Krugman : Fear of (Election) Fraud

[G_j]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072804D.shtml

Fear of Fraud
By Paul Fear of Fraud
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Tuesday 27 July 1004

It's election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger's campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.

When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.

This isn't a paranoid fantasy. It's a true account of a recent election in Riverside County, Calif., reported by Andrew Gumbel of the British newspaper The Independent. Mr. Gumbel's full-length report, printed in Los Angeles City Beat, makes hair-raising reading not just because it reinforces concerns about touch-screen voting, but also because it shows how easily officials can stonewall after a suspect election.

Some states, worried about the potential for abuse with voting machines that leave no paper trail, have banned their use this November. But Florida, which may well decide the presidential race, is not among those states, and last month state officials rejected a request to allow independent audits of the machines' integrity. A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush accused those seeking audits of trying to "undermine voters' confidence," and declared, "The governor has every confidence in the Department of State and the Division of Elections."

Should the public
The New York Times

Tuesday 27 July 1004

It's election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger's campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.

When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.

This isn't a paranoid fantasy. It's a true account of a recent election in Riverside County, Calif., reported by Andrew Gumbel of the British newspaper The Independent. Mr. Gumbel's full-length report, printed in Los Angeles City Beat, makes hair-raising reading not just because it reinforces concerns about touch-screen voting, but also because it shows how easily officials can stonewall after a suspect election.

Some states, worried about the potential for abuse with voting machines that leave no paper trail, have banned their use this November. But Florida, which may well decide the presidential race, is not among those states, and last month state officials rejected a request to allow independent audits of the machines' integrity. A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush accused those seeking audits of trying to "undermine voters' confidence," and declared, "The governor has every confidence in the Department of State and the Division of Elections."

..more..

[oasis]

1. Election fraud can slip in and undo all of our hard work. We cannot

afford to become complacent on this issue.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. The basis of society is MISTRUST, not trust

We got out of caves and mud huts by banding together, agreeing on common values and enforcing them. Lions and tigers and bears weren't the real pressing problem: society exists to protect us from each other; people are the problem. Thus, anyone expecting to be "trusted" and be above review is a danger to the common good.

There is nothing more important in a constituent republic than our vote; if it's compromised, not only do we not have the society we want, but we lose confidence in the system and become a nation of scofflaws and subversives. The very idea of an unverifiable vote is the sign of ill-will. Anyone suggesting a voting system that doesn't give a printed receipt is a fool or a thug and should be publicly confronted as such. Price is not a legitimate argument, and the price is not that great anyway.

Here's how to make it foolproof: upon finishing casting the vote, a printout should be issued showing that voter number x voted for these particular people and initiatives. The voter's name isn't on the slip, and that slip is only used if there's a recount or periodic (random and frequent) counter-checking. Voila: the ballot is still secret, and any tampering would show up. (Okay, so it's not completely foolproof, but it's mighty close.)

Trust schmust. In the famous words of the great Pete Stark, upon voting against the Iraq Resolution "The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not trust this President and I do not trust his advisors."

An honorable person has no problem standing to scrutiny, unless crabbed with other emotional issues, and even then will generally submit.

Fuck Jeb Bush, and absolutely fuck this "gentlemanly" rhetoric of insinuating that things tended to go the way they wanted. Look him straight in the eye and tell him you don't trust him. They cheated in '00 in every way imaginable, and did it in the full light of day. With clear precedents that "voter intent" was the standard, they disqualified the Jacksonville two-page ballot for thousands, they didn't count ANY overvotes, even when intent was obvious and they stalled and interfered with recounts. 16 Counties never even did a full recount. It only takes common sense to see this, and if that's not enough, after the Supremes slammed the door, Republican lawyers brought suit to have disputed ballots destroyed to cover their tracks.

Tell him that it's his job to make it right; he can like it or lump it, but it's his job to guarantee people equal protection under the law.

[dusty64]

3. Read this before, but

it deserves a :kick:.