An article in today’s NY Times finally brings us some good news with respect to voting machines, new federal guidelines and legislation that has been blocked for two years. Even though it is not part of Nancy Pelosi’s 100 hour plan, there are potentially good things on the horizon which could go a long way towards ending the short but disastrous experiment in partisan run and funded, highly hackable and unreliable, non verifiable voting machines.
There is some pushback, as expected. For example, we have this little nugget of irony with respect to the proposals:
And the voting machine companies say they will argue against making the software code completely public, partly out of concern about making the system more vulnerable to hackers.
—snip—
Computer experts and voting rights groups have long advocated such openness, arguing that the code is too important to be kept secret and would allow programmers to check for bugs and the potential for hacking. But manufacturers are resistant. Michelle Shafer, a vice president at Sequoia Voting Systems, said that while the industry was willing to give the source code to state and federal officials, “we feel that just putting it out there would give it to people with an intent to do something malicious or harmful.”
Concern for making it more vulnerable to hackers….(insert sound of head smacking into wall here).
But there is some real concern – albeit in the way of how this will be funded after the Screw American Voters Act Help America Vote Act mandates cost state and local governments millions of dollars to transform their voting systems to those aforementioned partisan hackable unreliable machines a few short years ago. For example, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)’s bill would provide federal aid of approximately $150 million to help states and localities make the switch to non-touch screen machines that have paper trails. However, this may still not be enough money for governments to make the switch after investing millions over the past few years for crappy machines that have proven to be a complete disaster.
In Maryland, legislators say they plan to replace the more than $70 million worth of touch-screen machines the state began buying in 2002 with paper optical scanners, which officials estimate could cost $20 million.
Voters in Sarasota, Fla., where the results of a Congressional race recorded on touch-screen machines are being contested in court, passed a ballot initiative last month to make the same change, at an estimated cost of $3 million. Last year, New Mexico spent $14 million to replace its touch screens. Other states are spending millions more to retrofit the machines to add paper trails.
New York has been slow to replace its old lever voting machines, and the state has required counties to buy screens with printers or optical scanners. New Jersey has passed a law requiring its counties to switch to machines with paper trails by 2008, and Connecticut is buying machines that can scan paper ballots.
—snip—
Because some printers malfunctioned last month, election commissioners in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes Cleveland, said last week that they were considering scrapping their new $17 million system of touch-screen machines and starting over with optical scanning devices.
One of the biggest changes that will be part of legislation is in the area of the computer software code. Holt’s bill (much to the chagrin of Sequoia or Diebold) will require that the source code be made public. This goes further than the initial ideas of making the code open for inspection by federal authorities (in addition to more federal oversight at the polls with respect to testing). While I am skeptical about “federal oversight”, we know all too well about the way that machines were tested (look no further than Georgia in 2002 or the Ohio “recount” in 2004 to see how great it was when the private companies had control over the machines).
Of course, there is still a lot to do – the bill has to pass the House (it already has over 220 co-sponsors), and while Senator Feinstein plans on introducing a similar bill in the Senate early in January, there is also the small matter of President whiny petulant poopy-pants vetoing a bill that will make it tougher for fraud and hacking of the vote. Not only that, but there are still many many ways to disenfranchise or suppress the vote – whether it is the illegal robocalls (which legislation in a few states will outlaw), or dirty tricks as we saw in Virginia and other states, or tampering with voter registrations, or any of the other patriotic acts we saw in 2002, 2004 and 2006.
Additionally, there are still some states that have not yet made or are hesitant to make changes, and there is a long way to go before we know that our votes will be counted, counted fully, counted fairly, and counted accurately. But at least it is a start and is some welcome news for a country that holds itself out as a “beacon of democracy”, while not even being able to have an election that meets the criteria of the Carter Center regarding election integrity.
also in orange
Nothing more to add here, clammyc, aside of this little nugget from Harris County, TX county clerk Beverly Kaufman which, given the dire magnitude of the problem, strikes me as an amusing caution:
The supposition being, I guess, that the proper remedy for highly uncertain electronic methods would involve the use of beans.
I know – that was just a ridiculously stupid quote.
I enjoy your wit.
Update on the Congressional 13th in Florida:
Jennings was in Washington this past week (that link also features a link to her 12/07/06 press conference). She is not trying to see Pelosi, rather huddling with Florida congresspeople who will then press the matter up the political ladder. She has until December 20 to contest the election results officially with Congress. However, she hopes first for a resolution through the courts.
The undervote of 18,000 is simply too much to ignore, although that is exactly what Vern Buchanan, the Republican (and adamant pro-lifer) is doing. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that its analysis places some blame on ballot design, as — contrary to the usual undervoting experience — the undervotes came from people who were loyal to the party, and looked for “REP” and “DEM” to mark their votes on the touch screen. The 13th Congressional race was sandwiched on the same screen between the senate and the gubernatorial races, so the “REP” and “DEM” were not nearly so visible.
The same thing happened in Charlotte and Sumter counties, where substantial undervoting occurred in the state attorney general race, and those happened to be packaged with a big block of text regarding the gubernatorial candidates.
Ballot design is not something the auditors have considered.
Ironically, some of the biggest opponents of Holt’s bill as it stands now are election activists. His 2% audit is not nearly enough to detect even fairly widespread fraud – it’s just not a big enough sample in most states, althought it would be pretty good in my several-states-big state of California.
In addition, Holt’s bill advocates putting federally contracted private vendors in charge of auditing our vote. Isn’t that where we came in? Protesting private vendors playing with our vote?
There needs to be a way to engage citizens more directly in not only the casting, but counting, of our votes.
And there needs to be both a vertical and a horizontal audit. Holt proposes a vertical audit, which is a great apples-to-apples vote. Holt’s bill asks that 2% of all precincts in each state be counted IN FULL, BY HAND, ON PAPER. Great. If you sampled a corrupted precinct, you’d have 100% chance of catching fraud or error there.
But if you live in Nevada, or Hawaii, or another state that doesn’t have as many voters as California, what if you randomly do not select any of the actually fraudulent precincts? You’d think the election had been flawless.
So many activists want a horizontal audit as well – a mandatory recount of, say, 5% of all the votes in EVERY precinct in each state. Now, that wouldn’t give you a 100% chance of catching fraud or error anywhere, but it might flag the potential for fraud, after which more vertical audits could be performed.
The key to all of this is threefold:
Holt’s bill will not pass THIS session. And he’ll have to reintroduce it in a new form next session. Press for the things not in the bill to be included so that voting activists can also now get behind his bill.
Thanks for reading this – didn’t mean to get so long, but this is so important.
I, for one, greatly appreciate your extended comments!
Thanks, and I love your handle. In which wilderness are you a wench, pray tell?