Internet Voting For All

Cyber Bullying in Connecticut: A Lesson in Empathy

2011-11-17T12:09:00.000-08:00

Cyber bullying is the mean and unfair treatment of a person on the Internet. They had a feeding frenzy of it recently in Connecticut.[1] Before I report what happened there, please keep this set of questions in mind. That is, suppose a woman is the only one wearing a red dress at a party. During the event, the guy with the loudest mouth blurts out “of all the styles of dresses, the red dress is the bottom of the barrel!” How would the lone red dress wearer feel? Happy? Complimented? Attacked? Angry? Embarrassed? How would you feel? Here's what happened.

An anti-Internet voting political science department in a Connecticut university, and their allies, organized a lop-sided panel to “discuss” the pros and cons of the Northern state taking up Internet voting for their overseas military personnel. Three avidly anti-Internet voting computer science professors, and a rich lady who owns an anti-Internet voting website, were on one side of the panel. Completely alone on the other side was Natalie Tennant, Secretary of State for West Virginia.[2]

This wasn’t an actual “discussion;” instead, it was an online propaganda festival of anti-Internet voting negativity interspersed with just a few positive statements from Secretary Tennant. Ron Rivest, one of the biased computer scientists, provided some telling examples of the lack of scientific sophistication his side displayed. Early in the proceeding Professor Rivest wittily declared that the term “Internet voting” is an oxymoron, like “safe cigarettes.” Cute, but where’s the science? At no point in the day did he, or any of the opposition, present any facts about actual breaches of security in an Internet voting trial (except, of course, the DC hack, which was not an actual election [3]).

When the moderator suggested that there are several different types of voting technology, Prof Rivest blurted out that Internet voting is “the bottom of the barrel!”

Despite those comments, Secretary Tennant encouraged Connecticut to use Internet voting for its overseas military voters. She stated that the West Virginia legislature had long been concerned that members of the overseas military were unable to vote because the method of voting by mail was too inconvenient and prone to errors. After the 2009 MOVE Act required the states to set up systems for electronically sending ballots to overseas military, the state legislature began considering legislation to allow her office to set up a system of Internet voting. The resulting legislation passed unanimously.

The new law required an initial trial involving just a few counties. The first test was the primary vote in 2010. It went so well that Secretary Tennant asked the legislature to expand the number of counties involved for the general election vote, which they promptly did.

Professor Halderman interrupted Ms. Tennant and demanded to know how her office vetted the companies that provided the Internet voting service. She replied that the vendors had to agree to several conditions. One of these was that third party experts had to be allowed to inspect the equipment and operating codes the vendors used. She said the companies not only agreed to these conditions, but offered to do the whole job for free, as a demonstration project. Given that situation, the Secretary’s office decided not to exercise its right to bring in a third party inspector. She said she trusted the companies.

At one point, Prof Rivest, who had never had any personal interaction with the company representatives, declared that the vendors could be corrupt and she wouldn’t know it. Isn’t that possible, he demanded.

She said that besides trusting the vendor you have to trust every kind of vote counting machine, not just Internet voting servers. CT, for example, uses optical scanning machines to count its votes. The voter fills in a bubble with a pencil on a paper card. But suppose one of the employees feeding the cards to the scanning machine in the election office is an unscrupulous partisan. He can hide a piece of pencil lead under his finger nail, and put an extra mark on cards with votes he doesn’t like. Then the machine would reject the card as a double vote, and nobody would know that a vote had been sabotaged.

Her point, of course, is that every complex vote counting system requires some degree of trust. Election officials have to exercise their professional judgment as to when such trust is reasonable. In reply to a question from the moderator, Ms. Tennant stated that she trusted the workers in her department because it was like a small community. She trusted the system because it used military grade encryption, had an intrusion detection function, and other security checks. She also pointed out that it was a serious felony to tamper with elections, and this law is a part of the security system.

Professor Halderman pressed the matter by demanding to know if West Virginia would allow hackers a chance to try to hack into the system, like the officials did in Washington DC. She said that the system actually belonged to the companies, and that the state lacked the authority to invite hackers to freely test the system.

He: What’s so secret that venders won’t open it up?
She: I can’t answer for them, professor.
He: Why didn’t you require a public test?
She: (With a smile,) we did do some testing, and caught an inverted number.
He: In the future would you run a public trial, like DC?
She: I can’t say right now.

The website owner, Ms. Dzieduszycka-Suinat, suggested that West Virginia was using its overseas military voters as “guinea pigs.” Later Prof Rivest blurted out, with all the science he could muster, that Internet voting is “like skating on thin ice.”

Undaunted, Ms. Tennant stated in her concluding remarks that she still feels that she made the right judgment by trusting the companies. She felt that she was doing the right thing for West Virginia’s military voters. Her husband is stationed in Afghanistan, and he saw first hand how difficult voting is for many of the service members there. She has recieved letters of gratitude from military personnel. The lone defender of Internet voting on this panel, she said that if she must, for the sake of her military voters, (and I quote) “I’ll continue to sit up here and take the attacks, take the arrows ... and things like that!”

As the panelists rose from their seats to leave the stage, Ron Rivest was heard to exclaim, “Internet voting is like drunk driving,” and he burst into triumphant laughter.

[1] See video at http://www.ctvoterscount.org/secretary-of-the-states-online-voting-symposium/
[2] See Natalie Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage http://t.co/aRd9W3o
[3] RE: DC see http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010

Email Denise Merrill Connecticut Secretary of State and ask that she follow West Virginia’s lead to serve CT’s military voters:
denise.merrill@ct.gov

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Rebuttal to David Jefferson’s Brief against Internet Voting

2011-11-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

As Professor Hasen shows in his forthcoming book, Voting Wars, conflict over the way we conduct elections in the US is increasing. One of the areas of disagreement is whether or not the US should employ Internet voting as a means of conducting elections. Professor Hasen offers a statement against that move by the highly respected computer scientist Dr. David Jefferson. With all due respect, I offer another view.

Voting, of course, is a very serious matter. It is an essential, albeit not sufficient, requirement for democracy. Voting is one of the principle ways by which the people of a nation are empowered to have a voice in their own destinies. The process of voting, that is, the means by which a vote is conducted, must be one that commands the trust of the voters, or the results will not be legitimate. Illegitimate governments can only cause political unhappiness, and possibly political unrest and turmoil. Hence, the right to cast a vote is meaningless unless the means by which the vote is counted is trustworthy.

Dr. Jefferson alleges that Internet voting is untrustworthy, and therefore should not be used in US elections. Yet, we live in a time when the cultural and economic momentum around the world is pushing towards ever greater use of electronic technology. This is not just for social or entertainment uses. Professor of e-business and computer science at the Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Michael Shamos, who has both a Ph.D. in computer science and a law degree, observers that electronic information is replacing paper-based information throughout international law. [1]

Electronic signatures are regarded in law as just as valid and binding as hand written signatures on paper. In fact, he says, electronic records are now preferred as evidence in courts all over the world. If there is a contract dispute, emails may be used as evidence to show how a party understood the paper contract. In cases where a bank customer offers an ATM paper receipt as proof of a transaction, courts routinely rely instead on the bank’s electronic records as the definitive source of proof. Even claims to have a winning lottery ticket can be disproven by the lottery administrator’s electronic records of both where and when the ticket was sold, and the winning number. In all these cases, where electronic records are shown to have been well-maintained, they are given preference over paper, which is regarded as far easier to modify or fake.

Dr. Jefferson’s position is that despite all the movement towards a 21st Century e-world, the means by which we conduct our elections must stay rooted in the tried and true tradition of the 18th Century. That is, trek to the polling place, mark a piece of paper, deposit it in a box, and return home hoping your piece of paper will be counted as cast.

One fact that Dr. Jefferson over-looks is the long history of voting fraud committed within our paper-based system of voting over the past 200 years. Another fact he conveniently over-looks is that all over the world, where Internet voting trials have been conducted, there have been no proven instances of voting fraud. Allegations or suspicions may exist, but no charges of fraud, or even of significant error, have been accredited in any Internet voting trial conducted in this century. (RE the DC fiasco, see below.)[2]

The first trials of Internet voting were conducted in the year 2000. The Republican Party conducted a straw poll in Alaska. The Democratic Party held a primary vote in Arizona. And, the Department of Defense conducted a small online vote for overseas military personnel, who were enabled to vote in their state, local, and federal elections on their own PCs. Other nations were inspired by these pioneering US trials. Now, Elections Canada, the agency that manages national elections in that country, has requested the House of Commons to allow Internet voting for all its national elections. Numerous municipal elections have been conducted online in Canada, without any security or technical problems. A recent EAC report notes that the Swiss have held at least 36 online elections over the past several years. Internet voting trials have been done in India, France, Spain, Norway, New South Wales, and other countries. No instances of voter fraud have been shown. Tarvi Martens, who designed the Estonia Internet voting system, says it’s “more secure than Internet banking” http://t.co/Jh6Onyd

Here, then, are numerous FACTS about actual instances of successful Internet voting trials. There are many more such facts. For example, West Virginia allowed its overseas military personnel, from a few select counties, to vote online in the 2010 election. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so pleased with the initial trial that she asked the state legislature to expand the number of participating counties, which it promptly did.

Take a second look at Dr. Jefferson’s brief against Internet voting. See any facts in support of his claims of incurable insecurity? Does he cite even one instance of an Internet election gone wrong? How about one time when voter privacy was violated? Answer: no, not one.

Instead, he recites a litany of scary stories about what he says COULD happen. For example, “Zeus [botnets] exemplifies what could just as easily happen if online voting becomes widespread.” Or, “Anyone from a disaffected misfit individual to a national intelligence agency can remotely attack an online election …” “Anyone,” really?

Here’s a frightening thought: “Eventually someone, perhaps a partisan political operative or a foreign intelligence agency, will deploy a similar botnet to infect thousands of voters’ computers and modify their votes invisibly as they are being transmitted.”

That’s a really scary story, but has it been done in any actual Internet voting trials? Well, no – but Dr. Jefferson is certain that it COULD be done. How can he be so sure? Answer, “computer and network security experts are virtually unanimous in pointing out that online voting is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the integrity of U.S. elections.” But wait, if there is such unanimity, then why are Internet voting trials increasing world wide? Have all those systems been set up without first consulting “computer and network security experts”? Or have all those election officials gone against this unanimity, just foolishly hoping for the best? Has Natalie Tennant, her staff and advisors, and the West Virginia legislature, and its staff and advisors, all proclaimed “to heck with the experts! Let’s just do it!” Have all the responsible Swiss and Canadian officials been just as reckless?

Dr. Jefferson declares that an attacking bad guy “can probably automate that attack to allow thousands of phony votes to be recorded.” Upon what experiments, trials, or other experience does Dr. Jefferson base his probability statement? Does he have any facts, or is it just a fearful “feeling”?

The issue here is whether the United States should use electronic technology in all areas of life, but the one upon which we take the most national pride – our democracy. Moving to Internet voting is a big step, and it should not be taken without a thorough national debate. But such a debate ought to be conducted on the basis of fact and counter-fact. It should not be conducted on the basis of unsubstantiated scary stories, which conjure up such terrifying prospects that the mind shutters, and shuts itself off to all the contrary facts.

1. Dr. Shamos’s Ph.D. in computer science is from Yale University. He also teaches classes on electronic voting technology security. An elections law and patent law expert, he is licensed to practice law before the United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal and state courts. For 20 years, from 1980-2000, he was Pennsylvania‘s official examiner of electronic voting systems. See Shamos’s resume at,
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/people/faculty/mshamos/resshort.htm His arguments are in a paper presented to the National Institute of Standards and Technology at,
http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/paper_v_electronic_records.pdf

2. The DC hacking occurred in a practice run, not an actual vote. The hacking revealed that the system had been incompetently set up by amateur technicians. For more on this see http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Twitter: wjkno1

Internet Voting Now! Out in Paper!

2011-10-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

Good News!

My book, Internet Voting Now!, is available in paper on Amazon at, http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

In Chapters One and Five I recount the history of Internet voting in the US. I also present the history of thought about Internet voting in this country. I analyze the so-called “SERVE Security Report” for its scientific qualities. (Of course, there aren’t any.)

Reviews of the Kindle edition are at http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now But there are no reviews yet on the paper edition – who will be the first?

Description:
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. The little known Original Intentions of our Constitution’s Framers for presidential elections are explained. How poorly US practices live up to those original intentions is shown next. Readers will be surprised to see how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fulfill those original intentions better than the two-party system is currently doing. This Internet voting system can both neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections, and empower the American voter as never before. The Conclusion provides suggestions for action.

The Slippery Slope as a Scary Story

2011-10-04T15:07:00.000-07:00

After posting the report on how satisfied Canadian voters are who have Internet voting, an interesting discussion developed on Linkedin. Some of the most famous anti-Internet voting activists expressed their concern, among other things, about the old “Slippery Slope.” Since it’s a cool day in the Halloween month of October here in LA, I gave my take on the story. Here’s how it goes:

Suppose NIST breaks free from the grip of anti-Internet voting advisors, and gives the EAC and FVAP clear standards for remote Internet voting for overseas military and other UOCAVA voters. Then elections are held. There aren’t any reports of hacking, and 99% of the voters are satisfied with the process.

Along comes Mission Creep. Nut case Secretaries of State, like Natalie Tennant, start offering Internet voting to folks inside the state!

Pretty soon, elections for federal office are held online (this can be done w/o a Constitutional Amendment). Then a Constitutional Amendment becomes ratified providing for electing the US President! Whoa! Now comes what Michael Shamos calls the “Omniscient Hacker.” He may be a teenager in Iran, or a member of the Russian Mafia.

Although there are over 3000 voting jurisdictions in the US, each with its own supposedly secure server, and using different companies, the Omniscient Hacker uses his Bot Network of 1,000,000 PCs to control the vote, and elect a Bad Guy to the White House.

Lock your doors before going to bed tonight!

Terms:
NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology
EAC – Election Assistance Commission
FVAP – Federal Voting Assistance Program
UOCAVA - Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

Report on Internet Voting in Markham, Ontario, Canada

2011-09-30T15:45:00.000-07:00

“Let facts be Submitted to a Candid World”

This month the Delvinia Interactive Corporation issued its Report on Internet Voting in the Town of Markham, Ontario, Canada. The following are key findings from the report.

Key findings
Specific details, evidence and additional support for each of these findings can be found in the full report.

The online voting process
• The extension of Internet voting is about convenience.
• There is overwhelming satisfaction with the Internet voting process, as 99 per cent of online voters reported being satisfied.
• In fact, the proportion of those who reported being ‘very satisfied’ rose from previous election years in 2010.
• 91 per cent of online voters chose to vote from home, indicating that is the preferred voting location when it comes to Internet ballots.
• Nearly all online voters (99 per cent) say they would be likely to vote online in future municipal elections.

Internet voting at other levels of government:
• Support for Internet ballots at other levels of government is rising.
• 99 per cent of online voters indicated that they would be likely to vote online in a provincial election if it were available.
• An equal number would be likely to vote online in a federal election if it were available.

Young people:
• The rate of use of Internet voting among young people appears to be declining with each election cycle, while it is increasing among older electors.
• Slightly more than a third of young people aged 18 to 24 say they either probably wouldn’t or definitely wouldn’t have voted had Internet voting not been an option.
• Evidence suggests online voting may be a useful way to make the electoral process easier for students away at college or university.
• The youngest and oldest online voters are most likely to cite accessibility as their main motivation for voting.
• Traditional media sources are least effective for informing young voters.
• When it comes to informing electors, young people need to be reached differently than other types of potential voters, particularly using technology and the Internet.

Older electors:
• Despite the fact that middle-aged and older electors report less frequent Internet usage than young people, they make the most use of Internet voting.
• The likelihood of voting online because of a ‘positive past experience with it’ increases with age.

What is the impact of Internet voting on voter turnout?
• There is evidence to suggest turnout can experience modest increases from the extension of online voting.
• Analysis suggests that Internet voting may be an important electoral motivator for younger electors with less committed voting records.
• About 40 per cent of young people aged 18 to 24 that self-identify as occasional or non-voters at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government were encouraged to vote because of the availability of online ballots in 2010.
• Of the 17,231 Markham voters who registered to vote electronically, 10,597 [nearly 2/3] used the Internet to cast their ballots.

Candidates:
• 78 per cent of candidates report that the option of Internet voting had a significant impact on the campaign, namely its effect on campaign strategies, mobilization tactics, and with respect to voter turnout.
• 92 per cent of candidates indicated they were either ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ in favour of the implementation of Internet voting in the 2010 Markham municipal election.

Support for online voting among all eligible electors in Canada:
• On the whole, there is broad support for the introduction of Internet voting as an alternative voting method in elections and people report being likely to use the service.
• There is a public perception that the option of online ballots would enhance the accessibility and equality of the electoral process.

Conclusion
Overall, the data suggests that there is broad public support for the introduction of Internet voting in Canadian elections at all levels of government. Based on the cross-Canada survey of eligible electors, the general public perception is that the introduction of Internet ballots would make the electoral process more accessible and would enhance the equality of the process, particularly for certain groups of electors.

In the specific case of Markham, Internet voting has been proven to produce some positive effects on the electoral process, namely enhancing electoral convenience and accessibility and by that fact encouraging electoral participation. There is also some evidence to suggest that Internet voting can encourage the electoral involvement of people who previously identified as non-voters.

Finally, online voters are extremely satisfied with Internet ballots and report being likely to continue using them in subsequent elections. Taken together, this report represents a first step at shedding light on the potential for Internet voting in Canada and the impact of its deployment on election stakeholders such as electors and candidates by looking at public opinion data from the Town of Markham.

Markham’s experience with Internet voting teaches us some helpful lessons and imparts valuable insights regarding the implementation and development of online ballots in Canada. Many of these findings are also important for Internet voting programs that are being researched or becoming established abroad.

This report was prepared by Nicole Goodman, a PhD candidate at Carleton University in the Department of Political Science.

Note:
The DC fiasco was not real Internet voting. See http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010

Norway Internet voting has high turnout - even on Sunday!

2011-09-05T15:03:00.000-07:00

The chief of voting operations for Norway has just filed his first report to a closed group on Linkedin, "Internet voting." Any Linkedin member can join. Here’s what he said:

Christian Bull:
"Internet voting has been ongoing since August 10, and ends on friday. Going extremely well so far - we've already exceeded my own expectations in i-participation, and yesterday was our busiest day yet. Turns out people really want to vote on sunday evenings. :)"

Here's the link to his original plan for the Internet voting system (on pdf):

Transparency and Technical Measures to Establish Trust in Norwegian

Follow up report by IFES

Ben Goldsmith, IFES Election Expert, was part of a team of international observers of the Norway Internet voting trial.

In a September 27, 2011 IFES Report he writes, “Overall turnout for municipal elections across Norway was 63.8 percent, and a little lower in pilot municipalities at 62.3 percent. The use of Internet votes in pilot municipalities was high considering it was the first time that Norway had used the Internet for elections, with approximately 25 percent of voters in pilot municipalities using the Internet to cast a vote.” A complete report will come out in 2012.

(The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) is an election system transparency and integrity watch dog organization.)

Internet Voting Supporters for Obama

2011-09-04T11:05:00.000-07:00

If you support the concept of Internet voting as an election reform for US elections, then the time has come to do something about it. Nothing speaks louder than money! By contributing to President Obama’s re-election campaign through our Supporter’s contribution page, you will do a lot to bring attention to our cause. I just contributed $20.00. If we can get 10, 50, or 100 people to match that, Obama’s campaign will notice us. Soon the word will get out to the press and media. (Your contribution goes directly to the Obama campaign, so I neither see nor know who contributed or how much was given.) Just click here.

We can start a movement that will become news!

Bill

Why Independents Should Demand Internet Voting

2011-08-23T13:26:00.000-07:00

What is an “Independent”? Lots of people are asking that question these days. Are Independents conservative or liberal? Are they closet Dems or closet Repubs? Are they more focused on public finance issues that on social issues? Are they moderates, or centrists? Is there such a thing as a political center in the US?

One empirical element shared by Independent identifiers is that they don’t identify with either of the two major political parties, which currently dominate US elections and government. In this sense, Independents are not only alienated from the political system, they are excluded from it. They are not just passively unrepresented in our “representative government,” they are deliberately ignored by our elected representatives. That is, of course, until those elected officials need their votes in the next two-party system election.

Thanks to modern electronic technology, this need not be.

Imagine this: You are watching candidates debate online or on TV. After each debate you log on to your state’s secure voting website, using your own PC, cell phone, or other electronic device. Your voter registration is checked, and then the voting window comes up. You enter your rating of each debater’s performance, from 0-9.

Suppose further that entry to the debates is open to everyone who wants to be considered by the voters, and that all candidates are eliminated through a series of such debates. Qualification for candidacy can be as it is now in states like California; i.e., fulfill the signature requirements, pay a filing fee, and you are on the ballot and in the debates.

In this scenario, it is the political parties that are excluded from the candidate selection and election process. Suppose there are a dozen candidates for an office. Two one hour debates can be held per evening. In three evenings all twelve can be heard, considered, and voted on by the electorate. The next week a final debate can be held between the top two, so that the candidate is supported by a majority of the voters.

Here is an election process that can be used for all local, state, and federal offices, with only minor changes in state laws. No constitutional amendment is required. Ballot access is 100% nonpartisan – an Independent’s Heaven, right here on Earth. Because no self-serving political party will control the process, the locus of power will move to where it should be in a democracy – to the center of voter preferences.

This picture can become reality by demanding that your state government, state Secretary of State, and local election officials implement an Internet voting system organized along the lines I have suggested. In consideration for their sacrifices and service, you can also demand Internet voting for your state’s overseas military personnel. (For more on that, and the opposition to it, see my post on Natalie Tennant here, and cited on Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog, at http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49 Also see the new ‘tough love’ review of my book, Internet Voting Now! At http://is.gd/Sc5vch )

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

Natalie E. Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage

2011-08-05T15:40:00.000-07:00

Natalie E. Tennant is a lady politician with more guts than any man in the same office in other states; that is, Secretary of State.

She takes seriously the long standing policy of the League of Women Voters in her state, West Virginia. That policy includes this, "Election laws should serve the voter with maximum convenience, simplicity, clarity, and impartiality" (at, http://www.lwvwv.org/)

Tennant applies this principle by providing Internet voting for WV's overseas military voters. Doesn't giving overseas military personnel a secure and convenient means to vote sound like a common sense way to pay them back for their service? If you think so, you may be surprised to here just how uncommon this is.

With rare exception, the growth of Internet voting in the United States is being stunted by special interests. These interests first emerged in 2004.

In 2004 the Department of Defense (DoD), and its sub-agency the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), had an Internet voting system all set up for overseas voters to use in the up coming state and federal elections. The system was ready to handle 100,000 voters, from the half dozen states that volunteered for the trial. Using their own PC, overseas voters could log on to a secure website, and after their registration is checked, vote online. DoD and FVAP officials were so confident that their system was able to mitigate all security threats that they invited 10 outside experts to come and inspect the system, known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE. At least four of the 10 were known anti-Internet voting computer scientists.

FVAP personnel took the whole team on the first of several planned visits. After only the second visit, the four got together in private and wrote a scathing criticism full of speculative “coulds” and “possibles,” but short on facts and science. The entire election, they alleged, among other things, could be controlled by some undetectable hacker. (They forgot to mention that the system had an intrusion detection capability.) Then they went to the New York Times with their “report,” without any peer review or opportunity for FVAP to attach a response.

The Times, and other major newspapers, played up the story with so much sensation (a hacker could elect the president!) that Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, felt compelled to order a halt to the program. Thereafter, this report, its authors, and a small cadre of well-funded activists have led the way in discouraging FVAP, or any state government, from further attempts at Internet voting trials. They now have a full time staff that follows the legislative process in Congress and each of the 50 states. Whenever they see an Internet voting bill introduced into a committee, they go into action to stop it. They buttonhole committee members, pull out their well-worn report, spout off all the “coulds” and “possibles,” without any science to back up their claims, and then remind the elected officials of how they killed SERVE in 2004, using their access to the New York Times and other newspapers.

Most elected officials buckle under this pressure. They cannot afford the costs of publicity that would be required to fight the activists in the media. As they know well, the best way to get reelected is to avoid controversy, and push off the Internet voting proposals “for further study.” As a result, in 2010 over 30 states electronically sent blank ballots to their voters who were in the military and overseas, but they avoided using systems based on the SERVE model. These states required that voted ballots be returned by fax, email, or snail mail – anything but real Internet voting on an official website. Indeed, even now, in 2011, FVAP is offering states up to $16M for electronic ballot delivery systems; but not for systems based on the SERVE model. To get financial aid, the systems must use ballots returned by fax, email, or snail mail.

Despite the threats of anti-Internet voting activists, in 2010 West Virgina enacted a trial of true Internet voting for its overseas members of the military, who were eligible to vote in one of the several volunteer counties. As with SERVE, overseas West Virginians in the military could use their own PC to log on to the state’s secure website, and after their registration is confirmed, cast their vote online. The program was supported in the legislative process, developed, and implemented by WV Secretary of State, Natalie E. Tennant.

Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website,

“The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard.”

The system was first used in the state’s primaries. Voter response was quite positive. Tennant reported that of all the satisfaction survey respondents, “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.”

While other methods of absentee voting saw return rates of about 40 percent, the Internet voting ballot return rate was over twice that. Tennant was so impressed that, in her report to the state legislature, she asked them to allow additional counties to participate in the 2010 General Election, which they did.

Tennant made her final report to the WV legislature on 1/19/2011. This report included the statistics on the use of Internet voting in the general election. For example, in the counties where Internet voting was offered, of all the voters who requested that their absentee ballots be delivered electronically, 76% voted on the secure website. In the counties using standard mail as the absentee ballot transmission method, 58% of the requested ballots were returned. Clearly, there was a higher rate of participation with Internet voting.

Most of the voters who used Internet voting in the primary also used it in the general election, indicating a high degree of satisfaction. Indeed, of those who took the satisfaction survey, 100% rated the system’s ease of use as “simple” or “somewhat simple.”

Tennant reported that to date, “no significant deficiencies or concerns have been identified with the West Virginia online voting pilot.” Unfortunately, because of all the media attention to the fiasco in Washington DC’s Internet voting trial (which was set up by Oliver and Hardy, and then hacked by yet another comedian), Tennant did not recommend on her own authority that Internet voting should be used in all of West Virginia’s counties. She suggested instead that a study group be convened to decide the matter.

Tennant is in the lead on other election reforms. For example, she is overseeing WV’s experiment with the public financing of campaigns for election to some state court judgeships.

Tennant made a try for the West Virginia governorship in the first half of 2011, but lost in the Democratic primary; perhaps her courage under fire was not given sufficient profile.

Suggested Readings
On the DC fiasco:
http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010

On the Security of WV’s Internet Voting System:
FAQ, at http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/voter-information-center/Documents/FAQ%20WVUSOV.pdf

Tennant addresses the technical aspects of how the state handled security issues in two papers.
1. Tennant’s NIST Position paper of June 9, 2010
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf (Written after the primary vote, and before the general election; with her request for an extension of the program to other counties)

2. West Virginia's SOS report on the Online Voting Pilot Project 1/19/2011
http://www.sos.wv.gov/news/topics/elections-candidates/Pages/SecretaryofStateReleasesLegislativeReportOnOnlineVotingPilotProject.aspx

Also see:
Pew Center Reports

Internet voting for military, overseas voters debuts in West Virginia
Clerks and secretary of state pleased with first use
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=59033

Pew Report on Military Voting Reform
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=62365

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

INTERNET VOTING NOW! The Kindle Edition Available

2011-04-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

My New Book is Now on Kindle - Internet Voting Now! Here’s How. Here’s Why - So We can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!

Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are discussed, and dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. Most importantly, rightly organized, Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections. Now is the time for progressives to plan on how to turn this massive change in the process of voting to our advantage. This book shows precisely how that can be done.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com

Internet voting is coming to the USA!

2011-01-17T13:42:00.000-08:00

Internet voting is coming to the USA! How do I know that?

Successful trials were conducted in the US in 2000, 2004, and 2008. Congress encouraged online voting in the 2009 MOVE ACT (Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act). In the November 2010 elections, 33 states gave some form of Internet voting a try so that their overseas voters, especially those in the military, could vote conveniently. There have been no reports of either technical or security problems. Indeed, West Virginia’s secretary of state, Natalie Tennant, tried a small experiment with Internet voting on the state’s secure website, and promptly requested that the state legislature allocate funds to expand the practice. Trials of Internet voting within states are likely to begin soon. Local elections officials understand that voting via the Net is much cheaper to administer than polling place voting. Of course, no voting technology is greener than paperless Internet voting.

The only failed Internet voting trial in the US was in Washington D.C. in October of 2010. No actual vote was held, but when the public was invited to test the system it was hacked. That experience just proved how miserably inept were the amateur programmers
who set up the system. Over the last 10 years, several nations in Europe, and provinces in Canada, have been testing Internet voting systems with success. The Russian Duma recently approved plans to try Internet voting for voters in remote locations, such as Siberia.

Convenience for voters, and savings in the costs of election administration, are too tempting to resist. The companies that have successfully built Internet voting systems have been in every state capital pitching their products to legislators and elections officials. This change is inevitable.

Now is the time for progressives to plan, not on how to resist the change, but on how to turn it to our advantage. If we do nothing, or if we protest and fail, Internet voting will emerge as the way Americans vote, and our political system will be no better for it. But if we look ahead, and plan well, we can turn Internet voting into a progressive reform of historic proportions.

Do you think that Big Money has UNFAIR INFLUENCE in US elections and in our legislative process? Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their power.

Search this site for detailed answers. See, for example,
Public Enemy Number One

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Query Letter for Agents and Publishers

2010-12-18T12:47:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-07T15:53:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-11-10T16:25:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-11-06T17:15:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-10-30T14:51:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-10-29T16:03:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-23T16:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-10-19T10:39:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-07T12:33:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-20T12:46:00.000-07:00

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 on Blip TV

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. See the second interview of me on security at Blip TV

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.

For more info, please see the Young Republican interview of me, for an excellent short introduction as to how Internet voting would work in practice. (It's only a five minute read. The first question is, "How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?")

Drafts of chapters for my book on Internet voting as a Progressive election reform are available for free reading or download

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

2010-07-13T14:29:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-13T14:01:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-07T16:45:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-27T12:28:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-25T13:46:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-12T10:59:00.000-07:00

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

INTERNET VOTING NOW!

2009-08-10T11:36:00.000-07:00

INTERNET VOTING NOW!

Internet voting is coming to the US. There is no way to stop it. But, we as a nation can go with the flow, and direct the new technology in ways that will democratize our election practices. Here are some of my research papers on the subject:

Internet Voting: The Great Security Scare

The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections

Obama's Oligarchy: And Other Deviations from the Original Intentions

How to Organize the Direct Election of US Presidents in a Way Which Will Restore Reason and Eliminate Costs to the Candidates, Based on Internet Voting

TO READ THESE PAPERS click on a title, or go to my SSRN author page, below. Then click on an essay. When it comes up, click on "download." Another page will appear with a selection of university sources from which to retrieve the document, as a pdf file. Click on any button. Then you will be given the choice to read it online, Open, or to save it to your computer, Save.

All comments on these papers are welcome!

William Kelleher, Ph.D.
InternetVoting@gmail.com

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
--------------------------------------------------

Towards What? A Review of Netroots Rising

2008-08-01T11:31:00.000-07:00

Netroots Rising: How a Citizen Army of Bloggers and Online Activists Is Changing American Politics By Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox Praeger Publishers Westport, CT: 2008 230 Pages, $39.95

Introduction.

Political Science has a concept known as “empowerment theory.” The idea is that, among other things, giving people an opportunity to participate meaningfully in campaigns is one way of showing respect for their skill, energy, judgment, and intelligence. As formerly frustrated political outsiders begin to perceive such an opportunity for empowerment, many of them will seize that opportunity. As a result of their action, they will feel more efficacious, their lives will seem more meaningful to them, and their belief in democracy will deepen.

This book is a confirmation of empowerment theory. It is a true story of how outsiders to an established campaign process found a new way to become effective participants in the system. As the authors suggest, this may be the beginning of a real revolution.

Who are the netroots? They include men and women, paid website designers and managers, bloggers (paid and unpaid), and especially the readers of these information sources. It is these readers who participate early in campaigns by using the net to seek and to spread information, and to contribute funds to favored candidates, whether in or out of their own voting jurisdictions. By no means monolithic in their opinions, the netroots does lean liberal.

To fully appreciate the achievement of the netroots, let us first consider the historical context out of which the netroots have grown. (I include this section because it is not in the book.)

The Political Context.

The modern two-party system took shape in the mid-1800s. General Andrew Jackson organized the Democratic Party in 1825. He won his first of two elections to the presidency in 1828. Using Abe Lincoln as their candidate, and Jackson’s organizing strategies, the Republican Party came to power in 1860. Soon thereafter, the bosses of the two parties took charge of how campaigns would be conducted. Early in the 20th Century, progressives tried to wrest power from the party bosses by instituting primaries in various states. This ended the reign of the bosses, but not of the rich. They quickly learned to use the primaries to select a favorable presidential candidate by granting or withholding funds.

Most presidents since the end of the 19th Century have been recruited and supported by wealthy insiders. Their campaigns are financed by the massive contributions of corporations and rich individuals. A cadre of Washington lawyers and lobbyists organize fund-raisers, and “bundle” checks to skirt FEC laws limiting campaign contribution amounts. The dough is channeled to clever ad makers and media manipulators, who know just how to fool the voting public into thinking this candidate is what they really want. Professional public relations experts craft a policy platform designed to mean what polls show the voters want to hear. Paid speech writers adapt the platform to candidate speeches. As we all know, it’s like selling soap.

Seasoned professionals run the campaign in the traditional top-down manner. The elected officials in both parties have a home base organization of volunteers. This army of reservists consists of the beneficiaries of earmarks and pork, which steer the public’s tax dollars into businesses and services in the districts and states. Some of that former tax money is returned to the elected officials in the form of campaign contributions “from the people.” For each election cycle, this army of reservists is called out to recruit their friends and acquaintances to campaign for the candidate that the wealthy elites have chosen for them to back. Party conventions have become festivals to reward the reservists for their efforts. Conventions no longer choose candidates – they have already been chosen in “the wealth primary.”

Thus, for well over 100 years the US has had a political system with a relatively closed campaign and election process run by the rich. Until, that is, 2002 when Howard Dean began his presidential bid.

The Deaniacs.

This book is rich in detail about the Dean movement, and other campaigns. However, the authors do not mention a particularly important move made by the Dean campaign, which may be another of its firsts. Dean asked his supporters to vote online to help decide whether his campaign should apply for millions of dollars in federal matching funds during the primary campaign. If the campaign did this, it would also have to abide by federal limitations on how much it could spend. In November of 2003 the majority voted to stay out of the system, and just self-finance. And so that is what Dean did. This was authentic democratic empowerment.

As the authors show, the Dean campaign listened to its supporters in several ways. It took suggestions made in comments on its blog and in emails to its website. It joined with Meetup.com, and encouraged its supports to meet together, unsupervised by the campaign, and brainstorm over ways to support the candidate on their own initiative.

People who felt frustrated by a perceived lack of empowerment saw an opportunity to exercise some significant power by using the Internet. Some started their own pro-Dean blogs. Daily Kos took up the Dean cause early in 2003. Dozens of Yahoo Groups came together, many self-organized by states.

As the narrative suggests, two of the major moving factors in this period were anger and frustration. The anger was over the Bush theft of the presidency in 2000, and even more so at the unprecedented preemptive invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11, which was justified by lies and deception.

The frustration came from believing in the ideal of democracy, while in reality being locked out of the political system, which was dominated by the military/industrial complex, as well as other rich corporations and individuals.

No one proclaimed “let’s use the Internet to storm the barricades!” It just happened spontaneously. As the book shows, it happened at the same time in the Dean campaign, and in the Clark campaign. Never mind that both campaigns ultimately failed. Lessons were learned, people gained new and valuable experience, and precedents were set for a truly new politics.

Pros v. Joes.

Needless to say, the Old Guard is uncomfortable with this Internet Insurgency. The long practiced habit of putting professionals in charge of a tightly knit campaign organization, after Jackson’s military style, is a hard to shake addiction. The Dean campaign was extraordinary, in part, because it thought outside the box, and actually encouraged free-spirited Deaniacs to do their own thing.

Thus, one of the recurring themes in the book is the conflict between, what I call, “the pros and the joes.” At one point, for one of the authors, it nearly came to blows! We see numerous examples of old style control freaks trying to shape the message put out by independent-minded bloggers. It just can’t be done.

That conflict haunted the “Webb for Senate” campaign in Virginia. Here is the story of a hard fought campaign against a seemingly invulnerable incumbent. The pros failed to appreciate the power of the joes and their freewheeling blogs. Remember the word “macaca”? All the details are in the book. The netroots played a big role in helping to draft Webb when he was unsure of his chances, at getting out the Webb message, and at exposing the racism of the incumbent. They deserve credit for their significant share in bringing about Webb’s victory.

Other effective uses of the net in politics will be found in a variety of well-told vignettes. These include the story of Tim Kaine’s victorious campaign for governor of Virginia. The netroots also played a big part in bringing down “the hammer,” former House majority leader Republican Tom Delay. These authors speak from experience, because they were in on the action.

From the democratic point of view, a good campaign is an education to the electorate. Certainly the Internet is full of potential for educating. While no Lincoln/Douglas debates yet, the book does show some instances of positive e-education for the voters about issues. As an example of their candor, the authors also record some instances of embarrassingly stupid mud-slinging and balderdash put out on the net.

Net Neutrality.

Another theme of the book is that the Internet is not neutral; it has a progressive bias. At first you might think that the Internet is just a tool, to be used as well by conservatives as progressives. But that’s not the way it works out in practice. Because this technology is an instrument for changing, not preserving, the present campaign and election process, it is biased in favor of progressives. Because it connects people equally, it elevates the value of all users. All users are equally empowered, and limited only by their own personal skills, drive, and wit. That is why progressives, like the anti-war pro-reform Deaniacs, were the first to put the Internet into effective political use. Progressive minded people are more energized by the net’s possibilities than are conservative minded folks.

The authors see clearly the stronger appeal to progressives. Although not in the book, here are some statistics that tend to validate their vision.

According to Pew surveys taken in 2000, 20% of respondents reported using the Internet to obtain political news. But in early 2008, 74% of Obama supporters reported using the Internet to get political information – more than three times the number eight years prior. In the same 2008 survey, 57% of Clinton supporters reported using the net for news, and 56% of McCain supporters. Clearly, supporters of the candidate for change are way ahead of the competition when it comes to net savvy.

Only 3% reported political donating online in all of 2006. But by early 2008, the number had nearly tripled to 8%; and, 17% of Obama supporters had reported donating online in this survey, taken during the time when Clinton was still in the primary race.

36% of Democrats report having a social network profile. Its only 21% for Republicans and 28% for Independents. 66% of those under 30 have a social network profile. 35% of respondents say they have watched political videos online. That is three times the number for 2004.

These numbers are a measure of momentum. Net use, and sophistication, is growing. Our country is far from having reached its full potential for Internet-based politics. If 80% of those with some college own a computer, as some surveys suggest, and only 20% with a high school diploma own a computer, that means there is room for 20% growth in the first group, and 80% growth in the second group. If a little more than half the computer owners in the US go online for political news, that means that almost half of them have room to grow in their sophistication.

The writers of Netroots Rising are well aware that Internet technology also tilts progressive because it confronts one of the premises of consumer culture. That is, passivity. Corporations require consumers who will respond to advertising, and play the consumer game without questioning it. Thus, most Americans get their political information from watching TV. Listening to the radio, and reading newspapers and magazines, are a distant second. But Internet technology requires its users to ask questions, and to actively seek answers. To use a search engine, for example, someone must first formulate in their mind what it is they want to know about. Then they conduct a search. Active Internet users are a different kind of person than the average TV viewer who simply turns on “the evening news.” Also, passive media make no provision for participation. One may shout at a talking head on the Boob Tube, or at a voice coming out of the radio, but those acts are inconsequential. Writing a letter to the local newspaper isn’t much more effective. But commenting on a blog can engage others in a discussion, and the dialogue can not only inform, but change minds. The netroots, then, is progressive in that it is acting out of line with the corporate-culture mainstream. As the book suggests, the netroots are the advance guard of changes yet to come.

Concluding Questions.

A two-party, top-down system that dominated much of the 19th Century, and all of the 20th Century, cannot be uprooted all at once – not even in a decade. But this book points in the direction for politics that the new Internet-related technology indicates.

Of course, no revolution can succeed without struggle. Struggle, as Marx learned from Hegel, is the birthing process of history. For some joes, it might actually come to blows. Also, there will be set-backs. And success is never guaranteed.

While the authors sense the revolutionary potential of the netroots, they could have sketched in a little more vision in their last chapter. How, for example, can the netroots lead America towards a fuller realization of its potential for a more direct democracy?

Can the new net technology make the direct election of the president possible (that is, without the Electoral College, which contributed to Gore’s loss in 2000)? Can the Internet be used to create a virtual republic in each Congressional district, or each state?

What is the full potential of the Internet and its related electronic technology? Is the political potential of this technology maxed out by the speed of communication it allows, or by the efficiency of its computerized record keeping? Is it maxed out by the profitability of its fund-raising efforts? Is it maxed out by its ability to publicize and to popularize a progressive candidate, or to let everyone know about the faults of an incumbent or an opponent of a progressive? Is it maxed out in its role as gadfly to the mainstream media?

One might also ask the authors, “what is the netroots long-term strategy?” Do the netroots want to become merely accepted as equals in the money-dependent presently dominant system, or do they want to find a way to compel that system to break out of its current wealth-serving mold altogether, and use Internet technologies to create a new system, which greatly magnifies the degree of democracy we progressives now find so frustrating? Are the current uses of the net the final realization of its full potential for democratizing our politics?

One author has partly answered when he commented recently on a blog that this book is not the announcement of a triumph, but of a beginning. Read this important book and you will see just how a new chapter in American politics has begun to unfold.

In concluding, the authors recognize that Internet technology has a long way to go before it can rise to the level of influence of print and broadcast media. But, those may be a measure of its potential. For the Internet to realize its full potential, and surpass the passive absorption of political information, will require a new kind of American. That’s what real revolutions do; they change character.

I would only add that as people become more sophisticated with e-commerce, and other forms of Internet usage, they will become more prepared for increased participation in e-politics. Mistrust and reluctance are currently high about the prospects of online voting; yet, as we have seen, this too was done by Dean. But once the electorate is as comfortable with the prospects of e-politics as they now are with the use of e-commerce and e-banking they will be more receptive for a great leap forward.

Attention teachers. This book is not only excellent as current history, it is a fantastic stimulant for critical thinking. Almost every page makes a claim for a causal relationship between netroots action and some political success, such as fund-raising, drafting a candidate, or winning an election. Your students will have a ball refuting or defending these claims. The book is easy to read, and the authors provide material for both sides of the arguments.

I highly recommend this book.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
=========================
Dr. Kelleher is the author of Progressive Logic, and The New Election Game. His latest essay is “Internet Voting is Coming!” at:
http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0
=========================

World Wide Electronic Democracy Now!

2008-02-24T10:34:00.000-08:00

Friends of Democracy!

Internet Voting can be as safe as a bank transfer of funds, or an on-line purchase. Both are done millions of times a day without loss. Hackers can't get in to these systems.

People all over the world can elect government officials conveniently through internet voting. Elections can be held without advantage to elites. This model for the United States can be adapted to any country.

Think of it, in the US: No Electoral College, with the people directly electing the president and vice-president. All states equal partners. Full public funding, so no special interest advantages. Open to all self-nominated persons, after passing a written exam.

How is this possible?

Read:

Start at http://ssrn.com/author=1053589