After reading this article about Michigan republicans being up to the tried and true traditional republican suppress the vote tricks with a new twist, it made me think of what I had written after the last election on the subject of voting in America and ways it should/could be improved.

Even though it's a few years old, I think most of it is still rather applicable and so I'll post it without changes or edits:

Voting and Democracy in America After reading another article about the 'under-the-radar' recount in Ohio, I had a few thoughts about ways to improve the voting process in America's national elections. This post is a bit long but this is an issue near and dear to my heart (as it should be of every citizen of this nation).

1) Make Election Day a national holiday.

A lot of the problems alleged during the past two presidential elections could be avoided by this simple change. Long lines and people leaving them without voting so that they can get to work would not be as big an issue as it currently is. Besides, shouldn't the world's oldest democracy celebrate the event which makes it so special?

2) Institute national standards for the process of placing, collecting, storing, tallying, and verifying of votes.

After the many issues which have surfaced in recent elections throughout the country, this seems to be a no-brainer. Why should the voting experience of a citizen in one part of the country be different than that of another citizen in a different part of the country? In a nation where due process and equality before the law are such fundamental tenets of governance it simply doesn't make much sense for the MOST VITAL aspect of democracy to be left to the whims of each local municipality. This is even more striking considering the many historical examples of various municipalities using this ability to the benefit of some citizens and to the disadvantage of other citizens. To be clear: each and every vote in each and every area of the country should be placed, collected, stored, tallied and verified in exactly the same way each and every time!

3) If electronic voting machines are to be used, the operating computer code should be open-source, each vote should produce a voter verifiable paper receipt which is stored securely on site, and no machine should be connected to networks allowing them to be controlled remotely.

This follows from the previous point in that whatever method is used it should be used exclusively and universally. But the use of electronic machines for voting brings about several specific issues regarding the veracity of the machine itself, the computer code operating the machine, the redundancy of the process, as well as the security of the network if it is on one. These are issues relating to any use of computers but are much more important with regards to voting machines because of the stakes involved in elections and the necessity in preventing any perception that the votes counted by the machine have been manipulated.

From a security standpoint, the use of proprietary software to operate the machines and to count the votes is simply unacceptable. Why should a citizen trust the company operating the machines? Trust should not play a role at all. The security of the software should be dependent on the fact that it is open for all to see and examine as well as the fact that computer security experts can vouch for its robustness and soundness. This can only be done if the underlying computer code is made available and placed out in the light of day. Related to this point about the software operating the machine is the physical security and control of the machine itself. Once it is slated to be used in an election and placed onsite at a ballot location, the responsibility for maintaining and servicing the machine should no longer be in the hands of the company that made it but rather whatever authority is conducting the election. This should continue after an election and until all counts, recounts and potential challenges are completed. The basic point here is that once a machine is denoted to be ready for 'prime-time' it should be viewed as off limits to anyone who is not an official representative of the authority which is conducting the election. This means no last minute 'updates' of the software or post-election maintenience of the machine. Remember, the point is as much about perception as it is about actual security. The whole process can be completely secure and still be perceived as fraudulent because of a few poorly thought out policies and procedures.

The next point flows straightforwardly from this one, which is that each vote tallied by the machine should produce a paper receipt which is verified at the time of the vote by the voter and then stored securely so that it can be confidently retrieved if a recount is necessary. This also appears to be a no-brainer. With all the potential ways the security of and confidence in the voting machine can be undermined, this is a simple and effective way to provide a backup in case of any problems. It also has the additional benefit of significantly increasing a voter's confidence in the integrity of the vote as they will leave the polling booth feeling certain that their vote was recorded correctly and will be counted.

The final issue is covered by the preceding points but it seems helpful to point it out separately. Having voting machines connected to networks and able to be controlled remotely is simply a bad idea. The potential security hazards vastly outweigh any potential benefits. Why?
The basic reason is that it opens the vote to the possibility of cyber attacks by all sorts of bad actors from kids playing a prank to more serious threats such as agents of foreign nations, terrorists or criminal gangs. The incentives for such attacks vary greatly and may even be farfetched but the integrity and security of our national elections is of such value that to even allow the possibility of such attacks would be a grave mistake.

4) Change the rules governing elections so that the person in charge of the authority running an election is a nonpartisan individual.

This is not to say that only independents are able to run elections. Anyone who is qualified (regardless of political affiliation) to do so should be able to with one exception: they should not be active participants in any partisan efforts on behalf of any candidates and their associated political parties during the course of or immediately preceding the election. This should be looked upon in the same context as it is in the judicial community. If a judge or justice has a conflict of interest or what may appear to the reasonable person to be a conflict of interest, the generally accepted practice is for that judge or justice to recuse themselves from hearing or participating in a particular case.

For an individual to be in charge of conducting an election in a particular jurisdiction AND be the chairperson in charge of a candidate's campaign in that same jurisdiction would appear to be a conflict of interest to any reasonable observer. How can you impartially run an election AND be in charge of winning that election for a particular candidate at the same time without having conflicting interests? This is not a partisan issue, but rather a process and procedural issue. It would also stand to reason that jurisdiction would be irrelevant in this context. If someone was in charge of running an election in New York state but also in charge of a the campaign of one candidate in a neighboring state it would still appear to be a conflict of interest to a reasonable observer. This practice seems to be generally accepted but it lends a significant tainting effect to public perception of election results. This is even more true in such a highly charged partisan atmosphere as currently exists.

*******************************************************************************

While I don't believe that any process or procedure can be made perfect. I do believe that the process of having elections in America is currently broken as it is not doing the three things it must in order for our democracy to be as great as it can and should be. Those three things are:

1) Making sure that all eligible voters can vote.
2) Making sure that all votes cast are counted.
3) Making sure that all citizens believe in the integrity and fairness of all elections held.

Taking the four steps outlined and explained above will go a long way in improving the situation and making America the great democracy that it is supposed to be.