rady and the HCPB bunch are likely good hearts rather than Microsoft shills- but as Robert Plant plainly states- " The song remains the same ' When speaking with members of Congress, they note the front line battle for the "first count" is fought between the open source voting activists and Microsoft. Microsoft does not want the words open source in the election reform debate, as that is the end game- Please see Choicepoint, Carnivore, etc..
Let us stipulate that the " first count" is the crucial count, as it triggers the proceedings. Please note Busby vs Bilbray. And Kenya. Audits are great, and wishing the electronic systems away is cool, bit the heart of this matter is the first count, generated by an electronic central tabulator. If we are " real activists" we attack that point in "real time" . We don't ignore the source code issues in hopes the electronic systems disappear.and we don't put the movement's eggs all in one basket. We diversify and have a layered strategic approach. No fund raising group should blockade this effort- We must attack the systems from every available angle. We never stop fighting . My position has been consistent. We recount always. Early and often.
Yes, indeed, open source is no panacea, merely a necessary starting point. Without open source , proper cross verification is unobtainable. . Both Roy Saltman and Matt Blaze undestand this obvious necessity. There is no logical opposition, as it does not hinder abolisionist agenda. It merely deals with the current ( and possible future ) reality. Remember, we utilize electronic voting systems and there is no sign of change. If the machines do magically disappear, I will request dancing be allowed at the funeral for electronics in voting. Though I applaud abolisionist efforts as understandable, I won't hold my breath. Did I mention the climate change ? We have severe timing issues here. As a sustainability activist, I object to any agenda that leaves gaping holes. Please consider- Best- Brent Turner
by
Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM
17 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (