Election officials quitting in droves

Residual tension from the 2000 election is causing numerous election officials to quit or retire, according to an AP story:

Turnover among election administrators in the nation's largest counties since the 2000 presidential stalemate has been unusually high with, by one expert's count, at least 20 top officials leaving office.  

While individuals have cited various reasons for departing, many have faced greater scrutiny because of the 2000 race and new demands to fix long-standing problems, but haven't been given the resources to make effective changes, said Richard Smolka, an election expert who compiled the list.  

Officials are under pressure to reform election processes, but are having trouble getting the money to carry out those reforms. In addition, many positions remain vacant, because nobody wants the gig, or the pressure.

This is not good. It's important that voters have confidence in the electoral process. If election officials can't make the necessary changes, and are freaking out in general, how are we to maintain that confidence? And what should be done about it? Do we need to hold bake sales to buy decent voting machines?

•  I'll make brownies

  I like the idea of precincts deciding they need better voting machines and just making it happen.  Nobody seems to be making much headway with appeals to Congress, etc. to stop black box voting.  Maybe something like this could really work, at least in a few places.  I'm sure secretaries of state would be uncomfortable about it, but...

  The real question is this: is anybody currently manufacturing a voting machine that is actually trustworthy?  I've only heard about the bad ones.

  by Corporate Dropout on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:25:13 PM PDT

  •  Trustworthy voting machines

    Optical scanning machines work well.

    You indicate your choice on a piece of paper, then feed it into the machine.  If the machine results are at all suspicious, you can always then count the paper.

    It makes sense to do some random hand recounts just to be on the safe side.

    The only real problem are these evil machines that don't leave a paper trail, mainly those made by Diebold.

    by Go Vegetarian on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:28:40 PM PDT

•  Theresa LePore

  I think she got death threats.

  The system isn't designed for close elections.

  by Lois on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:26:23 PM PDT

  •  I don't favor death threats

    but she is the poster child for election official incompetence.  (I used to live in S.Florida, she was a disaster before 2000, too.)

    by a gilas girl on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:07:44 PM PDT

•  Let Private Industry Take over

  This is a clear case where the Gov is failing all across the country. Private Industry has the answer in their Credit Card sales and Internet Sales.

  Bottom Line: Gov is a Failure here. Lets go with solutions that work.

  by Great Balls of Fire on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:37:42 PM PDT

  •  Ummmm

    Outsouring to private companies will cost more money. The only reason people like Bush talk about doing it, is because it helps all their rich corporate friends.

    by jfern on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:40:36 PM PDT

  •  Enron's Election Division based in Bermuda?

    Actually, this sounds like an even worse disaster.  

    A private corporation trying to look out for its own self-interests running our election would not inspire confidence at least for me.  Besides...who's going to get the contract?  Halliburton?  Diebold?  This just doesn't make sense.

    The bottom line should not be the first consideration of the people designing our voting systems.  By definition, a corporation is legally obligated to consider profit first, and everything else later.

    Elections are among the many government roles that should NOT be privatized.

    by Corporate Dropout on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:42:49 PM PDT

    •  There are already far too many

      private interests that make a profit off US democracy.  Privatizing the election process is more of same in that way, and more of what serves to throw the system out of whack.

      In that sense "private industry" IS very much a panacea.  

      That's the point, there's some stuff from which people shouldn't profit, because the creation of profit from said process distorts the process into something else, something that it is not.  Hence private health care, private elections, private water distribtion are all serious mutations of essential human processes.

      by a gilas girl on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:12:06 PM PDT

  •  foxtrot in chicken coop?

    Surely you jest?

    Would that make it more or less easy to "follow the money.?"

    Maybe we should just hand over all elected positions to private industry while we're at it.

    (I know folks, in a manner of speaking that is already happening in certain high places.)

    by Civil Sibyl on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:51:53 PM PDT

    •  Failure

      OK,lets keep the status "as is". Gov Failures continue, continue, continue....... sounds like a broken record (Election)!!!

      by Great Balls of Fire on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:56:05 PM PDT

      •  Bullshit

        This whole idea that business is inherently more efficient and effective than government is horseshit.

        by hamletta on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:58:44 PM PDT

  •  Very Bad Idea

    That is a horrible idea. There's just too much inherent conflict of interest there. Elections must remain a government function.

    The problem is not so much administration as technology.

    by hamletta on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 09:55:51 PM PDT

•  My letter to Rush Holt

  Dear Rep. Holt,

  Thank you for your work to improve voting technology. I think it's very important that voters have confidence that their votes will be counted fairly.

  I just read an AP story about local election officials quitting in droves because of the pressures that have arisen in the wake of the 2000 election fracas.

  However, another factor cited is the pressure to improve voting technology without the resources to effect those improvements. County governments are so strapped, new machines are simply unaffordable.

  Considering the success of online fundraising for Howard Dean, Ben Chandler in Kentucky, et al., might it be worthwhile to set up some sort of non-profit organization to assist local governments, provided they adhere to the guidelines in your Voter Confidence bill?

  I'm sure raising money would be a snap, considering the fact that Internet users who are also political junkies are most wont to howl over the antics of Diebold and ES&S. I spend a lot of time at Daily Kos, and any thread about touch-screen voting leaves my computer smokin'.

  I don't know about legality or overall kosherness of such an effort, but I thought it might be a way to effect the changes we're looking for without waiting for a bill to wend its way through Congress. In addition, it would alleviate at least some of the pressure on election officials.

  I also want to thank you for supporting Howard Dean, and I hope you'll hang in there. I was also thrilled to see my congressman, Jim Cooper, signed on to HR2239. I wrote to him last summer about the bill, so it's great to see! I've been meaning to work on Sen. Alexander, so I'll get right on it. (Frist probably isn't worth the effort, but I guess I'll cc him, too, just for good measure.)

  by hamletta on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 10:03:48 PM PDT