Late November, 2004: Following the Ukranian presidential election, it is the official policy of the U.S. Government that discrepancies between exit polls and vote tabulations, along with anecdotal evidence of vote suppression, are strong indications the election was rigged by the incumbent government. The U.S. Government refuses to recognize the election results.
Early November, 2004: Following the Ohio presidential election, it is the official policy of the U.S. Government that discrepancies between exit polls and vote tabulations, along with anecdotal evidence of vote suppression, were made up by whining Democrats.
If a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, outrageous inconsistency is S.O.P. for elected officials wanting to hold on to power.
After Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, we Democrats have our suspicions. No smoking gun, perhaps, but certainly suspicions. What is making me suspicious these days is lack of concern in Republican circles for paper trails on electronic voting equipment.
Is it surprising that Democrats seem more concerned than Republicans about electronic voting machines? That Democrats by and large want all electronic voting machines to have a verifiable paper trail, and Republicans by and large aren't all that worried about it?
This is perhaps a reflection of 2004 Ohio. We liberals attacked the way Secretary of State Blackwell ran the election. The R's had a vested interest in defending Blackwell, electronics company Diebold, and electronic voting in general. They've been defending that status quo ever since.
Partly as a result of Republican recalcitrance, electronic voting machines are still vulnerable two years later. According to a recent Newsweek article:
How bad are the problems [with Diebold voting machines]? Experts are calling them the most serious voting-machine flaws ever documented.
"If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it," says Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer-science professor and elections-security expert.
To their credit, 26 states have taken action to implement paper trails. But the U.S. Congress has yet to pass legislation introduced last year by Rep. Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, that would extend this protection nationwide.
What can be more important in a democracy than confidence in our election results? How, then, can Republicans in good conscience oppose adding a verifiable paper backup system whenever electronic voting machines are to be used in an election?
If nothing else, self-interest should drive them to it. One of these days, a Republican is going to lose a close election, and have nothing to recount but the final vote tally stored in the machine. Then, we might see more enthusiasm in the Republican party for "checks and balances" in the voting booth.
I'm surprised Democratic office seekers haven't made this an election year issue. They should ask loudly and often why the Republican party is so hesitant to verify election results. They should run ads demanding to know why their Republican opponent doesn't support accurate election results.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should proclaim that if Democrats regain control of Congress, the first order of business will be to send a bill to the President requiring a verifiable backup system on all electronic voting equipment by 2008.
We know Democrats care about this issue, I'm willing to bet Independents will think it's a good idea as well. Let's run with it.