I’m going to stick my neck out here and predict that, ultimately, the continuing saga of the possible computer tampering at the NYC Board of Elections will turn out to be a lot of sound and fury, signifying very little. Not that I’m entirely dismissing the concerns expressed by Maurice Gumbs in his 83 part series posted elsewhere on “Room 8”, but a criminal conspiracy seems to me an unlikely scenario. I'd be more scared if I believed that anyone competent worked at the Board (of course, it's also kinda scary that there ain't). The Board is where the County Organizations bury their neediest cases (right up to the Board's Counsel's Office); the best and the brightest go elsewhere. In general, the Board of Elections couldn't organize an orgy at a convention of nymphomaniacs
In my limited experience, the Board of Elections is capable of massive incompetence without any particular political motivation (take its 2000 general election disenfrachisement of hundreds of voters in the 50th and 52nd ADs because a voting machine programmer and his supervisor didn't do their jobs). On the other hand, funny things do happen (for instance, the 1996 primary’s delay in getting machines to many Brooklyn poll sites), where it is possible to draw a line directly running between the political motivation and the eventual screw-up; but the screw up itself was not intended to occur. I tend, in this case, to suspect incompetence, but clearly Maurice Gumbs’ paranoia exists not without its reasons. There is no doubt that insurgents are not the only ones who believe evil or massive incompetence is sometimes afoot in those hallowed halls; one need only watch the paranoia of even the most sophisticated of the regulars during a recount. If they are so scared, it goes to follow that they must know something, right?
Part of the problem is the Board’s culture, which is based upon the idea that information is on a “need to know” basis, and no one needs to know, including most Board employees. Try asking a counter clerk at the BOE for something by anything other than its exact name; it's like asking your dog to "take a load off your feet" and expecting that he will sit down. Neophytes are totally lost at the Board, while attorneys for the regulars use the Chief Clerk’s office to make their phone calls in privacy. In the less benighted counties, attorneys for the insurgents, who've become members of the club by virute of their regular reappareances, are also extended this courtesy, thereby sending a message that there is a way to buy access, creating the appearance of a protection racket which one can buy into. Even harmless events, like the post-petition filing party in the Executive Director’s Office, send the wrong message. I’ve sometimes made fun of concerns about the appearance of impropriety; since if there is no actual improprety, what’s the harm? The parties are apparently great fun, and who amongst us believes that there is too much fun in our lives? But, in the case of an institution like the Board of Elections, harmless improprieties create a perception which undermines faith in the belief that our democratic institutions are democratic. Thus, the appearance of impropriety may actually be more harmful to the system than anything substantive which may have occurred.
It has been pointed out that the worse case sceanario, someone hacking into the Board’s data base, is less harmful than it sounds, as the paper records underlying that data base are all housed in the Board’s offices ready for inspection by the public. Nonetheless, anyone found to have tampered, or to have attempted to tamper, with Board records should be doing hard felony time. I would also advocate a public flogging, as an example to others. The lesser sceanario, as outlined by Gumbs and others, that someone hacked into the Board’s records to get an unfair advantage over others, would seem to be sheer nonsence, since the organization pointed to as the most likely suspect by those making such accusations already owns a copy of the database in question, and need not take the time and effort to illegally obtain what it has already paid for.
Moreover, I think it is counterproductive to lay the inherent unfainess of the system upon any particular violations of the rules; in fact, it misses the entire point. Such speculation detracts from the real systemic problem, which is that, even when things are on the up and up, the game is still stacked. The problem is not when the rules are violated; the problem is when the rules are implemented! Think of the ballot access process as Atlantic City. You can beat the House; in fact, some players beat the House pretty consistently. Nonetheless, all ties go to the House, and at the end of the day, the House always comes out ahead.
If the problem is what appears to be manure, the suspect is always more likely to be a horse than a zebra, and more likely a zebra than a unicorn. Instead of directing our anger towards something likely to be proven mythical, it might be better if we figured out how to clean up the thing that stinks.