Articles and Blogs
ELECTION = TECHIE + MOTIVATION
That's it. One reasonably clever techie. Period. More startling is the realization that from a single point of infiltration, potentially every.....every voting machine in the country can be infected... OpEdNews.com.
As Americans we the people, individually and independently can choose to vote for our future... or not. Our vote is our power to be heard, to take an active part in our own destiny. When that right is taken from us by negligence, error, incompetence or an accident of technology, it is an insult to this country and those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. None of us, not red, not blue, not independent, not indifferent should accept this chipping away at democracy. Continued.
Did you know that most advocates of paper ballot technology are fuddy-duddy, itchy-witchy thinking, nervous Nelly, skittish souls over 40? That’s the gist of an article that re-circulated recently. Perhaps it was penned by a reporter who never balanced a bank account.
Nonetheless, the resurgence of the article triggered a lively thought provoking e-debate and introduced again the need to look at elections and counting votes from a business perspective. The importance of the business perspective and business model points of view cannot be overstated. In part because, until we define the problem we’re trying to solve, we will never solve the problem. That is to reliably count votes and prove the number of votes we count is correct today, correct tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. One voter --- one vote, one count. Every time. Fraud isn’t committed all the time. Mistakes aren’t rampant every election. Technological failure doesn’t occur every election. But had “we” followed good business practices, we never would have bought into paperless touchscreens (to count 100 votes per machine) as a voting method in the first place. In fact, had we followed good business practices, Florida would have sent 2000 and 2006 back to the voters in precincts where the voting process failed.
From a business model perspective, who owns the ultimate responsibility? Nobody. The fox guards the henhouse. Our election business “model” encourages the classic “he did it / she did it” method to problem definition and solution.
• The Secretary of State certifies the machines as a working and acceptable means of recording and counting votes. Except that as underscored in the GAO's Sarasota reports, this process is blatantly inadequate, in part because the Secretary of State tests ES&S machines following ES&S recommendations using ES&S created test data.
• The Election Supervisor relies on that all important Secretary of State certification to establish a baseline from which to implement his or her ballots for each election. Even the most obscure and seemingly benign faults not detected by the Secretary of State could result in catastrophic failures during an election, particularly one with complex ballots and high turnout. The failure very likely would not be caught by the Election Supervisor's cursory testing to make sure a ballot works.
• When a problem occurs, no one wants to publically admit to flaws in the process. So the voter becomes the convenient scapegoat. The voter has no voice. In effect there is no problem.
Except in Florida, voters' voices were heard. So we rushed out to buy new machines, a new solution. But we still haven't corrected the problem. Our business model has not changed.
Until we develop an election business model that includes high standards for recognizing flawed election results and insists on prompt and consistent corrective action (such as a re-vote by hand if necessary), we cannot ensure all votes will be counted and counted accurately. Until we develop an election business model that requires sound business practices, independent audits, comprehensive computer development and testing methods, and looks rationally at the problem we're trying to solve, we cannot guarantee that any voting technology (DRE, optical ballot scanner, e-voting, mail, or hand counts) will succeed. OpEdNews
In her October 10th article announcing Florida's move to optical scanners, Miami Herald's Amy Sherman reported, "To save time & money, most counties that already had equipment from Election System & Software ordered from the same company." Last August after Florida & California's testing exposed problems & vulnerabilities with electronic voting machines, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning asked if the amount of time spent in defending the voting systems or trying to prove to the public that the voting systems are accurate & secure is worth the effort. He said we should be spending out time running good elections.
There, problem defined. You can't run a good election if your machines don't work... Flapolitics.com, OpEdNews.
Oops. The voting system is not secure & until it is, you can't run a good election. Still, his words drill to the core of Florida's voting woes. There's time to do it over, but never time to do it right. The recent testing in California & Florida that revealed flaws in the systems should have been conducted prior to squandering our tax dollars - and our votes - by buying the machines.
It's time to start thinking like a business. Let's define the problem before we rush to another solution, implement more rigorous guidelines for voting machine providers and election officials, and fix our election laws to protect us from machine and human error - and human interpretation. Until we do, our election process will continue to be broken. Diebold Flaws Pose Risks in Fla. Computerworld.com.
Moreover, if we are to secure one voter, one vote ... every-time integrity in our election process, we must implement high-bar guidelines for voting machine providers and elections officials to uphold. What would the profit-conscious business world do? We must be more business wise. We need tighter, better, wiser controls. USA Today.