Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Outdated thinking

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 27, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Secretary of State Mike Coffman on Wednesday recommended using paper ballots in the 2008 presidential elections.

Secretary of State Mike Coffman on Wednesday recommended using paper ballots in the 2008 presidential elections.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

If democracy were being invented today, does anyone seriously believe its founders would adopt a voting system based on paper ballots? In an age when Coloradans comfortably conduct a wide array of activities electronically - paying their bills, managing their investments, shopping and, thanks to Amazon's Kindle, even reading a current best-seller - is it really credible that they must resort to 18th century technology to minimize voting error and fraud?

That, in effect, is what we're being told in the wake of Secretary of State Mike Coffman's decision to decertify many popular electronic voting machines. According to a Rocky article on Christmas, for example, "Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, said he wants to decrease the use of electronic voting equipment" in favor of paper ballots or mail elections.

Coffman himself came out Wednesday in favor of paper ballots at the polls, although as recently as last week he was assuring one and all that counties could still plan to use electronic machines in next year's election. Thankfully, even his latest stance still leaves him at odds with county clerks and others lobbying for a mostly mail election.

Remember, the genesis of this crisis was a concern over the integrity of our elections. Yet how secure can a statewide mail election be, when tens or even hundreds of thousands of ballots will arrive at the homes of people who either no longer live there or who have no intention of voting this time? Every unwanted ballot is an invitation to attempted fraud. And the lines of defense? The Postal Service on the front end and signature verification at the back end. As if they're foolproof.

By the way, my mention of the 18th century applies only to marking the ballots, since paper ballots (including the mail versions) end up in electronic scanning devices, which are subject to their own glitches.

The point is not that mail balloting or paper ballots are rife with fraud and error (although mail balloting is clearly the sloppiest system of all), but that we should weigh relative risks before stampeding out of the electronic arena. After all, if I can buy stock electronically without worry, why should I still have to use a pencil on Election Day?

Lay of the land

There was unnoticed irony in the announcement earlier this month of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies' new slogan, "Consumer protection is our mission." To be sure, DORA regulates a broad array of businesses and professions - from dentistry to insurance - that most Coloradans probably agree need some oversight.

But if you go online to DORA's Division of Registrations, you'll also find in the list of licensed occupations such dire threats to public health and welfare as barbers, athletic trainers, cosmetologists, hairstylists, manicurists and my personal favorite, landscape architects.

Somehow Colorado survived for more than a century without a state board of landscape architects, but that unbearable oversight was corrected this year by our vigilant legislature. By New Year's Day, every landscape architect must be registered for the initial fee of $255 (and you just know that money will be put to good use, don't you?).

Despite its billing, the new licensing program has very little to do with consumer protection and a great deal more to do with limiting competition and consumer choice. According to the new law, "Any person who practices . . . landscape architecture without an active license issued under this article commits a Class 2 misdemeanor." And the second offense is a felony.

Won't you sleep better next year knowing that rogue landscape architects are now finally in the sights of our tireless prosecutors?

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • December 27, 2007

    8:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    If we printed ballots on gold bullion and hired saints and angels to count them, our electoral process would remain the same pathetic abortion of democracy that it is today.

    The problem is our Soviet-style, yes-or-no system. Americans have no choice. We must either vote Republican or Democrat, which is essentially a choice between murderous war-profiteers or spineless wimps. It's like presenting a groom with only two places to find a bride, the brothel or the nunnery.

    After millions of people were butchered by stupidity twice, Europeans made an incremental improvement in democracy during the 20th century. They have run-off elections. A run-off election makes it possible to break the tyranny of our two-party dictatorship. In a run-off election, when no candidate gets a clear majority then those with the lowest number of votes are kicked off the list and we get to vote again.

    A variation on this method is ranked voting. In ranked voting, you number your candidates from favorite to worst. The result of ranked voting is the same as a run-off election. The difference is that you only have to vote once in a ranked voting method. The only drawback from run-off to ranked voting is that once you cast your ballot in a ranked vote, you can't change your mind later.

    In our present system, we have spoilers. Ralph Nader was the spoiler in 2000. Technically, Gore lost the election because of poll fraud in Florida where myriads of voters were forbidden to vote because of bogus felony records. The bogus records were based on mismatched names in a deliberately broken database. It wasn't about the hanging chads or miscounted votes. That was a red herring. But Nader, although he has more integrity than any other candidate, cost Gore the election because he drew away just enough votes that Gore would have won despite the Florida fraud.

    A ranked voting system would have worked better for us. It would give candidates like Ralph Nader, Patrick Buchanan, and Ron Paul a chance at becoming the people's choice without forcing them to become nothing more than spoilers.

    Ranked voting would give parties like the Greens and Libertarians more power in our government. Both have positive ideas to contribute. Libertarians believe in minimal government, more freedom, and less foreign entanglements. These things would allow us to force the government to live within its means and spare the lives of our military people. The Greens support people power over big corporations, a clean environment, and universal health care. These things would enable American workers to earn a decent living, keep their jobs, and enjoy clean water, blue skies, and better health.

    What do the Republicans and Democrats offer us today? Fear.

    Fear is not a solution.

  • December 27, 2007

    8:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnSWren writes:

    What do you think? Is ballot security and neighborhood voting important today, or could it all be done just as easily over the Internet?

    Come and tell us what you think at the next Denver Grassroots Rally, January 4, at Panera Bread near the Capitol. We plan on moving the meeting to Civic Center Park this Spring. To be part of the leadership group, RSVP at http://cocacop.meetup.com/2 where you'll also find the details about the meeting.

  • December 27, 2007

    10:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Eagle5 writes:

    Personally, I am for mail ballots even if it means a copy of your birth certificate and driver's license has to be sent with it.

  • December 27, 2007

    11:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Faux_Noise writes:

    Ok, mail in is not the best way to do an all paper election, but that does not moot the concept. There needs to be a verifiable record of votes for recounts.

    The more appropriate question is, if we can have nearly foolproof electronic transactions for most daily activities, why can't we have the same for elections?

    The answer: So Republicans and their corporate cronies in the electronic election industry can continue to steal elections. (Diebold CEO: "I personally guarantee delivering Ohio's electoral votes to George W. Bush.")

    At least Coffman has some integrity.

  • December 27, 2007

    1:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackwoehr writes:

    Vince --

    You ask, "[I]s it really credible that they must resort to 18th century technology to minimize voting error and fraud?"

    The answer, apparently, is "yes", since the voting machine suppliers have spent a decade kicking sand over the unauditability of their systems. See umpteen citations I can provide you with any time on this problem, ol' buddy.

  • December 27, 2007

    2:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    When the CEO of a company that manufactures voting machines, guarantees a victory for one party then it is time to use another company. Diebold should not get any business from our government.

  • December 27, 2007

    6:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    csbrudy writes:

    If there is a way to steal an election, then it will be stolen by the minority. The idea is to make elections as difficult as possible to steal. The worst way is touch screens with no paper ballots. No one can tell what is going on in the machine, so no one can assure the machine's accuracy. No matter what they tell you, they don't know.
    The most accurate and foolproof method is to use paper ballots and to count those ballots right there in the precinct by hand right after the polls close. This is still done in many precincts of New Hampshire. Hand counts are the best, and they are less expensive than buying, maintaining, programming and testing any computerized system.
    Any system that takes ballots out of the public view any time after casting and before counting opens the process to corruption. That includes early voting, absentee voting and mail in voting.
    A majority of those concerned about the integrity of our elections have finally come around to the idea of using paper ballots again. Unfortunately, those good folks want to count with optical scanners which can still be hacked, albeit with a great deal more difficulty. Truly random audits of the counts can allay most of the optical scan hacking fears, however.
    For that reason, the new Holt bill is probably the nation's best bet going into the 2008 general elections. Google Holt bill....
    Instant runoff voting would eliminate the spoiler effect of Perot, et.al., but let's tackle one problem at a time: Well audited, optically scanned paper ballots nationwide.

  • December 28, 2007

    12:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    You ask " In an age when Coloradans comfortably conduct a wide array of activities electronically - paying their bills, managing their investments, shopping and, thanks to Amazon's Kindle, even reading a current best-seller - is it really credible that they must resort to 18th century technology to minimize voting error and fraud?"

    The answer is yes. The reason you do not understand the limitations of electronic security is that you are not educated about the subject.

    My on line bank uses 1 password and 3 trick questions to keep my account secure. My mail order prescription drug company works at functionality and security so hard that the website changes every month. Of course it doesn't work anyway, so I call them and order by phone. A discount brokerage outfit gave me 534 shares of stock by mistake. They would not take them back even when I offered.

    We would not tolerate those levels of complexity or this level of errors in counting ballots. Voting has to work right the first time every time because there is a legal deadline for getting it right. There are no do-overs. And we need to be able to prove that we got it right and that nobody cheated.

    We apparently don't have that ability in 2007.

    How well would you do if every typo

  • December 29, 2007

    8:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    harvie writes:

    Vince, it's curious that Coloradoans are still buying newspapers made out of newsprint, isn't it! Yes, Coloradoans prefer paper ballots and a chance to watch them being counted at neighborhood polls where they sign their name onto a paper poll book!

    A Zogby poll in 2006 revealed that American voters indicated an overwhelming 92% preference for publicly observable vote counting.
    In a world of Home Depot & Sam’s Club maybe we expect to go to a factory outlet to vote?

    And why not just trust the clerk and SOS when they say the election is fine, rather than seeing it for ourselves? In the modern world who expects old world frills like public oversight? Let's all go line up at a vote-center and feel like characters in Orwell's 1984!

    You said: "paper ballots (including the mail versions) end up in electronic scanning devices, which are subject to their own glitches.

    Correct. We need to be very watchful over these electronic marvels, and be ready to count votes ourselves by hand if necessary when the machines can't interpret our marks. A paper ballot provides an individual indelible human verifiable record of voter intent. Electronic ballots do not.

    When I started asking questions about elections a few years ago I got no decent answers so I became involved and personally checked the voting machines before the election. I found they did have problems to be worked around. So I started arguing for definitive testing of voting machines. After the improved testing started this year, the Secretary gave us the shock and awe treatment.

    Suddenly the Colorado testing board recommended NOT to certify ANY of the machines.

    Reacting to his own shock treatment, the Secretary now tells the legislature it must hurry to change the statutes for certification to allow us to vote in 2008 again but preferably on paper.

    Preferably on paper makes sense, but a quick change of statute to satisfy each vendor would give voters every reason for continued concern.

    Harvie Branscomb

  • December 29, 2007

    8:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    harvie writes:

    Not mentioned so far in public is the testing board's insistence to beef up the audit so that we would more likely find instances of error while the election is counted. An improved audit is much needed in Colorado, since prior elections have been audited by a simple partial recount in most counties.

    You said: "if I can buy stock electronically without worry, why should I still have to use a pencil on Election Day?"

    How many voters use computers or even trade stock at all? Everyone except kids have to be able to vote. Voting is universal, not just for the computer savvy, editors and stockbrokers.

    ATM machines return money which verifies your transaction. But after voting, your reward might be simply an "I Voted Sticker". Voting does not automatically generate trust. Public oversight does.

    We need familiar, readable paper ballots at precinct polls with paper poll books, and local counting by local people if at all possible. We can use our electronic voting devices (DRE) to create paper ballots for voters who need accessibility assistance to satisfy the federal law.

    Above all we need a really good audit which verifies that the system of people plus machines and the (all new!) statewide voter registration system are all doing the best job.

    Everything in our election is and ought to be based on ordinary people, not experts. This includes testing and auditing which all require hand counting by citizens. It’s not a plague from a bygone era to hand count our ballots.

    Let’s try to remember how to be human!

    Harvie Branscomb