Not so secure elections
April 24, 2008 05:09 p.m. by Japhet Els
We all know there are problems with electronic voting machines. This is one issue, perhaps just outside the immediate scope of focus for Change Congress, but it is intricately tied to much of what we do, like supporting a working democracy. I don't think many disagree that having a system that correctly counts a citizen's vote should be a vertebra in the backbone of an honest democracy.
The bad news is that our leaders in Washington don't feel, for some reason, that its a pressing problem to be resolved. Last week, one of the key bills being brought before Congress to combat the issues surrounding electronic voting machines was voted down. Rep. Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey sponsored the bill which would allow states to receive federal money to move to a paper-balloting system instead of touch-screen or direct recording electronic machines.
Here's where it turns political:
We know that simply creating a paper trail isn't the silver bullet in solving this issue. However, its a small step in the right direction. Security issues, even to scientists and Silicon Valley, are among the most pressing problems with the current electronic voting machines. This from a NY Times piece this past summer:
While security and hacker-proof systems remain a top priority of those working on the electronic voting issues, creating a paper trail at least will provide some sort of reference to go back to and investigate possible errors. And, whether its redundant or not, the bottom line is that whatever is in place now is not working and needs to be ratified. Holt's bill was an attempt to create a solution. The White House decided it wasn't a solution and instead of offering ideas on how to deal with the existing problems, simply shut the door and threw away the key.
The bad news is that our leaders in Washington don't feel, for some reason, that its a pressing problem to be resolved. Last week, one of the key bills being brought before Congress to combat the issues surrounding electronic voting machines was voted down. Rep. Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey sponsored the bill which would allow states to receive federal money to move to a paper-balloting system instead of touch-screen or direct recording electronic machines.
Several states and counties have moved on their own from touch-screen machines to optically scanned paper ballots that can be recounted if needed.
"This bill this week, it was all optional," Holt said. "All it was, was reimbursing districts for doing the right thing. ... And by doing the right thing, I mean offering paper-based voting and more, requiring audits."
Here's where it turns political:
On Tuesday, the bill, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, went down to defeat in the House 239-178, with 223 Democrats in favor and 176 Republican opposed, after the White House sent out a statement opposing the measure. The statement said the administration "strongly opposes" the bill because it would "create a new program that is largely redundant with existing law, and therefore unnecessary, to reimburse States for the costs of making last-minute changes to their voting systems by Election Day 2008."
We know that simply creating a paper trail isn't the silver bullet in solving this issue. However, its a small step in the right direction. Security issues, even to scientists and Silicon Valley, are among the most pressing problems with the current electronic voting machines. This from a NY Times piece this past summer:
Matthew A. Bishop, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who led the team that tried to compromise the machines, said his group was surprised by how easy it was not only to pick the physical locks on the machines, but also to break through the software defenses meant to block intruders.
Professor Bishop said that all the machines had problems and that one of the biggest was that the manufacturers appeared to have added the security measures after the basic systems had been designed.
By contrast, he said, the best way to create strong defenses is “to build security in from the design, in Phase 1.”
While security and hacker-proof systems remain a top priority of those working on the electronic voting issues, creating a paper trail at least will provide some sort of reference to go back to and investigate possible errors. And, whether its redundant or not, the bottom line is that whatever is in place now is not working and needs to be ratified. Holt's bill was an attempt to create a solution. The White House decided it wasn't a solution and instead of offering ideas on how to deal with the existing problems, simply shut the door and threw away the key.
Categories:
E-voting and paper trail
| Permalink
Comments (4)
How can we hope for effective change if the voting system can be manipulated without any trace. Dan Rather's documentary "The Trouble With Touchscreens" goes over the deeply rooted problems inherent in these (very expensive) systems. (Spoiler: "hanging-chads" were a fabricated issue... coincidentally, the company that was responsible... Sequoia... also makes touch-screen systems that are much more expensive than paper-cards and MUCH less reliable.)
If an "open source solution" to the voting machine problem sounds like a good idea, please take a strong look at the OpenVoting.org movement headed by an active and dedicated man, Alan Dechert.
They have a live-cd available for download that you can try out their system. If you check this out, please give him constructive criticism and, if possible, a donation.
I am strongly of the opinion that the reason the WH intervened in this recent version of the Holt bill is that the ducks are already lined up for the November election to be stolen, and one of those ducks is electronic voting machines. To someone who is not keeping up with election irregularities across the country and over time, that will sound alarmist. But to anyone who is actually engaged in the efforts that are under way to deal with these problems, that will sound decisive.
I agree with everything that I read in the original post here, as well as in the two responses, with one exception. I strongly suspect that the 2004 election was absolutely stolen. I also strongly suspect that the 2006 midterm election, had it reflected actual voter will, would have been an unprecedented landslide for the democrats, and that the number of house seats secured by democrats as a result of that election, had election results reflected voter will, would have reached a critical number that would have resulted in the current congress not being so namby-pamby. And to go all the way back to the 2000 election, based on everything that I have read and watched and discussed with others, the hanging chad problem was a targeted ploy to subvert the election outcome in Florida, and specifically in Palm Beach County, but ultimately it was a ploy for the electronic voting machine industry to "miraculously" step in and help Congress "save America" from future paper ballot disasters. Alex D. touches on this in his reference to the Dan Rather documentary.
Congress will never be able to dig themselves out from under the ditch they drove into when they allowed the electronic voting machine industry to write HAVA. They're too much on-the-take from these companies. Citizens need to take on this task, and they are. I hope that any efforts that CC takes on re EI will not overlook the good work that's already been done by so many EI advocates all across the country. I won't take the time to post any information about this until I think there's serious interest here.
In some other CC blog posts, I have been struck by comments that reveal that, although the authors of the posts are clearly very intelligent, they are lacking in a lot of the basic knowledge of various aspects of this issue that have already been hashed out, and that are now building blocks upon which the EI movement is basing its current efforts.
So I urge CC members interested in the EI movement to tap into these existing efforts.