Sadly, no. Or only so far as it goes. Election security is clearly in everyone’s interest, since confidence in election results is very important. But it isn’t as important as election access. Our current hodge-podge of local standards and local funding leaves residents of less affluent districts at a disadvantage. If this disadvantage were relieved, many more less affluent voters would vote.
There is a party that would find this disagreeable. Starts with an “R”.
You will as soon as a CEO of an electronic voting machine maker starts campaigning/fundraising for Democrats.
Right. You must have a short and/or selective memory. Don’t remember the kafuffle over the 2004 Washington gubenatorial race, huh? Here, straight from the Republicans’ mouths.
Considering the clusterfuck of 2000, I don’t see how any United States citizen can possibly be faulted for wanting to ensure every voter has his or her vote counted. Pretending everything is a-ok in voterland is the utmost in civic negligence.
That’s because, since we started using electronic voting systems, Republicans haven’t been losing many elections.
Coincidence?! :dubious:
Well, yeah, probably, but the point is still valid: not many Republicans have been in a position to claim they were cheated out of a victory, lately. If they were getting routed in the polls as often as the Democrats have been, that might be different.
Other than the Presidency Republicans have been consistently winning elections since 1994, long before electronic voting booths were even a figment of somebody’s imagination. It is indeed a coincidence.
Now, now, Airman Doors. Just because Republicans won elections prior to the widespread use of Deibold (“I promise to deliver Ohio to the Republican Party!”) electronic voting machines is not any kind of proof that they haven’t used them since their advent. It’s just shows that they A) won by using OTHER means of electoral fraud or B) didn’t use electoral fraud prior to the advent of Diebold machines.
Believe me, if the shit that has gone down with regard to electronic voting were consistently benefitting Democrats instead of Republicans, there would be calls for armed revolution from the right wing media every fucking day.
Oh, give me a break. Any party that once counted LBJ and Richard Daley (the elder and the younger) among its members has some balls saying that the Republicans have won consistently because of voter fraud. You may have a case (an unproven one, although allegations abound in the uber-reliable blogosphere) with the electronic machines, but to say that Republicans historically only win because of cheating is asinine, especially considering the 40-year stranglehold the Democrats had over the Congress. How many graveyards were raided in the name of the Democrats over that time?
See, I can make stuff up too.
Yah, that stuff at blackbox.org is SOOOO much less convincing than hand-waving and eye-rolling. All that research and data and stuff that’s barely equal to a Republican’s lifted eyebrow…
I didn’t say Republicans only win because of cheating, in fact one of the options I listed is that they win without cheating. I was just pointing out that your dismissal of the Republican victories and the advent of Diebold machines as a coincidence was logically unsound.
Look at Washington’s last election for governor when the King County election board was caught marking on paper ballots due to a state law allowing them to clarify the “intent of the voter”
Ummmmmm . . . in most states it is left to the county to determine voting methods, “intent of the voter” standards, machinery, etc. If Bush v. Gore was truly indicative of determining “the intent of the voter”, it was the Democrat-controlled counties that were denying voters their rights with such a clusterf**k of a system that the count could only be accurate with a hand-recount and constantly changing standards.
I’ve never been able to fathom out why Americans don’t simply adopt the system we have.
Piece of paper with all candidates for a particular ward named on it.
You put a X against the one you want to vote for, put ballot paper in box. After voting closes they are counted.
The one with most Xs wins…simple.
Because technology has advanced quite a bit in the last few hundred years.
I think we all know that’s not true.
Yes. If I never had to heard one more thing (from either side) about fraud, I would be thrilled. OF COURSE, every effort should be made to be sure that elections are run on the up & up.
Yes, the less of her we see, the better. Lately, I just have a bad taste in my mouth towards the Democratic party (which, incidentally, I have been registered as and have voted for my entire life until…well, let’s just say until recently), which has intensified greatly recently due to local events here in Chicago.
You are right…this is why I tend to avoid them, too.
That’s true, and I actually came in to this thread this morning to take back the “partisan sniping.” Personally, I believe that politics is a dirty business, and people in charge of elections should be watched like hawks, whether R or D.
To be quite honest, I really don’t think I have ever heard of this particular controversy. How did it come out in the end…DID dead people vote?
I never said everything was a-ok in voterland. I have lived in Chicago my entire life, for goodness’ sake.
Yes it has but it seems that USA voting tech. is a tad lacking 
Human nature, on the other hand, has not changed at all.
My distrust of the electronic voting devices being rolled out comes not from fear or unfamiliarity with computer technology. Just the opposite: I am an IT professional who works with high-tech systems every day. I know from direct experience that the more complicated something is, the easier it is to mess with it. And what is being put in place to handle voting is totally unacceptable from a security and auditing standpoint.
There was one just yestarday.
Nowhere in that entire article did I see the words, “fixing” or “cheating”. Asking for a recount is one thing. Crying “voter fraud!” for years after the election is something else entirely.
While it doesn’t contain the words “fixing” or “cheating” what the hell do you think this:
"Jackson cited the prevalence of new electronic voting equipment in the St. Louis area and elsewhere as part of his reason for pursuing a recount. "
Is supposed to imply? That he just likes watching the pretty lights as the computer recounts?
Gotcha. I didn’t think you’d lost your marbles. I just didn’t understand your post. Thanks for the clarification.