April 16, 2004
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.
More....
(external link to Baltimore Chronicle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
|
