Contrary to popular opinion New Mexico's paper ballot system is hardly a model for the rest of the nation. The reason is that though we might mark our preference on paper ballots, we still rely blindly on proprietary software and sometimes-temperamental hardware, to identify the winners of our elections.
But what about that verifiable paper trail, you might ask? That path is blocked by New Mexico’s election law, which not only lacks an automatic recount trigger for close elections, but requires any candidate seeking a recount to pony up a down payment equaling 10% of the estimated total cost and 100% of the cost should the recount not change the outcome of the race. Furthermore, as we saw in CD 1 when Madrid decided to turn her attention back to statewide ambitions, the only individuals with standing before the state to seek a recount are the candidates.
The total effect of our assbackwards election law is that we voters in New Mexico dependent on the one group least likely to pursue a recount. And with no standing of our own to seek verification of the vote count’s accuracy, we’re left with no choice but that of the candidates own conclusion as to the value of an accurate vote.
However, before the end of the session, the legislature will likely change how recounts are conducted and financed.
To our legislators I have the following to say:
First, please don’t leave us to depend on the candidates to pursue an accurate vote count.
Second, since we have paper ballots, why not give us a verifiable paper trail. Don’t force the voting public to rely on a vendor’s word that the count is accurate. Require that a sufficient and significant percent of ballots statewide be counted by hand and compared to the machine tally.
Third, don’t be afraid of discovering problems in the vote count because you don’t know how or who should pay for the full recount. There’s no dollar figure that can be affixed to the value of the public’s confidence in the outcome our electoral competitions.
Fourthly, don’t treat vendors machines and software used in elections any differently than you do vendors of other services, require them to stand behind their products and to put their money where the mouth is by requiring performance bonds equal to the cost of a full hand recount for every race in which their equipment was used to determine the winner. This isn’t a far-fetched idea. North Carolina passed such a law after 2004.
If the concern is that we already signed the contract with the vendors, remember that these guys are still getting big bucks from the maintence contracts and the software upgrades they install. Require the performance bonds on the new software and rigorous tests by the state on existing hardware before each election.
This wouldn’t be a radical course to take, it would be the financially responsible one to pursue. Considering the New York Times, January 4th report by Christopher Drew, in which it was reported that Ciber Inc, of Greenwood CO., the “laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.” It would seem appropriate that the state of New Mexico, would seek further assurances from the vendor of our voting systems as to the effectiveness of their product and that these assurances take the form of Surety Bonds.
If, in the course of examining the initial tabulated results, the state / county should discover errors between the machine count and the hand count to warrant a full hand count, then the cost would be paid for by the bond, since in essence it would be necessary due to the failure of the vendors product.
Furthermore, this would free up state funds to be used where they should be, in examining a large enough percentage of the vote to ensure the accuracy of the final tally and not in paying for the recount should a flaw in the system be discovered.
If ever there were a service that should be financed with tax payer money it's elections.
The priority for the state and local government has to be must be the public's confidence in the results of our electoral competitions. Trying to kick the bill down the candidates only suggests we're pinching pennies and cutting corners when it comes to counting votes.
But if the state were to stop being a disinterested party when it comes setting the standard for how votes are counted and required the vendors to guarantee their product the way other vendors do when dealing with the state, then maybe the state could take its proper role as the lead advocate for accuracy in our electoral process.
Technorati Tags: CD 1, Elections, New Mexico, Politics, Voting
Comments