Platapus |
09-22-08 05:49 PM |
200+ years and we still can't run an election
Florida voting issues raise fears of 2000-like debacle
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ing/index.html
"For 2004, the county switched to touch-screen machines. There were no major issues here. But some local Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler, demanded changes because they said the touch-screen system might be vulnerable to fraud and did not, in their view, provide a reliable audit trail.
So the county switched again, to its third system in eight years, this time a paper ballot that is scanned by an optical reading device. The paper is then retained in case of recounts or other irregularities.
Local officials say the system works and promise a smooth Election Day.
But Dinerstein says the recount in the judicial race proves the folly of switching.
"We could have had nice, reliable computers counting and giving all of us an honest count," he said in an interview.
The 2000 recount drama led to major changes -- more than 40 states made changes or adjustments to the way they conducted and administered elections.
"We have had more change in our election process since 2000 than we have seen since the Voting Rights Act of 1965," said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a recent past president of the national association of top state elections officials. Indiana alone spent some $67 million on new equipment, including a statewide voter file, and also requires a color photo ID on Election Day."
You would think that after 200+ years of elections we could get it right. It is a travesty that so many different states have different voting mechanisms.
We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out an idiot-proof way of casting a vote? :nope:
Sad. Very very sad. :damn:
|