Voting Rights

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Voting Rights Archives page.

What Madison Couldn’t Know: Techno Democracy

At the constitutional convention, our nation’s founders were up to something extraordinary –making the concept of democracy a reality. The idea of ordinary men participating fully in government was quite radical for its time; the right to vote was a novelty.

However, we should not forget that women, people of color, slaves, indentured servants, Native Americans and the poor were not extended such rights, each of these groups had to fight for inclusion and for basic civil rights, including the right to vote.

It may be a surprise to learn that some citizens are still struggling to be counted. But they are left out for new reasons, reasons that the founding fathers could never have anticipated. Despite his genius, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution" could never have guessed that hanging chads and computer hackers would interfere with his vision of democracy. Otherwise, he may have offered us some guidance through the maze of techno democracy.

Technology and democracy

It was once reasonable for voters to scribble their choice on a piece of paper and stuff it into a ballot box, the way you may have voted for Head Girl in 7th grade. This is an impossibility for large-scale contemporary elections that take place in the urban and suburban sprawl. Clearly, we must utilize technology in order to make voting work. Bad technology is partly responsible for the 2000 Presidential Election problems.

Congress acted swiftly after the 2000 election to deliver us the Help Americans Vote Act, or HAVA. HAVA promises sweeping reforms before the next election; many of the reforms have to do with voting technology. Many states are attempting to replace outdated voting machines with new touch-screen machines in an attempt to avoid many of the problems we saw three years ago. Yet, new studies indicate that the new voting technology may create new voting problems.

What’s the problem now?

Studies by Johns Hopkins and Stanford Universities indicate that the new voting technology is not hacker-proof; they say that it would be quite easy for a computer-whiz to alter the system and cause voting errors.

Many critics of the touch-screen voting machines are in favor of ballot print outs, which would allow voters to double check their votes.

The companies that are responsible for building the computerized voting systems say that the criticism of their products is unwarranted. They claim that the touch-screens will be much more accurate than the old lever machines.

Lose the lever

Everyone agrees that the lever machines have got to go. The Working Families Party recently filed a lawsuit against the City and State of New York, who are responsible for providing every citizen an equal opportunity to vote. The Working Families Party claims that as many as 60,000 votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election because of the lever machines.

The lever is to be pulled when the voter is completely finished voting, but voting advocates say that people who are unfamiliar with the machines and people who do not read English well often pull the lever prior to completing their votes. Therefore, their votes are not cast nor counted.

No paper trail

Computerized voting machines may not be a sound alternative. Critics fear that recounts may not be possible with the new machines, since the touch-screen machines leave no paper trail. Computer scientists say that the voting computers are simply not ready for use. They require more testing and more work before they are election ready.

However, states are in a rush to fix their voting systems. Many of them are attempting to fully reform their voting systems by the next presidential election in November 2004. Most states have already bought new (and untested) voting computers.

Many feel that the rush to replace old with new will replace old problems with new and bigger ones. They want the federal government to set standards for computerized voting machines. Right now, no such standards exist.

The act of voting may carry the same meaning that it did in 1776, but the mechanisms of voting have changed considerably. Our nation’s population is much larger, much more diverse and multi-lingual. Our voting machines must be both advanced and secure for democracy to function. How could Madison have guessed that democracy would be so fragile, totally dependent on the functionality of the voting machine?

To discuss this topic with other WomenMatter readers, click here. To contact your representatives about new voting technologies, click here.

Update Posted on: 8/8/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top