Right here in our state of Tennessee, there was a law that basically said: no more touchscreens. And we have ninety-three out of ninety-five counties that have touchscreens right now. They're gonna have them for the 2008 election, which is kind of the irony, because the feeling was we can't shift over that fast. But it will be starting in 2010. So that's kind of like the good news/bad news syndrome. But I think that's symbolic of how things are changing. Now, it's not as a paper ballot, it's gonna be Optiscan. But you at least have auditability.
So, I'm trying to go back to your question. I think the electorate's more informed, I think people are more vigilant about it, in general. I think people are more educated about the problem, and I think that's good. I think that makes it much more difficult for an election to be manipulated if people are aware of that. So I'm encouraged.
The problem is, these Optiscans, they're just as hackable as any of them. If you happen to see the film Hacking Democracy, that's what they hacked into. That's a film that was quite good. It aired on HBO in 2006 and dealt specifically with electronic voting. You can hack those machines very easily. And that's the key: the states have to be rigid and vigilant about auditing, and they don't always do that. They set up Optiscan, but they don't have real strong requirements. See, I don't think there should be an audit just in the case of a dispute. I think it should be a standard thing. A standard where you audit a certain number just to check and make sure there's nothing funny going on here.
That's kind of the situation, and I'd like to see more emphasis on that. But at least when you start with a paper ballot and you end with a paper ballot, that's going in the right direction.
I don't know that I've ever used a non-touchscreen voting method. Here in Tennessee, is there any auditability in the ones we're using right now?
No. You know, if it's time for a recount, all you can do is just hit a button. There's nothing to recount. It's in the machine, so there's actually no auditability, and no checks at all. And that's definitely our situation here in Tennessee. Right now, I believe two counties have paper ballots, and ninety-three use the touchscreens.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Your interview would be a lot more interesting if you hadn't stuck to nothing but softball questions and fawning on your subject.
I'd have liked to see you ask him if he had any evidence at all that any voting machines had ever been hacked during an election (there is none) and perhaps hit him with some questions about the hundreds of thousands of bogus registrations from ACORN and other leftist groups, or perhaps the cash for votes practices of Democrats in a number of southern states.
But I guess that wouldn't suit your agenda, just as the media avoids reporting on election fraud in general because they know that any unbiased and halfway thorough investigation will reveal so much more fraud from the left than the right that it would be embarassing.
Think about it. All this furor about voting machines, yet it is the city and county and state electoral bureaucracies which are dominated by Democrats which have been the main supporters of the use of these machines.
Partisans like the people who made this film have identified a legitimate problem, but they need to come to grips at some point with the reality that if there is fraud going on, it's much more likely to be their political allies who are doing it.
Dave
2 - David R. Perry
Dave,
I'm assuming that you haven't actually watched said movie. I would recommend it (it's available via Netflix, by the way; in case anyone here subscribes), as I found it very interesting, and many of the criticisms you mention are dealt with in more detail there. I was not attempting to rehash every point or claim of the film.
Granted, the film has an admittedly obvious leftist bent to it, but I think it's ridiculous to criticize the main thrust of the film, which deals with the need for more accountability and checks and balances in the voting process. That is something that only benefits a real democracy. Your quibble seems to be with "why" they're looking into it in the first place, which is less important.
If you'd like to ask your own questions, the production company seems fairly open to media inquiries. Perhaps you can help fill in the blanks of the discussion.
By the way, your critique would be more interesting if you didn't exhibit an obviously equal, but opposite, agenda. (Agendas come from both sides, you know.)
- DRP
3 - Dave Nalle
Well, I'd normally take a middle course, but when dealing with a partisan position I'm naturally inclined to take the opposite one.
I've done a lot of reading on the voting security issue == things like actual academic studies -- but there's so much propaganda out there that I'm reluctant to watch a film. The format is much easier to use for propaganda and distortion in the grand Michael Moore tradition.
These things are getting on cable, though. So when it does I'll be all over it.
Dave
4 - John
The bias is so overwhelmingly against Republicans that the film is self- discrediting.