Query Letter for Agents and Publishers

Query Letter RE: Book Proposal Entitled

INTERNET VOTING NOW! HERE'S WHY. HERE'S HOW.

Dear {Specific Name}


SECURITY! Of course, this is what most folks worry about first when the subject of Internet voting comes up. The convenience offered by Internet voting in all US elections is easy to see – voting from home, work, etc., with no more treks to the polling place, where parking may be difficult to find and one may have to wait in line, perhaps in inclement weather. But because the fear factor looms large in many minds, security must be the first topic addressed in a book that advocates taking such a revolutionary leap forward. Chapter One thoroughly discusses the security issue, as well as the short history of Internet voting in the United States. (There were three small initial trials in the presidential election of 2000, and, among other things, a large project in 2004.)

I also show in the first chapter that Internet voting security technology is as sophisticated and reliable as the security technology used daily by the US military, international e-commerce and finance, as well as online banking and shopping.

My book’s main point is that Internet voting can be used to make US presidential elections both far more convenient and democratic than they are currently. I beef up the argument in favor of such a radical reform with a discussion of “The Original Intentions of Our Founding Fathers for Presidential Elections,” which is the title of Chapter Two. Drawing from sources that include The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Philadelphia Convention, Washington’s Farewell Address, and quotes from the US Constitution, I show that the authors of the Constitution originally hoped that its procedure for presidential elections would deter political parties from coming to dominate the process. Well, that didn’t work, and I offer some reasons why. I also show that they intended their procedure, centered on the Electoral College, to be as orderly and conducive to reason and deliberation as was their convention in Philadelphia.

To invite criticisms from colleagues, I posted Chapter Two as an essay on SSRN, a website used by professors of law, political science, and other social sciences. So far, the paper has had over 2700 online reads, and almost 250 downloads. People have learned about it by word of mouth. I have received numerous comments via email, many of which have praised the work and offered helpful critiques. While I have posted all the chapter drafts there as essays, the polished products are available on request. (The drafts are at http://ssrn.com/author=1053589 Click on the chapter title to go to the page where the statistics are displayed. The essays on Polanyi listed there are not part of the book).

In Chapter Three I contrast our country’s current presidential election practices with the original intentions of the Constitution’s Framers as discussed in Chapter Two. It’s a poor match, indeed. Among other things, they anticipated a cost free process, and we have a money-dependent process because the costs of campaigning are so high. For example, candidate Obama raised and spent over $740,000,000 in his 2008 campaign. They hoped for a nonpartisan process, and ours is thoroughly partisan. But this need not be.

Chapter Four shows how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fully satisfy the hopes of the Framers for a deliberative process that would cost the candidates nothing. Let Citizens United be the rule, when organized along the lines I set forth, big spending will have little or no effect on the decision-making of the American voter.

In Chapter Five I revisit the security issue, for a final rebuttal of the critics of Internet voting. And in the book’s Conclusion, entitled “What is to be done,” I suggest how Internet voting can be implemented, and I outline other uses for Internet voting in American politics. Here is the last paragraph,

"The potential for electronically democratizing American politics and government is only limited by what the American people want for themselves. If they want a government that does it all for them, so they can stay out of politics and watch TV, surf the Net, play with e-toys, or whatever, then that is what they will have. However, our Founding Generation’s spirit of Liberty through self-government once drove them to fight, sacrifice, and sometimes die in the American Revolution. If that spirit is still alive in our generation, then that spirit will find its way to realization through an electronic democracy based on Internet voting."

While a work of advocacy, the tone is friendly and has a scholarly restraint. The book is intended for the educated reader who is interested in thinking about the possibilities the Internet raises for change in American politics and history. It will appeal especially to those who would like to see some fresh thinking about how to reform our money-corrupted presidential election process.

My Ph.D. is in political science, from the University of California, Santa Barbara, 1985. Over the past 20 years I have taught American politics at UCSB, and in the Los Angeles junior college system. I have also taught citizenship to adult immigrants during that time.

I have two books on Amazon.com. One, entitled The New Election Game, was published in 1987. It reviewed the history of presidential campaign finance reform, and, inspired by Buckminster Fuller, proposed a system of telephone voting after watching debates on TV. Little did I know that the PC Revolution would soon make that idea obsolete. The second book, Progressive Logic (2005), is a study of the underlying principles of value shared by Progressives throughout American history.

I have been actively promoting my ideas for Internet voting online for over three years. Some of my essays can be found on the website Internet Evolution, at http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0 and on the website Op Ed News at http://www.opednews.com/author/author36599.html where I have eight articles listed.

Even though this mss is not yet a book, interest in the idea is strong. I have been interviewed online, on the radio, and on TV.

Online: http://www.webcitation.org/5v0Z2RKPk
Jumping in Pools: Interview with Dr. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
The first question is, “How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?”

For a radio interview by Jim Fetzer, go to
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to February 10, 2010

Blip TV twice:
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 and http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/

Public Speaking includes:
Center for Inquiry, September 19, 2010, Hollywood, AM; Costa Mesa, PM
http://www.webcitation.org/5v0OgtKiK

If you would like to see some, or all, of the chapters, I can send them to you as email attachments, or hard copies by mail, at your request.

Sincerely,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation

Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
Book on Internet Voting in progress: All chapter drafts can be read/downloaded (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1

Email of Support for Senator Sanders

Friends!

Email your Senators and Congressperson in support of Bernie Sanders!
Here is one sample letter:

Hon. Senator X/Congressperson Y:

I'm a constituent and I urge you to give all the support you possibly can to Senator Sanders as he opposes the deal President Obama recently made with the Repubs.

Millions for the Billionaires and a 13 month extension of unemployment checks is not acceptable for me. There must be a better way to extend the unemployment benefits. This is only the beginning of Obama’s “middle way wisdom.” Next they will demand 50% cuts in Social Security and Medicaid, and our President will “wisely” agree to 25%.

President Obama is missing the big picture. The social structure of the United States is changing. The gap between rich and poor is so vast now that no other industrial nation comes close. This is something NEW.

Costs of higher education are shutting out average families. Congress gave Billions to the superrich corporations to bail them out from their own stupid investments, and promised us that trickle-down would create jobs. Guess what? The more we gave the superrich, the higher unemployment went. Our infant mortality rate belongs in Africa, not here. What does this add up to?

Our nation is slipping into an Age of Neofeudalism. Democracy requires a strong middle class. As that erodes, our country will become one of peasants and Lords. This is the long term goal of the Repubs. If we don't fight this starting now, who will, and starting when?

Sincerely,

INTERNET VOTING COMING TO RUSSIA!

In elections to the Duma Russians will be able to vote via the Internet.

Chairman of the CEC of Russia Vladimir Churov proposes that in the State Duma elections in December 2011 an opportunity for voters to vote remotely by internet or by mobile phone. In his opinion, it will increase turnout and reduce the cost of elections.

"There should be a possibility of remote voting via the Internet or mobile communications - satellite, or conventional, it can seriously affect the increase in turnout," - he said Tuesday at a meeting of the Federation Council Committee on Regional Policy.

In addition, says Mr. Churov, such a move would seriously reduce the cost of expenditure on elections, because, for example, in the Murmansk region helicopter, which gives the voters the ballot box, costs about 65 thousand rubles per hour, and the Far East - More expensive.

"No reason to resist the remote vote no" - quoted by the CEC Chairman , RIA Novosti . According to him, remote voting in elections to the Duma may be introduced in remote regions, as well as the vote of Russians abroad.


http://tinyurl.com/IVinRuski

USA Wake Up!!

Was the DC Hack a Conspiracy?

RE: Washington Post article on DC hack, at http://ow.ly/31Wgp

One true statements in this article is, “For more than a decade, computer security scientists have been warning of certain core dangers related to Internet voting." Yes, "warning," but never offering any evidence!

Simons and Jefferson, especially, are experts in what I call the Halloween method of opposing Internet voting; that is, telling really scary stories about what COULD happen if a system was hacked.(1) After a decade of crying "wolf!" without any actual facts to point to, the alarmists needed something concrete. The DC fiasco seems to be just what the doctor ordered. Now they use the DC hack as if it were proof that ALL Internet voting systems are as easy to hack. How convenient! Never mind the fact that in Europe, Canada, and the US Internet voting trials have all worked well – right now West Virginia and Arizona are having great success with well-built Internet voting systems.

Besides those pesky facts, all the facts have yet to be discovered about the DC incident. The article neglects to mention that the team at Trust the Vote, who built the DC system, have been long-time critics of Internet voting. That raises some yet unanswered questions.

Why did they submit a bid to build an Internet voting system? Why did the DC officials hire them, as opposed to the companies that built the currently successful West Virginia and Arizona systems?

One observer wrote on Slashdot (not me) that the system seems designed to fail.(2) Could that be true? Was the very construction of the system an insider attack? Did the builders plant a back door? What kind of communication did Trust the Vote members have with Halderman, after they got the DC contract? Just how duped and used were the DC officials?


1. For more details on this history see "Scary Stories Fail to Stop Internet Voting"
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
2. More details and citations at, http://bit.ly/bk0cpQ

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
Twitter: wjkno1
FB: William Kelleher




Posted as a comment to the WashP article by: wjkellpro | October 30, 2010 3:50 PM

Breaking News!

The Washington Post has just published an article by anti-Internet voting extremists Epstein, Simons, and Jefferson. They make the ridiculous claim that the DC hackers did the nation a service. But, the paper also printed my critique, and my suggestion that the hack may have been a conspiracy. Go to http://ow.ly/31Wgo
(Copy and paste)
Hearing both sides, folks can decide -- DC hackers: good guys or conspirators?

CSOonline.com Dodges Debate on Internet Voting Security!

I tried to balance out this anti-Internet voting propaganda with facts and commonsense, but CSOonline.com would have none of that. Apparently, they only want to see one side. I wouldn’t have bothered to disillusion them, but for two reasons I had to persist. One is that the author is a worshipper of St. David Jefferson, and the other is that John Sebes has joined the love fest (he’s an insider on the DC fiasco).

Why won’t any of these True Believers engage me in an intelligent debate? (Do they all share a lack of courage? Sebes has even deleted my efforts to engage him on his blog; right, John?)

So, here is the propaganda piece, and my forbidden reply:

E-voting: How secure is it?

More than half of all states in the U.S. will allow some kind of internet voting this year. But security experts say it's a mistake and puts the nation at risk.

By Joan Goodchild, Senior Editor, October 28, 2010 — CSO —


Election fraud and vote tampering is as old as government. Before the American Revolution, most voting was done by voice. Voters would call out their pick for all to hear, which lead to intimidation and other nefarious tactics by those hoping to impact election results. The creation of the secret ballot was an improvement, but brought with it another host of possible modes of manipulation. In a quote that is now famous in American history, corrupt politician and Tammany Hall leader Boss Tweed often told constituents to 'vote early, and often.'

But surely, by 2010, with technology as sophisticated as it is and elections as regulated as they are, any voting system rolled out these days is no doubt fool-proof and iron-clad in terms of security, right? Not so, say some voting security experts. And, in fact, it's technology that makes new voting systems dangerous.

Back in 1999, David Jefferson, a computer scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and chairman of Verified Voting, an organization that monitors security of election systems, first began examining the issue of electronic voting, specifically internet voting, as technical chairman of a task force set up by the Secretary of State in California. "The original idea was that internet voting was a fine idea, and the only question was how best to deliver this capability to the citizens of California," recalled Jefferson. "The vision was people would be able to vote from home with computers, in their pajamas, or they could vote on the road, from the hotel, or from an Internet café. At any time, from anywhere. But as we studied the issue more carefully, we realized that it was a hopelessly dangerous concept."

The result, said Jefferson, was a report authored by the group advising election officials not to proceed with internet voting, at least not for a very long time. And in the 10-plus years since the report was released, Jefferson says the concept of internet voting has become no more secure.

Yet many states, in an effort to allow military and other overseas citizenry to vote, have opted to adopt it, much to Jefferson's amazement.

According to the Verified Voting, more than 30 states will allow ballots to be cast by email, fax or online this year. "This is a national security issue," said Jefferson, who vehemently opposes internet voting as much today as he did in 1999. "In elections, we are electing the President and the members of Congress who are going to make law and run the government of the United States. But we can expose the election infrastructure to cyber attacks by anybody in the world. That's what we do when we conduct online elections."

Case in point, according to Jefferson, is the recent demonstration by a team of students led by University of Michigan professor Alex Halderman. The group managed to easily hack into an internet-based system for overseas and military voters that the District of Columbia planned to test in the November election. Along the way, the team also found evidence the system had been penetrated by both Iranian and Chinese hackers.

"One of the great fears in an internet election is that you are exposing our votes to manipulation by foreign powers," said Jefferson. "I just consider this to be a major national security risk; a totally unnecessary, needless risk and it's shocking to me that election officials turn away from this. They don't want to hear it, and they certainly don't want to do anything about it." [THEY don’t want to hear it! Ed]

"As we moved to mechanical voting machines a century ago we moved into the era of Dilbert's boss administering technology he didn't understand," said Douglas Jones, an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Iowa and a scientific expert serving on the federal Election Assistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee. "We're still there. We've advanced the technology and Dilbert's boss knows more now than he did a century ago. But he still doesn't know enough to master the system he's running."

Jones says elections officials in D.C. deserve a lot of credit for allowing the pilot system to be opened up to public test before actually using it in an election, even if it was done late and exposed serious problems. But he fears these kinds of precautions aren't being taken in smaller municipalities around the country with limited funds.

"The people in the D.C. election office who were administering the servers were people who have a lot of experience administering servers in the closed world of classical elections with no internet connections and no outsiders to deal with," said Jones. "This is evidence that the election office wasn't anywhere near up to administering a machine that was connected to the public internet. And the Washington D.C. people actually have a staff of professionally-trained people who know what they're doing. You can't say that in your typical county. The large, urban counties have resources in their election offices that average county doesn't have."

On-site electronic voting machines also risky
Both security experts also point to electronic voting machines as security risks, too. Electronic machines that allow votes to be cast at precincts without paper became popular after the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, and the now famous "hanging chad" controversy. But even these machines, used in a closed-precinct environment, still make Jefferson uncomfortable because of the possibility of vote tampering.

"The paperless, electronic-voting machines, machines in which there is no paper trail, and no way of auditing those machines, are a major security risk. But there are many election officials, even entire states, that insist they can conduct elections strictly with electronic-voting machines and that there are no security risks with it."

The lack of auditing inherent in many types of these kinds of machines causes controversy regularly. In fact, a conservative watchdog group in Nevada is currently embroiled in an argument with voting machine technicians in one county that are represented by the union SEIU. The group, Americans for Limited Government, wants state officials to intervene and ensure SEIU workers who operate the machines don't skew the results in favor of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the union-endorsed candidate. Issues like this crop up every election season, noted Jefferson. Still, it's internet voting, and it's possible widespread adoption, that keeps him up at night.
"Internet voting is really this year's voting problem and I have to say it's about a thousand-times worse than the security risk of straight electronic voting machines in precincts," he said. [end]

http://www.csoonline.com/article/630699/e-voting-how-secure-is-it-


KELLEHER’S FORBIDDEN COMMENT

This article is a tad one-sided. The message it conveys is that “some voting security experts,” like David Jefferson and Douglas Jones, have sure-fire knowledge about the insecurity of Internet voting, while all the government officials who are trying it are clueless. Of course, it is not only the local election officials who do not understand, it is all those who have advised them along the way. That includes the experts who set up the systems now being successfully used by West Virginia and Arizona.

Six years ago, the Department of Defense had an Internet voting system ready to be used by a group of 100,000 overseas volunteers. Jefferson was one of the four rouge computer scientists who, with the help of the New York Times, publicized a pack of really scary stories about what a “catastrophe” would occur with Internet voting. One example is, “you are exposing our votes to manipulation by foreign powers,” an old refrain used again in Ms Goodchild’s article. Frightened out of his wits, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was also angling for the presidency of the World Bank, ordered a halt to the program. (He got the job.)

That was in 2004. Since then Internet voting has been tried with repeated success in some provinces in Canada, and in several nations in Europe. Hall and Alvarez write that no security, or other, problems have been reported. (Electronic Elections, page 71.) The voting security experts who built these systems must also be deluded, if Jones and Jefferson are to be believed.

But the repeated success of Internet voting trials around the world seems to belie the cries of “wolf!” that alarmists like Jefferson have made a career on. Their scary stories appear to have no basis in experience, with the sole exception of the recent DC fiasco. (For more details on this see “Scary Stories Fail to Stop Internet Voting”
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589 )

Also, Bob Carey, head of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, announced at a recent meeting that the Department of Defense has decided to restore the old SERVE system, with all the updates now available. (Citation given in “Scary Stories”)

Ms Goodchild’s article refers to the DC hack as if it were evidence in favor of the case made by Jefferson et al. But all the facts have yet to be discovered. For instance, the team at Trust the Vote, who built the DC system, have been, like Jefferson, long-time critics of Internet voting. Why did they submit a bid to build the system? Why did the DC officials hire them, as opposed to the companies that built the West Virginia and Arizona systems?

One observer wrote on Slashdot, not me, that the system seems designed to fail. Could that be true? Was the very construction of the system an insider attack? After a decade of crying “wolf!” without any actual facts to point to, the anti-Internet voting activists needed something tangible. The DC fiasco seems to be just what the doctor ordered.

Since John Sebes has joined the discussion, perhaps he can address some of these questions. (For more on this, including citations, see “Does the DC Fiasco Damn Internet Voting?” http://bit.ly/aIfiRa )

The Internet voting security debate has been one-sided for far too long, with the alarmist squeaky wheel getting all the attention. CIO.com would be an excellent spot for an intellectually honest engagement of the issues.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Fri, 2010-10-29 18:48
"Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval."

Scary Stories Fail to Stop Internet Voting

Go to http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2010/10/scary-stories-fail-to-stop-internet.html?spref=tw for revised version -- free read or download
wjk
5-10-11

Does the DC Fiasco Damn Internet Voting?

This year the DC Board of Elections had a great idea. DC had a bad reputation for sending absentee ballots out to its voters in the military so late that the poor voter didn’t have time to mail the thing back before the end of the election. (The Pew Center chided DC for this in their 2009 study “No Time to Vote.”)

So DC hired some programmers who said they could set up an Internet voting system. This would enable the overseas voter to request an absentee ballot, vote it, and return it – all in just a few minutes. No more wasted time, or uncertainty about whether your ballot arrived in time or got counted.

But what DC officials apparently did not know is that the guys they hired are long-time anti-Internet voting advocates. After getting the contract, instead of boasting about their success, they posted an apology to their fellow anti-Internet voting groups. You can see this at http://www.trustthevote.org/dc-pilot-project-facts-vs-fictions-osdv-viewpoint

Greg Miller posted the apology. You can see him and John Sebes taking part in a panel sponsored by the anti-Internet voting Overseas Voting Foundation, at
http://www.youtube.com/user/OverseasVote#p/c/71DC2AFC2F476CBB/0/Ne0qiIsvqf8

Lo and Behold, within 36 hours from the time the DC system went online for testing, a “white hat hacker,” Alex Halderman, University of Michigan computer science prof, lead his class on a real adventure. They hacked the system. In it they found personal voter info, including names, PINs, and passwords. They changed all the votes that had been made, to favor their candidate. They set up the system so that all future votes would favor their candidate. Then they left a calling card: they installed the UM football fight song. The system was supposed to have an intruder detection and alarm function, but it did not work. DC officials only learned about the hack after receiving complaints about the song.

Of course all the anti-Internet voting extremists have had a field day with this event. Brad’s Blog and Verified Voting, for example, are full of triumphal proclamations about the complete and utter failure of Internet voting.

Not only did DC officials hire the guys who built this system, but after it was hacked they invited Halderman and a couple of professional anti-Internet voting extremists to appear before them. After giving Halderman time to crow, one of them submissively asked him if Internet voting could ever be done securely. Yes folks, she asked the fox how to protect the hen house! (See it at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaR7n5PI_aE ) Of course, he sagely informed her that it cannot be done.

However, at the same time, West Virginia has had terrific success with its professionally built Internet voting system. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so happy with the results of that system in this year’s primaries that she requested the state legislature to expand the program to include more overseas voters. (See http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=81145 )

Tennant reports that the Internet voting participation was twice that of the mail-in voting participation, and that “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.” (See
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf )

The legislature studied the security issues and performance, and granted Tennant’s request.

Not only that, but at least eight European nations and several provinces in Canada have been conducting Internet voting trials for years without any problems. (See Electronic Elections, Hall and Alvarez, page 71.)

So, what is to be learned from the DC fiasco? First, given the degree of competence shown by DC officials, perhaps their bid for statehood should be put off a bit longer. Second, never hire anti-Internet voting extremists to set up your Internet voting system. Like one wag on Slashdot suggested, this system appears to have been “designed to fail… just to make the [anti-Internet voting] idea shine.” (See comment by “Cylix” at, http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/09/1750214/DC-Internet-Voting-Trial-Attacked-2-Different-Ways#topcomment )

A third lesson is to look at all the facts about Internet voting successes, and not just this one example of all around incompetence (if not designer sabotage).

Internet Voting can Support NONPARTISAN and COST FREE US Elections as the Framers Intended

Updated 11-25-11

See the reviews of my new book - Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Internet Voting Now!
Here’s How. Here’s Why - So We can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!

Now on Kindle – but coming out on paper in October, 2011

Notice the subtitle, “Here’s Why - So We can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!”
The power of Big Money can be sidelined in all US elections. To understand how, lets look at how our politics was originally intended to work.

Chapter Two is entitled “The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections.” Believe it or not, the folks who wrote the Constitution envisioned that doc as a sure fire way to prevent the take over of our government by political parties. They also thought that presidential elections would be completely nonpartisan, and cost free to the candidates.

You’ll see the evidence for my claim. While the main evidence is taken from the Constitution itself, quotes from Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and Jay are provided, as well as Marshall and Jefferson. Other aspects of their original intentions were that the process would be as deliberative and orderly as a corporate personnel selection committee meeting (much like the Philadelphia Convention).

They loathed the circus-like chaos of campaigning. They uniformly agreed that such campaigning was beneath the dignity of any prospective president. (That belief prevailed until the 1890s, when William Jennings Bryan became the most active campaigner in US history up to that time.)

They also expected the presidential election process to be so inexpensive to officially conduct that no provision was made to pay for it. They envisioned that Electors in the Electoral College would defray the costs themselves.

In Chapter Three, I show the obvious – that is, how miserably the current two-party system is doing at fulfilling those original intentions. Surprisingly, these old intentions can be fulfilled by the new technology better than the two-party system has ever been able to do. In other words, Internet voting, rightly organized, is a natural fit with the aspirations of American voters and election integrity activists for truly democratic presidential elections, uncorrupted by Big Money contributors.

Chapter Four shows how this would work.

Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.

At the end of that debate, you turn to your PC or cell phone and log on to your county's secure election website. After it checks your registration, a ballot appears. You can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.

In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.

Here is how the power of the superrich will be marginalized: Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for weeks on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all of their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their pernicious efforts.

TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.

Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible, and the car became our primary mode of transportation.

You can make the same happen with Internet voting. It can, and will, become our primary mode of voting, if you simply demand it from your local and state officials. Go to them because the Constitution gives them the authority for conducting elections.

Real democracy can be ours, if we only demand it!


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
Internetvoting@gmail.com

Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Progressives!

Check your Progressive Score Card. How have we Progressives been doing on your most urgent issue? Environment, Economy, Education, War and Peace, Health Care, Criminal Justice System, Immigration, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Marijuana …

What is the hold up on progress for each of these? While every issue has unique features, the obstacle common to them all is the money-dependent two-party system of elections.

Why have our political efforts produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.

That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.

The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.

Rather than an immigration policy that treats hard working men and women with dignity, ICE raids have increased under Obama, Tea Partiers are on the verge of having laws allowing lynching passed.

Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in campaign financing. The Supreme Court has given them, not us, Citizens United.

Our candidate election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.

The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.

Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.

For these, and other, reasons, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.

Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.

Internet voting presents a Fantastic Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power. I discuss that issue fully at, http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2012/10/three-reasons-to-support-internet.html


The security technology refined by superrich banks and wealthy corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections. Also see, http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-political-argument-for-internet.html

How would the elections work? Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.

At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.

In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.

Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all of their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize every one of their pernicious efforts.

TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.

Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.

The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!

The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.

Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?

Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.

Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!

Let us focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.

See, in paper or on Kindle, Internet Voting Now!


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com

THE AUDIT PROBLEM FOR INTERNET VOTING AND DEMOCRACY

Unlike business transactions, the name of the voter cannot be linked to the vote, if voting is to be secret. So, auditing votes cannot be done in the same way that business auditing can be done. The voter can never be asked "is this your vote?" But there are ways to provide assurances that the vote count was done right. For example, if the number of ballots equals the number of voters, then one aspect of accuracy is shown.

No one can know for sure if votes have been changed within the number cast, but there are ways to monitor that. For example, each module in the secure Internet voting server can be tested to be sure its operating code is exactly as specified for the work the module is to do. This can be done both before and after an election. In addition, computer scientist Ed Gerck has shown that "electronic witnesses" can be put on each module in the process to monitor the operation of the module. If the module does something off course, the witness can record the event, or set off an alarm to get the attention of a human operator. This can be done for every step, from authenticating the voter to counting the votes.

Political parties can install their own electronic witnesses on the government’s secure server. If those witnesses do not report any missteps, then the integrity of the election would seem to be fully verified.

There are some informal ways of auditing an election based on Internet voting. One informal audit procedure would be that if people who follow elections closely are satisfied that the results are within the realm of reasonableness, then the process was very likely done right.

Of course, there would be no exit polls for Internet voting. But scientific samples of voters could be taken by phone. This could be another informal test of an election’s integrity. But there are problems with polling voters that makes it only a suggestive tool, and not definitive. When people are asked how they voted, there is a higher likelihood of misreporting than with ordinary opinion surveys.

Ultimately, any vote that is too large for a hand count will require some trust in the people who count the vote. The term “verified” contains a large element of psychology. There are folks so possessed by fear that unless they can see all the hands raised in a room, they will not trust the results of an election. For them, even paper ballots are no security blanket. At the worst extreme would be people who disbelieved the report from the hand count in the next room, but only accepted the hand count he or she could make.

Larger scale democracies must have some element of trust in the integrity of people one does not know personally, if they are to succeed.

QUOTES AND NOTES FROM HALL AND ALVAREZ

Hall and Alvarez have been involved in the study of Internet voting since the early 1990s. They are consulted by the US government, and other governments around the world. Here are a few notes and quotes from their book, Electronic Elections (2008).

REASON OVER EMOTION

These two political scientists are committed to the rational study of all sorts of electronic voting systems, and they warn against the folly of letting fear overcome reason in the Internet voting policy debate.

“Passions can overcome rational debate …” 154 “We should move to a level of scientific study …” 130 “This debate needs to become more rational …” 11

NO REPORTED SECURITY PROBLEMS WITH INTERNET VOTING TRIALS

Internet voting trials have been conducted in Alaska and Arizona in 2000, Michigan in 2004, from 2000 on: France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Netherlands, and several parts of Canada.

“The United Kingdom provides a model of [pilot testing of Internet voting].” 72 Every step in the process has been carefully monitored and studies made of public opinion, and improvements made where needed.

“As of late 2006, a total of eight [European] nations have conducted real remote Internet voting pilots.” 76

“In these trials, there had not been any documented security problems, …the experiences were problem free.” 71

In fact, “none of the threats that security experts claim will occur with Internet voting has occurred in the many elections that have tested such systems.” 89

THE MICHIGAN 2004 PRIMARY

The Democratic Party offered an Internet voting option, along with vote by mail and at polling places, in its 2004 primary.

Again, with the Internet voting, “there were no successful attacks from pranksters and hackers.” 97

The Internet voting technology did not favor any particular candidate or age group.(97) Computers were provided in public places, and lap tops brought to home-bound voters.(97) More voters used the Internet than voted by mail.(97)

No voters were disenfranchised by Internet voting, but paper based polling place problems did cause some people to not vote.(97) E.g., long lines, registration verification snags, lack of supplies (like proper ballots).

67% said they used Internet voting for convenience, and 90% of these said they voted from home, and 8% from work.

Contrary to expectations, Internet voting had very little extra draw on young voters (95)

EMAIL and FAX VOTING OK

This year at least 33 states are going to try some form of voting over the Internet for their overseas voters. Despite all the testimony from the critics and alarmists, Congress has allocated funds for these trials. The testimony of experts who assured Congress that techniques of mitigation exist for all the risks listed by those opposed to any voting technology but paper was more convincing than the unreason of alarmists like "Jefferson et al." Some states, like California and Arizona, have been using fax returned ballots for overseas military voters for several years. Studies of these practices show that

“There have not been any allegations of widespread fraud or irregularities associated with faxed UOCAVA ballots …” 87

Also, when asked if they are willing to take the alleged risks of Internet voting systems, military people overwhelmingly agree to it, so they can vote.

PAPER BASED VOTING SYSTEMS ARE WORSE THAN ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

In Chapter Two, and throughout the book, H/A discuss all the faults of paper based voting systems. The US has about 200 years of experience with paper ballots. Most of the criticisms of Internet voting are also proven problems of paper, such as denial of service, fraud, spoofing, buying/selling, invasions of privacy, vote changing, intimidation, etc. (cf 87)

CONLUSION

Don't let scary stories and fear drive your opinions. Look at the facts.

Anti-Internet Voting Scams

Here's a quick tip on how to spot anti-Internet voting scams.

They always involve telling a series of scary stories to make people feel doubtful and nervous about Internet voting. Like "any kid can hack the system," or "a hacker from Iran could control a US election." Scary stuff that nobody would want to risk.

Notice that they never mention how these terrible events can be protected against, or how likely to occur such events really are. They never present any science in favor of their wild claims.

But once they have everyone nervous and doubtful about all forms of e-voting, including Internet voting, they helpfully provide us with a security blanket. They assure their listeners that a piece of paper will provide all the security and integrity every voter longs for.

To sound technologically sophisticated they use the term Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail.

What's the truth? In fact, adding a piece of paper to e-voting brings up all the insecurities and follies of paper ballots in the past. It adds time to the voting process, and can double that time at peak hours in the polling places, causing long lines and delay. Printers can jam or break down, the paper can be hard to read under the glass that keeps the voter from touching it, and there is still no guarantee that the vote on the piece of paper will be counted as cast!

Independent thinking folks will apply a little of the scientific method, and look to the facts of experience so as to check the claims of fear-mongering propagandists.

Internet voting doesn't need paper, just as e-commerce doesn't need paper. Plus, Internet voting, properly organized, can free the US election process from the grip of Big Money.

Lets talk about how...

Internet Voting and the US Social Forum

Internet Voting and the US Social Forum
(First published in OpEdNews June 22, 2010
By William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://tinyurl.com/IntVUSSF)

The US Social Forum is taking place during the last week of this June in Detroit. It is a gathering of Progressives with the full spectrum of interests. One aim of the program is to discuss why our political efforts have produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq, and their numbers in Afghanistan are multiplying, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.

The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.

That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.

The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.

Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.

Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in the campaign financing process. For this reason, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.

Our election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.

Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.

Internet voting presents a Great Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power.

Don't be fooled by the Great Security Scare, which is not based on science. The security technology refined by superrich banks and other corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections.

Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.

At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.

In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.

Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their pernicious efforts.

TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.

Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.

The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!

The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.

Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?

Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.

Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!

Let us use this week's US Forum in Detroit, and the July Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas, to figure out how to focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.

For more information on Internet voting as a Progressive reform of our election process, watch the interviews of me on Blip TV, at
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 - the special on Internet voting security at
http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/ - and an update at http://blip.tv/etopia-news-now/william-j-kelleher-updates-the-internet-voting-story-5708665

Also see me speaking on You Tube
For an excellent short introduction as to how Internet voting would work in practice, see the Young Republican interview of me at
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-dr-william-kelleher.html (It's only a five minute read. The first question is, "How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?")

Follow me on Twitter: wjkno1

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All

Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Young Republicans Debate Internet Voting

OPENING CONTACT

Hey Young Republicans!

I would like you to know about the book I am working on. It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled

How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting

The first draft is finished. Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.

One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections." Those guys detested parties. I think we Americans should get our country more in-line with their vision.

I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.

Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them.

The superrich, and everyone else, will be free to spend as much money as they want to, but with the system I propose big spending cannot influence the voter's choice.

No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589

You and your readers are welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.


Yours,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com

FIRST REPLY

Hello good Sir,

I came across your comment on the Young Republicans blog, and you're suggesting that voting be through the Internet only? If you could further detail your plan, I'd be interested. Though, I'm sure I'll be opposed. Thanks, and have a good day.

YR

RESPONSE

Hi YR!

Thanks for your interest. Right now our election system is dominated by a small group of Big Money campaign contributors. They control both parties. This really cuts out the average citizen who can't compete with them for policy making.

With secure Internet voting, this situation can be changed.

Imagine you are watching a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate you go to your state's voting website. After your registration is checked, you vote.

Money spent on campaign propaganda can't influence your choice. The only thing your vote will be based on is your own reasoning processes.

Read more (for free) at

http://ssrn.com/author=1053589

DrWJK

SECOND REPLY

Dear DrWJK:
I still don't get it. Wouldn't this method allow for more fraud and those who are still rich, would still be launching advertisements, which have become a great fabric in our electoral system. I disagree with your ultimate premise: Money does not win elections, nor does it govern. If Obama's fundraising abilities won the election, than theoretically he should've won with over 55% of the vote...

Thoughts?

Imagine if there was never a "Willie Horton" advertisement during the 1988 or a "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisement during the 2004 Presidential elections, vital information that could've been known to the voters beforehand.

YR

SECOND RESPONSE

Hi YR!

Thanks for your interesting and probing questions. Let me know if I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.

Less Fraud, Not More
With encryption and biometric voter registration, in each state, voting fraud would be practically nil. There would be but one vote per person, and this would be more private than a banking transaction. Computers can record who voted, and how they voted, separately. Banking transactions must keep the name and the amounts together.

Check out my two chapters on security. “The Great Security Scare,” and “The Reasonable Person …” At: http://ssrn.com/author=1053589

How Money Picks Winners
Don’t be fooled by the truism that “money does not always win elections.” Sure, 1 out of 10 times the biggest spender does not prevail. But 9 out of 10 times he does. The person with ability, who doesn’t have rich connections or his own dough, gets left out of the game. Then we all lose.

Far more importantly, big money selects who will be in the race. Obama beat Clinton because the big contributors started to favor him over her. Indeed, her campaign ended with debts over $10 M. The rich settled that issue months before the average citizen had any say in who would be president. With Internet voting, properly organized, only the voters will select who will be in the race. Candidates will be eliminated by a series of debates, each decided by online voting. Spending will be allowed, but it simply will not be relevant.

More 1st Amendment Freedom with Internet Voting
Advertising is one effective way to reach large numbers of people with a political message. The ads you mention show that. With Internet voting, such advertising would continue. Indeed, current FEC regulations restricting the ways money can be spent would be unnecessary. The Supreme Court was right in Citizens United, restrictions on political speech violate the 1st Amendment.

None of those laws would be needed to protect the integrity of the election process with Internet voting. Reason: all candidates would be directly dependent upon the voter, and money would simply not give any significant advantages. There would be no political debts.

As I show in one of my chapters, the Framers of the Constitution originally intended that voting for the president be conducted in a solemn manner, conducive to rational deliberation. They hated factions, because factions manipilated unreasoning emotion. They saw the use of reason as best for making policy in the national interest. Internet voting would restore that original intention in the US.

Bill Kelleher

THIRD REPLY

Hello again,

The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced, in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced. As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings, "dead people" voting or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.

How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats). It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides from that - money does not choose who wins.

Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is: For example the 1994 and 2006 congressional elections, scandal driven opposition, etc. etc.

YR

THIRD RESPONSE

My point by point replies:
TK: The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced …

DrWJK: Yes, since the 2004 presidential election there has been a lot of attention given to the suspicions and accusations about the integrity of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines). But I see two major problems with your statement.

First, lets not confuse apples and oranges. Internet voting is an entirely different process than going to a polling place and voting on a DRE.

Secondly, accusations and proof are also two different matters. For a critique of the unprofessional journalism that spreads “the great security scare,” see Farhad Manjoo’s essay at Salon.com. He writes, “In his new book, Mark Crispin Miller tries to prove that Republicans rigged the 2004 election, but his evidence is thinner than a butterfly ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html

(Full title of the book: Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).)

All the fears and suspicions have been scrutinized in the courts, where bombast is quickly crushed. Most recently, and most comprehensively, a New Jersey court took it all on in a five year long case. Everything you can imagine, from a conspiracy of vendors to the six types of seals used to secure each machine, was examined by a slew of experts. One of the experts, a computer science professor, has a video on You Tube, “demonstrating” how he could hack a DRE in less than seven minutes. Its next to the Barnie Simpson video showing how his vote got flipped from Kerry to Bush.

Some people may believe that if you can see it done on You Tube, it must be true. But not the judge in this New Jersey case. After looking at every angle, she concluded that the New Jersey DREs are trustworthy.

See the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/NJEVoteOK
===

YR: in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced.

DrWJK: The key word there is “some.” Currently, in the US, over 90% of voters vote on electronic devices. Around 60% vote on machines that produce a paper to be read by a scantron machine, or directly mark a scrantron paper ballot. Just over 30% vote on paperless DREs, including all of New Jersey. Out of several thousand voting jurisdictions in the US, only a tiny number use paper ballots that are then counted by hand, and these are rural districts.

Electronic voting is here to stay. And Internet voting is coming to the USA.
===

YR: As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings…

DrWJK: Hacking is one of the great security scare myths that I write about in two chapters of my book. The NJ court looked at every form of hacking that the anti-e-voting side could come up with, including insider hacking and remote hacking. It was all dismissed as science fiction. As long as appropriate security protocols are followed, the chances of a hacker influencing an election create an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. Only an extremist perfectionist would want to stop e-voting because of the tiny chance of a hacking.
===
YR: "dead people" voting…

DrWJK: This is a problem of secure registration. Once all voters are registered with biometric identification, dead people will not be able to vote. Each state has a Registrar’s office for voting records, a DMV, and vital statistics offices. The interface of these departments will keep all records up to date.
===
YR: or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.

DrWJK: Internet voting can be conducted securely via PC or cell phone or in a kiosk (a station with a secure network computer). In the Michigan Democratic primary in 2004 volunteers took lap tops to house-bound folks, and churches and union halls had kiosks.

The problem of “the digital divide” was worrisome in the first couple of years of this century, but now every voter, even if technologically challenged, blind, deaf, bed-ridden, etc, can vote via the Internet.

BTW Republicans in Alaska had internet voting for their 2000 caucuses, and Arizona Dems that year, too. No hacking happened (ask Sarah).
===
YR: How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision ...

DrWJK: In every voter’s life there comes the irreversible Moment of Decision; that is, the instant when the vote is actually cast. Today, ads can badger voters over the car radio all the way up to the polling place parking lot. Then, the last ad ringing in a voter’s head could be the decisive cause of his or her vote. In this sense, ads can control the voter’s reasoning process. But with properly organized Internet voting, the last thing the voter sees is the debate online or on TV. The voter then goes to the state’s online official web site to vote. No ads can intervene in these moments, so the voter’s decision is based purely on his or her own reasoning processes – just as the Founders originally intended.
===
YR: (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats).

DrWJK: Among political scientists, the mistake in this statement is called “the reification of categories.” That is, individual humans are treated as if party labels were an actual part of their biology. In fact, the media herds individuals into corrals by giving them loaded questions. Public opinion then appears to be divided in three ways (you forgot about “independents,” roughly 1/3).

Internet voting would take control of the US election process away from the two-party system puppets of the superrich, and empower all Americans to vote as equals. The result will be a multiplicity of opinion groupings, instead of the two parties and one throwaway category.
===
YR: It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides that - money does not choose who wins. Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is …

DrWJK: Re-read what I said about candidate “selection.” Two years before the presidential election vote, well over 500 people in the US begin to consider running for president. The first thing they do is check their list of potential donors. Nearly all of them can raise the $5000 required by the FEC to make them eligible to register their intent to become a candidate. Around 500 registered for the 2008 election. Only about three dozen of these dreamers will raise enough dough to attract any media attention. These are the people with at least some rich connections. By the beginning of the primary season, less than a dozen in each party will have any chance at all. By the end of the second round of voting, usually Super Tuesday, each party will have one, two, or three hopefuls left. The superrich do the picking by granting or denying contributions. This isn’t a “voter’s choice,” because by the end of March, in the presidential election year, only a few thousand Americans have actually voted, while nearly two million are eligible to vote. That is oligarchy, not democracy.

Take a little time to read my chapter drafts, and lets talk about that.

Yours,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com

INTERNET VOTING

INTERNET VOTING

The first draft of the book I am working on is finished! It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled

How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting

Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.

One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections."

I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.

Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them. Here is a cure for both Citizens United, and a government that ignores the people!

No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589

Everyone is welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.


Yours,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com