If it is it doesn't matter

Saturday, July 15, 2006

HAVA Problem?

HAVA -- the Help America Vote Act -- was a good idea, in theory. And I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that the people who wrote it or voted for it had any bad intentions. Florida 2000 was a black-eye for America. NOBODY wanted to hear the words 'hanging chads' or 'butterfly ballot' anywhere but in history classes. It made perfect sense to encourage states to get rid of the sort of voting systems that made them possible. (And while, as a New Yorker, I disagree with the idea of replacing the clunky old mechanical systems that I have voted on all my life, which are messy and 'old-fashioned' but which are also safe and checkable, the company that made them is out of business, and when they break down it is hard to fix them or get replacement parts.)

And these days the first thought is always towards doing something electronically. Touch screens, computer counts, these were the obvious way to go, if done right.

Unfortunately, short-sightedness, stupidity, haste, and the idea to 'get it done fast, and we'll fix it in the implimentation,' as usual, created as much chaos as pure malevolence could have.

The important thing was not just that the systems created should BE efficient, honest, and secure, but that they would APPEAR so as well. After the Florida Follies, nobody wanted a system that was vulnerable, where the only guarantee of integrity was to trust election officials.

There would seem to be some simple basics here that should be musts in any electronic voting system.

There has to be a REAL paper trail -- an honest one that would include a copy for the voter and a copy of each individual vote for a possible recount. (To ensure voter confidentiality, each vote should be numbered, but the numbers should be assigned randomly and secretly, so only the voter would know the number he was assigned.)

The machine operating code should be open to a non-partisan group of computer experts before the machine was accepted, and the machine needs some form of device to that would set off bells, whistles, and alarms at any tampering with the code, rendering the machine unusable.

Some sort of barrier should be in place when individual machines link up to a central counting device -- is one is absolutely needed, so that if, despite precautions, some tampering is done with an individual machine, it can't affect the whole system.

Any operation of the machine has to be done on a hands on basis, with no wireless ports, no internal wireless modem, etc.

States and cities should be provided with money not just to purchase such machines, but to store them securely, so they would be locked away until the night before the election, brought out, a final test would be run, and then they would be distributed to the polling places. If this cosy extra money, again it should be provided.

Finally, despite the expense, I think that each precint should have four voting machines that could be rotated, for example, primary, general, primary, general, with perhaps a fifth for special elections. That way, the machines could be inspected at any time up to two years after a given election if there are allegations of fraud.

(I would have to ask someone more familiar with technology and costs to answer this, but since the danger seems to me to be the greatest when a machine is reprogrammed for a new election, it might actually be possible to create a 'one-time use' machine that could be used for a given election, be unreprogrammable, be unopenable without rendering it useless, and which could then be stored indefinitely for the use of historians and social scientists.)

None of these seem to be brilliant ideas, merely obvious ones, They must be the sort of ideas that are implimented in current electronic voting machines, the ones that are being used in more and more states. Right?

Unfortunately...

4 Comments:

Blogger Clampett said...

Unfortunately...

indeed.

I remember you from history on trial (I lurked occasionally)

Do you have a more updated blog?

1:21 PM  
Blogger Evangeline said...

You said on another blog that Ron Paul supports gay rights and is anti abortion. You said several other things that show your lack of education. He is a constitutionalist who does not support gays or abortions, but under the constitution of the USA, he believes that INDIVIDUALS have the right to make their own choices. There is a huge difference. He is also brilliant in Austrian economics and has predicted precisely the downfall of the USA economy for the last 6 years. None of the other three candidates, especially McCain have the knowledge to help return the USA to sound money. You really need to educate yourself a little better in regards to Dr. Paul. I realize some people dont choose to do this because they are afraid they will be catagorized as you so eloquently put it....a Paulbot, but by calling us names, you show more of your ignorance, which is sad and diminishes any point you are trying to make. Have you read The Revolution, A Manifesto? It is number one on the NYTimes best seller list. I dare you. Then come back and try to belittle Dr Paul.

6:07 AM  
Anonymous MsJoanne said...

Jim, I would like to send you an email. If you're open to that, would you post a comment on my blog (LiveFrankly.wordpress.com)? Thanks! MsJoanne

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

6:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home