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
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Internet voting is coming to the USA!
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.
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.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Query Letter for Agents and Publishers
Query Letter RE: Book Proposal Entitled
INTERNET VOTING NOW! HERE'S WHY. HERE'S HOW.
Dear {Specific Name}
SECURITY! Of course, this is what most folks worry about first when the subject of Internet voting comes up. The convenience offered by Internet voting in all US elections is easy to see – voting from home, work, etc., with no more treks to the polling place, where parking may be difficult to find and one may have to wait in line, perhaps in inclement weather. But because the fear factor looms large in many minds, security must be the first topic addressed in a book that advocates taking such a revolutionary leap forward. Chapter One thoroughly discusses the security issue, as well as the short history of Internet voting in the United States. (There were three small initial trials in the presidential election of 2000, and, among other things, a large project in 2004.)
I also show in the first chapter that Internet voting security technology is as sophisticated and reliable as the security technology used daily by the US military, international e-commerce and finance, as well as online banking and shopping.
My book’s main point is that Internet voting can be used to make US presidential elections both far more convenient and democratic than they are currently. I beef up the argument in favor of such a radical reform with a discussion of “The Original Intentions of Our Founding Fathers for Presidential Elections,” which is the title of Chapter Two. Drawing from sources that include The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Philadelphia Convention, Washington’s Farewell Address, and quotes from the US Constitution, I show that the authors of the Constitution originally hoped that its procedure for presidential elections would deter political parties from coming to dominate the process. Well, that didn’t work, and I offer some reasons why. I also show that they intended their procedure, centered on the Electoral College, to be as orderly and conducive to reason and deliberation as was their convention in Philadelphia.
To invite criticisms from colleagues, I posted Chapter Two as an essay on SSRN, a website used by professors of law, political science, and other social sciences. So far, the paper has had over 2700 online reads, and almost 250 downloads. People have learned about it by word of mouth. I have received numerous comments via email, many of which have praised the work and offered helpful critiques. While I have posted all the chapter drafts there as essays, the polished products are available on request. (The drafts are at http://ssrn.com/author=1053589 Click on the chapter title to go to the page where the statistics are displayed. The essays on Polanyi listed there are not part of the book).
In Chapter Three I contrast our country’s current presidential election practices with the original intentions of the Constitution’s Framers as discussed in Chapter Two. It’s a poor match, indeed. Among other things, they anticipated a cost free process, and we have a money-dependent process because the costs of campaigning are so high. For example, candidate Obama raised and spent over $740,000,000 in his 2008 campaign. They hoped for a nonpartisan process, and ours is thoroughly partisan. But this need not be.
Chapter Four shows how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fully satisfy the hopes of the Framers for a deliberative process that would cost the candidates nothing. Let Citizens United be the rule, when organized along the lines I set forth, big spending will have little or no effect on the decision-making of the American voter.
In Chapter Five I revisit the security issue, for a final rebuttal of the critics of Internet voting. And in the book’s Conclusion, entitled “What is to be done,” I suggest how Internet voting can be implemented, and I outline other uses for Internet voting in American politics. Here is the last paragraph,
"The potential for electronically democratizing American politics and government is only limited by what the American people want for themselves. If they want a government that does it all for them, so they can stay out of politics and watch TV, surf the Net, play with e-toys, or whatever, then that is what they will have. However, our Founding Generation’s spirit of Liberty through self-government once drove them to fight, sacrifice, and sometimes die in the American Revolution. If that spirit is still alive in our generation, then that spirit will find its way to realization through an electronic democracy based on Internet voting."
While a work of advocacy, the tone is friendly and has a scholarly restraint. The book is intended for the educated reader who is interested in thinking about the possibilities the Internet raises for change in American politics and history. It will appeal especially to those who would like to see some fresh thinking about how to reform our money-corrupted presidential election process.
My Ph.D. is in political science, from the University of California, Santa Barbara, 1985. Over the past 20 years I have taught American politics at UCSB, and in the Los Angeles junior college system. I have also taught citizenship to adult immigrants during that time.
I have two books on Amazon.com. One, entitled The New Election Game, was published in 1987. It reviewed the history of presidential campaign finance reform, and, inspired by Buckminster Fuller, proposed a system of telephone voting after watching debates on TV. Little did I know that the PC Revolution would soon make that idea obsolete. The second book, Progressive Logic (2005), is a study of the underlying principles of value shared by Progressives throughout American history.
I have been actively promoting my ideas for Internet voting online for over three years. Some of my essays can be found on the website Internet Evolution, at http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0 and on the website Op Ed News at http://www.opednews.com/author/author36599.html where I have eight articles listed.
Even though this mss is not yet a book, interest in the idea is strong. I have been interviewed online, on the radio, and on TV.
Online: http://www.webcitation.org/5v0Z2RKPk
Jumping in Pools: Interview with Dr. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
The first question is, “How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?”
For a radio interview by Jim Fetzer, go to
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to February 10, 2010
Blip TV twice:
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 and http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/
Public Speaking includes:
Center for Inquiry, September 19, 2010, Hollywood, AM; Costa Mesa, PM
http://www.webcitation.org/5v0OgtKiK
If you would like to see some, or all, of the chapters, I can send them to you as email attachments, or hard copies by mail, at your request.
Sincerely,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
Book on Internet Voting in progress: All chapter drafts can be read/downloaded (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1
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
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Email of Support for Senator Sanders
Friends!
Email your Senators and Congressperson in support of Bernie Sanders!
Here is one sample letter:
Hon. Senator X/Congressperson Y:
I'm a constituent and I urge you to give all the support you possibly can to Senator Sanders as he opposes the deal President Obama recently made with the Repubs.
Millions for the Billionaires and a 13 month extension of unemployment checks is not acceptable for me. There must be a better way to extend the unemployment benefits. This is only the beginning of Obama’s “middle way wisdom.” Next they will demand 50% cuts in Social Security and Medicaid, and our President will “wisely” agree to 25%.
President Obama is missing the big picture. The social structure of the United States is changing. The gap between rich and poor is so vast now that no other industrial nation comes close. This is something NEW.
Costs of higher education are shutting out average families. Congress gave Billions to the superrich corporations to bail them out from their own stupid investments, and promised us that trickle-down would create jobs. Guess what? The more we gave the superrich, the higher unemployment went. Our infant mortality rate belongs in Africa, not here. What does this add up to?
Our nation is slipping into an Age of Neofeudalism. Democracy requires a strong middle class. As that erodes, our country will become one of peasants and Lords. This is the long term goal of the Repubs. If we don't fight this starting now, who will, and starting when?
Sincerely,
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,
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
INTERNET VOTING COMING TO RUSSIA!
In elections to the Duma Russians will be able to vote via the Internet.
Chairman of the CEC of Russia Vladimir Churov proposes that in the State Duma elections in December 2011 an opportunity for voters to vote remotely by internet or by mobile phone. In his opinion, it will increase turnout and reduce the cost of elections.
"There should be a possibility of remote voting via the Internet or mobile communications - satellite, or conventional, it can seriously affect the increase in turnout," - he said Tuesday at a meeting of the Federation Council Committee on Regional Policy.
In addition, says Mr. Churov, such a move would seriously reduce the cost of expenditure on elections, because, for example, in the Murmansk region helicopter, which gives the voters the ballot box, costs about 65 thousand rubles per hour, and the Far East - More expensive.
"No reason to resist the remote vote no" - quoted by the CEC Chairman , RIA Novosti . According to him, remote voting in elections to the Duma may be introduced in remote regions, as well as the vote of Russians abroad.
http://tinyurl.com/IVinRuski
USA Wake Up!!
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!!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Was the DC Hack a Conspiracy?
RE: Washington Post article on DC hack, at http://ow.ly/31Wgp
One true statements in this article is, “For more than a decade, computer security scientists have been warning of certain core dangers related to Internet voting." Yes, "warning," but never offering any evidence!
Simons and Jefferson, especially, are experts in what I call the Halloween method of opposing Internet voting; that is, telling really scary stories about what COULD happen if a system was hacked.(1) After a decade of crying "wolf!" without any actual facts to point to, the alarmists needed something concrete. The DC fiasco seems to be just what the doctor ordered. Now they use the DC hack as if it were proof that ALL Internet voting systems are as easy to hack. How convenient! Never mind the fact that in Europe, Canada, and the US Internet voting trials have all worked well – right now West Virginia and Arizona are having great success with well-built Internet voting systems.
Besides those pesky facts, all the facts have yet to be discovered about the DC incident. The article neglects to mention that the team at Trust the Vote, who built the DC system, have been long-time critics of Internet voting. That raises some yet unanswered questions.
Why did they submit a bid to build an Internet voting system? Why did the DC officials hire them, as opposed to the companies that built the currently successful West Virginia and Arizona systems?
One observer wrote on Slashdot (not me) that the system seems designed to fail.(2) Could that be true? Was the very construction of the system an insider attack? Did the builders plant a back door? What kind of communication did Trust the Vote members have with Halderman, after they got the DC contract? Just how duped and used were the DC officials?
1. For more details on this history see "Scary Stories Fail to Stop Internet Voting"
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
2. More details and citations at, http://bit.ly/bk0cpQ
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
Twitter: wjkno1
FB: William Kelleher
Posted as a comment to the WashP article by: wjkellpro | October 30, 2010 3:50 PM
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
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Breaking News!
The Washington Post has just published an article by anti-Internet voting extremists Epstein, Simons, and Jefferson. They make the ridiculous claim that the DC hackers did the nation a service. But, the paper also printed my critique, and my suggestion that the hack may have been a conspiracy. Go to http://ow.ly/31Wgo
(Copy and paste)
Hearing both sides, folks can decide -- DC hackers: good guys or conspirators?
(Copy and paste)
Hearing both sides, folks can decide -- DC hackers: good guys or conspirators?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)