Letters to the Editor
-
Use the paper ballot option
If your district - like mine - has gone with the paperless system, don't vote with it. Instead, request a paper ballot. Polling places will have these as a backup to the electronic system, and they are just as valid.
Vote with paper if you don't trust the system!
-
Joseph Stalin said it perfectly:
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
My belief is that if an election can be stolen, it will be stolen. Who, positioned to do so, could refrain? There is only pseudo-democracy in the United States. And who knows, maybe this is a good and necessary thing.
-
optical scan cards
I've always felt good about our system of voting in Santa Cruz county -- we get optical scan cards which we mark by hand, just like on those tests you took in school.
The answers are clearly labeled, so you can see exactly what you're doing, and any count or recount is likely to be a snap, since they can be done either by machine or visually.
Simple and effective.
Those touchscreen machines are downright scary, especially if you know anything about M$ Windows "security." Too many techies who know what they're talking about are suspicious of them, and Diebold seems to have about the credibility of Enron.
So why the rush to embrace this boondoggle, when there are plenty of better solutions? I don't get it.
All I can think of is the mindless assumption that more technology is better. It's downright bizarre.
-
e-voting machines vs slot machines
vaporland writes,
I have worked with information technology for thirty-five years and I trust electronic voting about as much as I trust electronic slot machines.
I trust the electronic slot machines a good deal more -- the slot machines in Vegas are heavily regulated and standardized, and what's more, the operators of the slot machines have an economic incentive to make sure their machines operate fairly (otherwise their casino would get a reputation for being stingy and their customers would go elsewhere). Electronic voting machines have none of those qualities.
The role of computers in elections should be limited to helping you fill out your ballot card, or (optionally) checking your ballot card for errors. They should never be used as storage devices, because they aren't transparent.
-Jeremy
-
Voting irregularities are step 1. Step 2 is ...
I hope I'll be pardoned for promoting my own site here, but unfortunately it's relevant.
We face the prospect of widespread voter fraud next Tuesday. I'm not saying that it will happen, but we all know that it is possible. That means that we also face the prospect of widespread civil unrest next Wednesday if it looks like the election was stolen. Given the polls, if the Democrats don't take the house based on shifty looking results, there is the chance that people will respond as they did in Mexico. (That may not be in our recent national character, but who knows where people's breaking point lies? Certainly Bush and Cheney have been testing the public's limits.)
That's why an overlooked provision of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 -- Section 1076 -- is not only important, but urgently so. This law creates a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act -- the one that prevents the military from being involved in federal law enfocerment -- that you could drive a truck through.
Section 1076 gives the President the right to take over a state's National Guard, over the Governor's objection, and deploy them in that state or another state (without that governor's objection) for the purpose of law enforcement in an emergency -- and the President defines what constitutes an emergency, with the by-now-usual lack of Congressional check on his power. This is, in effect, the unilateral power to declare widespread martial law. And it was done in a last-minute amendment in a conference committee, on the last day before Congress adjourned for elections, without debate.
This is not a conspiracy theory; this law is now in the books and anyone can read and interpret it for themselves. Why the media has ignored it, I don't know. You'll find a link to the bill's text on our website, http://finger2006.com. We can only hope that the President doesn't test this incredible and dangerous new power -- which may include abrogating constitutional rights, confiscating weapons, and who knows what else -- in the wake of public indignation at another apparent election theft. We'll know soon enough.
-
The real culprit is the bedsheet ballot
For some reason, we Americans think it's a great idea to have all our elections at the same time, which is something most other democracies have rejected. The reason the Canadian model one letter-writer commented on works is that elections for Canadian federal parliaments occur separately from all other elections. A voter is given a single sheet of paper on which he or she marks exactly one box, to indicate a choice for the federal parliament, and nothing more. It's pretty hard to make a mistake when you have nothing more to do than that.
In our country, we make sure that we're voting on everything from Congress to the state legislature to ballot initiatives to dogcatcher at the same time. This not only greatly complicates the process of the election, it also complicates the process of designing the ballot (think Palm Beach County butterfly ballot) and the counting of the ballots. It probably also greatly lessens the care with which the bottom of the ballot is filled out.
In the name of democracy, we essentially take away our technical ability to control our government.
-
re: Whoever wins on Election Day, will it be possible for any rational person to look at the results and not at least ...wonder?
Isn't this, at least, a MAD situation - they can hack us, we can hack them - so no one hacks anyone? Unless one believes that Democrats are above cheating, why should Republicans rest easy? Maybe we should get a bi-partisan group of hackers to observe electronic votes around the country - keep an eye on each other so to speak, until we can get a secure electronic voting scheme in place (if that exists). Maybe we should scrap electronic voting, but I don't understand how new technology can be less secure than old - is it not possible to rig the traditional voting machine - pull the lever for A while B gets the tally - all the while the voter walks out of the booth feeling s/he voted for A?
Can we, at this point, trust any election that ever took place?
It's downright scary!