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