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

04.23 US business schools failing on climate change

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

04.25 Pollution From Canada’s Oil Sands May Be Underreported

04.25 High court orders UK government to explain clean air plan delay

04.25 Matt Damon: ‘Children are drinking water so dirty it looks like chocolate milk’

04.24 Disney, the Gap and Pepsi urged to quit US Chamber of Commerce ["Its a small world after all..." – Disney]

04.24 Why we joined the March for Science

04.23 The trees that make Southern California shady and green are dying. Fast. [video]

04.23 March for Science puts Earth Day focus on global opposition to Trump [videos]

04.22 Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Threat of Science Denial [4 videos]

04.22 These Images Carry a Dire Warning About Climate Change

04.22 Nearly 40 million people live in UK areas with illegal air pollution [rather than maximizing profit from fossil fuels, better policy embracing science could dramatically improve life on earth]

04.22 Bill Nye the Science Guy on Trump: 'We are in a dangerous place' [we need the opposite of Trump to advance the country and world]

04.22 Electric flying car that takes off vertically could be future of transport [videos; new solid-state lithium battery technolgy—led? by Dr. Goodenough—may double performance and recharge speed while eliminating risk of lithium battery fire]

04.22 Global 'March for Science' protests call for action on climate change

04.21 Sale Of Seawater Desalination Technology In China

04.21 Britain set for first coal-free day since the industrial revolution [Hurrah!]

04.20 How to Stop Drug Price Gouging [and why hasn't the U.S. Government done this?]

04.20 East Chicago Needs More than "Basics" from Scott Pruitt's EPA

04.20 The Monsanto Tribunal’s Legal Opinion Reinforces Movements’ Struggle for Basic Human Rights

04.20 Pollution is killing our children. Here’s how we can save them

News Media Matters

04.25 The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

04.25 The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment

04.25 Can Donald Trump better renegotiate Nafta? Yes, by bringing back TPP04.25 Trump signals delay on border wall funding to avoid government shutdown

04.25 Would Trump supporters elect him again now?

04.25 There’s no such thing as a blue or red state. Let’s talk about real life instead

04.24 Donald Trump Has Made Socialism Cool Again

04.24 Nearing 100 Days In, Trump is Least Popular President in Modern History

04.24 Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.

04.23 Trump’s Organized Crime Ties Bring Blackmail to the White House

04.23 Trump: 100 days that shook the world – and the activists fighting back

Justice Matters
High Crimes?

04.25 The Palestine Exception

Economics, Crony Capitalism

04.25 The Right’s Green Awakening

04.25 Trump's Corporate Takeover Detailed 100 Days into 'For-Profit Presidency'

04.23 Elizabeth Warren on Big Banks and Their (Cozy Bedmate) Regulators

04.23 The evidence is piling up — Silicon Valley is being destroyed

04.22 THE REAL TRUMP AGENDA: HELPING BIG BUSINESS

04.22 In Latest Populist Betrayal, Trump Executive Order Unchains Wall Street Greed [misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance]

International

04.25 Two wildlife rangers killed by poachers in Democratic Republic of the Congo

04.25 Ontario plans to launch universal basic income trial run this summer

04.24 Life in Africa’s Last Colony

04.24 Trump push for border wall threatens to cause government shutdown [since inexpensive electric flying cars are about to be sold, building any wall is just stupid]

04.24 Chinese leader urges restraint over North Korea in call with Trump

04.24 Trump Thinks This Is Pro-Life?

04.24 How France Voted

04.24 Asking for Trouble on Iran

04.23 The Observer view on the French presidential election

04.23 French election 2017: voters go to the polls in wide-open contest [videos]

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: