Our story so far
(Nov 7, 2007) Why Vote Word is essential for the recent low-turnout
elections. With local elections, the chances of an election being decided by 20 or
30 votes is a lot greater than with state or federal elections. Thus the likelihood is
higher that you'll be calling or emailing your friends to ask them to check if their vote
was recorded correctly. Here is how that would work, using the example of a state-
wide contest.
(Nov 4, 2006) "So aren't we trusted to be part of the solution?"
That's what a friend said to me recently. She was talking about all the ways experts
are going to solve the problem of voting accuracy for us. "But we voters don't have
to do anything? We're not trusted to check our own votes?" Her point was that no
matter what the truly qualified experts come up with, we voters should have the ability
to check up on those software and hardware engineers. New electronic voting
machines may indeed be highly accurate. But why do we have to (once again)
assume the passive role? Why are we being asked to blindly trust the computer
experts? It's so simple: give people the ability to look up everyone's vote -
anonymously! - on the Web.
(October 19, 2006). As we rush headlong into another election, I listen to the many
radio shows that are asking the question, "How confident are you that your vote will
be counted?" Well...
Right over here!!! Pick me! Pick me!
(February 2, 2006). The big news today is that the US PTO issued patent number
6,991,161 to Vote Word. The long wait is over and I'm delighted. If you want to read
the many pages of fine print, you can go to the US PTO web site and spend a lovely
evening learning the many in's and out's of secure electronic voting. (On that site,
change the drop-down to "Patent Number" and then type 6991161 in the box.)
The subject of voting and electronic voting booths will most likely start to make itself
visible in the coming months. This is because 2006 is a mid-term elections year. The
many media, even the responsible ones, are simply unable to keep all issues in the
public eye all the time. So, leading up to the elections, we may see some newspaper
articles and editorials as well as the occasional radio or TV piece on the current
state of electronic voting reform.
It's my guess, though, that the heavier coverage of DRE (Direct Recording
Electronic) issues will take place only after the elections are over - and then it will be
in direct proportion to the number of closely-contested November elections. On this
subject, The League of Women Voters quotes Edward Foley of the Moritz College of
Law at Ohio State University: “The real test of a voting system is how it does when
there is a close race. Had the 2004 presidential election been closer, it would have
exposed that the system remains perilously inadequate to the task.”
Even paper-based voting systems don't provide the ability to look up your vote after
the election is over. Vote Word is the only system out there that makes our voting
process completely transparent.
(November 19, 2005). As I wait for my patent to be granted, I've mostly watched the
state of things, especially during this last election. Speaking with people, it
astonishes me that so many of them believe that election auditing will never get
better. The cynicism of our age, I reckon. Contributing to this, I guess, is the fact that
there were very few well-publicized DRE mess-up's this last time around, and that
gives encouragement to the hobgoblin apathy. Such is the life of an idea like this.
We'll probably go through these cycles for the short-term. Then, when the media
start talking about the legislation that's slowly moving through the chambers of
Congress (requiring printers on all voting booths) the debate will once again get
loud... and, thus, healthy.
(May 23, 2005). Interesting email this weekend. A person who runs a conspiracy-
oriented web site sent me a note that said, "Machines have no place in the voting
booth". And that was it.
I'm thinking that that's quite an opening position for negotiation. No machines,
period. Granted, we're going through an occasionally rough transition period with
DRE voting booths, but we'll give up a lot more than we gain if we abandon the effort
to smoothly automate the voting process.
'Course, we should not blindly trust that our election results are 100% accurate. But
we should recognize that DRE's have the potential to empower the voter (using a
Vote Word, of course) rather than cheat the voter.
__________________
(May 9, 2005). It's been just over two months since I announced this invention and
it's been quite a ride. Talking to people about voting booths elicits responses that
range from a yawn to an emotion-filled red face.
If you try having a conversation with someone about voting, you'll be pleased to find
that voting is one of the few subjects about which we pretty much all agree - at least
on the basic level. After all, it doesn't matter where you find yourself on the political
spectrum, the fact is that voting is the basis of our democratic process and so it's
one of those institutions that people everywhere hold sacred.
It's when I get into the details with someone (and, believe me, I've buttonholed my
share of poor listeners) that I discover what people really think about the way we do
our voting. Most people love the idea of being able to check their vote on the web. It
just makes sense.
But not everyone. Perhaps the most disturbing conversation that I've had so far is
one with a U.S. Congressional aide who fully supports the federal government's
requiring every voting booth to have a printer attached to it. It's an approach that
even the League of Women Voters has warned against. No matter. This aide said, "It
doesn't matter what you're doing at the state level: what we do at the federal level
trumps it". It's encountering that kind of arrogance that keeps me going sometimes.
I guess that's the most important job for me right now: to point out that most people
want auditable elections, not paper-based elections. If the paper-based people stop
and think for a second, they'll have to admit that a re-count of paper ballots doesn't
any more assure accuracy than the original count. The only way to convince a voter
that his/her vote was recorded and counted is to let the voters audit their own vote.
(Nov 7, 2007) Why Vote Word is essential for the recent low-turnout
elections. With local elections, the chances of an election being decided by 20 or
30 votes is a lot greater than with state or federal elections. Thus the likelihood is
higher that you'll be calling or emailing your friends to ask them to check if their vote
was recorded correctly. Here is how that would work, using the example of a state-
wide contest.
(Nov 4, 2006) "So aren't we trusted to be part of the solution?"
That's what a friend said to me recently. She was talking about all the ways experts
are going to solve the problem of voting accuracy for us. "But we voters don't have
to do anything? We're not trusted to check our own votes?" Her point was that no
matter what the truly qualified experts come up with, we voters should have the ability
to check up on those software and hardware engineers. New electronic voting
machines may indeed be highly accurate. But why do we have to (once again)
assume the passive role? Why are we being asked to blindly trust the computer
experts? It's so simple: give people the ability to look up everyone's vote -
anonymously! - on the Web.
(October 19, 2006). As we rush headlong into another election, I listen to the many
radio shows that are asking the question, "How confident are you that your vote will
be counted?" Well...
Right over here!!! Pick me! Pick me!
(February 2, 2006). The big news today is that the US PTO issued patent number
6,991,161 to Vote Word. The long wait is over and I'm delighted. If you want to read
the many pages of fine print, you can go to the US PTO web site and spend a lovely
evening learning the many in's and out's of secure electronic voting. (On that site,
change the drop-down to "Patent Number" and then type 6991161 in the box.)
The subject of voting and electronic voting booths will most likely start to make itself
visible in the coming months. This is because 2006 is a mid-term elections year. The
many media, even the responsible ones, are simply unable to keep all issues in the
public eye all the time. So, leading up to the elections, we may see some newspaper
articles and editorials as well as the occasional radio or TV piece on the current
state of electronic voting reform.
It's my guess, though, that the heavier coverage of DRE (Direct Recording
Electronic) issues will take place only after the elections are over - and then it will be
in direct proportion to the number of closely-contested November elections. On this
subject, The League of Women Voters quotes Edward Foley of the Moritz College of
Law at Ohio State University: “The real test of a voting system is how it does when
there is a close race. Had the 2004 presidential election been closer, it would have
exposed that the system remains perilously inadequate to the task.”
Even paper-based voting systems don't provide the ability to look up your vote after
the election is over. Vote Word is the only system out there that makes our voting
process completely transparent.
(November 19, 2005). As I wait for my patent to be granted, I've mostly watched the
state of things, especially during this last election. Speaking with people, it
astonishes me that so many of them believe that election auditing will never get
better. The cynicism of our age, I reckon. Contributing to this, I guess, is the fact that
there were very few well-publicized DRE mess-up's this last time around, and that
gives encouragement to the hobgoblin apathy. Such is the life of an idea like this.
We'll probably go through these cycles for the short-term. Then, when the media
start talking about the legislation that's slowly moving through the chambers of
Congress (requiring printers on all voting booths) the debate will once again get
loud... and, thus, healthy.
(May 23, 2005). Interesting email this weekend. A person who runs a conspiracy-
oriented web site sent me a note that said, "Machines have no place in the voting
booth". And that was it.
I'm thinking that that's quite an opening position for negotiation. No machines,
period. Granted, we're going through an occasionally rough transition period with
DRE voting booths, but we'll give up a lot more than we gain if we abandon the effort
to smoothly automate the voting process.
'Course, we should not blindly trust that our election results are 100% accurate. But
we should recognize that DRE's have the potential to empower the voter (using a
Vote Word, of course) rather than cheat the voter.
__________________
(May 9, 2005). It's been just over two months since I announced this invention and
it's been quite a ride. Talking to people about voting booths elicits responses that
range from a yawn to an emotion-filled red face.
If you try having a conversation with someone about voting, you'll be pleased to find
that voting is one of the few subjects about which we pretty much all agree - at least
on the basic level. After all, it doesn't matter where you find yourself on the political
spectrum, the fact is that voting is the basis of our democratic process and so it's
one of those institutions that people everywhere hold sacred.
It's when I get into the details with someone (and, believe me, I've buttonholed my
share of poor listeners) that I discover what people really think about the way we do
our voting. Most people love the idea of being able to check their vote on the web. It
just makes sense.
But not everyone. Perhaps the most disturbing conversation that I've had so far is
one with a U.S. Congressional aide who fully supports the federal government's
requiring every voting booth to have a printer attached to it. It's an approach that
even the League of Women Voters has warned against. No matter. This aide said, "It
doesn't matter what you're doing at the state level: what we do at the federal level
trumps it". It's encountering that kind of arrogance that keeps me going sometimes.
I guess that's the most important job for me right now: to point out that most people
want auditable elections, not paper-based elections. If the paper-based people stop
and think for a second, they'll have to admit that a re-count of paper ballots doesn't
any more assure accuracy than the original count. The only way to convince a voter
that his/her vote was recorded and counted is to let the voters audit their own vote.
| email: info@voteword.org |
