Voting and Democracy: The Challenges Ahead

The trustworthiness of our nation's voting system is the essential link to hopes for fairness, social justice and the future of our country. If Americans are excluded from voting or feel their votes don't or won't be counted, their investment in their communities and society is dramatically eroded. With corruption in our elections, the country can be dominated by an unrepresentative minority and our aspirations for a healthy democracy thwarted.

After the 2000 election debacle in Florida and other states, the very nature and competence of our voting system was called into question. All measure of voting security irregularities were documented, including suspicion of fraud, voter roll purges, language barriers, obstacles to disabled voters and insufficient or undertrained staff.

To address these formidable problems, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed by Congress after much struggle. But the passage of the Act was just the beginning. Its implementation, which falls on the states, is being contested across the country. To help protect the future of voting, especially for those who have historically been shut out, engagement with and monitoring of the implementation of HAVA is essential to ensure the success of a new system. Voting fairness is a crucial issue for all of us working for change.

The advent of electronic voting has also introduced a host of new problems that have recently been dramatically exposed. The companies developing and installing these machines are owned, to a large extent, by Republicans and conservatives. There are not enough checks and balances on these companies, which continue to insist that the code in their machines is proprietary. The situation increasingly suggests the privatizing of our election process and the removal of the transparencies and non-partisan involvement of public servants that has provided the public with some confidence that the system is fair.

The problems with touchscreen voting machines and the lack of voter-verifiable paper trail is currently a hot topic. Traveling the Internet like wildfire, the story has recently broken through to the New York Times, NPR and CNN. Fear of computerized voter roll purging and the manipulation of election results has caused tremendous anxiety among election reformers as well as computer professionals. Perhaps just as alarming, some paranoid writers have suggested that the next election is all but lost due to the new technology.

The problem with this worst-case thinking is that it creates the potential for self-fulfilling prophesies, due to its negative impact on would-be voters, especially young people and those already alienated. Fearing conspiracy, more and more voters succumb to cynicism, give up on the system and stay home on Election Day. And who benefits from a shrunken electorate? Conservatives and the current administration. Since right-wing views represent a distinct majority the more people who don't vote (more than 100 million in the U.S.) the more likely that Bush & Co. will prevail and the conservatives will stay in power.

So we have a challenge ahead of us. We must push hard on the reform opportunities. It is important to have new machines in place by 2004 to restore confidence and not discourage more people from voting. We must ensure that other potential reforms included in HAVA will be implemented, resulting in more competent staffing at the polls, making it harder to purge voters and easier for everyone, including the disabled, to vote. At the same time we must insist that voting machine manufacturers sell systems that support voter-verified individual ballots and an accurate ballot audit trail -- while being cognizant that some of this technology may not be ready and that paper, in the past, has been the source of significant instances of fraud and abuse as well as being problematic for the blind.

To help you gain a full grasp of these complex issues, AlterNet presents an article by Thom Hartmann, who documents many of the known failures of electronic voting machines and introduces a number of key experts who have studied the problems of handing elections over to private companies. Miles Rapoport, former Secretary of State of Connecticut and the president of Demos, provides a wide-ranging overview of the election reform issues. And for California voters, Kim Alexander, head of the California Voter Foundation, provides her perspective as a member of the Ad-Hoc Task Force of California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, which recently released its report. (The comment period on the report ends Aug. 2.)

Don Hazen is executive editor of AlterNet.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.