I knew it was bad.
Others have been saying it's bad, and providing evidence.
Still others stick their fingers in their ears and shout,
"I can't hear you," or look blankly and say, "Why does this matter?"
or scratch their heads and say, "Oh, it can't possibly
be that bad or somebody would have already done something about
it ... You haven't turned into one of those conspiracy theorists,
have you?" Perhaps some, oblivious to the long history of low-tech
dirty tricks and attempted (successful?) cheating in elections
here and elsewhere, still think, "Oh, but nobody would actually
do that, so it's okay.
Y'know what? It looks like it's even worse than I'd thought.
From the IT folks up at Princeton:
Analysis
of the [Diebold AccuVote-TS] machine, in light of real election
procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious
attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine
or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install
malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes
undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent
with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also
create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from
machine to machine during normal election activities -- a
voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of
these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes
to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more
rigorous election procedures. [emphasis added]
Hmm. So much for the "but they'd need to gain access to an awful lot
of machines to make a big enough difference" reassurance?
As the Princeton folks say in their FAQ, in response to folks who
think this is just sour grapes from 2004, "Our goal is to make
elections more accurate. That shouldn't be a partisan issue [...]"
Admittedly I, D'Glenn, am less neutral on the subject of recent
elections than these researchers are, but this -- the
matter of whether we have verifiable, secure voting --
really should not be a partisan issue. Consider this:
- For Democrats who believe or suspect that the 2004 election
was stolen, or who believe that the Republicans are capable of
resorting to such tactics in the future -- you obviously want
close these security holes.
- For Republicans who believe Democrats play dirtier than they
do, and/or are certain that the 2004 election was completely fair --
even if 99.99% of Democrats are good, honest folk, how sure are
you that a handful of extremist nutjobs out past the fringe of
their party, convinced that the 2004 election was stolen
and disgruntled that nothing was done about it, won't try to 'even
the score' by doing to you what they think you did to them,
if these security holes aren't closed?
- For independents, Greens, Libertarians, etc. -- isn't it
hard enough getting your vote to really count without also having
to worry whether it was even counted in the first
place?
- And for everyone -- as long as these opportunities
for mischief remain, what's to stop random monkeywrenchers, enemies of
us all or mere sociopathic vandals, from screwing it up for everybody
even if no party is doing it to steal an election? Wouldn't Al Queda
just love to fuck with our government and our society on such a
fundamental level? Wouldn't some p00r-5p3113r cr4ck3r \/\/4nn4-B make a
hell of a name for himself doing this?
So who the hell wouldn't want a better system than this
demonstrably dangerously flawed one? Only the folks who, in the
backs of their minds, want to hold the option of tampering available in
case they someday deem it 'necessary', right? Or those more
concerned with profit -- from machine sales, bribes, kickbacks, whatever
-- than any belief in the importance of democracy. When you
hear about someone who actively opposes trying to fix these problems,
ask yourself why they would do so.
It's not a partisan issue, nor is it some unsolvable "just gotta live
with it" problem. Either you believe our one-person-one-vote system is
a good idea and worth protecting, or you don't.