In the spring months preceding the election, Republicans get hammered in the polls due to corruption scandals and a faltering economy. There is every indication that Democrats are poised to make significant gains in the election. Yet as the fall campaign season begins in earnest, Bush's approval ratings rebound from historic lows, due in part to a relentless focus on terrorism and 9/11. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats are painted as terrorist sympathizers and soft on national security. By the time the elections roll around, Republicans wind up picking up seats, instead of massive losses as was previously predicted by most pollsters.
Sound familiar? It should, because it's happened in the last two election cycles. And I see no reason why it will not occur again in 2006. This time, Iran being used as a bogeyman instead of Iraq. But this time is different...the weak on terrorism charge has lost its punch, and a brand new scandal has caused the latest polls to look even better for Democrats. Bush's ratings are still mired in the 30s. This time, we'll win, right?
Of course, there's another issue at play, which is also being largely ignored by the media and sadly the blogosphere. That is the issue of election machines. Yes, I know, everyone's tired of "conspiracy theories", but bear with me while I rant.
Instead of analyzing previous election results and polls, let's take a step back. What would it take to rig an election? By my estimate, just three things:
Motive
This one should be a no-brainer. Does anyone really think Karl Rove and company would hesitate to rig an election if they had the opportunity to do so? Of course not. This is the same administration that has shown an absolute lack of respect for democracy and the rule of law, and seems to lie out of sheer habit. Karl Rove would jump at the chance to rig the election if he could. So I think we can safely say that moral conscience would not hold the Republicans back from election theft.
Ability
Well I suppose this is the controversial one, though I have no idea why. By now everyone should realize how vulnerable these election machines are to being hacked. They are ridiculously insecure, as computer scientists have been warning about for years. The latest study by Princeton demonstrates just how easy it is to rig these machines, allowing one to engineer any result desired in an election. AS the study notes:
Analysis of the 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.
What's more, the voting machine industry is dominated by a handful of corporations, who happen to be headed by major Republican donors. They use proprietary code in their machines, refusing to release the source code to the public for scrutiny. So an outsider cannot determine exactly how the votes are counted on Election Day.
Again, I do not understand how this point can be controversial. How many more reports have to come out before liberals accept that these machines are not secure, and vulnerable to being hacked? Sure, most liberal bloggers pay lip service to requiring paper trails, more secure technology, open source, etc. But ultimately it is seen as a minor issue, with the unstated belief that despite flaws, the election system still works in the U.S., and that election results are believable and real.
But as I said above, if you accept that these machines can be hacked, then one should also accept that the Bush Administration would attempt to rig these machines. So what would prevent them? That brings me to my final point.
Acceptance by opponents and the public
This is the killer. Despite all the evidence on how vulnerable these machines are to being hacked, for some reason the majority of people simply accept election results as valid. Further, there seems to be a naïve view that such election fraud on a grand scale could never occur in the U.S., as surely someone would catch the perpetrators.
But I know if I was rigging an election, I'd make damn sure that the results were plausible, and similar to past voting patters. All it really takes to swing an election is a 5% switch in votes from one party to the other. I would argue that tampering with the code in voting machines could easily accomplish this, and be completely undetectable.
But who would? The media? The vast majority of the media would never touch the idea of a stolen election, and while the problems with voting machines will occasionally be brought up in the mainstream media, no one takes the issue seriously. Again, I think the liberal blogosphere should be at the forefront of this issue, but too many of us are afraid of being labeled sore losers and conspiracy theorists. The same problem exists in the Democratic Party, as most Democrats know they would never be taken seriously if they tried to blame an electoral loss on voting machines.
That leaves government agencies. But sadly, the FEC, like most agencies these days, lacks any real power and has become a mostly partisan institution. As for state election officials, most of them are Republicans these days, and are usually too busy doing everything to suppress the Democratic vote to bother with voting machine problems. Anyone who thinks a government agency could aggressively pursue the possibility of a stolen election is in denial at this point.
My god, we now even have an interview with a former Diebold employee who admits to altering software on Diebold machines in 2002, before the election in Georgia. An election with very unusual results, resulting in a dramatic Republican victory. Shocking. As the article notes:
Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me.
Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.
Ultimately, I think the idea of stolen elections is just too much for most people to handle, even the politically active left. Because it would mean that we no longer live in a democracy, and all of our energy and passion is so much wasted breath. But it is the only logical conclusion. The Bush Administration has the motive and the means to rig elections, and there is not a sufficient watchdog in either the media or government to stop them. So please, those of you who dismiss such allegations as conspiracy theory....what would prevent this administration from rigging an election? What safeguards exist to protect our democracy, besides the naïve opinion that it simply couldn't happen here?
Conclusion
I wish I could at least expect the problem of voting machines to be heavily covered on this site in the aftermath of the election. But instead we'll see the same thing we always do...shock and disbelief in the first few days, then a gradual acceptance. People will start posting those silly voting pattern maps, to show how most of the country is really a shade of purple, and how we did much better than the results would show, etc. Markos and others will start talking about what an uphill battle it was to defeat well financed incumbents, and how we beat all expectations, and are still building the Democratic infrastructure, blah blah blah. We'll all revel in the nice moral victory of coming close in a number of races.
Then people will point out all the state level elections we won, and how the country is ever so slowly turning blue, etc. The fpers will jump in, looking ahead to how Democrats are set up in 2008, and how the Democratic Party is poised for big gains in the next election. Always the next election...
I suppose this is the point where I offer solutions, an action plan, something. Sorry, but the only method left is to do everything we can to prevent the use of voting machines in the future. Raising awareness of the issue would also be important. It may be too late for this election cycle, and possibly for this country, but we have to keep trying to make people realize the severity of the problem. Until we do, nothing else in politics truly matters, as without accountability via elections, democracy is dead.