Centerfield

I accept your challenge...

I never thought about the irony of having an elected official in charge of making sure elections were fair. Makes one think...

After 2000 and 2004, I did come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea to allow the SoS to be in charge of elections and at the same time, run a candidates election campaign. I refer to SoS in Ohio Mr. Blackwell. I am not accusing him of anything unethical or illegal, but you open yourself up to the accusations if you are in charge of making sure the election is fair and you are also working for one of the candidates in that election.

I'd rather have an elected one rather than one appointed by some other elected official. The problems rarely arise over the election of the official themselves. The problems (including the ones in the state I'm not allowed to name) are when the Secretary of State is running for another office, or is closely aligned politically with somebody running for another office. I would consider supporting a prohibiton against political activity by the elected secretary of state in any race other than his or her own, basically treating the position as a civil service position for all political purposes except running for reelection.

But I'm not about to trust anything from a partisan hit-job organization like the Secretary of State Project which you cite. I'll support all sorts of protections against voting fraud, but only if they protect against ALL forms of fraud, including strong ID requirements. From the web site you link to:

The November general election will offer the voters of Nevada a stark choice – a Republican who strongly supports harsh voter ID requirements and limits on voter registration that would result in suppression of minority votes – and Ross Miller, a reformer who champions a voter verified paper trail and proposes tough penalties for anyone who intimidates voters or interferes with registration.

That's not a reform site, by the way, it's a site dedicated to electing Democratic Secretaries of State. Their proposed reforms would allow mass voting by illegal aliens and convicted felons, along with multiple voting in different precincts and different jurisdictions. Reform has got to go after the types of voter fraud currently alleged to be practiced by BOTH parties.

P.S. On rereading your post carefully, I think you were using the Secretary of State project as an example of probably inappropriate partisanship influencing Secretaries of State, but it could also be read as you citing that as an example of a reform group.

PatHMV: I hope my post did not imply that I endorse the partisan ActBlue SoS project. Just the opposite -- I meant it as example of how the system is bad.

I'd rather have an elected one rather than one appointed by some other elected official.

Downsides both ways, no? But someone has to watch the henhouse. My state has the SoS doing the final tally, but only using the results publicly compiled and reported by the county election commissioners. And those are in turn appointed employees, hired by the elected county commissions. Any results-diddling for state or national offices would require some widespread county elections commissioner cooperation. So there's at least some separation of reporting there, with public disclosure at all levels.

As the saying goes, "Three can keep a secret, if two are dead."* One reason I put little stock in conspiracy theories that posit large-scale widespread diddling. We can't keep classified and compartmented national security programs off the front page of the NYT, much less major vote-rigging. Vote-rigging is a local phenomena, almost always done from outside the system using the classic techniques. Like that infamous late-reporting county in Texas of the middle 20th century that somehow always came through with just enough votes to assure the "right" result, after the results for the other counties were known. Even then, it's gotta be close before poll-diddling can swing the election.

[*--Hell's Angels saying, but goes back at least to Benjamin Franklin, and likely farther. I'd love trackable early citations.]

When I first read it, Oberon, my initial read was as saying something like "the situation is so bad, this Democratic group has formed a reform project..." Then I realized, just before I posted, that I may have been reading too much into that. My erroneous initial read may well have been just my own bias influencing my first reaction. As you know, you and I often don't agree on things, so that may have colored that initial read. Fortunately I caught my biased mistake before I reacted entirely inappropriately. I'm glad to find a political issue we can both agree on.

I hereby challenge Centerfielders to discuss in comments without using the words "Florida," "Chicago" "Harris," "Kennedy," or "cemetery."

How about add "Ohio" and "Blackwell" to the list. Fortunately, the comments so far have almost all done this.

To add some actual thoughts, would it be worthwhile to have a commission instead of an individual in charge? That way, even if a partisan hack were to get on the commission, there would be someone else, either an opposition hack or more good government type operative, on the commission opposed to the hack's agenda.

On balance, I think I would rather have elections under an elected official (with appropriate safeguards) than an appointed one. The suggestion above, that the SoS not be allowed involvement in other campaigns would be one possible safeguard -- doubtless we can come up with others.

Why an elected official, rather than an appointed one? Well at some level, someone is going to be elected, either to do the job or to appoint the individual who will do it. If the SoS is directly elected, and does badly, that failure is a major part of what she was elected to do, and she can be voted out over it. But if someone else (say the Governor) makes the appointment, a bad choice is going to be only one of the things he is judged by. In short, I see it as a matter of making accountability more likely.

Whether anyone is paying enough attention (except in extreme examples which we are avoiding mentioning) is another story. But at least with someone elected primarily to supervise elections the option is visibly there.

I want to reiterate a point Tully made, that there are a whole lot of checks and balances built into every state's system. The Secretary of State is but one of many officials, most of whom are independent of each other, responsible for some component of the elections. In Louisiana, for example, the actual voting machines and arranging for poll workers and vote counters is the responsibility of local clerks of court, with actual voter registration being the responsibility of yet another local official. The Secretary of State cannot just arbitrarily change the count that those independent election officials send in to him.

To clarify a bit more, in my state the office of the county election commissioner, under the eyes of the precinct and election judges, has to certify the results from each precinct AND the totals. All sides AND precinct and election judges can be present to check the tallies--and are. Checks and balances.

In the case of a race extending beyond the county, the state's SoS then has to use only the certified results from the county election commissioners in his own certification. And each county must publish their own certified results, the ballots and totals remain available for review until contest periods have passed, etc.

The point being that the SoS (in my state--I make no claims for other states) can't rig a race by virtue of their office, not even with the full and complete complicity of everyone in said office. Not without it being glaringly and immediately obvious to all. At which point the guys from USDoJ would be asking him to come along quietly.

The place where elections can be rigged from within the system is at the precinct level, where the precinct judges and poll workers can collude to "stuff the boxes." There are several ways that can happen. I won't detail, as it's getting a good bit of topic. But to have any effect on major races such actions would have to be widespread across a number of polling places. If it's not close, it won't work--the scale required is too large. Two cities noted for frequent irregularities that fit this pattern are Philadelphia and St. Louis, niether of which have made the banned list yet... :-)

If only other states were as sensible as Kansas.*

*My own favorite is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? which loosely translates as Who guards the guards? or Who watches the watchmen?

My personal favorite amusement is the current resurgence of paper balloting, now that everyone distrusts the electronic balloting. Back to square one!

Exactly. You'd think that the same Diebold that makes the ATMs (which give you a paper receipt after every transaction) could make a voting machine that gives you a paper verification ballot after you've cast your vote.

But nooooooooo.....

BJ,
And a paper reciept accomplishes...What, exactly? This is part of the conspiracy theory argument I've never understood. What do you propose to do - send out a general call for every voter to bring their receipt to the polling place? Do you think a conspiracy elaborate enough to defraud a major election by electronic means isn't smart enough to get around a paper reciept?

Simon, the paper back-up is not given to the voter to take home. While a few people misguidedly propose that, it would destroy the enforced privacy of the ballot. It would be far too easy for vote bribers to require the voter to bring back the "receipt" for proof of how they voted.

In most systems, the proposal is that the paper ballot is printed out and shown, behind glass, to the voter, who verifies it is correct and pushes a button formally registering the vote and allowing the paper to drop into a collection box.

There are a number of real problems with this approach too, though. There must be a mechanism to handle the paper and shred it/burn it/otherwise destroy it if the voter cancels it out. And what happens if the machine runs out of paper? Can people not vote at all?

I was very staunchly opposed to the paper verification for these and other reasons. But I have come to change my mind. I don't think that public confidence in the election system can be restored without some type of paper verification. Too many people are too cynical; they just aren't gonig to trust the computerized voting systems, no matter what. And it's also becoming clearer that the voting machine companies really weren't thinking about security NEARLY as much as they ought to have been. So I support a paper record requirement... but ONLY if there is no chance of the paper copy leaving the polling place with the voter.

I have to second Pat's thoughts re: voter confidence. You are never going to prove fraud in the 2000 or 2004 election, but you are never going to convince a sizable chunk of the voting public that there wasn't fraud. we are a nation of cynics. 42% of us believe that the falling gas prices are a GOP plot to retain control of the government. How does a political party manipulate the price at 20,000+ gas stations?

As an editor, I have nothing but appreciation for the merits of keep a hard copy just in case. And I think that speaks quite precisely to the popular distrust of electronic voting. What percent of American adults has opccasion to use a computer? Of these, what percent has had one or more occasions to have their electronic labors, thoughts, creations, etc. become corrupted or destroyed or irretreivably (sp?) lost?

I support paper balloting. Further, I think I even support a standard separate federal ballot solely for presidential and congressional elections, which is as idiot-proof as possible. Names. Boxes. X marks the spot.

Regarding secretaries of state...I suppose MA must have one, but I'm damned if I know who it is. Anyway, if theres any office for which a great argument can be made to elect an independent instead of a democrat or republican, SoS would seem to be it. Further, it may make sense for that election to run in an off-year to that of the governorship and state legislators.

Pat, the new machines here are touch-screen, and the "paper trail" prints up and displays behind a window for you AFTER you cast your ballot. You're supposed to notify the polling station staff of any discrepancies. They can then invalidate the ballot and give you a paper one. Among other checks, too many hand ballots issued draws attention quick.

After the first round with them, advance paper-ballot voting increased. Older people HATED the machines.

Simon,

Pat speaks for me, and far more eloquently and knowledgeably than I could on the same subject. Thanks, Pat! :-)

The only thing I'd add is my support for the Canadian system, where all the paper ballots are placed in a huge, clear glass tank, watched over by members of both parties. Somehow, Canada manages to count all the paper ballots in one day, which is something I admire.

Besides, if you think voters are cynical now, just wait until a voting machine foulup puts a Democrat in the White House. It'll be Katie bar the door, then.

Flatterer!

42% of us believe that the falling gas prices are a GOP plot to retain control of the government. How does a political party manipulate the price at 20,000+ gas stations?

Easy. The House of Saud pumps more oil, thereby lowering the price to help House of Bush.

I'm not saying it's true, just saying it's quite possible.

Conversely, Chavez of Venezuela could reduce oil production to hurt Bush. But I have not heard that theory -- yet.

Anyway, I think PatHMV hits the critical point: voter confidence. In the long run, it's more important that voters mostly BELIEVE the system works than whether the system is actually 100% perfect.

Easy. The House of Saud pumps more oil, thereby lowering the price to help House of Bush. I'm not saying it's true, just saying it's quite possible.

No, it's not. The perceived influence of the Saudis as market controllers is vastly overblown. The Saudis produce only 10% of the world's crude, and their production has been constant at max capacity of 9.5-10M/bbl/day for a few years. Not surprisingly, they're also only 10% of US crude imports. If they somehow managed to boost production by 10% (which would require a huge increase in fixed-production capacity, which in turn would be factored into the market, and which they haven't done) it would only result in a 1% increase in world production, and they're running at full capacity NOW.

All of OPEC combined is only 40% of total US imports--we get three times as much of our crude from Canada and Mexico as we do from Saudi Arabia. We import almost as much crude from Nigeria (and slightly more from Venezeula) as we do from Saudi Arabia. Hugo Chavez has more actual applied influence on world crude markets and American gasoline prices than King Abdullah can.

Like most market conspiracy theories, it falls flat when the facts are examined.

Dang it, Tully, stop using facts in your arguments. Totally unfair.

But since you mention it, Venezuela and Nigeria are part of OPEC.

Yep. And OPEC's still only 40% of our total imports. OPEC's major effect is that as a cartel they can affect world oil prices. For a while, until one or more the members breaks rank, as always happens. OPEC can and has boosted our prices at times. Gettin 'em all together to help us? I wish!

Conspiracy theorists won't let those facts get in the way, Tully. They already know the way the world works, and your attempts to manipulate them will fail, because they're far smarter than everyone else.

True. Only they can see the real danger....