E-Voting Critics Brushed Off As Wild-Eyed Activists?
from the way-to-win-support dept
Both the Heartland Institute and the Pacific Research Institute have long histories of questionable public policy positions. Both groups have been accused at times of being involved in astroturf or shilling campaigns for their funders, who usually remain anonymous. PRI, in particular, seems to have a habit of making really bad arguments in support of their position -- such as making arguments against municipal WiFi and net neutrality while making it clear they didn't actually understand either issue. Tim Lee has now pointed us to a bizarre defense of electronic voting systems by a researcher at PRI and published by the Heartland Institute. The defense seems to claim that e-voting was a tremendous success despite all of the problems we've pointed out here. All of the actual problems are simply brushed off as "user error" which shows a startling (but, perhaps not surprising, given the source) lack of knowledge about the complaints of the problems during the last few elections. Also, even if it actually was "user error," that should say something about how poorly the system was designed. If they're built in a way that user error is such a problem, they were built incredibly poorly.The article continues along its bizarre defense of e-voting machines. Anyone complaining about e-voting system problems is called a "wild-eyed activist" or an "open source zealot." It seems that without an actual argument, the researcher has fallen to simply insulting anyone who disagrees with him. He doesn't explain how to solve the problems that e-voting has introduced, but does make sure to say that user verified paper trails are a bad idea -- apparently because they could be just as susceptible to fraud. So, basically, if I understand his argument correctly, it appears to be that we should use poorly built, untested, problematic e-voting systems with no backup, because "that's progress." Can someone explain how having a backup system that would at least let you have a double check on the system could possibly be bad? Even if they are susceptible to fraud, you've now added two separate systems to count the votes, and any fraud would have to defeat both systems. It's ridiculous to think that it's just "ideological lions" pushing for better voting systems. This is an issue we should all be concerned about for the sake of democracy -- but, unfortunately, it looks like less than scrupulous think tanks are joining in on the side of the e-voting machine vendors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who paid em
It was either a company such as Diebold who wants their unsercure worthless shit to be bought up and used,
or a politician who intends to have the system hacked for their favor
(not accusing either party D or R, they both suck)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's pretty obvious it was Diebold, or similar, who is just incompetent and still wants to make a buck. I do not believe or take seriously the idea that some politician or organization is purposefully making an unaccountable system, so they can one day seize the reigns.
It's unwieldly and requires too many people to be in evil colusion. Most people are incompetent, many are greedy, few are evil.
That way lies madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Hard Knocks
p.s. chaps: sorry about the clumsy posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coporate Amercia
Until I see the source code, I will continue to use a paper ballot. That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coporate Amercia
Even if they let you see the source code what makes you think you could make heads or tails of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just goes to show....
Voting is a joke apparently and so is our so-called democracy.
Can't wait to spread our "superior" political system to other countries like Iraq, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Vote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#2, #8 100% correct
e-voting is simply currently (imho) built deliberately to be ... errr ... adjustable per highest bidder. I'm not at all surprised by "research" such as this ... of course the pols want a broken system - else how can they manipulate it for their corrupt ends.
building an e-voting system that is secure and reliable is, well, not exactly trivial, but certainly within our reach. we have the technology and the talent - but not the will - the government/media complex is far too powerful at this time to allow anything close to true and fair elections.
and sadly, since the two parties in power are both disturbingly corrupt - this is something that will have to take root at the state level with massive grass roots efforts to do this on state by state level. feds will do everything they can to stop it, but I think it is possible to win this fight. If enough states adopt a fair method, then feds will have to accept it - of, yes, we expect to see some asinine legislation saying things like, oh, you have to use diebold, or other crap, but if states and localities simply ignore it, yeah, the feds will try and say the votes don't count - but this is where we can win this fight - remember the furor in the last two elections over "disenfranchised voters"? well, imagine if not just thousands and tens of thousands are disenfranchised- can you imagine the backlash if feds try and discount an entire state's results ? with luck, it will wake up enough people from american idol to actually start caring again about their country and what is happening to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presidential Auction
with e-voting, it really is an auction. the highest bidder wins. there is no freedom in voting, no meaning to it. they simply allow corporations to fund a candidate and they spend their money lying, cheating, and stealing an election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I usually agree with that "Never attribute to malice what can be explained with incompetence" line, but its getting silly.. in a very unfunny way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]