It is time for a constitutional amendment regarding electronic voting

[In Truth We Trust]

I believe we should banish all digital technology from the American voting process and model ourselves after whatever is known to be the most transparent and fraud proof system.

Before I reinvent the wheel are there any progressive groups out there already working towards this goal?

Secondly, if you believe this has merit and would support it please kick it and provide any worthwhile insights.

Thank you

[bryant69]

1. It's worth discussing

I'm not sure banning all digital technology is the way to go--the optical scanners are probably the best right now, and they are in fact digitally based. The punch cards caused a ton of problems, particularly with under or over voting (the punch doesn't go all the way through) and they are the big non-digital solution.

If you specifically mean touch screens, well even there I'm not sure banning them is the right idea. There are a lot of advnatages to touch screens, particularly in that they are easy to use for people who have a hard time using. The problem is that they don't have a paper trail and aren't very transperent--both are easily fixed, if we want to invest in the system.

At any rate, I wouldn't focus on banning any type of system, but encourage increasing the paper trail and transparency so that it can be verified.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[In Truth We Trust]

2. my concern regarding digital is simply this: by definition they are

not fool proof. For example say candidate a actually wins an election however candidate b is able to hack the results to such a degree or margin that the recount laws do not kick in.

There are countries in Europe like Switzerland, Germany etc. that use only the papwer ballot and have many volunteers from each party to oversee the process.

where ther is potential to manipulate there will be manipulation.

[bryant69]

6. You put in a verification system

I mean what's to stop Republican Ron from grabbing the ballots from Democratic District D and "accidently" shredding them? Just cause it's on paper doesn't make it fool proof.

There are systems that can be put in place to protect in either case.

[Egalitariat]

20. There is no such thing as "fool-proof"

Fool proof, to me, means that even a fool couldn't screw it up.

I've lived in Florida my whole life, and I've voted in some precincts that included some very primitive voting technology. These technologies, to me, seemed like it would take a blooming idiot to screw it up.

In the 2000 election, I learned that there are a LOT of blooming idiots.

There's no such thing as fool-proof when it comes to election technology.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Any commercial

profit-making from technology should be eliminated from the equation. This would obviously not include pencil-makers and stationers. You have farcical problems with partisan interests interfering in your elections. If you don't believe me, believe Mr O'Dell. Stone-age technology is difficult to hack, even with custom-designed, stone chisels.

Elections should also be run on a federal basis by a federal body, employing non-local federal employees. These are minimal requirements.

[bryant69]

10. So the people who make the machines

Shouldn't be allowed to make any money? You understand this is a capitalist system. I'm not sure exactly how this works.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. What

machines? Fred Flintstone's handsome drag was a bit of poetic licence, wasn't it?

Profit-making and elections need to be kept as far apart as humanly possible. Particularly in a capitalist society, since by definition, it gives precedence to capital over the ordinary members of the society. Mind you, ultra-capitalism's champions claim that it is for the people's own good, anyway - even if they are "downsized". All but Adam Smith, their putative guru, anyway. He stressed how important it was to keep businessmen out of government.

[In Truth We Trust]

16. great point couldn't agree more

[stellanoir]

3. The problem lies only in part

with the horrific insecurity of both the hardware and software of these nefarious devices. It also lies with the secretive and partisan control of the manufacturing, programming, and performance of the machines and also their control of the tallying of the votes. Partisan certification of these machines is also a huge issue.

Felons can't vote, but oddly enough, they can have high profile positions in Corporations that manufacture voting machines.

Consider checking this site out. . .

http://www.chuckherrin.com/main.htm

Look at the FAQ & Hack the Vote links.

Oh and he's a Repuplican by the way.

[Omaha Steve]

4. I'll vote for it,...

but it might not get counted.

[w4rma]

5. This fight will have to be fought at the state level and locally. (nt)

[H2O Man]

8. It's an important issue

but not in the realm of requiring a constitutional amendment.

[immoderate]

17. Yeah! Forget amendments.

It would be wrong.

--IRR

[H2O Man]

21. It's already covered.

It is a matter of showing beyond doubt that there are wide-spread problems that by their nature exclude groups and individuals from voting in a systematic way. The issue falls into courts, where there is plenty of procedural case law.

The thinking that it requires a constitutional amendment -- or that this would ever happen -- shows a lack of knowledge about the law and about the constitution.

[immoderate]

22. Uh--You mean "equal protection"?

--IMM

[H2O Man]

28. Uh -- read the constitution

then get back to me.

[immoderate]

31. OK I read the constitution.

So now what do you mean? Where is the issue of electronic voting "already covered'?

--IMM

[H2O Man]

32. two possibilities:

{1} You didn't read it closely enough; or {2} You didn't understand it. The best bet would be to enroll in an introductory course at a local community college.

[immoderate]

33. Sorry that you can't clarify what you mean

I suggest you {1} take a course in written communication {2}lose the attitude.

--IMM

[H2O Man]

34. Here's something simple

for you to start with: become familiar with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Rather than trying to be witty, learn how the system works. I am not obligated to explain it to you. When you try to insult me with your little digs, and you don't have a clue how the system works, it decreases the chances that I'll assist you in understanding that the Constitution already addresses this -- though not in specific terms about today's technology -- and that there is ample law already on the books, to fully address the serious concerns involved.

I have no need to take a course that would improve my ability to communicate about the Constitution to people that can read it but just not get it. I don't own the problem. And your opinion of my "attitude" means nothing to me. Focus on yourself. There is no excuse for being ignorant about how the federal laws work, including the potential for protecting the rights of all Americans to vote, and have their votes counted. More than enough information is available at your local library. Anything worth doing, and really doing right, takes a lot of effort. That includes research.

Do you have even the slightest idea of what the 1965 Voting Rights Act was about, and how it came about? Its relationship to hundreds of small, "isolated" cases around the country, though actually concentrated in the same states that today are "red"? Have you ever gone to a law library, and read about the federal cases involving voting rights? Or do you think someone else should do it, then provide it for you?

Don't lose your attitude. Channel it.

[immoderate]

35. I posted my opposition to an amendment

You answered it.

You said it's covered in the Constitution. Now you say it's the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

It remains to be seen who was trying to be insulting.

"Anything worth doing, and really doing right, takes a lot of effort."

Does that apply to answering a simple question? You could have just answered my question. Instead you chose to "show off."

If you don't want to be helpful, don't respond to my posts.

--IMM

[H2O Man]

37. I'm guessing that you

are not any more familiar with the 1965 case as with the Constitution. Please be assured I have no need to show off for you. If you find it offensive that I suggest you take a course to learn more about the Constitution, or say that you might benefit from going to a library, then perhaps you are on some form of hot seat by your own choice. No one who has a serious understanding of these issues got it from an internet discussion forum.

Read about what the law intended to do in '65. I'm being very serious. It didn't just happen. It is not separate from the Constitution. I would suggest that you start with a good book on Martin Luther King, Jr; one on Robery Kennedy; and one on LBJ. Go to the chapters on the '65 VRA. Compare what each of the three had as motivation, and of goals. Remember, there were already a series of local laws that were intended to help black folks vote, most of which were manipulated to do the exact opposite. There were also some laws that were clearly intended to deny blacks the ability to access the voting booth.

The VRA put the Constitutional intent into federal law. That should be the goal here. It can actually be accomplished in a fraction of the time that a constitutional amendment -- even if warrented -- could possibly be done. The goal should be results. There is not time to waste in calling for things that can not possibly happen at this point in time.

Below here I posted a couple suggestions on steps that serious people could take.

[Eloriel]

26. But a Right to Vote Amendment IS n/t

[Celeborn Skywalker]

9. Kick!

:kick:

[quiet.american]

12. With Repugs in control, how?

Totally agree, but the first thing that comes to mind is, how?

How to get this kind of legislation passed when the criminals who are responsible for the corruption caused by these machines are in charge of the very branches of government which would be repsonsible for reforming this corruption?

[Cleita]

13. Yeah, I'm with you.

For anyone who knows how to do it, we should circulate petitions and give them to our Congressional Representatives and Senators whether or not they are Democrats or Republicans. This is non-partisan and should concern all parties. In this way if there is a nationwide push by the citizenry to do so, they will have to sit up and notice so that it is put on the calendar for debate. However, even if both houses pass such a law, remember Bushie can and will veto such a law. It's worth a try though.

[In Truth We Trust]

15. thanks cleita i'm glad you agree

[Cleita]

14. Kick

:kick:

[taps]

18. Dishonest people will find a way

To jack with the count no matter how its made. I think we need to have a reputable company do all the machines however and have both sides work to make sure it can't be tampered with.

[Catchawave]

19. Why not start a DU group on this matter?

I'm very interested in campaign and election reform, primarily getting rid of the Electoral College.

I'd like to see a universal voting system, especially one that favors Dems <wink, wink>.

Sorta waiting for the current "voting irregularities" people to finish their investigations, and hopefully make it clearer where we should go from there findings.

[In Truth We Trust]

25. I would certainly do what I can to further the process and what better

place to start than DU. I would agree that with a definitive analysis of ALL the problems and with more public awareness we won't have too much difficulty in gathering signatures to place the issue on all states ballots.

I would prefer however that it be a progrssive proposal and not one by the regressives who see the writing on the wall and usurp the public debate and put forth a bogus act like HAVA

[H2O Man]

36. While DU might be a good

place to start, it would be a poor place to drop anchor, if you are serious.

The most important question you need to ask yourself is: how far are you willing to go?

If you want to make a change in the system, study it closely: your best bet is to start with one specific goal. Don't be trying to "improve the voting system," by considering a half-dozen avenues. Pick one, and pick the one with the most likely chance of success. Based upon historical and current factors, that is obviously the one about having people's votes counted.

Do not accuse the system of outright intentional fraud. Everyone with half a brain has already figured that out. But to say it openly slows you down. Focus: every vote counts. The computer technology has reduced this in numerous parts of the country. It is a problem that creates other problems.

Then think of what resources can best address this issue? A couple examples: the Center For Constitutional Rights in NYC, I think on Broadway still (7th Floor of 666) may be the best. Others might say the ACLU, or even a private firm. But no one can afford to do this for free. Are you willing to invest the time to do fund-raising? Because the internet would make it possible. Perhaps talking to MoveOn would be beneficial.

The left wing of the democratic party has an opportunity to use this single issue and the powerful symbols associated with it (the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, Jefferson, the 1965 Voting Rights Act) to make the most important advance in democratic actions possible.

Do what is possible. Invest your energy in doing it correctly, not being vague about "let's do something."

[Eric J in MN]

23. "Voters Unite!" wants paper ballots, hand-counted.

Though they're not calling for a constitutional amendment.

www.votersunite.org

[In Truth We Trust]

24. thanks for the link we do need a universal set of laws so that people

are not disenfranchised based on class. the process must be transparent and fraud proof.

[St. Jarvitude]

27. At least ban closed-source electronic voting

As long as every step of the way is open-source and fully transparent (thus ensuring sufficient security and authenticity), I have no problem with electronic voting. And at least MD5 the sucker so the machines can be indepedently verified to actually be using the open-source programs.

[Fleurs du Mal]

29. Rather than banning specific technology

We need to have explicit criteria for any voting mechanism. This should include the ability to not only recount but ultimately verify a voter's ballot with the ballot being counted. Furthermore, both sides should have "unfettered access" to audit the efficacy of any mechanism. Proprietary software is simply unacceptable.

There are ways to do electronic voting securely and honestly.

[Eric J in MN]

38. What about people who chose Kerry on a touchscreen and

got Bush on the confirmation-page?

Better to get rid of electronic voting machines altogether.

Even optical-scan ballots are better.

[cybildisobedience]

30. Excellent suggestion

Why is it that the only time we ever hear about a Constitutional amendment is to make something WORSE -- like take away people's rights, or make Arnold president?
Why not a Constitutional amendment that supports democracy instead of undermines it?

[KnowerOfLogic]

39. Good idea; with the right promotion it would be a good issue.

[The Right Hand]

40. May I suggest something?

First and foremost, as I’m sure you all can guess from my name, I’m on the right side of the aisle. Don’t panic: I’m not here to taunt or disrupt or anything like that. I want to make a positive contribution to this discussion.

As you can probably guess, I don’t believe that the election was “stolen” or anything like that. I’m not here to discuss that. I just want you all to know that my cards are on the table here, and that I’m being upfront and honest with you.

I think that, on its face, electronic voting is a good thing. With something over 100,000,000 ballots cast, it would take ages to count each one by hand. It’s simply way too much stuff to go through. Besides that, there’s just too much risk that these things can get damaged, etc. We all remember the concerns about possible damage to ballots in Florida.

But, I do understand and recognize that electronic voting can be a genuine concern in its present form. So, I partially agree with you on this.


Now, with all of that out of the way, here’s what I’d like to say:
I don’t think an amendment to the Constitution is the answer, because I don’t think that this is a Constitutional issue. I do think that we should examine a federal “voting standards” law, which would standardize the method in which votes are collected around the country. I think that this would solve a couple of issues:

1.) No more arguments over whose voting machine is “better.” Whether it’s Diebold or Jim’s Voting Machines wouldn’t matter: they would all have to adhere to the same basic standards.
2.) Those who travel to a different state would know when they walk into the booth at their new precinct, they wouldn’t be standing there trying to figure out a new machine after voting on a different type for the last 10 years.
3.) I think that there needs to be a national voter database, updated before each Presidential election. Verified addresses, say 2 months before the election by mail-outs with SASEs to confirm that someone is still at whatever address, and that they are still alive, eligible, etc. This would be an ideal time, perhaps, to send voters a sample ballot. Cross-check the database with known felons, death records, Social Security database, etc. If someone is living in a state that does not let felons vote, they’re sent a letter explaining why they can’t vote in this election. Then, each voter gets a magnetic-strip photo voter registration card (think drivers license with a credit card strip on the back). Now, here’s where a lot of people are going to freak out: there has to be a unique number assigned to each voter that stays with them for the rest of their lives. A lot of folks will panic over that one, because that smacks of “national ID card.” I agree that the concept is a bit scary, but don’t we already have this in the form of Social Security numbers? With that unique number, we can then truly verify that one eligible person gets exactly one vote. There would be no question of identity. All of those sorts of problems are solved.

Sorry to be long-winded, but that needed to preface this:

Now, with all of that in place, we can address the voting machines themselves. I think that the machines should be reasonably simple touch screen or whatever, something that anybody can understand. The ones here are pretty straightforward, with a nice big piece of paper put over the top (not really a “screen,” but you get the idea), and a big spot to push for your candidate. There’s a little light that comes on beside the candidate’s name when you push the “button” for them. You know who you’re voting for, without a doubt.

Here’s where my idea gets different: once you push all of the buttons that you want for the appropriate candidates, you hit the “vote” button (the proverbial “pulling of the lever”), you get a “receipt,” showing all of your votes, and a unique identifier for your vote (think of a big number like a UPS tracking number or something like that). You know you voted, and you can prove it. This would be printed on NCR (carbonless) paper or something like that, so that there is a backup copy secured inside the machine.

At the end of the voting day, the electronic ballots are counted. If you have any question as to whether or not your vote counted, just check it against your unique number on your receipt. I’m quite certain that this could be accomplished with a website. And, if anyone has any questions about the electronic votes, there’s a paper trail to back it up! Not just one, but two! Anyone and everyone can be certain that their vote counted.

So, with this sort of legislation, we can:
1.) Address all concerns of whether or not someone is eligible to vote;
2.) Basically remove all posibilities of voter fraud through an organized system, and;
3.) Eliminate everyone's concern about whether or not their vote counted.

How does that sound to everyone?

[KTM]

41. Hmmmm

I partially agree with you in some places - and thanks for sharing your opposite-aisle pov without being incendiary. Welcome to our home - be polite. :-)

On the one hand, I personally think a national ID card, with biometric data (thumbprint) would be tremendously useful, if controlled more than SS #'s are. Even better if it were restricted to act as a National Voter Registration Card or some such... but, it will never win the support of the American people. OK, maybe.. but highly unlikely, I think.

Another thing I would prefer, personally, would be an expansion of the open source rule mentioned by others, to include the reversal of whatever damn law it is that allows each county/precint/whatever to choose their own gear. Screw that. Democracy in action at that level should not be a competetive market, period. I'd like one standardized platform, one certified version of software, everywhere. Not just a "standard" that multiple companies can bid on - a single, friggin platform. (i.e., all systems will run on identical hardware with identical firmware.)

As far as a pre-election mass-mailing, I dont think that would be neccessary - just make people re-activate their NVRC's prior to election, using the already present biometric identifier to confirm they are themselves.

:kick: for the discussion, not the specific method

[The Right Hand]

43. Thanks for the welcome! I came here to be polite, like I said.

I hadn't specifically thought of biometric, and that would probably be overkill. What I was thinking about was a single, simple solution to both the registration issue (whether registered, registerd properly, etc.) and the identification issue. Even though poll workers are not trained like the police, most everyone can hold up a photo ID and pretty easliy determine if someone is the same as the picture.

As for selling it to the American people, I'm not sure. I think that, after the last two election cycles, most Americans are quite ready to have a solution to that nasty part of the election. I, for one, would relly like to not hear the never-ending diatribes about who voted illegally, who was "denied" their vote, etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have an election without all of that background noise?

As for "open sourcing," I frankly don't know enough about programming to really even know what that means. My limited knowledge on the subject tells me that it's sort of like being able to see the code that is used to write Windows. Kind of a Linux for voting machines, I guess. If that's the case, I don't suppose that I have a problem with it on its face. I think that the guy who writes the code should be earning for his work, though. I guess there could be an intellectual property rights issue there. But, like I said, I don't know enough about programming to have a valid opinion on it.

Regarding a "single platform" machine, I think that's a bad idea. That inherently means a monopoly. Does the Left really want Diebold (or whoever) to have a monopoly? I'd certainly think not, and I can pretty much assure you that the Right doesn't want one, either.

The reason I had the mass-mailing thing in there was two-fold:
1.) Somehow, we, as a country, must get into the mode of verifying voters' addresses more frequently. I think that we're beyond the point of simply trusting them to vote correctly. Let's face it: people are lazy, and people are preoccupied. Last time you moved, were you really thinking the whole time about changing your voter registration? Hell no. You were worried about not breaking the dishes or dropping the sofa or something. Unless you moved close to an election, you wouldn't have thought about your voter registration at all.
2.) I think that someone getting a voter registration notice in the mail might assist in voter turnout. Moreover, with a sample ballot in their hands, I think voters (as a whole) might take some extra time to study up on the candidates and the issues. Think of California and the myriad propositions that they must vote on every blessed time that they go to the polls. There's something like an average of 10 in each election, I think. Unless voters study these issues, they're flying blind. Referenda are relatively rare here, but we had a couple in 2002. It must have taken me 20 minutes to read through the whole pile of legaleze, because they took me by surprise. I knew that they were on the ballot, and I knew how I wanted the outcome of each to be, but the gigantic pile of fine print meant that I had to read the things 10 times to figure out what the hell they were saying.


I would think that an online voter registration update site would go a long way to helping out on this. That would hold down mailing costs tremendously, since people could "pre-emptively" log on and update their registration, or affirm that the information is still correct.




I do thank you for being willing to hold honest discussions with the "enemy." My screen name is kind of double-symbolic: it signifies both an outstretched hand for a handshake, and for a reach across the aisle.


*edited for spelling*

[Kathy in Cambridge]

49. You bring up some good points regarding procedure

but how do you explain that in all cases where the electronic machines were in error, that the votes were in Bush's favor?

The GEMS database is a MSFT Access database. It is not made to scale and has poor security.

[Zorra]

42. Probably a good idea - There is actually no reason to use

electronic voting machines other than for a malevolent party to be able to easily commit almost undetectable election fraud.

This is the entire purpose of the existence of electronic voting devices: To be able to manipulate the outcome of elections without leaving any tangible evidence of this manipulation.

Electronic voting machines are expensive to purchase, are unreliable due to mechanical breakdown and human error, require constant maintenance and certification, are too technical for the average poll worker to comprehend, are eminently vulnerable to fraud, etc. ad infinitum.

Electronic voting is a ridiculous concept and practice that is beyond the realm of all logic and reason outside of some malevolent, Machiavellian, anti-democratic purpose.

So: Why do we not use ballots that are marked by hand, ballots that are counted by human beings, ballots which can be easily recounted, ballots which inspire the greatest amount of voter confidence because of the complete transparency and accountability of the process?

The voting process can be made almost completely accountable and transparent, can be protected against fraud to the greatest degree possible, can insure the least amount of vote loss due to voter and/or poll worker error, and can achieve the greatest statistical degree of vote tally accuracy possible.

If certain elected officials in our government wish to argue that this is too difficult to achieve, then they are incompetent, and are not qualified for the job of administrating a democracy, and should resign immediately. No excuses.

Some people, who may have ulterior motives, might say that that using hand marked paper ballots would be too expensive or too time consuming.

But I truly believe that the majority of us feel that confidence in the outcome of all elections, and freedom and democracy in our country, is priceless, and that most of us would gladly pay for how ever much these inalienable rights might cost.

There's no reason for Americans to be saddled with this absurd, huge "White Elephant" that electronic voting machines inherently are other than so that republican party can steal our votes and consequently our democracy.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

44. How about just enforcing the14th Amendment from 1868?

This amendment was meant to force the slave states to let blacks vote or lose power.

Section II. calls for eliminating State representation in Congress in proportion to the eligible voters whose right to vote is "denied...or in any way abridged..."

The partisan Secretaries of State who corrupt their state's election process DAMN SURE wouldn't want fraud to result in eliminating the number of Congress-critters they send to DC, would they?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. KICK

[The Right Hand]

47. Heh...

I didn't know cats were a valid reason to "kick" at DU.

I could keep this going a long time with my 10!

LOL!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

48. kick

[Unforgiven]

46. Kick This Topic!