Comment Re:Will a repeat of 2000 bring about reform? (Score 1) 2549
I believe, however, that these issues, although important, mask much more fundamental problems with how the technology is deployed and the general failure of electoral management to reform itself through the effective use of technology. There are long term solutions but these are immaterial in terms of the present election because it's far too late to change.
Tomorrow's election will, therefore, feature the use of some e-voting technologies within the constraints of traditional electoral management and, in all likelihood, demonstrate some of that combination's weaknesses during this process. In my opinion, however, the total actual impact these security weaknesses have on the final vote counts is likely to be insignificant in the more important contests. What will be far more significant is the leverage these few real problems give conspiracy theorists to allege that much more consequential, but uncaught, frauds also took place. Fundamentally a small, but real, problem can become a national crisis if it lends itself to exploitation by people with agendas - and that's what I'm afraid will happen to e-voting on the day after tomorrow.
In that scenario Democractic losers across the country contest Republican electoral victories by asserting that security weaknesses in electronic voting were illegally exploited to their opponent's benefit and their loss. The resulting firestorm of media protest would then cast a shadow over legitimate electoral victories and discredit the electoral system because the security weaknesses allegedly exploited are real, even if the exploits are generally not.
Suppose, for example, that Mr. Bush wins by a narrow margin - a few percent in the overall popular vote with the issue even closer in one or two key states. In that situation the democrats seem unlikely to simply concede, preferring instead to launch hundreds of lawsuits at least some of which will ultimately be decided by judges balancing the unprejudiced, and genuinely expert, testimony of people like Dr. Rubin to the effect that exploitable weaknesses exist against the accused's assurances that no cheating took place. In this situation electoral management doesn't stand a chance: the traditional media will hold them guilty before the trials start and at least some judges, however well intentioned otherwise, will be forced to conclude that reasonable doubt exists as the legitimacy of the election results.
So what can be done? Absent a landslide Republican victory (or a kerry win) there's probably nothing you can usefully do except refuse to be caught up in the rush - just trust that the system will muddle through.
There may, however, be something the President can do - it's a classic hail Mary pass idea which may be really dumb, but which I'd like to toss out for comment.
Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle told a Sherlock Holmes story in which the big clue was that the dog failed to bark. In the same vein there's a missing "60 Minutes" special you need to think about in terms of that dog not barking.
In this case there seems to be reasonably good evidence that some captured North Vietnamese and VietCong papers naming John Kerry and earthed at the Vietnam War Archives held by Texas Tech University in Lubbock, are genuine. So far no third party has authenticated them, but they are said to show that both the North Vietnamese and the VietCong relied heavily on the anti-war movement generally and John Kerry in particular, to carry their message forward in a successful attempt to have American public opinion reverse their losses on the ground in Vietnam.
If the memoranda on which Dan Rather based an extensive attack on Mr. Bush had been real, the resulting revelations would not have amounted to much. In contrast the North Vietnamese circulars would, if genuine, suggest that Kerry has consistently acted as an enemy agent - first while still a reserve naval officer and later while in the Senate.
John Kerry refuses to release his military records, the SwiftBoat vets have him dead to rights on his behaviour during and after his four months and one week in Vietnam, and there are serious questions about his multiple discharges from the Navy, but neither 60 Minutes nor any other big media news organization is barking.
If you believe, as I do, that their silence reflects their partisanship in the overall electoral contest, then you'll probably also worry about the effects of an expected media firestorm about allegations of e-voting fraud. Fundamentally, their enthusiastic support for negative allegations about the Republican campaign could, in the event of a narrow Republican win, make it all but impossible for Mr. Bush and other Republicans to execute the duties and responsibilities of office - in effect invalidating a democratically determined election.
That's the threat, but what's the solution? As I've said elsewhere, the right long term answer is to adopt technology that enables electoral management reform, but for the day after tomorrow, I have this dumb idea...
Consider the scenario introduced above: Mr. Bush wins re-election but the margin is narrow and Kerry's people want to fight it out in the media and in the courts rather than admit defeat. Now what? How about the President calls a press conference to say something like: "okay, I couldn't do or say this during the election, too obviously partisan, a mis-use of office and all that, but it's over, I've been re-elected, and now I can." Then he goes on to announce that he's ordering the immediate release of all of Mr. Kerry's military records, and promises to pursue legislation to make full disclosure mandatory for anyone seeking a state level or higher office.
That might put a stop to Mr. Kerry's post-campaign campaign by forcing the media most supportive of such a guerrila strategy to face the real nature of the man they're supporting. Furthermore, if those North Vietnamese and VietCong documents are real, the President could also announce his intention to have the attorney general review the files with the intent of documenting a proposed Presidential Pardon for Mr. Kerry's activities on Hanoi's behalf.
Would that be disaster? or a masterstroke? you know, I don't know. Do you?
