Once again, case after case of voting machine fraud cram the blogosphere. But this time, rather than outraged, Democrats seem to be more cynical, even resigned. We console ourselves with the hope that Obama's lead will be too great for the Republican owned machines to steal the election.
It's almost as if we've given up, helpless victims of this untouchable, all powerful technology.
Nonsense.
Because of the danger to our economy, the government just seized control of the multi-billion dollar financial system. Because of the threat to American democracy, we must nationalize the voting machine industry.
The compelling case against allowing private industry to determine our elections rests upon the predictable flaws of human nature: the most massive electoral fraud in America's history has been perpetrated since the introduction of touch screen voting machines.
Right now, the voting machine you will be using on November 4 most likely is sitting in your local election commission's warehouse, protected by little, if any, security to prevent tampering.
And, because of the voting machines' proprietary technology, only the manufacturer - such as Deibold or Carson - can legally access them. Whether purchased or leased, local election officials are prohibited from independently verifying their machines' integrity.
As we have all learned, it is relatively simple to program a predetermined outcome, with an undetectable bug that turns itself on when the polls open, and vanishes after they close.
A federal government monopoly would manufacture voting machines employing the same degree of security enforced by the Treasury to print currency.
To further safeguard against tampering, the voting machines would be shipped under security to election commissions around the country. In between elections, their integrity would be guaranteed by storage in a secure federal facility.
The 2002 Help America Vote Act funds states to purchase or lease voting machines from private companies. The government could offer honest voting machines at little, or no cost. Moreover, by furnishing all polling places with sufficient equipment, people no longer will be forced to wait hours in line to vote. And, to minimize the inevitable delay caused by glitches, the contract could provide for a standby technician on election day.
Many people will not bother to go to the polls in this election, because they seriously doubt that the touch screen machines will honestly count their vote. Yet, in what amounts to a show of disrespect - that does not go unfelt by people so far unmoved by the campaign - neither candidate has even mentioned this widespread, legitimate concern.
Obama should make an unequivocal promise to nationalize voting machines. Making a vote for Obama a vote to guarantee that this will be the last election which forces people to trust in the discredited touch screens, might just be the issue to win over more than a few of those still undecided voters.
Without open access, these systems will be inherently untrustworthy no matter who makes them. By the way, would you really have wanted Ronald Reagan's staff, or George Bush's staff (either Bush), or Sarah Palin to control the manufacturing and testing of voting machines? AAAAAARGGGH!!!
For a bit more on open access, see my "Comments on the August 31, 2007 Draft of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines" to the Election Assistance Commission at http://www.kaner.com/pdfs/commentsOnVVSSubmittedToEAC.pdf.
-- Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D.
This system is operational and working, secure and offers a paper trail. Based on software that is well understood and open source.
Software is free, hardware is less that $1500 per machine.
I would give the hardware contract to Dell or IBM, making simple touch screen tablet PCs.
Your ideas make a lot of sense, but I think that a nationalized voting machine operation - with open access - would be the best guarantee for honest elections.
I don’t see how the Executive’s staff would have any more control over the manufacturing and safeguarding the of integrity of US voting machines, than they now exercise over the printing and guarding against counterfeiting of US currency.
Why are people so resistant to simple, inexpensive solutions that allow transparency and give voters confidence in the system? How about paper ballots hand counted at the precinct within the public eye on election day and posted on the wall there for all to see? That avoids chain of custody issues and independent entities can check and double check that all the entries from the various precincts add up.
There are many ways to compromise an election. No system is perfect. This one, at least, would minimize the risk while removing electronic voting machines which allow a single operator to change thousands of votes with a few keystrokes.
Go to Voters Unite's website's Election Problem Log for a pretty comprehensive list of problems since 2004.
The government corporation could have a section, or subsidiary, providing maintenance and programing for local elections. The bonded technicians would be federal employees, required to pass a background check to obtain a security clearance. A FBI type Internal Affairs section would investigate suspicions of misconduct or corruption.
A telephone installer once told me that a customer asked him how much it would take to have an illegal phone line put in his house. He told the potential briber that they could start negotiations at $800,000, the value of his pension plan.
If you've been making controversial or wrong calls during the regular season on a repeated basis, that Ref or Umpire is not selected to officiate at the Big Games. Umps and Refs with a good call record are at the big games.
In the same way, if your state is one that continuously HAS VOTING PROBLEMS when election day rolls around - then your state's Sec of State NEED NOT APPLY when it comes to GIVING ANY INPUT about the National System.
If your state continuously HAS NO PROBLEMS when election day rolls around, then your Sec of State IS WELCOME TO GIVE INPUT for a National System.
It's time to weed out the wheat from the chaff regarding these Secretary of States that are "Bought Off" to throw the elections instead of promoting fair and easy elections throughout their state.
Think about it - you could go to your nearest convenience store, type in your address and your name -up would pop your personal ballot for your particular local election.
You make your vote choices, punch it in, get a receipt printed and away you go.
The information is transferred securely (just like your $$ transaction) to the voting centers....
The same companies that build those ATMS are the same companies that somehow provided the ridiculous 'voting machines'.
The technology and security is out there - it's not rocket science any longer.
Also, I think that one of the first priorities of the next Congress should be to solve the machine problem, and to standardize voter registration forms, ID requirements and national ballots, as well as passing enforceable campaign finance reform laws.
Since Obama has proven that a candidate can collect uxti millions from the grassroots, that's what should be termed "public financing", not whatever passes for public financing these days.
I just hope that this election yields a legitimate government, able and willing to take on these reforms.
Obama/Biden 08
A nationalized system seems promising but I wonder how well it would work for local elections. It would be simple to handle national and even congressional ballots but would the government be able to manage the local races with a nationalized system?
I’m not proposing a national system, but rather a federal monopoly to manufacture, maintain, and safeguard voting machines that would be leased or sold to local election commissions.
The government corporation could have a section, or subsidiary, providing maintenance and programing for local elections. The bonded technicians would be federal employees, required to pass a background check to obtain a security clearance. A FBI type Internal Affairs section would investigate allegations of misconduct or corruption.
A telephone installer once told me that a customer asked him how much it would take to have an illegal phone line put in his house. He told the potential briber that they could start negotiations at $800,000, the value of his pension plan.