Many of us came to activism on the issue of computerized voting after reading the powerful analysis, by some of our most dedicated election integrity activists, of the flawed 2004 vote count. That analysis demonstrated the correctness of the original 2004 Mitofsky/Edison Exit Poll that predicted a win by John Kerry by 3%. It undermined the vote “count” that gave George Bush a victory by 2.5%.
In November 2006, a team, comprising some of these same experts, gathered in Philadelphia to analyze the outcome of the mid-term congressional election. Again, their analysis showed a discrepancy (of 3 million votes) between the exit poll data and the vote counts. Activists were certain that this outcome, backed up by the loss of 18,000 votes in Sarasota County, Florida, would finally raise the profile of the issue of false election outcomes. It did not happen in the way that we had hoped: a media and congressional challenge to the election result.
We have made progress however. There have been courageous actions by elected officials in states such as California, Florida, Ohio, and Colorado. New Jersey and Minnesota are leading in establishing audit protocols. New Yorkers have faced off with the Justice Department over implementing HAVA. Many more states will have paper records and paper ballots this year. Some leading activists have had the opportunity to move inside to make reform a reality. In this long process, activists and officials have often placed their careers, livelihoods, reputations, and relationships on the line in calling attention to election problems and in demanding reform.
We now have a controversial New Hampshire primary election outcome that contradicts every major polling prediction. It is very important that we pause and get our framing right as we address concerns over last night’s outcome. We have an opportunity to establish the principle that contradictions between scientific polling data and controversial computerized election system outcomes always require investigation. This event comes just two days after the New York Times Magazine raised the alarm by warning readers that their votes could disappear.
Are the stars aligning in our favor? Consider who was affected directly and uncomfortably by last night’s events: pollsters, pundits, media outlets, and campaigns. These are the people we need on our side this year and these are the people who are looking for an explanation for what happened last night. We must avoid wild speculation and accusations, the theories that hinder us in achieving our goal, a review of the process of counting votes.
Polling, especially exit polling, is a well-recognized science. Computerized voting, on the other hand, is vulnerable to human error, programming error, and technological glitches, which we should emphasize. It is also vulnerable to deliberate manipulation- speculation which we should avoid. We encourage candidates, pollsters, pundits, media, and elected officials to reconsider election results when we focus on the technology and avoid accusation and speculation. If a discrepancy is confirmed between voting system input (programming and ballots) and voting system output (vote counts), the affected constituencies listed above can be more effective in ferreting out systematic corruption, if it exists, than we have ever dreamed. Let’s take advantage of the astrological phenomenon presented to us (media stars with egg on their faces) and try to get them on our side by emphasizing the science, the exit polls they relied upon.
Electronic Vote Counting - the Ghost in the Machine
Mary Howe Kiraly wrote:
... It is also vulnerable to deliberate manipulation- speculation which we should avoid. ...
It is not speculation to state that computerized voting is extremely vulnerable to deliberate manipulation. Refer to the California Secretary of State Top to Bottom review of voting machines certified for use in California elections. I could dig out references to many other postings published by Black Box Voting, Bradblog, and of course OpEdNews -Electronic Voting section that show specific and horrifying examples of gaping security holes that demonstrate again and again that these voting systems are inherently vulnerable and deserving of distrust, if not direct evidence of criminal behavior worthy of indictments for direct subversion of our Constitutional Democracy. If you looked at the California SOS website linked above, you noticed the multiple revocations of approvals for most electronic voting machines after many critical design flaws were exposed. The security flaws are numerous and shocking. In my opinion, electronic voting is inherently flawed and can never be fixed, because those systems separate citizens from their votes and hide the count in bits and bytes that can be flipped and changed by the millions faster than you can say "Steal My Vote."
That is not to say that any specific election result was deliberately manipulated. Oh no, we wouldn't want to allege anything so inflammatory, especially since we just suffered through seven years of Bush-Cheney and we only have one more year until our parole. However some very strong evidence does seem to suggest that election fraud is rather common and embarassingly easy given the proliferation of electronic systems designed with what seem like purposefully placed security flaws.
With all due respect, Mary Howe Kiraly should elaborate on why we shouldn't be framing the debate as something akin to leaving the family jewels in a seemingly secure vault with the doors wide open. I'm all for positive framing, but that huge, naked, imperial elephant-donkey hybrid in America's living room needs some attention and a very big frame. Let's call out the hucksters, thieves, and bullies in our midst and cast shame on them for the questionable and suspicious behavior that is likely worse than we suspect. They are guilty until they prove themselves virtuous by proper actions, not lip service to the people and voters of the United States and the world.
Our votes are supremely vulnerable to thievery with electronic voting machines or vote count aggregators made by Diebold, Sequoia, and ESS. Why shouldn't we frame the message that these corporations with vested interests, sold us a bag of goods, claiming that they were secure, when in fact they put our Democracy into grave risk of wholesale thievery.
I have no confidence in electronic vote counting machines or vote aggregators and I find it alarming that anybody thinks we have a secure voting system. It might be counterproductive for voting rights activists to be running around like their hair is on fire, but I think every informed individual should show emotion and passion to the media when the crown jewels of Democracy, the very crucial and central task of counting the votes, are being contracted out to software vendors with binding non-disclosure agreements, secret source code, and hidden agendas.
Computerized voting is inherently vulnerable and the public should not have confidence in results tabulated by an aggregation software that makes vote counting an opaque process. Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard that trumps all the technology that is complicating our lives and enabling wholesale theft of our democracy.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 130 comments)
on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 5:43:59 AM
1 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 (
