Chad 2.0

Computer voting was supposed to revolutionize elections. But has it just updated old problems?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The lessons of Florida’s 2000 election debacle were painfully clear:
Butterfly ballots and punch cards are no way to run an election. Vowing
never again, Congress pledged nearly $4 billion to fund voting
modernization, and tech firms rushed computerized voting terminals to
market, promising modern convenience and digital accuracy.

But a closer look at electronic voting finds the new machines far from
fail-safe. Tech experts say voting-terminal technology lags years behind
the state of the art in both encryption and design. Not only are the
machines susceptible to the kinds of voting mishaps–undervotes,
misvotes–that produced Bush v. Gore, but they also may be vulnerable to
hackers bent on stealing an election.

Voting companies claim that scenarios involving serious fraud
are theoretical and nearly impossible to pull off: Few people have
access to the source code or the machines. But the call of “trust us,
we’re experts” took a blow this summer when the Cleveland Plain Dealer
outted Diebold chief executive Walden O’Dell as a major GOP operative. In
addition to hosting a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser at his Columbus, Ohio,
home, ODell sent out solicitations boasting that he’s “committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

Meanwhile, the appeals for greater oversight of computerized voting are
growing. “We’re very concerned about the software, about the security of
the ballots,” said Governor Perdue of Georgias voting terminals. “If they
turn out to be not reliable or can be tampered with, then
they’re–frankly–useless.”







A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate