Tips for voting machine activists
The vulnerability of voting machines is a serious issue, so it bothers me when I see it argued badly. Here are some suggestions I've come up with:
1. Talk about process, not implementation.
Arguing against specific voting machines or specific voting machine manufacturers is not productive. At best it's a game of whack-a-mole; even if everyone ditched Diebold machines tomorrow, there's nothing to say they'd replace them with something better. Focus on guidelines for deploying and using the machines that will prevent fraud and mistakes, or at least allow them to be detected. An example would be post-election audits in which hand counts of the paper ballots (or ballot receipts) from randomly-selected precincts are compared to machine tallies. Another example would be a requirement that machines be rigorously tested before each election with a stack of known ballots -- a stack which should include mis-marked and spoiled ballots. The machines should be adapted to the process, not vice versa.
If you push for good voting processes, good voting hardware will follow.
2. Talk about the future, not the past.
Arguing about whether a past election was stolen just opens you up to charges of being a sore loser. Even if you steadfastly believe the 2000 election was stolen, it's too late to fix it now. Talk about the how to make sure the next election is honest. This resonates with a wider audience. Only the people who backed the loser care about fraud in past elections, but anyone can see it as a threat in the future.
3. Make the case with facts, not speculation.
There are plenty of verified examples from the media of voting machine problems. There's no need to rely on hypotheticals -- stick to cold, hard facts.
1. Talk about process, not implementation.
Arguing against specific voting machines or specific voting machine manufacturers is not productive. At best it's a game of whack-a-mole; even if everyone ditched Diebold machines tomorrow, there's nothing to say they'd replace them with something better. Focus on guidelines for deploying and using the machines that will prevent fraud and mistakes, or at least allow them to be detected. An example would be post-election audits in which hand counts of the paper ballots (or ballot receipts) from randomly-selected precincts are compared to machine tallies. Another example would be a requirement that machines be rigorously tested before each election with a stack of known ballots -- a stack which should include mis-marked and spoiled ballots. The machines should be adapted to the process, not vice versa.
If you push for good voting processes, good voting hardware will follow.
2. Talk about the future, not the past.
Arguing about whether a past election was stolen just opens you up to charges of being a sore loser. Even if you steadfastly believe the 2000 election was stolen, it's too late to fix it now. Talk about the how to make sure the next election is honest. This resonates with a wider audience. Only the people who backed the loser care about fraud in past elections, but anyone can see it as a threat in the future.
3. Make the case with facts, not speculation.
There are plenty of verified examples from the media of voting machine problems. There's no need to rely on hypotheticals -- stick to cold, hard facts.
<< Home