Get It Right, Dammit!
After eight years, we still don't have a secure voting system. At least back in 2000 we just had hanging chads to worry about, but now we don't even have a ballot to examine because of the rush to unverifiable electronic voting. Senators Dianne Feinstein ("D"-California) and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) have introduced a bill which purports to 'fix' the problems of voting machines but does nothing to instill any confidence in our election process, as this editorial in today's NY Times makes clear.
... A good law would require that every vote in a federal election produce a voter-verifiable paper record, and it would mandate that the paper records be the official ballots. It would impose careful standards for how these paper ballots must be “audited,” to verify that the tallies on the electronic machines are correct.
The Feinstein-Bennett bill does none of these. It would permit states to verify electronic voting machines’ results using electronic records rather than paper. Verifying by electronic records — having one piece of software attest that another piece of software is honest — is not verifying at all. The bill is also vague about rules for audits, leaving considerable room for mischief. The timeline also is unacceptable. States might be able to use unreliable machines through 2014 or longer.
This bill goes out of its way to placate voting machine manufacturers and local election officials, two groups that have consistently been on the wrong side of electronic voting integrity. Reform groups like Verified Voting, which have done critical work in the states, say they were not allowed to provide input. [Emphasis added]
As the editorial points out, the states have had to do the heavy lifting on the verifiable paper ballots and over half of them have passed laws regarding electronic voting which can be trusted. Over half, but not all. This bill would undo that hard work and essentially leave things as they are, with hackable software and no way to verify the actual vote. This is unacceptable in a nation which keeps on insisting on free and fair elections in the rest of the world.
What is Congress afraid of? Real elections? That's what it looks like to me.
Evildoers.
... A good law would require that every vote in a federal election produce a voter-verifiable paper record, and it would mandate that the paper records be the official ballots. It would impose careful standards for how these paper ballots must be “audited,” to verify that the tallies on the electronic machines are correct.
The Feinstein-Bennett bill does none of these. It would permit states to verify electronic voting machines’ results using electronic records rather than paper. Verifying by electronic records — having one piece of software attest that another piece of software is honest — is not verifying at all. The bill is also vague about rules for audits, leaving considerable room for mischief. The timeline also is unacceptable. States might be able to use unreliable machines through 2014 or longer.
This bill goes out of its way to placate voting machine manufacturers and local election officials, two groups that have consistently been on the wrong side of electronic voting integrity. Reform groups like Verified Voting, which have done critical work in the states, say they were not allowed to provide input. [Emphasis added]
As the editorial points out, the states have had to do the heavy lifting on the verifiable paper ballots and over half of them have passed laws regarding electronic voting which can be trusted. Over half, but not all. This bill would undo that hard work and essentially leave things as they are, with hackable software and no way to verify the actual vote. This is unacceptable in a nation which keeps on insisting on free and fair elections in the rest of the world.
What is Congress afraid of? Real elections? That's what it looks like to me.
Evildoers.
Labels: Elections, Voter Fraud, Voting Machines
posted by Diane at 3:54 AM
2 Comments:
We got rid of the E-voting a not-so-long while ago, although I must admit the administration tried to postpone the inevitable as long as possible.
The problem in FL in 2000 wasn't hanging chads, it was mass voter disenfranchisement. The NAACP won a lawsuit over this, but still nothing has been done. The democrats didn't pursue this, possibly because it fit in so well with the long term effects of the kennedy/biden powder vs. crack cocaine laws: to remove blacks from the voting roles. Yes, I realize the last statement is inflammatory, but when the effects of these laws have been so starkly demonstrated, and still nothing is done about them, then a logical assumption is that the laws are in fact doing what they were intended to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home