Newspaper logo  
 
 
   Faking Democracy: Americans Don't Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can't Fix That

ANALYSIS:

Diebold's voting tablet-computer
But it's so cute...

Faking Democracy: Americans Don't Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can't Fix That

by Lynn Landes

Machines will produce 99.4% of the election results for the upcoming 2004 presidential election. With all the hoopla over voting machine "glitches," porous software, leaked memos, and the creepy corporations that sell and service these contraptions, and with all the controversy that surrounds campaign financing, voter registration, redistricting issues, and the general privatization of the election process--we are missing the boat on the biggest crisis facing our democracy.

Americans aren't really voting. Machines are. Call it faking democracy.
Think of voting as a three-step process: marking, casting, and counting ballots. Once a machine is involved in any one of those steps, the result is hard evidence of the machine's output--and only circumstantial evidence of the voter's input.
And no one seems to be challenging it. As far as I can tell from my own investigations and from discussions with law professors, attorneys, and others, there has never been a lawsuit that challenges the right of machines to be used in the voting process. Recent lawsuits that have been filed by Susan Marie Webber of California and Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) are based on verification. The plaintiffs want voting machines to produce paper ballots so that voters can verify that the machine's output matched their input. They also want paper ballots for manual audits and recounts.

But these lawsuits, as well as proposed legislation in Congress from Congressman Rush Holt and Senator Bob Graham, leave voting machines in control of election results. The public is being offered a set of false choices--paperless touchscreen voting machines or touchscreen machines with ballot printers. Machine-free elections are not on the menu.

Part of the reason may be that people believe the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires states to use voting machines. It does no such thing, not even for the disabled. Another reason the machine-free option is not widely discussed is the popular misconception that people will not "go back" to paper ballots. But they already have. Absentee voting continues to grow in popularity despite real security problems with the chain of custody of the ballots.

It is particularly confounding to this writer that our foremost legal scholars and political scientists have yet to address this issue. Instead, a bold band of tech-heads are leading a charge against paperless voting machines. But, they are not looking at the broader Constitutional issues. Being technical, they're calling for a technical fix--ballot printers.

The only fix that will give Americans back their constitutional right to vote is to ditch the machines.
The voting process must be transparent in order for voting rights to be enforced. Machines are not transparent, and adding printers won't cure the defect.

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that a "legal vote" is one in which there is a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." Voting machines (lever, optical scan, touchscreen, the Internet, etc.) produce circumstantial evidence of the voter's intent, at best.Think of voting as a three-step process: marking, casting, and counting ballots. Once a machine is involved in any one of those steps, the result is hard evidence of the machine's output and circumstantial evidence of the voter's input.

Many activists are calling for ballot printers, hand counts, and strict audits to ensure honest election results. That will not fix the problem of using voting machines. Voting rights are for people, not machines. The voting process must be transparent in order for voting rights to be enforced. Machines are not transparent.

When voting machines are used, critical parts of the Voting Rights Act can't be enforced. Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.Code §1973f, Federal Observers are authorized to observe "... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated..."

Under "Prohibited acts" in §1973i, the "Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote"...can result in civil and criminal penalties. "No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote...(and) Whoever...knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five year, or both."

Voting machines violate those provisions. Vote casting and tabulation take place inside of a box. Federal Observers can't observe "... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast ...are being properly tabulated.." Voting machines by their very design conceal a material fact.

Although Susan Marie Webber and Congressman Wexler are suing to force states to require manufacturers to attach ballot printers to voting machines, the resulting ballot would still be only circumstantial evidence of the voter's intent. It's been predicted by election officials (and it makes common sense, to boot) that many voters won't bother to verify their ballots. In which case, who is to say if the vote cast matched the voter's intent? Some will say that it's the voter's responsibility to verify their ballot, but that view misses the point. Why should people verify the work of a machine? That places the voter in the position of playing second fiddle to technology. Whose right to vote is it?

The contention that voters too often don't fill out ballots properly or the elections officials too often don't count correctly is not borne out by the facts, but is moot, regardless. Again, the right to vote and to observe your vote counted properly belongs to people, not machines.

Consideration of time and convenience is another red herring in this debate. Those issues have simple no-tech solutions, anyway. If officials want a fast ballot count then they can limit the size of the voting precincts or increase the number of election officials. If more elections officials are needed they can be drafted into public service as is done all year around for jury duty. Likewise, voters who don't understand English could order ballots in their own language in advance of an election.

Voting machines have been marketed as 'assisting voters' (i.e., President Bush's Elections Assistance Committee), rather than what they really do, which is to interfere with a citizen's right to vote. It's particularly galling to see the needs of the disabled voters used to force voting machines down the throats of the electorate. The simple ballot template, which is used in Rhode Island, Canada, and around the world, allows the blind to vote privately and independently, or as independently as possible. Actually, when the disabled use voting machines they certainly are not voting independently. They are relying on the machine to vote for them, just like able-bodied voters.

It's insane when you think about it. Using machines in elections. Yet, we've been doing it since 1888. How can Americans be so naive? How can we surrender our precious right to vote to some hunk of junk? How can it be that so few people seem to notice or to care? How can we call ourselves a democracy?

It is painful to think that as African Americans intensified their struggle for the vote in the 1960's, voting machines were already in widespread use and perfectly positioned to control election results, and, according to some accounts, were already doing so. Can you imagine how the Iraqi people would react if the U.S. government told them that their elections will be electronic and that Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, and Microsoft will provide the machines and the software they run on? Exactly. The Iraqis would burn the place down, some more.

Yet here we Americans go again. Not connecting the dots. Shooting at the wrong target. Attaching printer machines to the voting machines that don't belong there in the first place. Asking voters to verify a machine's output, leaving the voter's input indirect and in doubt.

I wonder what the United Nations think about a country that fakes democracy? They probably already know.


Lynn Landes is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues. Readers can find her articles at EcoTalk.org. Lynn is a former news reporter for DUTV and commentator for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Contact info: lynnlandes@earthlink.net / (215) 629-3553.



Copyright © 2004 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on April 16, 2004.
  
Local Gov’t Stories, Events

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Futurism
Books, Films, Arts & Education

07.21 Defending Public Schools, Demonstrators Greet Betsy DeVos at ALEC Annual Meeting

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

07.24 Companies Rush to Develop ‘Utterly Transformative’ Gene Therapies

07.23 Possible nuclear fuel find raises hopes of Fukushima plant breakthrough [0:37 video]

07.22 Farmworkers Protest EPA’s Pesticide Ruling

07.22 Al Gore Breaks With Democratic Party Leadership to Support Single-Payer Healthcare

07.22 California lawmakers extend program to cut emissions in bipartisan vote

07.22 Dirty coal to dirty politics: everything is connected through a malformed political economy

07.19 Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill [4:26 video]

News Media Matters

07.18 How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

07.24 Democrats Bet on a Populist Message to Win Back Congress [Monopolies and price-fixing have to be stopped! Americans can no longer afford to pay twice-as-much for health-care, cable, cellphone and broadband.]

07.24 Mississippi Nissan workers hope for historic win in 14-year fight to unionize

07.24 A chat with Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders and Al Gore on solving the climate crisis

07.23 Message to Democrats: Get on Board With Medicare For All or Go Home [its about coverage and efficiency, not choice of plans among highest-profit companies with high deductibles]

07.23 Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition [5:58 video]

07.23 CBO: Under the latest Senate healthcare bill, deductibles could be more than some people earn

07.23 CBO Finds Growing, Harmful Impact of Senate GOP Bill’s Medicaid Per Capita Cap

07.23 How our Intel Agencies Screwed us by Letting Sessions, Trumpies get away with Russia Scheme [15:35 video]

07.23 Tracking Trump: Russia scandal deepens while healthcare flatlines

07.23 Republicans face two unpalatable options on replacement healthcare bill

07.22 The Democrats' performance as an opposition party? Pathetic

Justice Matters

07.24 Jared Kushner sealed Manhattan real estate deal with oligarch's firm cited in money-laundering case

High Crimes?

07.22 UN warned not to whitewash 'grave violations against children' in Yemen

Economics, Crony Capitalism

07.24 Saving Illinois: Getting More Bang for the State’s Bucks

07.20 Asia's coal-fired power boom 'bankrolled by foreign governments and banks' [after being warned by the World Bank against building new coal burning coal power plants—as their use may soon become illegal, will the public be forced to pay-off such stupid loans?]

07.19 A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy [treason is much too kind a word for this]

International & Futurism

07.22 From Paragon To Pariah: How Kaczynski Is Driving Poland Away from Europe

07.22 'People are getting poorer': hunger and homelessness as Brazil crisis deepens

07.22 How Trump signed a global death warrant for women

07.22 One by One, Marry-Your-Rapist Laws Are Falling in the Middle East

07.21 Mondialists, unite! The forgotten story of a global pacifist movement

07.20 U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel [Israel is quilty of war crimes over decades against Palestinians, but let's just ignore that...]

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web

Public Service Ads: