Skip to main content

View Diary: Proper Framing of the Voting Fraud Issue (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  New Standards for Elections (none)

    from NYT, November 7, 2004

    "The 2004 election may not have an asterisk next to it the way the 2000 election does, but the mechanics of our democracy remained badly flawed. From untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was far from what voters are entitled to.

    It's patently obvious that presidential elections, at least, should be conducted under uniform rules. Voters in Alaska and Texas should not have different levels of protection when it comes to their right to cast a ballot and have it counted. It's ridiculous that citizens who vote in one place have to show picture ID while others do not, that a person who accidentally walks into the wrong polling place can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted in one state but thrown out in another. States may have the right to set their own standards for local elections, but picking the president is a national enterprise."

    •  Be very wary of this line of thinking (none)
      You want Bush's Congress to take action to insure that your vote is counted?  Look out!

      Or perhaps you want it done by presidential executive order.  Uh-huh.

      Or maybe the Supreme Court will intervene and impose uniform standards with a verifiable paper trail and open source code?

      Get active with your state and local officials NOW, while they still have the power to set this right.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site