e-Voting: Death to Democracy!

The Diebold Corporation would like to count your vote this fall.

Diebold is the leading manufacturer of electronic voting equipment in the US. They offer an easy-to-use touchscreen interface that is supposed to streamline the voting process and all but eliminate the risk of voter error. Sounds great, right?

Wrong. The day that the US allows Diebold machines to run our elections is the day democracy dies in this country. The problem is that the source code controlling the machines is unauditable, and the voters do not receive any sort of reliable verification of their vote. These inadequacies leave the Diebold system entirely open to voter tampering and all-out election fraud. Diebold protects the source-code controlling these machines as a trade secret. They will not even allow the US government to audit the code for accuracy.

You may think it's pretty paranoid to think that a closed-source voting machine automatically means that our elections are at risk. Why should we suspect the integrity and impartiality of this company, Diebold?

Consider this: Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold is a very prominent GOP fundraiser. He said the following in an invitation to a GOP fundraiser in Ohio, in 2003:

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the
president next year."

Now, this is the guy that's heading the company that is essentially on track to run all US elections, using an unauditable, unverifiable electronic voting system. One would think he would try to maintain at least the appearance of being non-partisan, especially considering that the machines are so horribly prone to tampering. As long as the source code of their computerized voting systems remains unaudited, and as long as there is no
voter-verified paper trail in the process, Diebold voting has to be considered a complete farce, if not a total fraud.

Still not convinced? Following the contentious 2000 presidential election, a number of internal Diebold emails were leaked. One of them said:

"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have
been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216
gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain
this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing
here 'looking dumb'."

The "County" here is Volusia County, FL. There are about 600 voters in precinct 216, yet when it uploaded its results, Al Gore lost 16,000 votes. George Bush went on to eventually carry Florida by a few hundred votes. The Scoop has more than you can probably stomach about this.

Earlier this year, a voting advisory panel urged the state of California to stop using Diebold machines in its elections, and recommended that the state file civil and criminal charges against Diebold (warning: link opens popup ads). This followed an investigation of voter disenfranchisement during California's Democratic primary, which was traced to Diebold machines which were not certified for federal elections.

Today, the New York Times opined that the US government should fund the development of an open-source electronic voting system. This system would be auditable not just by the government, but by any citizen who would care to look at the code. In addition to the crucial requirement of auditable source code, I believe a reliable electronic voting system requires a voter-verified paper trail: after casting the electronic ballot, the voter receives a computer printout. She verifies that the printout reflects her intended ballot, and then deposits the recepit in a lock box. The paper ballots are then kept to be used in the event that a recount is required.

For more information, you may want to read Professor Aviel Rubin's testimony to the Federal Election Assistance Commission (link is a PDF file). You may also want to visit BlackBoxVoting.org. Bev Harris (no relation) is a real warrior in this battle, and a true patriot.

Free Culture

I just finished reading Lawrence Lessig's recent book, Free Culture, which I found so inspiring, I started writing YDO as my own blog on these issues.

Lessig is a professor of Constitutional Law at Stanford, and a deep thinker about "intellectual property issues" (and specifically, the subversion of copyright law as set forth in the Constitution by large media conglomerates).

His heartbreaking account of the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, which he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, is alone worth the price of the book. To see how easily the Supreme Court Justices, the epitome of all that is fair and reasonable, can overlook and ignore that which is so obviously right is extremely unnerving. Yet Lessig perseveres, and through him, we do as well. His proposed Eldred Act is a very reasonable way to protect the public domain from the grasping tentacles of the media giants. As Lessig says, they can have no reasonable objection to this Act. That they object speaks volumes about their true motivation: not the protection of artists, but the obliteration and outlawing of works that they do not control.

Love of Country

On this Memorial Day, recall and honor the supreme sacrifice that has been made by so many to protect and defend our liberties. Most sacred among these rights must be our right to Free Speech; this is, or used to be, the very heart of our society.

In 2004, you are a "patriot" if you believe that everything the US does is right and good. Those who stand up and say we are wrong, and that we should be better, are "traitors" who "hate America". What a sickening reversal of our founding fathers' intentions. What a disservice to all who have sacrificed their lives, that we may live Free.

The truth is that the critics are the truer Patriots. Both groups may love their country, but the FoxNews "patriots" love America with the innocence of a loyal puppy, who loves its master even if it is beaten. Critics love America more maturely; they will not stand idly by while the US falters, because they believe America is supposed to stand for principles like Freedom, Liberty and self-determination. When our government acts contrary to these ideals, it is a patriot's duty not
only to point it out, but to work to correct it.

That's the patriotism we should be teaching our children.