« New Day, New Poll | Main | Colombia »
May 13, 2006
Who Needs Diebold?
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
I've long thought that the conspiracy theories about software-based vote-rigging are overblown. After all, there are many, many ways to stack the deck in an election without quite so obviously breaking the law. Take, for instance, the upcoming New Orleans City Council races. The Council has just voted to move polling locations for the May 20th runoff, a mere nine days before the election. Coincidentally, 8 of the 10 affected precincts voted strongly against incumbent Councilman Jay Batt (R)—one gave as much as 85% of their vote to other candidates. They're not even hiding their intenions [emphasis mine]:
Hundreds of polling places were changed, in some cases several times, after Hurricane Katrina flooded most of the city and left many of the former voting sites unusable.
The precincts affected by the latest changes are in areas that did not flood. Officials did not explain why the Magazine Street and Dublin Street sites were no longer available.
It's hard to imagine a more naked attempt to disenfranchise your opponent's supporters.
Jay Batt's opponent is Shelley Stephenson Midura (D). You can contribute over the web.
May 13, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4863722
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Needs Diebold?:
» Stealing a NOLA election the old fashioned way from Majikthise
Nick Beaudrot explains how the Republicans are planning throw a NOLA election the old fashioned way, by moving the polls at the last minute. [Read More]
Tracked on May 16, 2006 11:24:04 AM
Comments
I've long thought that the conspiracy theories about software-based vote-rigging are overblown
I have never understood this head-in-the-sand thinking. Overblown? Let's face it. The refusal to face the obvious -- that there is a deliberate attempt to foist security-compromised voting machines on the electorate -- is truly pathological.
We know that voting machines have flawed designs.
We know that designing non-flawed voting machines is trivial (They are glorified calculators. This isn't like building an anti-ballistic missile shield.)
We know that the designing/manufacturing companies (e.g. Diebold) have fought incorporating security-enhancing measures (e.g. paper voting trails) despite the fact that such provisions are technologically feasible and would make the machines more expensive, and hence more profitable for the manufacturers. You don't see defense contractors telling the pentagon to request less feature-packed weapons systems).
We know that the designing/manufacturing companies have lied, obfuscated, and spun at every opportunity even though it would seemingly be in their best economic interest to be as open as possible and to gain the public trust.
We know that people want to steal elections.
Despite all this. Despite the fact that there is a motive to cheat. Despite the fact that there is an opportunity to cheat. Despite the fact that there is evidence of cheating. Despite all that, we are insulted with the suggestion that concerns are "conspiracy theories" and "overblown".
Posted by: space | May 13, 2006 5:42:16 PM
"I've long thought that the conspiracy theories about software-based vote-rigging are overblown"
What space said, and more.
A logical inference from the evidence that officials and party hacks are willing to do all kinds of ethically questionable things to manipulate voting is that they would be more than willing to take advantage of any opportunity afforded by electronic voting.
You think they'd be embarassed to do what they do publicly. Electronic voting lets them do what they clearly want to do, without the embarassment.
The novel thing about the opportunities afforded by insecure electronic voting is that it can be accomplished by a "conspiracy" of one or two.
I live California. We have a Republican Secretary of State. We elected a Democrat to that office, but, somehow, we ended up with a Republican. And, he's mandated insecure electronic voting. Hmmm.
With training, I believe one can resist the Republican effort to use the word "conspiracy" as an inoculation against reasonable suspicion. (Beaudrot probably supported repeal of the independent prosecutor statute, too.)
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | May 13, 2006 11:08:29 PM
You're comparing apples and oranges. Moving polling places is good for whatever precincts you can move the polling places. Unsecure eVoting is good for vote theft on a massive scale. It's like saying that you don't understand why there's all sorts of security measures set up for electronic banking when if I wanted to rob a bank, all I'd have to do is show up with a gun at First National.
Posted by: eRobin | May 14, 2006 1:06:01 PM
In every other country, when the official results don't match the exit polls, they storm the capitol.
Here, we shrug our shoulders.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | May 16, 2006 1:27:41 PM
