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

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

03.24 How Corruption Fuels Climate Change

03.24 ‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

03.24 A river of rubbish: the ugly secret threatening China's most beautiful city

03.24 Europe poised for total ban on bee-harming pesticides

03.23 Daily Reads: World Enters ‘Uncharted Territory’ on Climate; Manafort and the Oligarch

03.23 Two Ohio coal-fired plants to close, deepening industry decline [hurrah!]

03.23 Exclusive: Lead poisoning afflicts neighborhoods across California

03.22 Dozens of Mich. water systems top Snyder’s lead limit

03.22 Carbon fibre: the wonder material with a dirty secret [making solid-state carbon products removes carbon from the atmoshere, diminishing CO2 as a warming factor]

03.22 Coal in 'freefall' as new power plants dive by two-thirds

03.22 World Water Day: one in four children will live with water scarcity by 2040 [watch and learn: "conservatives around the world will fight public water projects to support privatization and for-profit (mafia-like?) "solutions"]

03.20 Tensions rising as Chinese no longer willing to hold their breath on pollution problems

03.20 Medicare for All should replace Obamacare: Column

03.20 Atlantic City and Miami Beach: two takes on tackling the rising waters

03.19 Why I think there's still hope for the climate in 2017

03.19 19 House Republicans call on their party to do something about climate change

03.19 Elon Musk, meet Port Augusta: four renewable energy projects ready to go

03.19 Humans may have transformed the Sahara from lush paradise to barren desert

03.19 The eco guide to mainstream organics

03.19 The climate change battle dividing Trump’s America

News Media Matters

03.24 When lower regulations meet high-caliber reporting

03.23 The Media Should Become a True Opposition Party

03.20 Google braces for questions as more big-name firms pull adverts [practice confers unmerited legitimacy to extremist videos]

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

03.24 Does It Matter Who Pulls the Trigger in the Drone Wars?

03.24 How the Donald Came to Rule

03.24 Healthcare bill hangs in balance as Republicans agonise over Trump's vote gamble [cross your fingers and make a wish]

03.24 Senate Democrats pledge to block Neil Gorsuch's supreme court nomination

03.23 Has the Trump Budget Blown Republicans’ Cover? [an immoral focus]

03.23 Predator Colleges May Thrive Again

03.23 ‘There’s a Smell of Treason in the Air’

03.23 AHCA would cost Americans roughly $33 billion a year in higher out-of-pocket costs by 2026

03.23 GOP’s Health Plan: Tracking Key Changes One Amendment at a Time

03.23 Citing FBI Probe of Trump, Democrats Told to 'Declare National Emergency'

03.23 Two Months In, Trump Breaking Every Vow to 'Drain the Swamp': Report

03.23 Trump’s Spending Cuts Would Create the Black America He’s Been Talking About [an immoral focus]

03.23 House GOP’s Proposed "Fix" for Health Bill Prioritizes Tax Cuts for Richest

03.23 Trump-Russia inquiry in 'grave doubt' after GOP chair briefs White House [0:56 video]

03.22 The smug style in American liberalism: It’s not helping, folks — but there’s a better way

03.22 President Trump and the Crisis of Governance

03.22 Dakota Access pipeline: ING sells stake in major victory for divestment push

03.22 US diplomacy in crisis amid cuts and confusion at state department

03.22 I was sent Donald Trump's 2005 tax return. We need the rest – right now

Justice Matters

03.24 TRUMP’S RUSSIA PROBLEM IS FAR FROM MARGINAL

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

03.23 Bank that lent $300m to Trump linked to Russian money laundering scam

03.23 What's In President Trump's Tax Returns?

03.22 Oil theft 'provides billions for terrorists and drug cartels'

03.21 Forbes billionaire list: Trump loses $1bn as elite club gets 233 new members [how're YOU doin?]

03.21 British banks handled vast sums of laundered Russian money [video]

03.19 Why transaction laundering is turning into a huge financial blindspot [what happens when bad actors–usually Republicans–weaken or stop effective regulations to avoid taxes]

International

03.24 The Coming Ban on Nuclear Weapons

03.24 Trump's weekly list of 'immigrant crimes' is as sinister as it sounds

03.24 Outrage as Belarus arrests authors, publishers and journalists in crackdown

03.24 The Guardian view on UK’s tax havens: British laws or your own

03.22 Resisting the Siren Song: Stopping the Advance of the Right-Wing Populists

03.22 Myths of Migration: Much of What We Think We Know Is Wrong

03.21 Paul Manafort, Former Trump Campaign Chief, Faces New Allegations in Ukraine [birds of a feather...]

03.21 Rex Tillerson will miss Nato talks for China meeting and visit to Russia – reports

03.20 UN asks UK to suspend work on Hinkley Point [why allow the potential of a Fukushima catastrophe?]

03.20 Norway ousts Denmark as world's happiest country – UN report

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: