Our electoral process also must be based upon checks and balances, which is only possible with a completely transparent process. Any reform must have that as its standard. Anything less subverts our form of government. A secret vote and an open process for counting that vote are not in opposition, for they serve the same purpose, that the citizens know the government serves by the consent of the governed.

::::::::

Do election integrity activists want a "perfect" reform bill?

The term "perfect" or "perfection" is a distractive term from the main 

issues. What is "perfect" is relative to what is the goal and how to 

attain it. When it comes to elections in our country the perfect election would 

result in the winner of the majority of votes being sworn into office. 

That will supposedly be a result of the citizens choosing their representatives 

by a deliberative process,  the person best suited for the job. In the real world that does not happen very often. No human endeavor involving hundreds of 

thousands of people, multiple jurisdictions and laws, can ever arrive 

at "perfection".

There is a major difference between the secret act of voting and the 

secret process of counting those votes. Making the process of counting 

completely transparent does not mandate that we lose the secrecy of how we voted. If the counting process is completely transparent and subject to citizen 

oversight in a timely manner, it will result in challenges when the process is subject to abuse or manipulation by those conducting it. Most states have evolved election related laws that have been created as reactions to abuse of the process. Unfortunately, almost all of those laws are under the civil code, not the criminal code, and there are inadequate consequences if the law is not followed. Many of the laws connected to the needed checks and balances for checking the accuracy of the count are ambiguous, weighted towards the expediency of those administering the election, and unfriendly to any citizen or candidate challenging the results.

There was a reason that the California legislature chose to codify an 

audit "to assure the accuracy of any automated count." At some time it 

recognized that electronic means of counting votes was subject to error or 

manipulation. The weakness of the law was in ignoring the fact of the 

human side of the process. Election officials for many reasons would tend to resist any exposure that their electoral process was not deserving of the public's complete confidence. That is why we are continuously told that the election went without hitch. We know better now, not because those elections officials have started being honest, but because activists had

to dig for the truth.

No human led process is or can be perfect. That is why our form of 

government was developed on the model of checks and balances. Our 

electoral process also must be based upon checks and balances, which is only possible with a completely transparent process. Any reform must have that as its standard. Anything less subverts our form of government. A secret vote and an open process for counting that vote are not in opposition, for they serve the same purpose, that the citizens know the government serves by the consent of the governed.

We do not seek a "perfect" electoral system. We seek an electoral 

system that allows every citizen to vote in secret, to have that vote 

counted in public, and be subject to checks to assure us the count was 

accurate.

Authors Bio:
Jody Holder is a California voting activist.