audit "to assure the accuracy of any automated count." At some time it
recognized that electronic means of counting votes was subject to error or
manipulation. The weakness of the law was in ignoring the fact of the
human side of the process. Election officials for many reasons would tend to resist any exposure that their electoral process was not deserving of the public's complete confidence. That is why we are continuously told that the election went without hitch. We know better now, not because those elections officials have started being honest, but because activists had
to dig for the truth.
No human led process is or can be perfect. That is why our form of
government was developed on the model of checks and balances. Our
electoral process also must be based upon checks and balances, which is only possible with a completely transparent process. Any reform must have that as its standard. Anything less subverts our form of government. A secret vote and an open process for counting that vote are not in opposition, for they serve the same purpose, that the citizens know the government serves by the consent of the governed.
We do not seek a "perfect" electoral system. We seek an electoral
system that allows every citizen to vote in secret, to have that vote
counted in public, and be subject to checks to assure us the count was
accurate.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
