Results from Diebold electronic voting machines used in New Hampshire's primary are being questioned this week as apparent anomalies in voting patterns there are examined.
According to published reports, in areas of New Hampshire where Diebold machines were used, Hillary Clinton may have received significantly more votes than Barack Obama, compared to regions where Diebold machines were not used.
Despite repeated reports by experts that these types of voting machines can be hacked and voting results altered, the devices continue to be used around the country.
Questions were raised in 2004 presidential election about the accuracy of voting results in Ohio.
Some of these concerns were also related to Diebold electronic voting machines.
After the 2000 presidential election and problems counting Florida's punch-card ballots, federal funds were made available for local jurisdictions to purchase different voting technologies.
Many of these funds were spent on electronic machines such as the Diebold devices.
DEMOCRACY AT RISK
Vote tampering in the U.S. and elsewhere is nothing new. But, reasonable efforts have often been implemented to attempt to minimize some of the more egregious activities regarding election fraud.
Now, with questionable electronic voting devices used throughout the nation, high-tech election manipulation is clearly a possibility, probability or maybe even established fact, according to some researchers and experts who have investigated the situation.
Because election and voting procedures vary around the country, there are not uniform and consistent standards for voting devices and other elements of election processes.
Although many people have called for increased universal standards to assist in maintaining the integrity of elections, little has been done.
In addition to questionable voting machines, other irregularities have been documented, reported and investigated.
These include confusing ballots, inadequate numbers of polling places, polling places strategically located to influence voting patterns, removal of qualified citizens from voting eligibility lists and other concerns.
According to some observers, these kinds of circumstances may have significantly affected national and local elections in recent years.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
What can be done to improve the integrity and accuracy of our election processes?
Experts and researchers of all kinds have made many valuable suggestions, based on extensive investigations of many aspects of current election problems.
Yet, there does not seem to be an adequate consensus about what steps should be taken.
Do we implement mandatory national standards or keep elections in local hands? And, how will decisions be made about things like electronic voting technology.
Unwise and corrupt decisions can just as easily be made at the federal level as at the local level, as we know all too well.
Politically neutral organizations could create groups of experts to make logical recommendations about how to proceed. In fact, many such groups already have. But the problems persist.
In the case of Ohio's 2004 elections, other similar questionable election processes and now in the New Hampshire primary, real or perceived irregularities are damaging American democracy.
If it is true that flawed voting machine technology is inadvertently making errors or allowing outright criminal voter fraud, we have a serious problem.
If other aspects of our election processes, inadvertently or intentionally, are also wrongly disenfranchising citizens, creating phony election results and helping put people in office who were not truly elected, our democratic system is truly damaged.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
According to published reports, in areas of New Hampshire where Diebold machines were used, Hillary Clinton may have received significantly more votes than Barack Obama, compared to regions where Diebold machines were not used.
Despite repeated reports by experts that these types of voting machines can be hacked and voting results altered, the devices continue to be used around the country.
Questions were raised in 2004 presidential election about the accuracy of voting results in Ohio.
Some of these concerns were also related to Diebold electronic voting machines.
After the 2000 presidential election and problems counting Florida's punch-card ballots, federal funds were made available for local jurisdictions to purchase different voting technologies.
Many of these funds were spent on electronic machines such as the Diebold devices.
DEMOCRACY AT RISK
Vote tampering in the U.S. and elsewhere is nothing new. But, reasonable efforts have often been implemented to attempt to minimize some of the more egregious activities regarding election fraud.
Now, with questionable electronic voting devices used throughout the nation, high-tech election manipulation is clearly a possibility, probability or maybe even established fact, according to some researchers and experts who have investigated the situation.
Because election and voting procedures vary around the country, there are not uniform and consistent standards for voting devices and other elements of election processes.
Although many people have called for increased universal standards to assist in maintaining the integrity of elections, little has been done.
In addition to questionable voting machines, other irregularities have been documented, reported and investigated.
These include confusing ballots, inadequate numbers of polling places, polling places strategically located to influence voting patterns, removal of qualified citizens from voting eligibility lists and other concerns.
According to some observers, these kinds of circumstances may have significantly affected national and local elections in recent years.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
What can be done to improve the integrity and accuracy of our election processes?
Experts and researchers of all kinds have made many valuable suggestions, based on extensive investigations of many aspects of current election problems.
Yet, there does not seem to be an adequate consensus about what steps should be taken.
Do we implement mandatory national standards or keep elections in local hands? And, how will decisions be made about things like electronic voting technology.
Unwise and corrupt decisions can just as easily be made at the federal level as at the local level, as we know all too well.
Politically neutral organizations could create groups of experts to make logical recommendations about how to proceed. In fact, many such groups already have. But the problems persist.
In the case of Ohio's 2004 elections, other similar questionable election processes and now in the New Hampshire primary, real or perceived irregularities are damaging American democracy.
If it is true that flawed voting machine technology is inadvertently making errors or allowing outright criminal voter fraud, we have a serious problem.
If other aspects of our election processes, inadvertently or intentionally, are also wrongly disenfranchising citizens, creating phony election results and helping put people in office who were not truly elected, our democratic system is truly damaged.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
