Prior to America’s national elections there is, of course, strong emphasis on getting out the vote. No less emphasis should be placed on accurately counting those votes. Humans now share vote counting with electronic voting machines. And both need observation.
Counting those votes, once they were cast,wasn’t always a major problem. That all really changed for the worse in 2004. 2004 saw President George W. Bush’s relection. Dick Cheney, unlike today, did not predict President Bush would loose. While President Bush did indeed loose on the basis of the popular vote count – America’s President is not directly elected by popular vote.
How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote? Let’s visit government archives:
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html
But ,of course, the popular vote does impact the selection of president. And on election day, it has been said that even “the dead rises from the grave to perform their civic duty”. However the vote casting of the dead turned out to be no match for the problems that could be brought forth by electronic voting machines. And 2004 was the year that was.
Let’s visit Wikipedia for a recap of the “year that was”:
2004 United States election voting controversies
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During the 2004 United States presidential election, concerns were raised about various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote, whether ineligible voters were registered, whether voters were registered multiple times, and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted. More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome of the presidential election, in which the incumbent,Republican President George W. Bush, defeated the Democratic challenger, SenatorJohn Kerry. Despite the existing controversies, Kerry conceded the election the following day on November 3.
There was generally less attention paid to the Senate and house elections and to various state races, but some of them were also questioned, especially the gubernatorial election in Washington, which was decided by less than 0.01% and involved several recounts and lawsuits. The final recount also reversed the outcome of this election.
Voting machines
Further information: Analysis of electronic voting
In the 2000 election, especially in the disputed recounts in Florida, there were issues concerning the ambiguities and uncertainties that arose from punch-card ballots, such as the hanging chads(incompletely punched holes). In 2004, the punch-card ballots were still widely used in some states.[32]For example, most Ohio voters used punch-card ballots,[33] and more than 90,000 ballots cast in Ohio were treated as not including a vote for President; this “undervote” could arise because the voter chose not to cast a vote or because of a malfunction of the punch-card system.[34]
For the country as a whole, the voting technology used in the 2004 election breaks down as follows:[35]
Machine type
% of ballots cast
Punch card 22.3 Lever machine 14.7 Paper ballot 1.7 Optical scan 29.6 Electronic 22.1 Mixed 9.6 Before 2004, the increasing use of electronic voting machines had raised several issues:
- Security. Without proper testing and certification, critics believe electronic votingmachines could produce an incorrect report due to malfunction or deliberate manipulation.[36][37][38]
- Recounts. Voting machine recounts should include auditing of hardware, software and the comparison of multiple vote records.Nevada was one of several states which insisted on electronic voting systems that create a paper trail.[39]
- Partisan ties. Democrats noted the Republican or conservative ties of several leading executives in the companies providing the machines.[40]
The state of California ordered that 15,000 of its Diebold voting machines not be used in the 2004 elections due to flaws that the company failed to disclose.[41][42]
O’Dell’s fundraising
In August 2003, Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to Ohio Republicans. In the letters he says he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” Although he clarified his statement as merely a poor choice of words, critics of Diebold and/or the Republican party interpreted this as at minimum an indication of a conflict of interest, at worst implying a risk to the fair counting of ballots. He responded to the critics by pointing out that the company’s election machines division is run out of Texasby a registered Democrat. Nonetheless, O’Dell vowed to lower his political profile lest his personal actions harm the company. O’Dell resigned his post of chairman and chief executive of Diebold on[...]
Electronic voting machines should not favor any particular political party. Most of the world would likely agree to that.
So answer me this:
Would you, as the head of a BIG company that sold ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES make loud PUBLIC noises of support for a particular political party?
Probably not.
But that has been a neocon trend since 1980. And now in Ohio, even a BIG CHEESEBURGER manufacturer has been getting political and suggesting its employees follow its lead.
Honest Americans, and there are many, will likely have their hands full trying to ensure an honest election in 2012. Several states already have reputations that suggest a need for intense poll watching. And electronic voting machines have no ethical rules governing their behavior. They don’t leave a paper trail. And when they break-down around mid-night after the polls are closed – suspicions are aroused..
Tags: 2004 election, civic duty, dead rises from the grave to vote, electing an american president, electoral college, electronic voting machines, national elections
