I don't want the federal interference. From what we've seen out of the Bush administration that's a recipe for a Republican dynasty. People need to act locally to demand improvements in state procedures. We don't have problems with voting in Minnesota. We allow same day registration. We usually rank in the top 1 or 2 in percentage of people voting. It doesn't seem to be complicated here. You have plenty of places to vote. You have plenty of machines available for voters. You staff the polls with people trained to assist voters. You let people vote. You count the votes. It's not difficult if your intention to to maximize the ability of people to vote. That has long been the tradition here. If it isn't the tradition in other states, it's not because it can't be done, it's because they don't want it done.

I like Oregon's model. Vote by mail with more than 86% turnout in the 2004 election. No fancy touch-screens, no butterfly ballots, absolutely no new technology required... just good ol' fill in the bubble ballots. There are no lines to deal with and no need to get time off work. The only thing missing is a carbon copy of your ballot and a website where you can ensure your vote was not flipped somewhere upstream.

bluebell is 100% correct. Federal intervention brought us the Bush-Rove "Help America Vote Act"--the biggest move to sabotage elections and suppress voting since the disenfranchisement of Black voters in the 1890's era. (And typically for Karl Rove's style, it was given a name exactly opposite to its actual intended purpose.)

We DON'T need more computers. You get comments from people in Canada and Australia--two reasonably advanced nations--who explain that they vote on paper ballots. THAT is what we need. Why the automatic assumption that every damn thing has to be computerized? If computerized, elections can be rigged---they HAVE been rigged---and it's the perfect crime, since there's no physical evidence.

You can't "recount" whatever the machine tells you; you're just stuck with it. What happened to the 18,000 votes that vanished in that Florida congressional election 2 years ago? And what happened in Ohio (and a number of other states) four years ago? Why give the criminals who rigged those elections even more scope for their mischief?

GIVE UP on salvation by computer or by federalization of elections. All that needs to be done is to restore paper ballots and to ENFORCE existing voting rights laws as Congress intended.

Several states, with honest Democratic Secretaries of State, run clean and fair and accurate elections. If Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, they should consult those successful state officers for suggestions on any necessary reforms.

One smokescreen argument sometimes trotted out on behalf of computerized voting is that it somehow is less discriminatory towards certain classes of disabled voters. I do not suppose that any voter, no matter what his or her disability may be, would prefer a method of election that cannot be verified and CAN be hacked, instead of an honest and fair election where they can be sure that their vote is in fact going to be counted the way they cast it.

If we don't get leadership from the Democrats on this issue, then we all will owe Ralph Nader an apology, won't we?

The real issue is all about trust in the system of voting. The problem that enters the picture is people like McCain spouting off about Acorn and suggesting that there is an effort at major corruption where there is no substantive argument or evidence supporting the allegation.

This implies that a candidate for public office is willing to lie to the American public in an attempt to influence the election. I sincerely believe this undermines the trust of the American people and is exactly the intent.

Voters need to recognize this and make a real effort to sort these issues out and be informed and then make the logical and appropriate decision when they cast their ballot. I'm all for free specch. However, that does not entitle a person seeking office to knowingly lie to the American people. Allowing such conduct gives the green light to elected officials to do the same while in office. Bush lied about Iraq and look what that has cost us. Voters need to be 100% intolerant of this. The harm that comes from it is undeniable. Personally, my trust in our government is in the toilet and I don't think I will ever trust a government official again for the remainder of my life. And that goes for both parties. Neither have met their obligations to this country for eight years. No matter what voting scheme we have I don't trust government. All candidates under the current system of campaign finance who say it is free of corruption are liars right from the get go. You just cannot say that when finance and big business funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns and lobbying efforts.

The problem with shifting from electoral votes to a more democratic simple plurality count is that the change would require a Constitutional Amendment, and states with smaller populations would lose their advantage under the present system if it were changed. A primary reason that the Republicans are presently opposed to the idea is that smaller population states tend to break their way in Presidential elections. If this were reversed, both Republicans and Democrats would reverse their posturing.

This isn't really about states' rights or about democracy; it's about political parties attempting to leverage the system for partisan purposes.

To give you a hand in predicting the presidential winner and his margin of victory, try these:

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=24082

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=24137

Remember that the down ticket candidates often surf in the wake of a winning ticket leader.

But this was the problem Hillary Clinton was pointing to that her Popular Vote Margins were much smaller than the Electoral Votes would suggest. If a major party would step and offer something new then it would be worth inspecting that as model for the country as whole.

religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat