OpEdNews » The Myth of Verified Voting: How GOP strategists & J. Abramoff transformed America's elections & the reform movement

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Corporations E-Voting; Corporations Voting Machine; Election-Voting Issues; Election-Voting Issues News; Electronic Voting; New Hampshire; Optical Scan Voting Machines; Voting; Voting Integrity; Voting Laws Federal HAVA; (more...) Voting Machines; Voting Reform; Voting Technology (less...)
Add to My Group

April 11, 2008 at 22:31:50

Headlined on 4/11/08:
The Myth of Verified Voting: How GOP strategists & J. Abramoff transformed America's elections & the reform movement

by Nancy Tobi Page 3 of 6 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

But the nation remained distracted by hanging chads, and congressional magicians pulled HAVA's multibillion dollar e-voting coups out of their hats. Voila. America's elections were transformed in the blink of an eye.

From "Right to Vote" to "Opportunity to Verify a Voting Machine"

Technology-based elections are the keystone of HAVA. Through HAVA, K Street money modified elections for technology rather than voter needs. This continues to this day in nearly every proposal for post-HAVA federal election reform.

Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the now normative vocabulary of election reform: "verifiable voting."

HAVA states that a voting system must "permit the voter to verify (in a private and independent manner) the votes selected by the voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted."(xvi)

HAVA's language is significant. When a voter marks a paper ballot with pen or pencil, he has no need to "verify" his choice. A voter only needs to "verify" his vote when it has been marked and/or counted by a computer.

HAVA intent was to technologize America's elections, even down to the terminology used to define voters' rights, transforming our constitutional right to vote into the opportunity to verify a voting machine's vote, and turning voters and election officials into quality control agents for the e-voting industry. Removing elections from the public domain, verified voting now centralizes power in the hands of technology experts and private corporations using proprietary trade secret software to count our votes.

HAVA initiated an ongoing program of government grants to fund a cottage industry of computer scientists and statisticians devising elaborate protocols to support the "verifiability" and "auditability" of technology-based elections.

HAVA's anti-democratic notion of "verifiable voting" has even diverted many voting rights activists from the fundamental and core principles of democratic elections: publicly owned and operated, fully observable elections with citizen controls over every aspect of the voting system. Many grassroots activists are now fighting for the opportunity to verify and audit voting machines rather than the right for fair and open voting and vote counting.

Despite the inherently false premise of verifiable voting, it has become the clarion call for 21st century election reformers in congress, the EAC, and grassroots movements alike.

Secret Vote Counting: Touch screens and Optical Scanners

After HAVA rolled computerized touch screen machines into roughly 40% of America's polling places, reformers clamored for "voter verified paper audit trails"(VVPAT)(xvii).

This reform would send more money to the e-voting industry to attach printers to their touchscreen voting machines. The printers would then display a receipt-like printout to voters, who could look through a window and "verify" their vote.

But VVPAT, corporate controlled and proprietary, denies citizens the opportunity to oversee how their vote is being recorded and counted. Computer scientists remind us that a computer can easily be programmed to display one thing, record another, and count something altogether different. To make things worse, the display window in many of the VVPAT machines is inadequate for voters to even read the print out. Studies soon showed that between 10-20 percent of VVPAT paper records are unreadable and unusable for the purposes of "verifying" the votes in a recount. Other studies showed that only a very small percent of voters "verify" their vote in this manner.(xviii)

Ultimately, many VVPAT reformers abandoned the cause.

Today many reformers would willingly exchange all touch screen voting machines for optical scanners using voter marked paper ballots. I myself have, in the past, advocated for just such a solution as a great way to reintroduce voter marked paper ballots into every polling jurisdiction in the nation, itself a step in the right direction.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Nancy believes in the principles embodied in our Constitution, and that groups like Election Defense Alliance and DFNH can play a unique role by empowering ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

4 comments

Michael Richardson is a freelance writer based in Boston. Richardson writes about politics, law, nutrition, ethics, and music. Richardson is also a political consultant.
Michael RichardsonMichael Richardson is a freelance writer based in Boston. Richardson writes about politics, law, nutrition, ethics, and music. Richardson is also a political consultant.

Vote in secret, count in public

Nancy Tobi has addressed the core issue of the problem of voting machines in her remarkable essay. As she describes her own evolution to public hand counts of ballots she effectively defeats the arguments of the machine advocates posing as election integrity champions. Not everyone will be happy with this essay, hence its value, it speaks the truth. Hand count paper ballots in public on election night in the precinct, its the only way to do it!

by Michael Richardson (87 articles, 15 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 3:23:08 PM

Nancy Tobi is cofounder, former Chair, website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH), and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit," and "Hands-on Elections: An Information Handbook for Running Real Elections, Using Real Paper Ballots, Counted by Real People". Her article about...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Nancy TobiNancy Tobi is cofounder, former Chair, website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH), and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit," and "Hands-on Elections: An Information Handbook for Running Real Elections, Using Real Paper Ballots, Counted by Real People". Her article about...

to see more of bio, click on member name

My "evolution"

Michael, as you know, I have always been a proponent of and an activist for hand counted elections. It is somewhat inaccurate to portray me in any other light. I have, however, in the past supported legislation to replace DREs with opscans as a way to weave paper ballots back into the broken tapestry of elections where they have been completely obliterated. It is a change in this position that I have noted in the article. However, poorly managed hand count elections are just as bad as anything else, and my argument with the HCPB NOW movement has been that I have not seen any real acknowledgement that significant groundwork must be laid for HCPB elections to have integrity. This groundwork involves legal infrastructure, training, and recruitment primarily.

by Nancy Tobi (71 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 4:19:55 PM

DOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.
rhalfhillDOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.

94,000 STOLEN VOTES PROVES NADER DID NOT CAUSE GORE TO LOSE

This article's comment that 94,000 "Democratic leaning" voters were not allowed to vote in the 2000 elections in Florida demolishes the charge that Ralph Nader was the "spoiler" in 2000. The 537 votes in Gore's margin of victory that was shown when the media completed their own ballot recount is minucule in comparison to the 94,000 votes the Republicans stole. Those who advocate voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil charge that if Nader had not run, Gore would have won and we would have been spared Bush's invasion of Iraq and the threats to civil liberties at home. Even the media recount showed that Gore won. But when we see that the Republicans stole 94,000 votes, it should be clear that the Republicans would have stolen as many votes as they needed to win, and if 94,000 had not been enough, the Republicans would have just stolen more.

Since the Democrats have consistently disappointed peoples hope for change when they do win, as exemplified by Pelosi"s taking impeachment "off the table" and the Democrats continuing to vote for Iraq war appropriations, the counterfactual statement that if the Democrats had won, we would have been spared everything that has happened since, not only can never be verified but is even unlikely in the light of the evidence we have. But Al Gore did not lose because Ralph Nader ran. HE LOST BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS STOLE THE ELECTION!

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 307 comments) on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 5:07:37 PM

Mark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department.

Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to re...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Mark AdamsMark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department.

Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to re...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Secret Vote Counting is Unconstitutional!

Nancy, great article, and great work.

Not only is secret vote counting dangerous, it’s unconstitutional, and when it was put in place, it is impossible to imagine that no one bothered to look at the constitutionality of it.

For more information, see Project Vote Count’s Election News at http://www.projectvotecount.com/ElectionNews.aspx

My article, "Virginia’s Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?!" includes a link in my comment to a video of my conversation with election officials in Virginia who pretend not to understand that computers count in secret. They say no one ever even though of that. Yeah, right!?!

My discussion with the election official in South Carolina was as laughable, but he did not want to be recorded. Any way, in my articles on Virginia and South Carolina, I point out that not only do the constitutions of both of those states specifically prohibit secret vote counting, but also so do some U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections, but what if those who control the machines, and their secret vote count, want bad leaders in power? Is there another way that citizens can prevent abuse of power without resorting to violence?

Yes, there is or was another way to hold our governors accountable without resorting to violence. If you want to find out the other civil check on government abuse of power that our Founders provided for us, then 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 (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 6:52:22 PM