On Wednesday of this week (July 25) there will be a hearing on Sen. Diane Feinstein's bill, S. 1487, called The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007.
Among other problems with this bill, S. 1487 hands over a great deal of control to the Election Assistance Commission, which is composed of presidential appointees. That's a terrible idea which completely politicizes the election process. We all need to stand strong against such a foolish and anti-democratic idea.
There's a great deal more about S. 1487, and a lot of drawbacks to the bill. OpEd News readers know that S. 1487 has been reviewed thoroughly and expertly by Teresa Hommel, and also by VotersUnite.org in two excellent and detailed posts here and here, so I'm not going to rehash the heavy lifting that's already been done in analyzing this badly flawed bill. Read these excellent posts and you'll know more about S. 1487 and the problems therewith than the Senators do.
Instead of going over S. 1487 again, here is my partial wishlist for a few basic provisions of federal legislation regulating American elections. I don't think any of these provisions are out of the mainstream thinking in America, and I don't think any of them would be more expensive or more difficult to implement than the hodge-podge of provisions in S. 1487 and HR 811. In fact, I think some of them would be less costly and easier to implement, and all of them would create a better, more secure election system in America, which would in turn lead to a stronger, more secure, democratic republic.
And isn't that what we all want?
First and foremost, each vote in every election, no exceptions of any kind, must have an actual, official, legal paper ballot. I don't mean a paper trail or a receipt, but an actual legal BALLOT. And it's the BALLOTS that should be counted.
These ballots must be on heavy weight paper, and must have all the necessary information thereon to make them a legal, anonymous ballot.
My preferred method of creating the ballots would be with touch screen computers and printers, because I believe that hand marking the ballots could lead to tampering. I remember reading about the elections in Chicago years ago when those who were counting ballots would have a piece of pencil lead under a fingernail, and they would use that small piece of pencil lead to spoil a ballot by making marks on it. Ballots created with computers and printers have no handwritten marks on them, and would be more resistant to ballot tampering.
In my perfect world, the voter goes into the booth and, using a touch screen computer, makes the selections for each of the races/propositions germane to that election. Then, when the voter has made his/her selections, the voter pushes the "Print" button and an actual, legal ballot is printed out on heavy weight paper. Pushing "Print" prints the ballot and also wipes the computer's memory of that vote, thereby ensuring ballot secrecy.
Then, the voter has the responsibility to pick up the ballot and look it over, making sure that the ballot is a true reflection of the voter's choices. If a voter chooses not to look the ballot over, that's their choice, albeit a stupid one.
If a voter, either by accident or by choice, casts no vote for a particular race or proposition (an "undervote"), the printed ballot would clearly state this so the voter is aware of it. The voter can then make a choice for that race, or decline to do so. Undervotes would then be the responsibility of the voter.
If the voter isn't happy with the ballot, I'd like to see a cross-cut shredder right there in the booth, and the voters can destroy the not-accurate ballots. Then it's back to the touch screen to try again.
A good example of how a printed ballot could look, and for that matter a voting system that could be used in this process (with slight changes to the system), can be found at the TruVote International website. If the TruVote creator, the brilliant Athan Gibbs, hadn't been killed in an auto accident, America might well be using TruVote today, and our democracy would be all the stronger for it.
When the voter is satisfied that the ballot is a true reflection of the voter's choices, the voter then puts the ballot in a privacy envelop (a stack of them should be in the booth) and then leaves the booth to hand it to the election official who then, in sight of the voter, puts the envelop in the locked ballot box.
At the end of the election, it's the BALLOTS that should be counted, and counted locally, precinct by precinct. In my happy-happy world, the law would forbid counting invisible electronic bits and bites created by the computers. The computers and printers used to create the ballots would be little more than touch screen word processors with printers attached; the voters would use them to create and print the ballot, and nothing more. The BALLOTS are what should be counted, and in case of a recount, the ballots are ready to be re-examined.
If this process were federal law, a great deal of doubt about electronic voting machines would simply disappear. Machines hacked? The voters will know it when their ballots aren't accurate. Machines malfunctioning? Printers not working right? Again, the voters will know it. If the voting machines are only serving to create a ballot which the voter can look at, read and verify, the machines (and the corporations that make them) won't be running our elections for us. The power of the ballot would once again be in the hands of the voters, where it should be.
Stephen Heller is famous as the "Diebold Whistleblower". He turned over much evidence of Diebold's defrauding of the State of California and for, his efforts, was rewarded with a three felony count indictment.
There is no necessity for any type of machinery to be involved in marking the ballot. Most third-world countries employ a pencil. The average US citizen would probably manage to make a cross in a box.
by
cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 11:46:36 AM
Thanks for all you have done in this area. I have followed your case from the beginning and even donated a little towards your legal fund.
I think your ideas would provide a functioning and accurate voting system that ensured that citizens would be involved in the process. However, as a computer person I have a feeling that the number of frozen machines, jammed printers, inexplicable crashes, and the many other infuriating issues associated with using computers and printers could make some elections quite nightmarish. We had something of a meltdown during the primaries here in Maryland recently using Diebold machines.
One thing is clear to me. The current proprietary voting systems are completely unacceptable and must be scrapped immediately. The idea that we can spend half a trillion on promoting democracy in Iraq, but can't spend a few million dollars to fix democracy here in the US is absurd. Our priorities are all screwed up, but that's nothing new.
Unfortunately, the House is poised to pass HR 811, which will allow them to say they have fixed the problems, and move on. Everyone needs to write and call their congressperson and tell them not to pass HR 811, Holt bill. We need something much better and more comprehensive than that.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 12:56:05 PM
2 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 (
