From the New York Times:
"Members of the military will be allowed to vote this year by faxing or e-mailing their ballots - after waiving their right to a secret ballot. Beyond this fundamentally undemocratic requirement, the Electronic Transmission Service, as it's known, has far too many problems to make it reliable, starting with the political partisanship of the contractor running it. The Defense Department is making matters worse by withholding basic information about the service, and should suspend it immediately. ...Handling ballots is always sensitive, but especially so when, as in this program, they are not secret. An obvious concern is that votes for a particular candidate could be reported lost in transit, or altered.
Omega Technologies is not an acceptable choice to run the program. Its chief executive, Patricia Williams, has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and serves on the committee's Business Advisory Council. And while everything about the conduct of elections should be open to public scrutiny, Omega is far too secretive. In an interview, Ms. Williams refused to say who would handle military votes, and whether they could engage in partisan politics. ...The secrecy of ballots could be breached at several points: when they are faxed or e-mailed from the field, when they go through the contractor and when they are received by local officials. The Pentagon has not explained why it is acceptable, or legal, to ask soldiers to waive their right to secret ballots. Laughlin McDonald, director of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, says he cannot recall another group of voters being asked to give up such secrecy. It is particularly inappropriate, he says, for soldiers, who are under the direct control of the Defense Department. ...
The Defense Department has taken a "trust us" attitude. Soldiers have to trust that military higher-ups will not try to learn their political choices and hold it against them, and that local elections officials at home will not reveal those choices. The voters have to trust that no one at the contractor or the Pentagon will make errors, or intentionally alter ballots. In a democracy, matters like these should not have to be taken on faith."
Just the latest chapter in "the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more."
If soldiers *are* required to give up secret ballots, they can collectively anounce their votes and see whether they collectively got reported accurately.
It's much harder to check whether votes are handled correctly when they can't be checked back to the voters.
Posted by: J Thomas | September 06, 2004 at 03:19 PM
Soldiers aren't required to give up their access to a secret ballot -- they can mail their ballots in via the "absentee ballot" procedure for their state of residence, as stated in the paragraph that you skipped over. The problems with this system, though, are well-known; the ballots don't always arrive in a timely fashion, and sometimes they just disappear.
This is an imperfect situation, and there's not a perfect solution to it. It's not enough to say, "Don't let Republicans near it", as Democrats have been known to monkey with systems before, too -- ask anyone familiar with Chicago politics for details.
It burns me up to see the New York Times quoting Laughlin McDonald, saying "he cannot recall another group of voters being asked to give up such secrecy." I can think of one -- blind voters.
Full disclosure time here; I work for the National Federation of the Blind, and I've been heavily involved with the Federation's efforts to assure that voting machines are made completely accessible to the blind.
It's just as unacceptable for people to insist on paper ballots, when it's painfully obvious that blind people can't read them without assistance. People are perfectly happy to ask blind voters, or voters who cannot read the ballot in the language it is printed in, to only vote with the assistance of another person, thereby bringing up all the potential security issues that are raised here, and the NFB has been yelling about this for years now. We even got mentioned on the NYT editorial page, in a sloppy piece that was effectively ghostwritten by Bev Harris, so the Times can't claim to be unaware of the issues involved.
I think there are problems with the procedures described in the NYT editorial, but I'm even less happy with the implication that anyone associated with the elections process can belong to a certain political party. When the Times comes out against requiring anyone to give up the right to a secret ballot, and for denying the right to any partisan activity on the part of election contractors, then we've got a story.
Until then, I think we just have to call this a case of NYT partisan wankery and let it go on by.
Posted by: Michael N. | September 07, 2004 at 06:27 PM
It's just as unacceptable for people to insist on paper ballots, when it's painfully obvious that blind people can't read them without assistance.
If you have a short answer on hand, how is it unacceptable for people to insist on paper ballots? On what material, or in what medium, should the votes be cast?
Posted by: Anarch | September 09, 2004 at 10:07 AM