|
|
Add to My Group
10.0 on the Richter Scale… All modern folk have become familiar with the Richter magnitude scale. It places in relative magnitudes the energy released in an earthquake. Using the scale allows for the estimate of anticipated damage to man made structures occurring within a specific region. Architectural and building styles play heavily into the predicted degree of destruction, however, there is a range on the scale where no quakes have yet to happen, and thus no meaningful damage estimate can be produced other than an expected unprecedented level of such…thus, it is the land of the unknown. Such is the case with the modern voting integrity crisis. Initially in 2002, there was the infamous HAVA quake (Help America Vote Act), which registered about a 9.0, but was little noticed because of its uncharacteristic slow movement across the land. However, by November 2004 election its destructive effect was agonizingly clear. Basically, it revealed that Americas democracy had been rocked to its core. Since then, a HAVA ripple effect has produced localized after shocks in voting jurisdictions from sea to shining sea. All across this nation there have been voting integrity quakes measuring the Richter equivalent of 7.0, which by referencing the Richter standard reveals that such shaking can produce heavy damage over large areas, such as an entire state. The causes of these voting integrity quakes have at there epicenters the concept of voting via computer. In the jargon of the computer based voting machine manufacturers, these quake inducing devices are referred to as Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s. The existence of DRE’s reveals how someone…many people actually, (all of them in positions of authority) have lost sight of the guiding star of voting transparency. If you believe in the separation of powers, if you believe in checks and balance, then you must believe in voting transparency. Transparency is that process which permits for the average literate English speaking American voter to interact with the process from beginning to end, or at least it should. The problem with DRE’s is that they are not now, nor will they ever be compatible with voting transparency, nor will they ever induce voter confidence. Transparency reveals in one fell swoop the degree of security, accuracy, traceability and authenticity of individual and groups of votes. Without transparency as the guiding star, the voting process ends up being one that is lost in plain sight while attempting to serve the lesser motivations of speed and perceived ease of use. The dismal performance of DRE’s has earned them the maxim; computers and voting transparency are forever contradictory terms. However, the abysmal performance of DRE’s actually forces a form of involuntary transparency. The voting flaws are of such large magnitude and frequency that we are forced to revisit the scene of the voting integrity quake in order to assess the degree of damage. Predictably, and once again because of the esoteric nature of DRE’s, backtracking the source is difficult to impossible…and often requires the expertise of those code writers who developed the software brain of the DRE. In those instances we have the fox policing the hen house, and that result will also be predictable. That circumstance is a far cry from having an average literate English speaking voter come into to do a hand count verification of the vote? The worst case scenario is where DRE’s and their ritualistic quakes are tolerated, and gradually as the DRE technology improves so will the overall viability and acceptance of their use. THAT is not a good thing. It is bad. It is a very bad thing. Because when you stop questioning what transpires inside a machine that you have little or no understanding about, and that machine is the chaperone of you vote, then that is when all of the elements of voting transparency have been negated, and that is the end of independent checks and balance voting, and the end of we the people democracy. From that point on, who’s running the show will be known only by those that run the show. Clearly, Americas present “leadership” has lost sight of, or forgotten about, or was never aware of the guiding star of transparency. Americas “leadership” is too busy listening to lobbyists of the DRE vendors as opposed to focusing on the basics, that of preserving those fundamental foundational precepts that has made American democracy unique in all of human history. Had they remained true to the basics, then the voting integrity crisis could have never developed. Locally, if left to run its present course, the acceptance of DRE technology in the State of Pennsylvania may reveal with devastating clarity the full destructive potential of a voting integrity quake that could register as high as a 10.0 on the Richter scale. With over 95% of the precincts using DRE type voting machines, Pennsylvania, if the condition is reversed may indeed be the turning point, or, if left as is may be the last nail in the coffin lid as it relates to the November 2008 election. That kind of quake has never occurred in geological history, nor in American democratic history. The difference between now and the voting catastrophe of 2000, which brought about the HAVA quake of 2002, is that this time we KNOW. There will be no excuses for not preventing the disaster. The Richter estimated destructive potential of such an extreme shake-up is one that would embrace many thousands of miles, such as the size of the United States of America. Thus, the very foundation that defines America will be tested as never before. The American experiment will indeed be on newly experimental ground.
Host of "American Voices" radio-Wednesdays 7-8PM Eastern & Co-Host of popular "Strait & Kall"radio programming- Thursdays 8-9PM Eastern, airing on WNJC1360 in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania radio market(live internet stream www.wnjc1360.com); Frequent guest/co-host on "Voice of the Voters" radio. Most importantly, a concerned and involved American.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
