Skip to main content

View Diary: How to Repair the Voting System: Sec. Debra Bowen's Answer (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It Matters Because (0+ / 0-)

    Despite her stated opinion 4 years ago, the system that she has actually implemented in California does not eschew DRE technology - it improves upon it by requiring a paper trail, and always includes the option of an optical scan ballot. Thus, a diary relying upon her words from 4 years ago to advocate for use nationwide of an exclusively optical scan system system that she herself, when she has the power to do so, didn't implement for her own state is misleading.  If Ms. Bowen found a way to merge the best of both worlds, it's shown that her thinking has evolved over the years.  That's the type of thing that should be clearly disclosed if you are going to rely upon her words from 4 years ago to make your arguments.

    •  Ugh. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nanorich

      Ok, I don't really know where you're going with this, but it seems you like arguing, and I have to get to work.

      I think it's pretty straightforward.  Listen to her talk and the Q&A that follows.  She argues for optical scan with random recount.  She acknowledges accessibility is an issue (which is why there are DREs (only the semi-secure ones) in some counties, but usually limited in number and limited in use; why a couple counties use them primarily was my only question mark).  What she did in CA follows from her talk, and it also seems clear from what she says that if there were a way of getting rid of DREs altogether she'd be for it.

      As for legal matters of what authority she has and what the counties have, and how or why she can or can't compel them to change - I'm not a lawyer, and this diary isn't about that anyway.  It's about the ideas.

      contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

      by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:39:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Am a Lawyer (0+ / 0-)

        In California.  So I'm not speaking lightly about the power of the Office of Secretary of State.  But I agree it's irrelevant except for one thing:  I mentioned the law only because YOU first speculated about what power she does, or does not have, to implement her (now no longer existing if you go by what she's done when she has the power) vision from 4 years ago.  Had you not done that, the law would have never been discussed at all.

        We are obviously not going to see eye to eye, but since I've made my point and you've made yours, it's all good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site