Historic Primary Election in Arizona
Historical Online Election, Significant Taxpayer Dollars Saved
The Arizona Libertarian Party is one of three fully ballot qualified political parties in the state and therefore legally entitled to participate in the presidential preference primary election proceedings on Super Tuesday. Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, Arizona Libertarians aren’t conducting their election process in the traditional polling booths or at taxpayer expense.
“This is believed to be the first time in U.S. history that a state-wide election has been held via the Internet, only,” stated party chairman Michael Kielsky in a press release.
Additionally, Maricopa County election officials have estimated that the Libertarian Party election will save “Arizona taxpayers over a million dollars by sparing them the costs of printing, distributing, collecting and counting Libertarian ballots.”
I spoke with Kielsky on the telephone a couple of hours ago. When asked how much this online election will cost the Arizona Libertarian Party, he responded “about a grand.”
Consistent with libertarian philosophy, Arizona Libertarians don’t feel that others should be forced to pay for their internal party functions.
Glitches and Security
Since one may already vote in the online Arizona primary, I asked Kielsky about technical glitches and security issues they may have already encountered. He did report a couple of minor technical problems which they were able to immediately resolve.
The general online process requires Arizona voters to provide certain personal data, such as their name, year of birth and zip code. This is matched with voter registration data, which the Arizona Libertarian Party has obtained from county election officials. Votes where the online registration data doesn’t match official election information won’t be counted, according to Kielsky.
I found one potential security hole, but Kielsky wasn’t specific on how they intend to handle this issue. I suspect, based on the precise wording of his answer, that they have a plan in place but he didn’t wish to elaborate on it.
Being the first time (of which I’m aware) that this sort of electronic election has taken place, there will certainly be a few glitches and security holes to be repaired. However, this also represents a bold move forward with respect to electoral politics. At least Arizona Libertarians are leading the way with respect to major modifications of our electoral system.
Ranked Choice Voting
Arizona Libertarians believe this is the first time that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), perhaps better known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), has been used in a U.S. statewide election. From their release:
With RCV, voters rank as many candidates as they like, in order of preference, instead picking only one. Kielsky explained, “This method works well when there are many candidates. Unlike common ‘winner-take-all’ elections, the candidate with the most first-choice votes doesn’t necessarily win the election. For example, if first choice votes are spread evenly among many candidates, but one of these candidates has significantly more of the second-choice votes, that candidate would win. It’s a fairer method than ‘winner-take-all’ because the results better reflect the desires of the voters.” Many public interest groups, including The League of
Women Voters of Arizona and FairVote AZ, are actively seeking election reform based on RCV. RCV is used in several countries, including Australia and Ireland, in many U.S. jurisdictions including San Francisco, CA, and a ballot initiative to enact RCV is underway in Glendale, AZ.
One visiting the sample ballot webpage can easily see how this works. There are thirteen candidates on the list, which includes Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Barry Hess, Bob Jackson, Christine Smith, Alden Link, Steve Kubby, Dave Hollist, Robert Milnes, Jim Burns, John Finan, Wayne Root and Michael Jingozian. By voting for none of the candidates, one is selecting the traditional LP candidate named NOTA. There is also a spot available to write in your own candidate, and I suspect Ron Paul will pick up quite a few votes in this category.
My understanding (I can’t check it out without providing fraudulent voter information) is that the final ballot did not include Robert Milnes’ name, as his party status may be questionable due to a lack of recent payment of party dues.
Arizona Libertarians Can Already Begin Voting
From their release:
Registered Arizona Libertarians may participate in the election by logging onto the election website at www.LPelection.com. The site will authenticate the voters and then accept their votes online. A hotline for anyone encountering problems, or without Internet access, has been established at (800) 875-7369.
The online polls will open at 9 AM on January 30, 2008 and close at 7 PM on February 5, 2008. The results will guide Arizona’s Libertarian delegates, who will participate in selecting the Libertarian Presidential nominee at the national convention to be held from May 22-26, 2008 in Denver, CO.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Having the election available only online makes it very easy for voting irregularities to occur. Whether they pay for it themselves or not, a paper trail is vital to ensure that there has not been any tampering with ballots.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I generally agree with you about the risks of not having a paper trail. However, this is an internal party function and new political ground. I’ll be observing, with interest, how they will handle any problems which might arise.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Just how easy do people want it? Maybe they can set up drive-thru voting at McDonalds…... with extra fries.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Brian,
If they served beer at the drive-thru voting lane…
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Make it Labatt’s Blue and I’m there. At least if we elected another clown like Bush we’d have an excuse.We must have been drunk.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Has the LP received ANY media coverage with this plan?
My own heart is with this idea, but with the Phillies campaign (and therefore the LP) getting free media in Missouri by taking part in that states’ primary, I think it is more logical to use it (the state run primary system) to our advantage.
Either way, the delegates are not locked in. In both instances, the selection is little more than a beauty contest.
PEACE
Steve
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
It’ll be interesting to see if this will enable people to vote in both the LP and GOP primaries. It seems that with one primary online, the exclusivity would be a little more difficult to enforce.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 am
Internet voting is insanely insecure. Nationally respected computer scientists are always having to try to stop this monstrous idea before it spreads.
Libertarians in Arizona are not having a real election, they are having an image of an election. Oh and who owns and controls the website?
Read “The Democratic Party’s Dangerous Experiment
By David L. Dill and Barbara Simons
February 02, 2008
....Like whack-a-mole, internet voting proposals have reappeared in different guises in the U.S. for much of the past decade. When an extremely ambitious Department of Defense proposal for internet voting in the 2004 presidential election was reviewed by computer security experts, it was terminated because of security concerns documented by those experts – the same concerns that should cause all citizens to view any proposal for internet voting with extreme skepticism.
...Security may not be the only issue with this system. On their web page, Everyone Counts cites the recent “successful” election in Swindon, U.K, even though the U.K. Electoral Commission reports that “Electronic polling stations in Swindon proved more problematic, with many experiencing connectivity and application issues on polling day.” For this and other reasons, the Electoral Commission recommended a moratorium on further e-voting trials in the U.K. until security and other concerns are resolved.
...This radically new and untested voting scheme was announced only a short time ago. Press coverage has been minimal and uncritical. Unfortunately, because voters planning to vote over the internet no longer have time to obtain absentee ballots before the primary, it is too late to kill this dangerous proposal. We urge American expatriates to vote, however they can – even if it involves using this system – and then to tell their representatives that paper ballots must be required in the future for all voters, including those outside the country. Americans living abroad should not be treated as second-class citizens.
See the full article here at
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2736&Itemid=26
or
http://tinyurl.com/3cjorm
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 am
I am (and will continue to be) extremely leery of the idea of online voting. I think for an internal party function, if they want to do it, it should be their choice. I don’t ever want to see it exist for a general election. We talk about voter fraud now, it could be substantially worse with online voting. I’d much rather have elections that are spread out across a weekend instead of doing a one-day shot on a Tuesday.
I also wish they’d chosen a better voting system than IRV (I much prefer Condorcet).
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 am
I am certainly an advocate of paper when it comes to government election ballots. However let’s not forget that there is plenty of sensitive and important business that uses the internet. The US Census estimates that there was $108.7 billion dollars of e-commerce in 2006 and I know of few people who make blanket claims that purchases over the internet are “insecure”.
The problem isn’t the medium, the problem is the people using the medium. The 2004 election in Ohio (and plenty of others across the US over the last 4+ years) proves that even with an established method that government incompetence, malfeasance and corruption can cast a very substantial doubt as to the accuracy of any given election.
The 2000 Florida “chad” issue had it’s roots in government incompetence. The election staff didn’t bother or didn’t think of cleaning out the chad drawers of the punch card voting machines. I would guess that prior to 2000 it may (or may not) have ever been an issue because 98% of county election department staff were smart enough to teach their employees what to do. It only took one “important” election for the US government to gain an excuse to distort the election markets with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 with all sort of incentives that the federal government thought would be great which over time have certainly proved not to be great.
Government is going to be incompetent. The problem isn’t computers or election systems (paper or computer) or the people that vote on them. The problem is the system that designs them and the motivations that guide them.
I went to the Arizona Breakfast Club today. Election integrity activists John Brakey and Jim March were there and the tales of institutional incompetence and malfeasance in Pima County (Arizona), Arizona and the entire US in general would have been bracing if I hadn’t been exposed the issue for many years.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=029587
If you think paper ballots will solve election integrity problems, then I have only to ask you, exactly what state are the ballots from the 2004 District 20 election in right now (that the FBI took from the Maricopa County election department) and what federal official is working right now to hash out the disturbing problems in that election?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-02-09/news/feds-probe-district-20/
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Arizona Libertarians believe this is the first time that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), perhaps better known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), has been used in a U.S. statewide election.
Maryland used IRV for primary elections for a while beginning in 1912. I assume (but don’t know for a fact) that this included primaries for statewide office. At about the same time Florida, Indiana and Minnesota have used a very similar method called the contingent vote (voters rank the candidates, if there’s no first-round majority then all but the top two candidates are eliminated), also for primaries. Again, these primaries may have included statewide offices.
See this FairVote article.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Congratulations to the Libertarians for helping to save taxpayer dollars.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This “primary” has gotten very, very little coverage out here. All the coverage the state Libertarians have gotten is that since they might have to let people who switch to their party vote in the primary, they have taken their ball and gone home.
In 2000 the Democrats had an internet primary here, they may have also had polling locations for those without the financial means of voting online.
I truly doubt this has anything to do with saving the taxpayers money, but rather, everything to do with controlling the party. I am sick and tired of the petty squabbles between Phoenix and Tucson Libertarians and which group is more evil.
Can’t we just declare party founder Nolan state chairman by default, and move on from there?
February 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
To answer a few earlier comments, yes, the election is a “beauty contest.” Since Arizona law only allows for a beauty contest primary, so are the D and R elections that are eating bookoo tax money today. So frankly, the implications of this process did not present a high bar to jump.
It wasn’t done online because we love online, or because we love “easy drive-through voting,” it was done because it was an inexpensive and obvious alternative to the only other option, which was to say “we will not participate in state-funded internal party elections.”
Can voters vote in two primaries? The election software wants identifying information from you, which it matches with the official state voter roll. So I suppose you could “vote as” someone else, but you couldn’t “vote twice” as the same voter.
I don’t know where the comment about “party squabble” comes from. There has been zero dissension over this. Other than the technical concerns of security and validation, which everybody shares, I don’t know anybody in any corner of the party who thought this was a bad idea. Similarly, I don’t know anyone in the party who expressed a preference for participating in the tax-funded election. The “Phoenix and Tucson factions” have become largely homogenized, and work together reasonably well these days.
Is this merely an “image of an election?” Well, consider the following: the Coconino County Republican chair, when asked what he would do if Ron Paul won the state primary, replied that they would refuse to seat his delegates, but would instead seat “loyal” delegates. Frankly, I would term that a “caricature of an election,” and expect the Libertarian offering to be significantly more faithful to the voters than that sort of a farce.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
aspinalls online casino online
experimentally teethe ensembles
July 30th, 2008 at 9:50 am
keyboard english joke site dog stone
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
pokerspielstars tournament
vegetated presumptuousness clasped destroys alphabetical:flagged
October 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
to buy cheap wholesale nike imara watchs on net
unavailability Yugoslavians implied taut ennobles
November 21st, 2008 at 7:29 am
forgery and identity theft laws washington
Moreland Myron:stoutness:loveliness ferociously
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
instadebit spades
greyhound circulate!disobeyed crudeness
December 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
cash til laons cash advancement santa clarita california
leverage:reevaluates!nicknamed nullify.sprawling transcriptions
December 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
visit true cash loan pre approval
muffling shot spacers interdict
December 12th, 2008 at 4:21 am
buy driver insure for hire direct infinity insurance company mx 5
Fleisher goats barbecues treasuries!graphic understands
December 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
european poker tour pokera
number incandescent?sponger.baiting respirator?blips
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
www advantagemortgagenetwork com
inquisitively vital,constituency