In the annals of American politics there have been very few statements so brutally corrupt in their intent or that reflected the basic imperfection of the American electoral process than that attributed to William “Boss” Tweed, who dominated the old Democratic Party political machine, Tammany Hall, in the mid-1800’s. According to a Harper’s Weekly political cartoon in 1871, Tweed said about an upcoming political election: “As long as I count the ballots, what are you going to do about it?”
Tweed knew from experience that, often, when politicians of his era really wanted to win an election, they didn’t hesitate at all to manipulate the actual vote count or to create new voting results. It was said that he learned that “skill," by observing the 1844 presidential election between James K. Polk and Henry Clay.
Tweed had learned that there were 45,000 eligible voters in the city of New York at the time, and that about eight percent of them usually did not turn out to vote. That calculation corresponded, coincidentally, with the 41,000 votes actually counted in the 1840 presidential election in the city. Tweed was highly amused and politically enlightened, therefore, when he learned that 55,086 ballots had been cast in New York City for the two candidates in the 1844 election, about 10,000 more than the total number of the city’s registered voters.
I bring all of this “old stuff” up because I’m growing more concerned every day about whether we will ever really get to know who actually receives the most popular votes in the 2008 presidential election next month.
Even after enduring 18 months of 24/7 campaign ads – in print, broadcast, Internet, and on our home phones; even after watching the candidates raise more than $1 billion in campaign funding for the first time in any U.S. presidential election (By the way, don’t blame the Green Party’s African-American candidate, Cynthia McKinney, for that. Her campaign has only raised $180,000, to date.); despite the record-breaking number of people already participating in "early voting;" despite the expectation that the general election turnout may be at near-record levels, there is a growing suspicion that we still may not get what we will actually vote for on November 4.
I don't say that because of the recent ACORN/voter registration issues. Even more alarming and to the point are the results of a “landmark” 2007 “Evaluation and Validation on Election-Related Equipment, Standards, and Testing” of Ohio’s electronic voting machines. In the analysis, known as EVEREST, researchers identified “critical security failures” in every voting machine system tested by several teams of private-sector and academic computer scientists and security consultants.
Not one, not a few … every single system.
Ohio officials went on to discover that some of the voting machines manufactured by a subsidiary of Diebold, Inc. actually “dropped votes” as they were being transmitted to a main server. The problem, they found, occurs in, both, Diebold’s touch screen and their paper ballot optical-scanning system, which will be used in more than 30 states during the presidential election this year.
In response to those findings, this year, Ohio voters who don’t trust the touch screen voting machines will be allowed to vote on a paper ballot, if they choose.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the problems with “e-voting” were simply a function of “computer errors.” In Georgia, in 2002, however, it is alleged that an executive from Diebold distributed a “patch” to workers that was applied to 5,000 voting machines throughout the state. The “patch," he told them, was designed to correct operational "glitches" in the voting machine software. There is a strong suspicion, now, based on the fact that two Democratic candidates, who were enjoying significant leads in pre-election polls, wound up losing by substantial margins, that the actual purpose of the "patch" was to manipulate the vote.
None of this would smell so bad, of course, if the CEO of Diebold, in 2003, while the company’s electronic voting machines were in use around the country, hadn’t been engaged in significant levels of fundraising for the George W. Bush re-election campaign. The biggest problem in all of this, of course, is that there’s no way – no way-- to prove or disprove whether tampering was actually done in Georgia, or whether it will take place in similarly situated voting systems across the country next month. Just last week, in fact, a report by Princeton University disclosed that electronic voting machines in use in New Jersey can be hacked and votes can be manipulated in a matter of just a few minutes.
In August, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in an attempt to stop the use of paperless electronic voting machines in Pennsylvania. Such systems were then in use in 58 of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties. Partially as a consequence of those actions, as of July of this year, 17 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties had adopted some form of “voter-marked and voter-verified” paper ballot for use on November 4. In Philadelphia, e-voting machines and software from Danaher Controls have been in place since about 2002, with relatively few major problems reported. However, there was that rumor that electronic voting machines in the city were showing vote totals in the 2004 elections even before the actual vote was counted. Maybe that won’t happen this time.
The stage, regrettably, is now set for a controversial outcome in the November election, even without electronic voting machines. The latest CNN “poll of polls," for example, informs us that Obama is carrying a 9-point lead, 51 % – 41 %, over John McCain, as of October 23, with 7 % of the electorate “undecided." With the strong suspicion that most of the “undecided” voters are not African-American, given that 94 % of black voters say they are already committed to Obama, that leaves a substantial voter segment “up for grabs," on November 4. There is also the lingering concern about whether the so-called “Bradley Effect” (which is now “wearing us out” with its repeated news coverage) will actually rear its ugly head and produce white voter support for Obama at levels below those reported to pollsters.
Throw all of that into the mix, together with the increasing volume of media reports of racially antagonistic incidents aimed at the Obama candidacy, and it’s not difficult to imagine that this election might be even closer than the 2000 presidential contest, in which Gore won the popular vote but, somehow, lost the presidency. The temptation to manipulate this year's vote count, it would seem, in so close an election, may be difficult to resist by either party.
All of this makes the unpredictability and vulnerability of "e-voting" machines a “front burner” issue – especially for folks who are talking about “making history” on election day.
It seems as though this might be one of those elections wherein wearing campaign buttons and t-shirts, displaying window and lawn signs for your candidate and, even, getting out and casting your vote on election day, may not be enough.
As "Boss" Tweed knew well, almost 140 years ago, the election may actually be decided by the people (or the software systems) that actually count the votes.
No matter how you plan to vote, my advice is to stay vigilant on this issue, before and after election day, or be prepared to lose.
As Tweed, himself, might say; “What are you going to do about it?”
############
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment