Below is a NY Times editorial on the electronic voting machine issue. This topic keeps coming up, but only in center-left publications. The Right isn't worried about the security and integrity of our voting technology? Hmmm........
How to Hack an Election
January 31, 2004
Concerned citizens have been warning that new electronic voting technology being rolled out nationwide can be used to steal elections. Now there is proof. When the State of Maryland hired a computer security firm to test its new machines, these paid hackers had little trouble casting multiple votes and taking over the machines' vote-recording mechanisms. The Maryland study shows convincingly that more security is needed for electronic voting, starting with voter-verified paper trails.
When Maryland decided to buy 16,000 AccuVote-TS voting machines, there was considerable opposition. Critics charged that the new touch-screen machines, which do not create a paper record of votes cast, were vulnerable to vote theft. The state commissioned a staged attack on the machines, in which computer-security experts would try to foil the safeguards and interfere with an election.
They were disturbingly successful. It was an "easy matter," they reported, to reprogram the access cards used by voters and vote multiple times. They were able to attach a keyboard to a voting terminal and change its vote count. And by exploiting a software flaw and using a modem, they were able to change votes from a remote location.
Critics of new voting technology are often accused of being alarmist, but this state-sponsored study contains vulnerabilities that seem almost too bad to be true. Maryland's 16,000 machines all have identical locks on two sensitive mechanisms, which can be opened by any one of 32,000 keys. The security team had no trouble making duplicates of the keys at local hardware stores, although that proved unnecessary since one team member picked the lock in "approximately 10 seconds."
Diebold, the machines' manufacturer, rushed to issue a self-congratulatory press release with the headline "Maryland Security Study Validates Diebold Election Systems Equipment for March Primary." The study's authors were shocked to see their findings spun so positively. Their report said that if flaws they identified were fixed, the machines could be used in Maryland's March 2 primary. But in the long run, they said, an extensive overhaul of the machines and at least a limited paper trail are necessary.
The Maryland study confirms concerns about electronic voting that are rapidly accumulating from actual elections. In Boone County, Ind., last fall, in a particularly colorful example of unreliability, an electronic system initially recorded more than 144,000 votes in an election with fewer than 19,000 registered voters, County Clerk Lisa Garofolo said. Given the growing body of evidence, it is clear that electronic voting machines cannot be trusted until more safeguards are in place.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Thursday, January 15, 2004
A smart endorsement of Dean by Elaine Kamarck, of the Harvard School of Government--
This Guy Can Rock The White House
January 15, 2004
Last July, I promised I would tell you my choice for Democratic Idol today - four days before this process begins for real when the Democrats in Iowa, the first of many judges, weigh in.
I prepared for this auspicious moment by wading through newspapers, polls and hundreds of pages of press summaries written for the most hard-core political junkies. I have watched at least 50 hours of C-Span and countless other television programs, and actually traveled to see the candidates in person. And finally I bought a copy of "I Don't Mean to Be Rude, But...," the new book by flamboyant "American Idol" judge Simon Cowell.
Months ago when the Democratic field grew to 10 (and then dropped back to nine), I lamented the absence of a Cowell in the party - someone to unabashedly tell a few of these candidates that they couldn't sing worth a dime. And so I started doing it myself. Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosely Braun were never really credible as possible presidents. John Edwards never did convince me he was seasoned enough for the job. And Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt - all serious men and presidential material - spent the whole season off-key, a function of the way that Washington can ruin your pitch in spite of the fact that you may be a good musician. And that left me with two outsiders, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.
And so, in making my final choice, I decided to see what Cowell says about picking pop stars, and almost immediately came across the following: "The funny thing about pop music is that, for all its artificiality, it should reflect something real." Well, same thing for presidential politics. As Americans have become more and more hardened by the commercial culture in which they live, they have tended - in their political choices - to go for the person who seems to be the most real, the least programmed, the one who can speak plain English and give the impression that he (still he) is who he is.
"Clay Aiken," recalls Cowell in talking about one of the American Idol stars, "was an individual, and I remembered Clay way above all of the Britney clones, the Christina clones, the Justin Timberlake clones we had. The public, remember, likes individuality." Neither Dean nor Clark is a Kennedy clone or a Clinton clone - both of whom were Democratic Idols in their time. They are both originals. Howard Dean has spent a long time in public life but in a state so small that nearly everyone would eventually meet him. He had no option but to be who he is - a blunt-talking small-town doctor turned politician - and to his credit he never tried to be anything else. He is not smooth. Praise the Lord.
Wesley Clark spent his whole adult life in the U.S. Army. When he talks to an audience, he projects the straightforward patriotism of the military professional. Clark, like Dean, is unencumbered by the air of tormented compromise that engulfs the other serious candidates. Neither one of them appears to filter their thoughts through a fog of focus-group blather. They've come this far because they both project that most coveted of all attributes - leadership.
But, in the end, I vote for Dean over Clark to be the Democratic Idol because I think Dean has the best chance of any of the candidates in this race to beat George W. Bush. Clark, appealing as he is, is one-dimensional. His campaign is nothing more and nothing less than his biography. His military career is impressive but Kosovo was not exactly the Normandy invasion, and Clark cannot expect the outpouring of American gratitude that took Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to the White House.
Furthermore, Clark's military service is not without controversy. Fairly or unfairly, a number of his former colleagues are more than happy to say bad things about him. And this is before the Bush team, adept at character assassination, has gotten serious about him. In 2000 the Bush campaign turned Al Gore, a politician known for nothing as much as the fact that he was a straight arrow, into a chronic liar in the minds of many. By the time Bush and company get done with Gen. Clark, his military experience could be a nightmare and the general could wish he'd gone AWOL from West Point.
Once Clark's military career is destroyed, the Bush team would exploit his inconsistencies on the Iraq war and his past admiration for Republicans. That would turn the general into just another political opportunist. Robbed of his biography, Clark has nothing - no record on health care, no experience balancing budgets, no background in creating jobs. It is very difficult to challenge the commander in chief - generals are in the chain of command, not on top of it. In spite of his impressive learning curve and great performances, Clark is just too new at this game to head the ticket. (Which doesn't mean he couldn't be the No. 2 - but that's a subject for another day.)
Howard Dean, on the other hand, is the strongest candidate against Bush that the Democrats have. The complaints against him are overdrawn and easily outweighed by his strengths.
Start with the complaints. The first is that he is too left-wing to win. Dean owes his colleagues in the primary race a big debt of gratitude on that one. When Gephardt attacked him for a Medicare position taken in the mid-1990s, it reinforced the fact that Dean is a fiscal conservative - well within the mainstream of the successful Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. If Dean were a real left-winger, he would have called for a national health insurance plan (like Gephardt and Kucinich). Instead he has a much more realistic plan to take care of the uninsured - and has a Vermont record on it to boot.
If Dean were a real left-winger, he'd call for cutting defense spending and immediately removing our troops from Iraq - as Kucinich has. But Dean understands that the fight against terror requires new, albeit somewhat different, military spending than the current Bush plans and that we can't fight terror by allowing Iraq to turn into another Afghanistan.
The second complaint involves Dean's personality. The argument is that he is too combative. This always struck me as odd. How can Democrats object to a combative person running against an incumbent president who tells the world: "Bring 'em on!" Do they think they can beat Bush with a wimp? With some guy who says, "On the one hand this, and on the other hand that?" I, for one, relish the sight of Howard Dean - his wrestler's neck bulging - taking on the president after Bush tries to tell us that record deficits don't matter, that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center or that a time of constant terror alerts is a safer world. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, in endorsing Dean, called him the Harry Truman of the 21st century. Truman was a feisty little plain-speaking man - and a great president.
But the most compelling reason to support Dean is that only he can change the nature of the political game. No Democrat will win unless he can make the country see through Bush, and Dean has been so good at this that by last fall all the other candidates were mimicking his outrage.
Furthermore, if Democrats play old-fashioned politics, they lose, plain and simple. George W. Bush is the incumbent; he has the Executive Branch, Republicans control Congress, and this White House has shown an uncanny ability to bamboozle and intimidate the national press corps. The Republicans own the "Establishment," and they will use it to raise $170 million or more to destroy the Democratic candidate.
Dean has built a primary campaign that makes the Establishment pretty much irrelevant. The only way a Democrat wins in November is to keep it that way. By the end of last year Dean probably had at least 300,000 individual contributors. If Dean wins some early contests and locks up the nomination by mid-March, each of these people will have a great story to tell to 10 new contributors. How much could Dean raise from these 1.5 to 3 million people (you do the math; the numbers of potential donors are huge) in the months before the Democratic convention?
No other Democratic candidate is poised to do as well. Even operating in Internet time, they all start from donor bases that are too small and mind-sets that are too old-fashioned.
Simon Cowell had this to say about Ruben Studdard, last year's American Idol: "Who would have thought that someone weighing three hundred pounds would be the American Idol? Answer: America." Who would have thought that a Vermont governor would turn the political world upside down to become the Democratic Idol? Answer: America.
Elaine Kamarck is a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She served in the Clinton- Gore administration and can be reached at eckamarck@aol.com.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. | Article licensing and reprint options
This Guy Can Rock The White House
January 15, 2004
Last July, I promised I would tell you my choice for Democratic Idol today - four days before this process begins for real when the Democrats in Iowa, the first of many judges, weigh in.
I prepared for this auspicious moment by wading through newspapers, polls and hundreds of pages of press summaries written for the most hard-core political junkies. I have watched at least 50 hours of C-Span and countless other television programs, and actually traveled to see the candidates in person. And finally I bought a copy of "I Don't Mean to Be Rude, But...," the new book by flamboyant "American Idol" judge Simon Cowell.
Months ago when the Democratic field grew to 10 (and then dropped back to nine), I lamented the absence of a Cowell in the party - someone to unabashedly tell a few of these candidates that they couldn't sing worth a dime. And so I started doing it myself. Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosely Braun were never really credible as possible presidents. John Edwards never did convince me he was seasoned enough for the job. And Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt - all serious men and presidential material - spent the whole season off-key, a function of the way that Washington can ruin your pitch in spite of the fact that you may be a good musician. And that left me with two outsiders, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.
And so, in making my final choice, I decided to see what Cowell says about picking pop stars, and almost immediately came across the following: "The funny thing about pop music is that, for all its artificiality, it should reflect something real." Well, same thing for presidential politics. As Americans have become more and more hardened by the commercial culture in which they live, they have tended - in their political choices - to go for the person who seems to be the most real, the least programmed, the one who can speak plain English and give the impression that he (still he) is who he is.
"Clay Aiken," recalls Cowell in talking about one of the American Idol stars, "was an individual, and I remembered Clay way above all of the Britney clones, the Christina clones, the Justin Timberlake clones we had. The public, remember, likes individuality." Neither Dean nor Clark is a Kennedy clone or a Clinton clone - both of whom were Democratic Idols in their time. They are both originals. Howard Dean has spent a long time in public life but in a state so small that nearly everyone would eventually meet him. He had no option but to be who he is - a blunt-talking small-town doctor turned politician - and to his credit he never tried to be anything else. He is not smooth. Praise the Lord.
Wesley Clark spent his whole adult life in the U.S. Army. When he talks to an audience, he projects the straightforward patriotism of the military professional. Clark, like Dean, is unencumbered by the air of tormented compromise that engulfs the other serious candidates. Neither one of them appears to filter their thoughts through a fog of focus-group blather. They've come this far because they both project that most coveted of all attributes - leadership.
But, in the end, I vote for Dean over Clark to be the Democratic Idol because I think Dean has the best chance of any of the candidates in this race to beat George W. Bush. Clark, appealing as he is, is one-dimensional. His campaign is nothing more and nothing less than his biography. His military career is impressive but Kosovo was not exactly the Normandy invasion, and Clark cannot expect the outpouring of American gratitude that took Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to the White House.
Furthermore, Clark's military service is not without controversy. Fairly or unfairly, a number of his former colleagues are more than happy to say bad things about him. And this is before the Bush team, adept at character assassination, has gotten serious about him. In 2000 the Bush campaign turned Al Gore, a politician known for nothing as much as the fact that he was a straight arrow, into a chronic liar in the minds of many. By the time Bush and company get done with Gen. Clark, his military experience could be a nightmare and the general could wish he'd gone AWOL from West Point.
Once Clark's military career is destroyed, the Bush team would exploit his inconsistencies on the Iraq war and his past admiration for Republicans. That would turn the general into just another political opportunist. Robbed of his biography, Clark has nothing - no record on health care, no experience balancing budgets, no background in creating jobs. It is very difficult to challenge the commander in chief - generals are in the chain of command, not on top of it. In spite of his impressive learning curve and great performances, Clark is just too new at this game to head the ticket. (Which doesn't mean he couldn't be the No. 2 - but that's a subject for another day.)
Howard Dean, on the other hand, is the strongest candidate against Bush that the Democrats have. The complaints against him are overdrawn and easily outweighed by his strengths.
Start with the complaints. The first is that he is too left-wing to win. Dean owes his colleagues in the primary race a big debt of gratitude on that one. When Gephardt attacked him for a Medicare position taken in the mid-1990s, it reinforced the fact that Dean is a fiscal conservative - well within the mainstream of the successful Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. If Dean were a real left-winger, he would have called for a national health insurance plan (like Gephardt and Kucinich). Instead he has a much more realistic plan to take care of the uninsured - and has a Vermont record on it to boot.
If Dean were a real left-winger, he'd call for cutting defense spending and immediately removing our troops from Iraq - as Kucinich has. But Dean understands that the fight against terror requires new, albeit somewhat different, military spending than the current Bush plans and that we can't fight terror by allowing Iraq to turn into another Afghanistan.
The second complaint involves Dean's personality. The argument is that he is too combative. This always struck me as odd. How can Democrats object to a combative person running against an incumbent president who tells the world: "Bring 'em on!" Do they think they can beat Bush with a wimp? With some guy who says, "On the one hand this, and on the other hand that?" I, for one, relish the sight of Howard Dean - his wrestler's neck bulging - taking on the president after Bush tries to tell us that record deficits don't matter, that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center or that a time of constant terror alerts is a safer world. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, in endorsing Dean, called him the Harry Truman of the 21st century. Truman was a feisty little plain-speaking man - and a great president.
But the most compelling reason to support Dean is that only he can change the nature of the political game. No Democrat will win unless he can make the country see through Bush, and Dean has been so good at this that by last fall all the other candidates were mimicking his outrage.
Furthermore, if Democrats play old-fashioned politics, they lose, plain and simple. George W. Bush is the incumbent; he has the Executive Branch, Republicans control Congress, and this White House has shown an uncanny ability to bamboozle and intimidate the national press corps. The Republicans own the "Establishment," and they will use it to raise $170 million or more to destroy the Democratic candidate.
Dean has built a primary campaign that makes the Establishment pretty much irrelevant. The only way a Democrat wins in November is to keep it that way. By the end of last year Dean probably had at least 300,000 individual contributors. If Dean wins some early contests and locks up the nomination by mid-March, each of these people will have a great story to tell to 10 new contributors. How much could Dean raise from these 1.5 to 3 million people (you do the math; the numbers of potential donors are huge) in the months before the Democratic convention?
No other Democratic candidate is poised to do as well. Even operating in Internet time, they all start from donor bases that are too small and mind-sets that are too old-fashioned.
Simon Cowell had this to say about Ruben Studdard, last year's American Idol: "Who would have thought that someone weighing three hundred pounds would be the American Idol? Answer: America." Who would have thought that a Vermont governor would turn the political world upside down to become the Democratic Idol? Answer: America.
Elaine Kamarck is a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She served in the Clinton- Gore administration and can be reached at eckamarck@aol.com.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. | Article licensing and reprint options
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)