The following article is an excerpt from Call to Liberty: Bridging the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives, by Anthony Signorelli
One example of a political initiative which serves progressive, moderate and conservative modalities is my proposal for a Free and Fair Elections Amendment. The integrity of elections stands at the heart of American democracy. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 created serious questions about this integrity. Unprecedented discrepancies between exit poll results and election results raised a red flag. Why did exit poll results—exemplifying the most accurate of polling methods—and election results differ? Did exit polling technology get worse? Or did something happen to the integrity of the electoral process?
The resulting spin has focused the public on exit polls. But the significant changes in the system occurred in how we administer elections: electronic voting machines, absentee balloting and verification of voters all changed. Much attention has centered on electronic voting machine problems. Repeatedly, stories indicated that voters selected one candidate and then were asked to confirm their vote for a different candidate. It is a troubling fact that the machines cannot be audited in terms of who had access to the machines and their data or when they had such access; no paper trail exists for a confirmation count of votes and there is no way for the voter to ensure his or her vote is being cast and counted for the candidates of his choice. Computer security experts are appalled by the machines’ flaws and how susceptible they are to corruption of data.
With our collective attention drawn to exit poll accuracy, the real debate over electronic voting is locked in a tit-for-tat discussion of details most Americans do not really care about, nor should they. The legitimate concern is that every voting machine should work, count votes accurately, be auditable and verifiable by hand count, if necessary. Anything less thwarts the will of the people. In a liberal democracy, the will of the people as expressed on election day is of paramount importance.
Although problems in the presidential election in Ohio and a few other states have garnered the most attention, local and state elections in Ohio highlight the real problem. Ballot initiatives that enjoyed nearly 2 to 1 public support in polls went down to defeat in November, 2005, by nearly the exact reverse margin, even though there was no measurable change in voter attitudes. Fraud and tampering are the only reasonable explanations. In May, 2006, similar election surprises occurred in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. Voters in these elections are outraged. Security checks of the voting machines continue to turn up the most rudimentary lapses. Sales people for Diebold—the company manufacturing voting machines—deceived elections boards across the country by claiming their machines were secure and could not be tampered with; later demonstrations proved such tampering was quick, simple and undetectable. As the truth is coming out, some of those local and state governments are suing Diebold. The company’s CEO was forced to resign after his actions became untenable to stockholders. The will of the people is being left in the ash heap of a burning desire to profit from controlled elections on the part of the right-wing, putting our very democracy at risk.
While the bickering on technical issues continues unabated—apparently unaffected by facts and hard information—it is precisely the will of the people that is being flouted. There is widespread gnashing of teeth over new laws, accusations of fraud and the legitimacy of President Bush’s election. I suggest that citizens go to the core of the problem: pass a “Free and Fair Elections Amendment.” The amendment to the constitution would read thus:
A well regulated election, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to an audited, voter-verified, certified paper record of the vote, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is important for several reasons. First, the wording offers a clear, direct requirement guiding elections and any counting machines or other technology used to count and assemble votes. It should be election doctrine since it lies at the very heart of our democracy and governmental legitimacy. Liberal principle requires such an amendment in the face of the current technological changes. Who will vote against the free and fair elections amendment? No one who values democracy. An accurate, verifiable count of votes is fundamental to democracy—there’s no room to equivocate. To oppose this amendment is to subvert the will of the people. Opposition comes only from people who have narrow interests and narrow arguments, or who are corrupt. Right-wing opponents in the Ohio house passed electronic voting laws that would outlaw any requirement for auditability or paper trails in voting machines. Yet the right of citizens to know who actually won, and confidence in the accurate counting of votes is very difficult to oppose. This amendment puts liberal principle squarely back into the center of our political debate.
Second, this amendment has widespread ramifications. It would affect the design and implementation of voting machines and electoral processes in every federal, state, and local election. It would thwart those who want to concentrate power in an elite group at the top of the right-wing chart, and move power back into the hands of the people. It would ensure that local officials and states live up to consistent Constitutional standards, and it would prevent end runs by politically-chosen partisan boards, legislatures or Secretaries of State.
Third, the Fair and Free Elections Amendment focuses the attention of the electorate—and the debate in the body politic—on the real issue: the integrity of every vote. Constitutional amendments usually take a long time to pass. Congress votes on it, and three-fourths of the states have to ratify it. This process can take a decade, long enough to provoke debate throughout our democracy on the integrity of the voting and elections system. This can only be a good thing for democracy and liberal principle.
Fourth, it is nonpartisan. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Independents all have a stake in the proper counting of votes. So do progressives, moderates, and conservatives. Not only does the very legitimacy of government depend on it, but so does party funding, recognition of status as major parties and a clear picture of where the parties actually stand in the body politic. The only logical reason to oppose such an amendment is because your own power position relies on the corruption of the system. Diebold may not support it because—as some believe—the company has built in a method for adjusting elections, or because it is unprofitable to incur the cost of securing their systems to the standards which the amendment would require. Either way, their opposition is based on their power interest. Not even Diebold can legitimately claim that the lack of such security and verifiability is in the interest of democracy.
The Free and Fair Elections Amendment, as I have proposed it, can and should be taken up in every state and in the Congress. It is an example of a political move that should appeal to all three modalities of American liberalism.
