Democratic Ritual in an Age of Information & Technology

If the United States of America is premised on the idea of a social contract; that is, the notion that government derives its powers through the consent of the governed, and that the government, so constituted, is essentially an agreement between the people and the institutions and officers who govern them, then the one common value we as Americans all must respect and guard with vigilance and due care is the democratic ritual of voting.

But what does it mean to "vote" in an age of information and technology? And why should we as individual citizens care?

The answer can be found in three principles that support the social contract: popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the rule of legitimacy.

Popular sovereignty is the idea that government is an expression, directly or indirectly, of the will of the people and is thereby responsible to them. The rule of law is the concept of a just society of ordered liberty where all people are equal before the law. And the rule of legitimacy is the reason or justification for a government and its officers to hold power by means of some equitable and verifiable process, like elections.

The issue of electoral integrity arises in an era of technological dependence and informational decentralization and strikes right at the heart of American democracy. If the electoral process is corrupted and the vote is in doubt, then popular sovereignty is compromised, the rule of law is violated, and the rule of legitimacy is called into question.

This is a situation that can not stand.

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida and in the 2004 contest in Ohio the possibility of voter fraud and unreliable outcomes has cast shadows on the integrity of the American electoral process. This at a time when we as a nation are desperately trying to forge a fledgling democracy, at least ostensibly, in Iraq and see democracy of the move throughout the world.

Florida 2000 demonstrated the inherent flaws in an election that was not verified. Ohio 2004 is the product of a vote that can not be verified. In both cases the very nature and foundations of democracy are at stake.

In an age of space exploration, nuclear weaponry, digital communication, and wireless networking, it is inconceivable that the best science and engineering can not devise an electronic voting machine where ballots can be instantly documented and verified.

What is worse is that corporations who manufacture these electoral contraptions whose products---votes---are unconfirmed and unproven are engaged in partisan politics favoring one over another candidate or party. If the Government is blind to the unavoidable conflict of interest inherent in such trade, then it is unjust and unaccountable to its people.

There was little excuse for Florida. There is no excuse for Ohio.

To resolve this political emergency and mend the crisis of confidence Specific actions need to be taken now.

First, the a special bipartisan commission appointed by the Congress to thoroughly and substantively investigate the voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections, and to make recommendations to correct the problems in the voting process.

Second, the Congress must pass legislation that ensures consistency, integrity, and uniformity in political elections in the United States.