Are Elections Legitimate These Days?
Everyone was talking election results yesterday, and we lead with a story about Italians eating pasta. Any significance to that? Not really. But it does betray a certain attitude.
Tuesday night, I walked to the polling station with my wife. We voted and conversed on the way home - a brief conversation that naturally included our thoughts about the local election. One thing we both noted was the method of voting: filling out ballot forms that were then scanned into a computer. Supposedly this method assures a more accurate vote count than the previous method, which consisted of mechanical voting booths where the voter registered their vote by physically turning little keys or levers next to the name of their favored candidates.
Computers do, of course, count faster and more accurately than humans. But when I look at how this process works, count me a skeptic. Yes, I realize that some people pooh-pooh elections altogether these days, claiming there's no point to voting at all, vs. those who hit us with the concept that you're doing your duty as a citizen when you vote. I used to be fully in the latter camp, but while I'm not convinced voting is a waste of time, this new voting method has me wondering. Putting aside the issue of the poor quality of candidates and the issue of both parties major being too close to each other to provide any meaningful choice, let's look at this computerized voting process for a moment.
First of all, you fill in little circles with a pen. Turning little levers left no room for a "sloppy" vote, but using a pen to fill in a circle does. Remember when you took your SAT (or other standard test) and they told you fill in the circle completely, but don't go outside the lines of the circle? With this thought in mind, I watched some of the seniors in the polling place and wondered just how accurate their filling in would be.
But, more importantly, what about hacking? It's not like hackers haven't broken every secure system known to man, and those they haven't they eventually will. So they can't hack these voting computers? I'm thinking that any irregularities that may have occurred with the mechanical machines must be exacerbated by the possibility that clever hackers can change the results.
And, by the way, just when I'm taking deep breaths to calm myself down to be sure I'm using my reason here, and not giving way to emotions and my disappointment with - again - the poor quality of candidate and skimpy choice between the two major parties, what pops up but a visible discrepancy that's pulling me further into the "waste of time" camp. Because right there in that book where you sign your name to prove you're who you say you are, I see the name of one of our sons, who is of voting age and lives in our home, listed twice. Yes, he's listed twice, one under the other. Same name, same address. I questioned this, and, naturally, the person I questioned had no idea what was going on. Another voter, who was singing in next to me, pointed out that the second entry of our sons name indicated that he had possibly switched parties, and so was listed under the new party designation. (Why he knew this, I can't be sure.) But, still, if that's the case, why is he still listed in the book under the "old" party affiliation. In any case, the explanation sounded strained, especially as I noticed that the signature under the "old" affiliation didn't look like our sons signature at all. Could someone come in and vote under that second listing of our sons name?
Fishy, isn't it?
Well, next time someone makes the argument that voting is a waste of time, I won't dismiss them as a quack or a whiner - unless of course, they are.
Tuesday night, I walked to the polling station with my wife. We voted and conversed on the way home - a brief conversation that naturally included our thoughts about the local election. One thing we both noted was the method of voting: filling out ballot forms that were then scanned into a computer. Supposedly this method assures a more accurate vote count than the previous method, which consisted of mechanical voting booths where the voter registered their vote by physically turning little keys or levers next to the name of their favored candidates.
Computers do, of course, count faster and more accurately than humans. But when I look at how this process works, count me a skeptic. Yes, I realize that some people pooh-pooh elections altogether these days, claiming there's no point to voting at all, vs. those who hit us with the concept that you're doing your duty as a citizen when you vote. I used to be fully in the latter camp, but while I'm not convinced voting is a waste of time, this new voting method has me wondering. Putting aside the issue of the poor quality of candidates and the issue of both parties major being too close to each other to provide any meaningful choice, let's look at this computerized voting process for a moment.
First of all, you fill in little circles with a pen. Turning little levers left no room for a "sloppy" vote, but using a pen to fill in a circle does. Remember when you took your SAT (or other standard test) and they told you fill in the circle completely, but don't go outside the lines of the circle? With this thought in mind, I watched some of the seniors in the polling place and wondered just how accurate their filling in would be.
But, more importantly, what about hacking? It's not like hackers haven't broken every secure system known to man, and those they haven't they eventually will. So they can't hack these voting computers? I'm thinking that any irregularities that may have occurred with the mechanical machines must be exacerbated by the possibility that clever hackers can change the results.
And, by the way, just when I'm taking deep breaths to calm myself down to be sure I'm using my reason here, and not giving way to emotions and my disappointment with - again - the poor quality of candidate and skimpy choice between the two major parties, what pops up but a visible discrepancy that's pulling me further into the "waste of time" camp. Because right there in that book where you sign your name to prove you're who you say you are, I see the name of one of our sons, who is of voting age and lives in our home, listed twice. Yes, he's listed twice, one under the other. Same name, same address. I questioned this, and, naturally, the person I questioned had no idea what was going on. Another voter, who was singing in next to me, pointed out that the second entry of our sons name indicated that he had possibly switched parties, and so was listed under the new party designation. (Why he knew this, I can't be sure.) But, still, if that's the case, why is he still listed in the book under the "old" party affiliation. In any case, the explanation sounded strained, especially as I noticed that the signature under the "old" affiliation didn't look like our sons signature at all. Could someone come in and vote under that second listing of our sons name?
Fishy, isn't it?
Well, next time someone makes the argument that voting is a waste of time, I won't dismiss them as a quack or a whiner - unless of course, they are.
Comments