« Pedro Goes Down | Main | Oligarchy »

September 30, 2006

Addressing Vote Fraud

With the 2006 election fast approaching (thought not fast enough for many of us) and tales of malfeasance in the 2000 and 2004 elections an article of faith among most partisans (the only difference being which side is the villain), vote fraud may actually become a real issue over the next two years, particularly if the 2006 elections are marred by problems like those we saw in recent elections.

While I am far from convinced that fraud has seriously affected any major elections in recent years, I think it is important for the health of our republic that such allegations be treated seriously so the public can have faith in the results of its elections. When you have a significant fraction of the populace convinced that, for example, President Bush won the 2004 elections via fraud, you end up with a number of problems. Beyond the heightened partisanship and sniping that allegations of fraud lead to, it undermines the confidence people have in the republic. While we like to point to the Constitution as the source of our security, the fact is that most of our security comes from cultural norms: people believe the system works, and so it does. The minute a majority of the people believe that the system is rigged, we have a significant problem. This is to say nothing of the tradition that the fellow who gets the most votes ought to get the job; while there's nothing that can prove that winning a true majority of the votes demonstrates anything more than the ability to win a popularity contest, it's worked for us for 200+ years and I see no reason to step away from it now.

On the right there is a strong push for voter ID. Intuitively, this makes some sense. We've all heard the admonitions to vote early and vote often, and it certainly would not be difficult under the current systems in place for people to vote multiple times. By requiring a voter to show proof of his or her identity, a check of the rolls could at least make sure that nobody votes more than once (although this would require a nationalization of the databases, so I'm not as enamored of this as many on the right). Beyond the issue of nationalization, however, there is the problem of getting everyone an ID card. Yes, every state is required to provide ID to its citizens, but not free of charge. And while it is child's play for my circle of friends to produce a government-issued photo ID, the costs (not only in money, but in time) for the poor to get an ID can be significant, particularly if we're going to be serious about making sure nobody can get more than one ID. Between the civil liberties issues and the cost issues, I'm not comfortable with cracking down on voter ID without a lot more proof of voter fraud than is currently available.

On the flip side we have concerns about voter disenfranchisement by clearing of the voting rolls. This is a difficult question. There is a legitimate need to clear the voter rolls regularly to eliminate people who should no longer be eligible to vote in local elections. Americans are constantly on the move. While I'm an extreme example, if voter rolls haven't been cleared properly, I may still be able to vote in four different states: Massachusetts, where I originally registered to vote when I turned 18, Texas, where I registered to vote while I was stationed at Fort Hood, Wisconsin, where I registered to vote while I was overseas, and Colorado, where I currently live. It would be quite inappropriate for the local election boards not to remove me from districts where I no longer reside. However, such clearing will also inevitably lead to chopping people off the rolls who actually still do live in the local area but who, for one reason or another, the election board misses in their sweep. Since the people most likely to be affected by this are the poor, it's no surprise that Republicans push hard to keep the voter rolls clean and Democrats object strenuously to such actions. Even in the absense of any malice, the mistakes that will naturally occur in this process will favor Republican candidates. Incentives matter. So it is important to make sure our Secretaries of State, officeholders people rarely pay attention to, are as honest and incorruptible as possible, as the good folks at TAPPED point out. (Although their thesis that Democratic candidates are, by definition, incorruptible is laughable on its face.)

These issues pale, in my mind, next to the possibility of stealing votes while they're in the machines. As my Obsidian Wings nemesis Jesurgislac never fails to note when talk turns to elections, the Diebold voting machines that many districts now use have a fatal flaw: they offer no evidentiary trail. There is no paper ballot that investigators can check to make sure the machine tallied people's votes correctly; once you cast your vote, you must take it on faith the machine does its job properly. This is a recipe for fraud. Machines are great tools, but a machine that tallies votes without any physical evidence is a target for anyone who wishes to rig an election, because if they are successful it will be exceedingly difficult for anyone to prove what they did or who actually won the election. Sooner or later, someone will find a way to rig those machines to provide the result they want (and yes, I am aware that some people are convinced this has already happened).

Some of these problems are difficult to fix. Trying to make sure that nobody votes more than once will lead to some people not being allowed to vote at all. Trying to make sure that everyone votes will guarantee that some people vote early and often. But we can fix the issue of voting machines that simply invite fraud. While I am not at all in favor of federal action as a rule, in this case I believe it is incumbent on Congress to pass a law banning the use of any election technology that does not utilize a physical document that can be reviewed in the aftermath of the election to verify the data generated by the election technology. If the machine says candidate A got 1,258 votes, a review of the physical evidence should show 1,258 votes for candidate A. Without that safeguard, we are simply waiting for the inevitable when someone figures out how to rig the system and seriously, if not fatally, undermine one of the core principles of our system of government. We cannot afford to wait for that event.