While I'm sure Jesse Jackson already has a complaint drafted to challenge the November election results, I don't understand this irrational fear of computerized voting. There are breathless ("deeply disturbing") reports today that voting machines were left (gasp) "unguarded" at the University of Georgia, as though someone might boot the things up and start voting for Kucinich, or take them home, load up a copy of "Electronic Vote Crack 2.1, Warez edition" and change the course of history.
Then there's this guy, who has a legitimate complaint unrelated to computer voting -- that no one checks your ID -- who goes on about how insecure it "seems":
The problem is, you get no paper record of how you voted. No receipt comes out, so you can't walk away with anything in your hands that shows how or even whether you actually voted. And I couldn't see any security mechanism that would stop poll workers from casting votes for absentees when no one is around--well, other than the fact that some are supposed to be Republicans and some are supposed to be Democrats and therefore they're supposed to serve as a check on each other. But what if there is a strong third-party challenge? It's not unthinkable that the two major parties could collude and block the third party using these electronic machines and their lack of verifiable output. It's very disturbing. What if the machine misregistered my votes? I have no way of detecting error, and therefore no recourse.Sounds like someone thinks the magical little people make that fancy, modern voting-machine work. It's witchcraft I tell you. Last time I voted with a punch card or an optically scanned card or one of those lever pulling, curtained machines, I didn't get a paper receipt either. I only got an "I voted" sticker. In each of those cases, there's no way of telling if my vote actually gets counted by anyone. It just disappears into a machine (for the optical and punch cards) or into the ether (for the lever-machine). I don't see anyone counting these things. They do it behind closed doors. Imagine what kind of fraud might be going on, especially in places like downtown St. Louis where you can be sure there are no Republican poll-watchers, or in Cheyenne, where there are probably no Democrats.
Glenn Reynolds suggests we go to the old reliable, secure method of marking an X on our ballots and counting them by hand. Of course, Glenn thinks there's less chance for fraud if all the ballots look different because, you see, people have different handwriting styles and will make their marks in different ways. Personally, I'd use Comic Sans or maybe Palatino Linotype for my X. This X-marking idea assumes that people who can't perform a simple, straight thrusting motion to punch out a hole next to a name could muster the coordination to draw an X. Imagine all the stray marks from Palm Beach County residents when they drop the Sharpie on the Lyndon LaRouche box while simultaneously adjusting their bifocals and trying to prop, one-armed, on their walkers. Imagine a panel of Dade County's brightest holding the cards up to a light to determine that the blotch next to Kerry is a vote for him, but that scribble next to Bush isn't a vote for him. Instead of hanging chads, we'll have manifest blemishes and latent splotches.
Which highlights the reason we use optical scanners, punch cards and voting machines -- and now computers. The votes can be recorded and counted by a machine. You've all heard the get-out-the-vote exhortations about how one vote per princinct would have elected Richard Nixon instead of John Kennedy. And if you're recording the vote by hand, it is much easier to write the number 1,356 instead of 1,355 for your precinct, than it is to forge a ballot or steal an access card and get it to the scanner or computer. And it's gotta be easier to get it by the other judges, than getting out of your chair and forging a ballot or taking a second and third trip to the computer.
Now, I understand that people are worried about hacking, and we are right to demand assurances from Diebold and the other manufacturers that it won't happen. But wake up! Current totals are tabulated by computer, even if the vote itself isn't recorded that way. Why should the new computers present a greater security threat? And these worries come from the same people who trust computers to keep track of their bank deposits and withdrawals at ATM machines.
I'm more worried about the people selected to work the polls, the party henchmen who drive the mentally infirm to the polls with instructions on how to vote a straight ticket and the activist judges keeping downtown St. Louis polling places open late so Democrats will have a shot at Missouri's electoral votes. And don't forget, you can vote with out proving your identity. That's the real problem.
