(Note added by author on April 29: Although FairVote promotes a range of electoral reforms, we are particularly well-known for our advocacy of ranked voting systems, particularly instant runoff voting. I've heard that some readers thought I was capitalizing on this tragedy to suggest that John Gideon was an ally on instant runoff voting
To be clear, John liked the idea of IRV, but believed that advocates should not push for implementation before certifiied equipment was ready to implement it. But this article is not about IRV. It's about another subject that John and I had several email exchanges about -- kicking private vendors out of our elections and having a publicly owned process. We both liked how Oklahoma did that years ago with its optical can equipment and New York with its equipment.
I apologize to anyone offended by this piece. I knew John a little from his coming to conferences we organized and from several email exchanges, but I did not know him in the way that so many leaders in the election integrity struggle did. I do think he might have liked the idea of a Gideon Initiative to pursue publicly owned election administration, but at this point I'm only raising the idea as part of my effort to salute his dedication.
- Rob Richie)
Voters Unite’s John Gideon, the Indefatigable chronicler of problems with election administration, for nearly six years produced the Daily Voting News. Last night John died at age 62. Brad Friedman has a moving tribute to him on Bradblog. You can also see John’s work by visiting the archive of Daily Voting News.
John shared one of my beliefs — that citizens should control of our elections. As a tribute, perhaps those believing in that goal can join together in the “Gideon initiative.”
As just one recent example of the problem with the status quo, John’s April 22 report featured Washington D.C.’s ongoing legal struggle with Sequoia after the company’s system failed during the city’s primary elections last September. In January, I had testified before the D.C. city council, recommending that the city “legislate for government-owned and operated equipment and software, as well as giving the Board of Election Commissioners full discretion in purchasing the machines and the budget and authority to switch to improved technology as it becomes available. Oklahoma and New York State provide examples of states where elections are run without working through private vendors.” John wrote back: “Thank you for this. We absolutely agree that the government should own and operate their own voting systems.”
FairVote analyst David Segal has been working on a piece about the imperative for citizen-owned elections. It remains a work in progress, but I thought timely to share his thoughts.
From David Segal:
If we were to choose a single governmental function which ought to remain in the public realm — neutrally rendered and readily scrutable — it would surely be that upon which all other government functions, and a government’s very legitimacy, are predicated: The administration of elections.
In a post-2000 America, there’s likely a broader public understanding than ever before of the part that private contractors play in the development and operations of our voting equipment. The popular reaction has been resounding: If the roles of these contractors were put to a vote, they’d surely find themselves out of work. Public distrust of elections is steadily on the rise, with some polls showing that a large majority lack basic confidence that their votes will be recorded as intended.
While potential for explicit malfeasance is a legitimate concern, and the most prominent impetus for such mistrust, there are many other ways in which these companies nefariously influence our elections. It’s time for voters to chase the vendors out of our polling places, and to seize control of elections, once-and-for-all.
Three companies dominate the election machine industry: Elections Systems and Software, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Premier (formerly Diebold.) There might be further consolidation in the near future, as at least two fo these firms appear to be losing money. The relatively low-profit nature of the field — and the relative lack of competition — have encouraged these companies to cut corners, and dismiss public concerns that aren’t explicitly spelled out in contracts.
Yale law student Jennifer Nou in a remarkable article Privatizing Democracy: Promoting Election Integrity Through Procurement Contracts notes that the Help America Vote Act, with its new mandates and billions of dollars for new voting machinery, had the effect of compelling many jurisdictions to upgrade their equipment all at once, giving the contractors inflated bargaining power and stunting the industry’s motivation to institute ongoing improvements to its technology.
With such limited competition, it’s easy for these companies to shake money out of state governments via unscrupulous means: They can stop producing, and stop servicing, certain models artificially early, compelling states to buy new ones. They have reason to meet just the bare-bones requirements of contracts and limit the plasticity of their hardware so that they can force upgrades on states that want to reform their voting systems — making it difficult to implement innovative voting methods like instant runoff voting (IRV). (The firms also may have reason to stymie IRV because more elections means more business.)
Vendors typically maintain tight control over their equipment and software: This means states need to pay them for service and programming help when there are problems, and contributes to our elections’ lack of transparency. For instance, when North Carolina’s State Board of Elections in 2005 requested access to Diebold's software, following a state law requiring the Board to do so, the company simply refused.