Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Security Concerns About Using Vote by Mail in Florida Primary Do-Over

By Rick Hasen, Huffington Post. Posted March 10, 2008.


An election law expert explains why having a vote-by-mail in the possible Dem Florida primary do-over makes him "very nervous."

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

More stories by Rick Hasen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There are strong reasons, both equitable and political, to do something about the current standoff over whether Florida's delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention should be seated. But the idea currently floated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) of conducting a "do-over" via an all vote-by-mail primary makes me very concerned about the security and accuracy of such a vote. A far better option would be to award delegates 50-50 to Sens. Clinton and Obama.

Politically knowledgeable people know the relevant background. As I recently explained at Slate, "Florida and Michigan famously held their primaries too early this year, violating the scheduling rules set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in those states, and Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot. ("Uncommitted" got 40 percent of the votes, compared with Clinton's 55 percent.) Clinton won both of these contests, and she has taken the position that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated, a position rejected by the DNC chair, Howard Dean."

Certainly seating Florida and Michigan delegates elected from these early states a very bad precedent for the Democratic Party. It would only encourage states in future elections to buck party rules and increase the race to the front of the line in an already front-loaded primary system. But Michigan and Florida voters didn't make this choice of when to vote; politicians made if for them, and it seems unfair to punish these voters by not allowing their votes to count or their delegates to be seated. And in any case, these states are too important to the Democrats in the November general election to risk angering them now.

One possibility some have suggested is simply seating Florida and Michigan delegations with an even split between Clinton and Obama delegates. That's not what the Florida and Michigan voters chose, but that seems fairer than approving the results of a contest run under unfair rules and conditions.

A fairer option -- if it is feasible -- is a "do-over." Michigan, which already has great experience running caucuses, is rumored to be planning a late spring caucus.

Florida presents a much more difficult problem. It has no experience with caucuses, and it is in the process of transitioning, yet again, between voting technologies. (Florida was one of the first states to phase out those inaccurate punch card voting machines, but they were replaced by electronic voting machines. The state has now decided to scrap the electronic machines, given public distrust over their use, and is replacing them with other technology such as optical scan equipment.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: florida primary, vote by mail

Richard L. Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog, is the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

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

Advertisement
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:
I don't buy your premise
Posted by: jackcris on Mar 10, 2008 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oregon has had vote-by-mail for over a decade and I have yet to hear of a single CASE of voter fraud from a vote being bought. The inference that what works in Oregon wouldn't work elsewhere is unsupportable: why would it be any different elsewhere? Because Florida has a history of corrupt voting? I would like to see an examination of the Miami case Hasen cites and see how it was accomplished... I'll bet there was no such scenario where someone offers cash for a vote on an individual by individual basis. Just the impossibly cumbersome and obvious nature of this method makes it highly unlikely- and detectable.

The place where the vote gets stolen is in the counting, not in the voting- shame on Hasen for spreading this canard. Voting by mail is FAR less subject to the security concerns presented by electronic voting. Perhaps it is precisely because of this fact ( and that it is easily recountable) that it has met with such resistance?

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

no no no no no no no no!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 10, 2008 4:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no fucking do over.

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