Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will Electronic Voting Reform Create New Ways to Steal Elections?

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted June 4, 2007.


Elections have been stolen in America since the 18th Century -- and top elections experts are warning that Congress's latest attempt at regulating voting machines won't change a thing.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This week, the House is expected to pass the first-ever bill regulating electronic voting. But will the legislation unleash new election treachery in American elections?

If history is a guide, political machinations will outsmart the latest efforts to bring accountability to America's newest voting machines. Recent books on how American elections have been stolen -- from the founding of the country to 2004 -- suggest voting machinery may change over time, but sleazy partisan tactics do not: they adapt to the newest way of counting votes. And when grassroots election integrity activists add their experience of wrestling with new electronic voting to this continuum, it seems doubtful that American elections will be cleaned up.

"It is the same game," said Rebecca Mercuri, one of the country's top electronic voting experts and an opponent of the House bill. "They will just now do it electronically. The bill makes it seem like something will be done. It will cause the public to be complacent. That is very scary. People will not be watching. They will not be looking at elections."

"It is not just the electronic machines. It is a pandemic in our political culture," said Tracy Campbell, a University of Kentucky historian and author of Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition 1742-2004. "I am not sure why we are so surprised by it. We cheat in baseball. We cheat on our wives. Why not cheat in elections?"

This week soon after Congress reconvenes, the House is expected to approve H.R. 811, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. The bill is intended to bring accountability to the newest election technology, the paperless electronic voting machines that were ushered into American elections after Florida's punch-card ballot debacle in 2000. After hanging chads became the most high-profile feature of that presidential vote count, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, and appropriated $3.9 billion for states to buy a new generation of voting machines. By November 2006, one-third of the country was voting on paperless touch-screen voting machines.

Once introduced, the problems with these machines became well-known. Most notably there was no way of knowing if the data put into the machines -- votes -- would be accurately reported at the end of the day. Moreover, academics and others discovered that the machines were poorly designed, but the software and performance problems were all-but ignored by the independent testing labs that were supposed to certify their accuracy. In numerous elections in 2002 and 2004, voters saw their choices jump between candidates; votes were lost as totals were compiled, and election officials often spent more time tallying results than they had with the voting systems they replaced. By last fall's election, the machines' performance had improved somewhat, but there were notable exceptions, such as in Sarasota, FL, where 18,000 votes vanished in a close U.S. House race. While that was publicized, grassroots activists later discovered numerous other lost votes, or undercounts, such as in Miami and Dade Counties, where one in 10 ballots did not record a vote for Florida attorney general: 70,000 votes went missing.

While some of these problems have become well known, it is important to note that it wasn't flawed technology in Florida that kept Democrat Al Gore from the White House. More pivotal to the vote count were partisan decisions by then Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, a Republican, who allowed overseas ballots -- allegedly from the military -- to be counted, even though many lacked postmarks and those were suspected to be fraudulent. Amid that controversy the Supreme Court intervened, stopping the recount and declaring George W. Bush the winner.

"Florida was a great case of our eyes being off the target," Campbell said. "We were looking at butterfly ballots (punch cards). But it was the absentee ballots that came in after the election that Katherine Harris certified that gave the election to George W. Bush. I bet plenty of grieving military families don't realize it was absentee ballots that brought us the war in Iraq."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election theft

Steven Rosenfeld is co-author, with Robert Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, of What Happened in Ohio, a Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, from The New Press (2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why do we need electronic voting?
Posted by: Rune on Jun 4, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This entire enterprise is just silly. The two most important aspects of tallying votes are accuracy and verifiability in an audit. A good old paper ballot marked with a pen is superior to a software driven machine on both criteria. What exactly is the problem that we are trying to solve by spending billions of dollars buying, installing, and replacing electronic machines that we trust less and less the more we know about them?

The only justifications I have ever heard electronic voting machines is that they can count faster and that they can be adapted to accommodate blind people. But blind people are not any more well served than the public at large by a vote counting method that is notably prone to error and tampering. And it is nice to find out the results of elections relatively soon, but exit polls can usually do that for us (and always did before we started "adjusting" them to match questionable counts provided by software driven machines) and in the close elections where the exit polls can't discern a winner, having a reliable paper ballot that can be counted and recounted to verify an accurate count is all the more important.

So, again, why do we need electronic voting? We know what we have lost--more or less any claim to a form of a valid democracy at all--but what have we gained? And does anyone remember faster election results being a mjor concern of voters before certain politicians with ties to the voting machine companies starting championing them? Seems to me, long lines, confusing and overly long ballots, inconvenient hours, problems with registration and finding one's polling place, and intimidation of some voters have always been the real problems. Electronic voting machines don't address any of those issues in any meaningful way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, we do need electronic voting? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Electronic voting? Programmed by whom? Manufactured by whom?
Posted by: ateo on Jun 4, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once we have nation wide electronic voting machines we will have officially reached the point at which voting is completely and utterly meaningless.

I highly doubt I'll ever bother to vote again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I don't understand
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 4, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is why - after 2000 - every congressional Dem didn't scream continuously and relentlessly for simple, verifiable ballots and counting. How many elections have to be stolen before they wake up?

Somewhat stupidly it appears, I assumed that this would be as big a priority to them as it is to me. How could they be unaware that Florida was stolen in 00 and Ohio in 04? It is absolutely inexplicable to me that they can be satisfied with any "magic box" solution.

It is possible have honest elections in this country - with the tide turning blue as it has, I hope someone can explain to me why one of the methods to assure that isn't the top priority for elected Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What - and be calleded a whacko? Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Oversight
Posted by: Uncle Crabby on Jun 4, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not invite UN observers to watch and report on our election? Since we act like a third world country, why not request that we be treated like one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And '06, and next, '08
Posted by: diogenes on Jun 4, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There should've been veto-proof majorities in both houses- and maybe there was, but we'll never know. And now we have 10 Republican candidates for president (soon to be 11, or 12) so, why is that? They actually believe that this country desperately needs another Republican president to save it from the Democrats and since all of the same Republican voting machines are still in place, why not go for it? This is a result of them listening only to their own propaganda and not hearing what the people are saying- NO MORE! Not another goddamn Republican anything, not even dogcatcher. Their regressive ideology is killing our future, so just stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DON'T VOTE. It is the only solution. Maybe we can shame them and
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 4, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
expose the corrupt, false-choice system that forces the voters to choose between 2 selected candidates from parties, both of whom are funded by the banking and corporate elites. As if the fake choice set-up wasn't bad enough we now have a situation where even that vote makes no difference due to electronic machines, computers, party led vote 'recounts', and a media that will manipulate the vote. However, if a large percentage of Americans REFUSED TO VOTE in national elections it would help expose the charlatans and the scam. Imagine a new President (regardless of which millionaire was selected) having to give his speeches knowing (and the whole world watching) that he was elected by a VERY small percentage of the people voting (I won't pretend that EVERYONE will stop voting because too many people have a personal stake in the contracts, business, prestige of their show pony winning.) Only vote in LOCAL elections. School boards, mayors, state reps, etc. Don't vote in any national elections--- especially for President. Let them know that the people know it is all a scam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad idea Posted by: fanny666
» Noooo! Posted by: weatherking
See also
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Book: "Brave New Ballot" by Aviel D. Rubin, PhD in software engineering
There is a good list of URLs at the end of the book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SOMETIMES WE CAN CHANGE THINGS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 4, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Example-Every single person of voting age, all 50 states takes 10 min. of their busy lives to HANDWRITE and mail a short not to your representatvies demanding that we all vote on paper. NO MACHINES. No exceptions. Votes can be counted by college students who will be offered credits in return for their work. It is by far the most accurate way to vote. We must have records. Big deal it takes an extra day. Who really thought machines would work. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

20 shocking facts about US elections
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 4, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To hell with machines. Everyone should vote by absentee ballot and write in their own candidates.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 4, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been mailing in my ballot for decades. Now, with the price of gasoline so high, absentee voting is definitely the ONLY way to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They've thought of that too. Posted by: fanny666
» THAT Posted by: weatherking
East Germany and communist voting
Posted by: kellysgarden on Jun 4, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conversing with my German friends who grew up under communism in East Germany before the wall fell, they told me many interesting stories.

They told how there were always elections held, supposedly giving the outward appearance they were somehow democratic. But they said, even though they voted, they all knew their votes didn't mean anything - the people who counted the votes were the ones who ultimately decided.

It appears we are now no better than East Germany of the 1980s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ast Germany and communist voting Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Welcome to the slicker willys
Posted by: Krain61 on Jun 4, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To start with I never cheated on my wife but yes she cheated on me!
Anyone who thinks that electronis voting could be fare is nuts.
Don't people use that system to steal your idenity?
I refuse to vote in a country where we no longer have paper ballots.
I think in Russia they would have a more fare election than has been
the case and will continue to be the case in this country.
We have lost our Freedoms.
I hear people only talk about Democrats or Republicans{both crooks}
I have yet heard a canidate talk about repealing the Patriot Act or repealing
the Minilaws Bush signed taking our rights away.I never hear one I-o-ta
about it not one! In Russia you expect it but here in the Great ole USA.
Yes I expect them to get there bucket of sand and bend us over and if you
just look at what there doing I tell you I'm getting pretty sore back there.
I think voting machines should be outlawed. We tell other country how they
should hold elections but with the system we have who will they be electing..
GWB.. "Georges World Blunders"
I wonder why anyone would think electronic voting is better.
Look at the viruses that computers get. A good hacker can get in any computer
which means most likely a hacker is helping build the computers and making
a hefty profit from the ones getting elected.
Americans are suppose to be so smart and live in the greatest country but tell
me why we let these crooks control our food supply our water supply our gas
supply force insurance on us and countless other things..They say it's for our
own good but why how is that so when we now make more with less buying
power and the foods unhealthy and you name it the price has increased.
Yea you vote either party in and well have more of the same but be perpared
to loose much more this next round.. We need to get honest Media..lol
If you listen to other world leaders you can see what our leaders are up to.
Control of the whole world and not just us. And we me and you are footing the bill!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to run a clean election:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 4, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, it is very easy to run a clean election.

1) Vote only on paper ballots using an indelible ink pen. This is an absolute requirement.

2) Verifiable machine counting of ballots. Rule #1 - no private proprietary equipment or software can be used. All technical specifications must be open to public scrutiny.

- Use an optical scanner to read the ballot. No connections to phone lines or wireless networks can be allowed. The results at the end of the day must be burned onto a CD and transported by registered courier to precinct headquarters. Another CD must also be burned, but will remain locked in the machine for later cross-checking.

- The onboard electronics of the optical scanning machine must be checked by an independent auditor to verify that they match the public specifications - just like electronic gambling machines in casinos

-The optical scanner must produce a copy of it's vote tally for each voter, which the voter can keep

- All paper ballots are then stored in locked boxes for a certain period of time - one year would be appropriate - so that physical recounts are possible.

3) The voter registration cannot be tampered with, as it was by Karl Rove and GW Bush in the recent caging scandal. One of the easiest ways to do this is to link voter registration to state drivers licenses.

- this proposal, to automatically register voters when they get their drivers licenses, has been fought tooth and nail by many elitist politicians, by but especially by Republicans. Why? It would vastly increase the voter registration of the 'lower classes' - and the Republicans know they'd lose every election if that was the case, as do the corporate Democrats.

4) Ban private corporations from any involvement in the voting process. Elections must be funded and run by government employees, not by private interests.

This kind of voting system would be largely immune to tampering, and would guarantee that most eligible voters were registered (everyone has a driver's license, right?). There would be no 'hanging chad' controversies. If you see any problems with it, please let me know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How to run a clean election: Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Get Real
Posted by: unity1 on Jun 4, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you got to take a moment and fully comprehend the reality

if elections in your country have been 'stolen' since the 1800 then how can you call yourselves a democracy - that word is the BIG myth

take a moment to comprehend reality

your congress is made up of multi millionaires and a growing number of billionares - right?

they all campaign for hundreds and thousands of dollars - millions of dollars goes to make up their campaign to be elected - its a business - NOW here's the crunch

what business in its right mind - after spending millions of dollars on its candidates would leave the deciding factor to YOU the unwashed public !!!!

you live in the land of illusion of celuiod dreams - and that is what your democracy has been - The only good thing GW has done for the world is to render visible the illusion

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DRE's permit undetectable election fraud on a massive scale
Posted by: shanti on Jun 4, 2007 4:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am psychologist married to a software engineer. We have been accumulating files of research documenting serious problems with electronic voting technology since 2003. We are alarmed by the threat posed to our democracy by expensive, insecure, unreliable, direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. We appreciate the many provisions in Congressman Holt's bill that address election integrity risks at the margins.

Regrettably HR 811 does not address the elephant in the room. HR 811 does not outlaw the continued widespread use of a method of vote tabulation that is so fundamentally and irretrievably flawed that at its worst might only give the appearance of an election. Touch screen (DRE) voting machines are convenient, pleasant and alluring but nearly impossible to implement with adequate security. Computer experts who know the limitations of the technology, readily acknowledge the inherent difficulty of building voting technology that is sufficiently secure and reliable and auditable. With voting technology, programmers face the herculean task of developing software for a product that is likely to be under attack from individuals who are trying to subvert its operations. The development and rigorous testing required to build and maintain a sufficiently secure and reliable voting technology would ultimately be cost prohibitive. Jason Kitcat, a British open source software developer, concluded after three years of research that "making electronic voting sufficiently secure would be nigh on impossible, especially when you had to keep it anonymous and auditable."

We must not trust the recording of our vote to unobservable memory chips and data bases. Thousands of votes can be altered undetected by a few insiders or by outsiders if modems are used to transfer votes between precincts. We can outlaw the use of modems in elections but how do we know those laws are going to be enforced? Why are we paying extraordinary sums of taxpayer money to purchase voting machines that digitally record unobservable votes. DRE's require constant, complicated, expensive, security procedures that are seldom implemented. We need to do away with digital vote counting altogether and return to paper ballots.

Our GAO has now twice enumerated the many known ways that electronic vote tallies can be altered without detection. This information has been widely circulated on the web. Technicians who service voting machines, and many partisan election officials know that is is trivially easy to hack central tabulators and/or install malicious software in DRE's. On election day we have only one chance to get the vote count recorded accurately. Citizens are disenfranchised when DRE's break down or flip votes, or when VVPAT paper rolls jam. Citizens are disenfranchised when uncertified software is installed by dishonest voting machine vendors. Even if truly independent testing labs examine software code that is not proprietary, it is highly unlikely that subtle malicious code would be detected.

A transparent election system is essential to maintain the confidence of the voter. Herein lies the essential flaw inherent in all electronic vote tabulation systems. Vote counting that takes place inside a machine is not visible and therefore not transparent. Continuing to allow the use of DRE's with a verified paper trail is like putting lipstick on a pig. Many reputable election protection advocates and computer security experts consider DRE's with an add on paper trail to be "worse than useless because they provide an illusion of validation". Keep in mind it is entirely possible for the paper receipt generated by the touch screen to show one candidate while the computer memory records a different candidate. Please contact your representatives and ask them to not pass HR 811 unless it includes an unqualified ban on the use of all DRE's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A more serious problem
Posted by: marydon2 on Jun 4, 2007 7:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article, but it seems to me the more serious problem is the theft of elections that occurs when minority voters are "caged", falsely challenged at the time of voting, too few voting machines are in place in minority areas, or when minority voters are illegally and fraudulently knocked off the voting rolls by companies complicit with the Republican vote stealers. That's the real reason Bush was able to steal Florida - thousands and thousands of minoirty voters were knocked off the voting rolls by a company in Texas close to the Bush family. Seems to me the machines are important, but maybe the least of the many ways Republicans steal elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How the "Rangers" and the "Pioneers" Want It To Be
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 4, 2007 7:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An Aug. 28, 2003, Cleveland Plain Dealer article quoted Walden O’Dell who said he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to [George W. Bush] in 2004.” O’Dell is the chairman of the board of Diebold Election Systems, the second largest company in the U.S. that counts votes … our votes. O’Dell is also a member of the Rangers and the Pioneers, those who have contributed the most money to the Bush campaign.

Without a paper ballot as either a back-up or primary piece of evidence, there is and never will be actual proof of how a vote was cast.

Just the way the "Rangers," and the "Pioneers" want it to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some replies to good posts:
Posted by: bobiam on Jun 4, 2007 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Albrechtkrausse said to shame them by not voting. Somewhere I have heard the following voter statistics: 50% of people eligible to vote actually register to vote. Of the 50% registered to vote only about 25% vote. With the vote divided evenly that means our president was elected by 12.5% of the citizens in the US that are eligible to register and vote.

UnEasyOne wonders why Dems don't scream relentlessly for simple verifiable ballots and counting: Maybe our National Security Agency has enough information over politicians to bend them as they wish. And tell them to keep quiet.

HughScott has the right answer: Everyone should vote by absentee ballot.

Thoughtcriminal has the best idea to begin solving the election problems.

Unity1 says "get real." Thanks Unity for the excellent idea.

shanti also votes for paper ballots. Good position shanti.

So my vote and position is for paper ballots and 100% absentee voting for all federal elections.

And lets get the 100 million eligible but unregistered voters to get registered and vote for a new third (second?) Independent party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for all the comments Posted by: srosenfeld
IN ONE WORD: YES!!!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 5, 2007 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I ran for NC Governor in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket, a major part of my campaign radio ads dealt with corruption of the electronic voting system. I was totally ignored by the MSM as a radical/reactionary for saying this. Guess what? Gore lost the Presidency because of vote fraud.

Make every candidate publicly and in writing promise to get back to PAPER BALLOTS: no computer sysems which can be easily reprogrammed. Make the Candidate agree to step down IF she/he doesn't get this election reform done within two years of taking office.

OR simply support and vote for Congressman Ron Paul who will do it as a major priority of his Presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"elections have been stolen since the 1800"s"...??
Posted by: chabuka on Jun 6, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WTF!!..are you suggesting we should just "let it go", the election fraud, the vote caging, the connection between corporates and voting machines...? Are you implying that stolen elections have always happened in this country..so its NO BIG DEAL....just ignore it...? I certainly hope not many people think the way you do...maybe you should rephrase your article heading...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ONLY CROOKS...
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 8, 2007 3:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the fools who serve them, still want those things in use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]