Mass media outlets routinely ignore important subjects if they require more explanation than the 15 second attention spans they believe consumers are capable of sustaining.
If it isn’t bleeding, it certainly isn’t leading.
But some things cannot wait to be picked up by the echo chamber, and one topic in particular is not an issue for next month – more like three years ago.
As a Democracy, our safety-release valve is the knowledge that no matter how dissatisfied, disenfranchised or outright disgusted we become, we can exercise our fundamental right to vote.
Doesn’t matter if you are tilted to the Left or Right, a Bush-backer or Bush-beater, a treasonous liberal or insidious conservative.
When the public is sufficiently motivated, it can change leadership and the future in a single day.
Not something to ever take for granted, nor entrust someone with lightly.
There is however a real challenge to this 200-plus year tradition, this power that inarguably sits at the heart of American values.
In 1859, Americans trusted Charles Diebold’s hard-to-crack safest and vaults. Almost 150 years later, Diebold, Incorporated is proving their expertise does not translate from iron to silicon.
After the 2000 election debacle left many voters swinging in the wind like an unburst chad, companies like Diebold rushed electronic voting systems to market to usher in a perfect age of digital democracy. At least that was the idea.
Forget, for the moment, concerns that the systems might be “rigged” to favor particular candidates or political tendencies. Also forget that Diebold’s CEO announced his commitment to delivering electoral votes to one political party.
But there are fundamental problems with the electronic voting systems being rolled out across the nation that can be appreciated without ever visiting the shadowy realm of Conspiracyland. A matrix of practical and tangible uncertainties that could make 2000’s chad-mania seem trivial.
Most criticism of the electronic voting systems comes not from sweaty, basement-dwelling, Abraham Zapruder worshipping conspiracists, but from scientists and security experts familiar with the limitations of such systems.
And “limitations” is kind – Diebold’s record makes Microsoft look like a pillar of security.
Three serious studies by computer and security experts have returned highly critical results.
Time and again, the company has proven they cannot be trusted.
In December, the software that runs the voting terminals was found on an unprotected server connected to the Internet, where anyone could download it.
“This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so,” wrote New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.
The leaked software got into the hands of some technical experts who put the code through its paces.
“Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts,” concluded researchers from Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities.
Diebold’s response: Don’t worry, we’ve already fixed all that. Recently, another study found that the same problems still existed.
Maryland’s State Board of Elections found “high-risk vulnerabilities” after unleashing a team of computer experts to hack the terminals. They determined that corrupt insiders or determined outsiders could disrupt or even steal an election.
Whoa, stop the cyber-democracy bus right there, I want off.
It is possible that, just as Diebold has promised, their electronic voting systems will enable a digitally pure Democracy. But there are too many doubts, and they are fueled by a corporate culture of stubborn unwillingness to even talk about them. Until steps are taken to address the issues, secure the systems and instill genuine confidence in the electorate, we should not gamble with the foundation of our democracy.
Kenneth Todd Ruiz, a senior journalism major, is editor in chief of the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at kruiz@ulv.edu.
