Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 8 (8 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   9 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Counting our votes must be as open, secure, and accurate as counting our money: Tell Congress "NO" to the "Holt Bill"

By       Message NancyT     Permalink
      (Page 2 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 8/4/09

Author 2302
Become a Fan
  (8 fans)
- Advertisement -

With computerized voting machines, just like with ATMs, we can not trust a count that we can not see.

The Holt bill says computerized, concealed vote counting should be the law of the land. It says it is okay if we don't openly count our votes on election night as long as we can do some spot checks (erroneously called "audits" in the bill) on the count after the election is all over.

Does this make sense?

Let's think back to the bank teller example once again:

- Advertisement -

1. Withdraw $10K in cash from your bank, but do not count it when the teller hands it to you. Have the teller give you your cash in a sealed, black envelope with a receipt taped to the front, telling you how much money you were just given.

2. Go home. Lock the envelope in your safe, under armed guard if you like. Wait a few days.

3. Take out the envelope and do a scientifically rigorous audit of 3%-10% of the cash (just like the audit required in the Holt bill)

- Advertisement -

4. Go back to the bank a few days later.

5. Announce to the bank that, based on your totally scientific audit, you did not in fact receive $10,000 in cash from the bank teller, but instead you received a five percent shortfall, $9,500 according to your statistical calculations. Bring your armed guard and your statisticians to testify on your behalf.

The result of your honest, good faith audit: Your "audit" of the cash count will either be laughed out of the bank, or they will call the FBI and you and your armed guard will be arrested for conspiracy to defraud the bank.

Arrested! Holt's approach is so deficient for democracy it risks criminality. There is no more excuse for not counting your votes openly on election night than there is for not counting your cash at the bank teller's window.

Lots of very smart, well-intentioned folks are pushing the Holt bill and its audits because they think it makes the best of a bad situation. Our elections are broken and we have to fix them, so they look to the only congressional representative (a science and technology expert) on Capital Hill putting forth his idea. But is it a good idea?

As you can see, audits won't work unless the bank wants it to work. Or, with elections, unless the powers that be want it to work.

- Advertisement -

We already know that post-election challenges, audits, or recounts, are incredibly difficult and expensive to secure, and history has shown us in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court's proven willingness and ability to simply shut down post-election remedies like hand recounts. The partial audit defined by Holt--exactly the audit requested by Gore in Florida and deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court--would raise the same legal challenges we saw in the 2000 presidential election.

History has shown us that election audits fail the most important test of all: There is no real interest among the powers that be in wanting these kinds of audits to work.

Look to Minnesota's recent Senatorial election with its expensive and relentless legal challenges. Our system of governance simply does not have the will, stamina, or time to depend on post-election counts to determine the winner of an election. And why should it? That's why we have elections.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

NH recounts no check and balance for its privatized corporate-controlled elections

NH Secretary of State: "Citizen Election Observers Threaten Election Integrity"

Summary of the Stimulus bill - Don't look half bad to me

Fitzwilliam, NH to Vote on Prohibiting Concealed Vote Counts

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

2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a bad system worse