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
  • 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.

Today Is D-Day for Electronic Voting Machines

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted August 3, 2007.


California Secretary of State Debra Bowen will decide today whether to ban new electronic voting machines for next February's presidential primary. No matter what she decides, it will make waves from Capitol Hill to county election offices.

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

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. -- Friday, August 3, is a day that will likely live in political infamy for election integrity activists across the country.

California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a newly elected, reform-minded Democrat, will decide whether or not the largest state will use electronic voting machines in its new, early presidential primary next February. No matter what Bowen decides, she will make waves from Capitol Hill to county election offices.

If Bowen bans some or all of the machines, she will face an open revolt from many of the county officials who oversee California elections. She also will be sending a big message to Congress, where efforts to regulate electronic voting machines have stalled. The strongest proposals there -- requiring a paper trail to verify votes and tough new audits -- echo existing California law, which Bowen would be saying no longer is sufficient.

"Shame on you," said John Tuteur, Napa County elections director, at a hearing in Sacramento this week on the results of a Bowen-ordered study that found major security flaws in the machines. "The top-to-bottom review has no relevance to real-world conduct of elections. Secretary Bowen, you should know better than to erode the public's confidence in California's fair and accurate elections process for crass political purposes."

"You will not find a group more dedicated to doing their job to ensure voter confidence in the election process than California elected officials and their staff members, with the support of their vendors," said Beverly Ross, Tehama County clerk and recorder, expressing the sentiments of many at the Sacramento hearing.

On the other hand, if Bowen doesn't ban some or of all of the machines, she will frustrate some of her strongest supporters, election protection activists and others, such as computer security experts, who have applauded her efforts to assess vulnerabilities in California's electronic voting systems.

"This review benefits not just California voters, but voters nationwide," said Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation president, at the hearing. "It is occurring at a time when other states, such as Florida, Ohio and New Jersey, are undertaking similar exercises to look at their state voting systems."

"These machines are not good enough for our democracy," said Gail Work, chair of the Election Integrity Committee of the San Mateo County Democratic Party. "We've seen partisan-appointed registrars with their photos in vendor marketing materials. We've seen in San Diego election results that are certified prior to the votes being counted ... We've seen sleepovers where electronic voting machines are sent home with poll workers."

Bowen's "top-to-bottom" review of California's electronic voting machines began in May before the Legislature moved the 2008 Presidential Primary from June to February. The secretary of state must certify voting machines for use no later than 180 days before an election. The Legislature's action meant Bowen's University of California study had to be narrowed and accelerated, which prompted the voting machine makers -- Diebold, Sequoia and Hart -- and many county election directors to criticize the effort as incomplete and irrelevant to the "policies and procedures" they use to ensure accurate vote counts.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: debra bowen, california

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (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:
Maybe California will wake up ...
Posted by: paul_revere on Aug 3, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When is the rest of the country going to wise up?

I am in Oregon, the first and only state to vote exclusively by mail. Oregon had the highest percentage of registered voters to cast ballots. In 2002 we had 81% participation by registered voters. In 2004, it was up to 83%.

My wife and I sat at our table, readied our pens and then cast our votes. We were able to discuss the issues with the information books at hand, and, along with our own convictions about the candidates, make decisions and mark our ballots. Then we placed the ballots in the appropriate envelopes. We could have mailed the ballots, but we opted to drive over to a designated drop box at a County Elections Office. It was one of the easiest things we have ever done.

Imagine if voters did this on Election Day? They would feel empowered because they could take part in our electoral process without taking off work or standing in the rain.

Here are some other points:

With more people voting absentee, using mail balloting exclusively avoids election administrators from essentially conducting two elections – an absentee election and a polling place election. There is more room for corruption when election administration officials have to basically conduct two parallel systems.

Voter lists are much easier to accurately maintain with mail balloting. This is because ballots that are returned to election officials as undeliverable indicate registrations that must be checked. This helps election officials purge their registration rolls of ineligible voters.

A more informed voting public is cited as another advantage of mail-in balloting. If an individual has two weeks between when he or she receives a ballot and when it must be returned, this allows a better opportunity for voters to study the issues, to clarify any points of confusion, and get questions answered.

Our Secretary of State had an article published in the Washington Post on January 10, 2005 under the title: "Vote-by-Mail: The Real Winner Is Democracy" (Reposted at my website in the blog section: http://www.electionsbymail.blogspot.com/) Unfortunately, nobody listened and most keep squawking about a paper trail. After the 2006 Elections, our same Secretary of State had another article published in the Washington Post: "A Better Way to Vote." Again, people didn't listen.

Sorry, but the time has come to change the process. It does no good to cast a vote at a computer terminal, even with a paper trail. Mail is the easiest and best method. Any concerns about the counting can now be solely focused upon instead of also worrying about the casting of the vote. It wouldn't take much to establish bi-partisan or non-partisan oversight counting groups within each state.

The citizens of many states can begin a direct initiative and start collecting signatures in order to get it voted on in the future elections. The difference in citizen trust, confidence and empowerment will be remarkable!

If California can get an initiative on the ballot to convert all voting to by mail exclusively, then many other states will follow and maybe we can restore some integrity to the voting process.

Paul Revere
www.electionsbymail.com

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

» Mail voting open to fraud Posted by: Liberalandproudofit
» Bravo! Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Crazy Posted by: MadFlacc
» vote by mail, absentee ballots Posted by: kellysgarden
» Vote by Mail Poor Solution Posted by: oregonscribbler
The ruling elite have already chosen their candidates.
Posted by: Bev on Aug 3, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's who you will see the mainstream media and alternet support. On the dem side: Hillary, Obama, Edwards...in that order.

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

» 'Ruling Elite' Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: 'Ruling Elite' Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: 'Ruling Elite' Posted by: kellysgarden
» Clearly YOU have Posted by: MadFlacc
Electoral Votes being put up for grab-bagging in Cali..
Posted by: Bozwell on Aug 3, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something that seems to have escaped much note, in California too, a REFORM to allow that POPULAR vote majority to control each districts portion of ELECTORAL delegations, meaning that even if the majority of STATE sways to one or another, the TOTAL 55 electoral votes can be SPLINTERED, thereby canceling out any particular party a "coup" of sorts that has presently the ONE PARTY TAKE ALL format. (should too be noted, is figured in the next Presidential election cycle, that the GOP would most benefit from this as in past, ALL votes went Dem. It would make Calif less relevant in "winning" per se uness ALL districts went to one or the other. Its like a district redistribution slipping into the mix and could prove contentious and problematic more for the Dems than Gops.)

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

Optical scan
Posted by: chaoslegs on Aug 3, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Electronic machine counts the paper ballots. If you have to do a recount, then you have paper ballot. It is easy, it is documented, and it works great.

No touch screen without paper trail, no hanging chads, just nice and easy.

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

» RE: Optical scan Posted by: DaBear
If it is broke and cannot be fixed, trash it!
Posted by: kanawah on Aug 3, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The present electronic touch screen voting machines are a perscription for election frod. We have already been robbed 4 times, and counting.

The only way to go is a machine that does a positiv punch of a punch card, the way the old IBM punch card machines did. There were no 'hanging chads', they were clean punches.

The next best is a magnetic ink stamp. A large ballot, easy to read, and clearly visible of how the vote was case.

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

Don't underestimate the pressure being applied on Bowen
Posted by: ScottP on Aug 3, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember that the last California Secretary of State to decertify a voting machine (Kevin Kelley decertified some Diebold machines) was run out of town. Gov. Schwartzenegger brought in a team of investigators and lawyers to dig for dirt. It's not clear if the dirt they claimed was partly real or completely fabricated, but they applied so much legal pressure on the SOS that he buckled and resigned (and in return all charges were dropped). The Gov then appointed a Diebold crony (who's wife received the checks to make it look clean). That SOS was voted out to bring in Bowen.

Even if Bowen decertifies the machines, it's not clear that it will hold. Teams of lawyers will file suits, not only to keep them in use, but also making personal charges against her. If she can weather the storm it would be incredible, because there will certainly be both civil and criminal charges brought against her personally. Charges about bribes, guns, torturing puppies, who knows what they'll make up.

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

The voting system needs an overhaul
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Aug 3, 2007 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it hard to understand how the US still hasn't got it's voting system worked out properly after 200 years.
I don't fully understand, the US voting system, it's method of checks and balances particularly, so it is hard for me to comment.
Here in Australia we have compulsory voting. Everyone has to vote. The day of choice for voting therefore it a Saturday, with the poll centres opening usually around 8.00am in the morning and closing at 6.00pm at night.
Polling centres are usually church halls, government buildings such as schools, and even in isolated places, pubs.
The entire voting organisation is run by a government appointed, but independent, body called the Australian Electoral Commission. They determine boundaries for electorates, control and manage legalities concerning candidates, and finally the counting of the votes.
Scrutineers are appointed at these centres who are responsible for the running of the centres, and are also charges with the proper checking of the vote counting. Political parties also have representatives present at the counting, and if they deem any vote to be suspicious, they can demand a recount, and if necessary, a new vote for that area. The political representative are not allowed to touch a vote however, and because all parties have a representative present, the checks and balances are thorough.
All this is done at the local voting centre, not hidden away in some huge building. The tallys, after final count, are then phoned into a central tally room, often set up for the media, where the results of each division is known to the wider community. The votes are then sealed in special containers, witnessed by all said participants, and sent to the central tally room.
A second, count is often done at this central tally room when the vote is so close as to warrant a second opinion, or if there is concern at either cheating or some other unacceptable behaviour. Commercialism is not involved.
When people cast their vote, they still have to use a pencil and tick a box manually. No voting machines.
We have postal voting, and pre voting for those unable to vote on that particular day, and Australian Embassies organise centres for overseas Aussies visiting other countries on that day.
I spent my time as a scrutineer many years ago, and to my knowledge there has never been complaints of cheating, to the scale that America has.

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

Outcome In California?
Posted by: Interested Canadian on Aug 3, 2007 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So was there a decision in California?

The Brennan Center report seemed very sensible to me. I hope more people take an interest in it. I get the sense that many are sick of the subject.

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

» Hey, Alternet staff! Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Outcome In California? Posted by: DaBear