Slashdot Mirror
From the Trenches of Electronic Voting
Avi Rubin, an expert on electronic voting systems, worked as a judge in two elections in 2004, and he worked the chaotic Maryland primary election yesterday. His blog article about a day spent with Diebold voting machines gives impressions from the trenches of electronic voting. From the article: "The least pleasant part of the day was a nagging concern that something would go terribly wrong, and that we would have no way to recover. I believe that fully electronic systems, such as the precinct we had today, are too fragile. The smallest thing can lead to a disaster... I can't imagine basing the success of an election on something so fragile as these terrible, buggy machines... As far as I'm concerned, the 'tamper tape' does very little in the way of actual security... I hope that we got it right in my precinct, but I know that there is no way to know for sure. We cannot do recounts."
Yes, in theory you could contact everyone. Why didn't they just do that in Florida? (that's mean, I'm sorry)
Without a physcial paper trail, which I hope could be verified by the voter, recounts would take a VERY long time.
Furthermore, even if you could reliably contact each person, who is to say they are going to tell you the truth? They may have voted for X, but once questioned can't remember and just say Y. That is why you have one chance to vote, no take-backs.
Finally, without a physcial, voter-verified paper trail; the software could invalidate an entire election. With the software controlling every part of the voting system, even the backup (if it is only electronic) one bug and the whole vote must be done over. With a user-verified, paper copy; even if the software screws up, it is the users fault for not checking the paper backup, and their vote is their vote.
Final note, really this time. If you give someone a reasonably simple voting mechanism, and they screw it up, that's ok. If you give them a reasonably simple, electronic voting mechanism, and it screws up, there goes the democracy.
The current difficulties with touch-screen voting are really just a 21st-Century continuation of the fine, American tradition of rigging elections. It's been going on for most of the time the United States has existed; the only difference being that it is much harder to be able to prove it's been happening and even harder to get a court to hear the matter. To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: "It's not who votes that matters, it's who counts the votes that matters". The argument over voting goes all the way back to founding of the nation. Many of the original framers of the Constitution felt that the populace should be prevented from engaging in free and fair elections; that the voices of the governed should be muted if heard at all and public sway of government policy should be kept to the absolute minimum. Hence the reason for the foundation of the Electoral College.
Voting has always been a class struggle. The democratic revolutionaries of the 18th Century were treated with much of the same disgust as any populist movement: the labor agitators or the original communist revolutionaries (I mean true communists, not totalitarianists, who simply re-instated a class system within a supposedly "communist" structure). Ruling minorities have always feared the "unwashed masses" would start considering self-governance. That very difference of philosophy forms the fundamental difference between "liberal" and "conservative" and the argument has gone on for centuries. For example: Martin Luther's proposed democratization of Christianity; the democratic revolutions in America and France; the anti-slavery movement; the labor movement; socalist & communist revolutionaries -- all sprouted out of the desire of the governed to have a say in their governance (if not do away with ruling classes entirely) and demand a greater share of the profits of their labor. Against which, of course, the ruling classes have fought with tooth & nail, sword & musket. And now, electronic voting machine. The rulers learned their lessons well: force is met with force, but if the masses are taught to believe they have a say in their governance, they'll tolerate all manner of injustice.
The various populist movements in the United States made strides in circumventing the barriers placed between the governors and the governed. By the 20th Century, the most egregious forms of vote fraud had been minimized--though not totally eliminated. Unfortunately, thanks to Diebold, Sequoia and others, those achievements have all been discarded. We have to simply "trust" that these ultra-conservative businesses will count the votes accurately -- even when those votes are in direct opposition to their corporate agendas. In other words, we can't trust them. The first instances of massive voting fraud via touch-screen electronics occurred in 2002, and the lawsuits over those fraud cases are *still* tied up in courts. Furthermore, now that the Bush Administration, with full complicity of the GOP-dominated Congress has stacked the State Supreme & Federal Circuit Courts with hard-right partisans who basically adhere to Machiavellian ethics (the ends justify the means), I'll be surprised if this debacle can actually get the judicious consideration it deserves.
America: Land of the Free Market and Home of the Brave Investor. Our "Democracy" is a sham and always has been.
We're being set up again. This time, whether through incompetence or fraud or a combination of the two, many elections will be found to be invalid. With that being given, the Supreme Court will have little choice but to declare that the encumbents, "fairly selected" in a prior election, must continue to serve until the law suits are settled. That might be for one or possibly several more terms. Be prepared for several more years of shenanigans by the usual suspects.
I wonder if this could backfire on the perpetrators that are hiding in plain sight. If the RICO Act were found to be applicable against the scoundrels that I'm suspecting, we could end up with a ruling that the most recently elected officials from an untainted election will be recalled to serve in office. Given that, We could end up with Bill Clinton back in the White House much to the chagrin of those who desperately want to remain in power and keep the country's money flowing into the hands of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.