More blogswarming
The digital age has changed everything, sneaking up on entire industries that were wholly unprepared to face the new challenges it posed -- the entertainment industry, publishing, the telcos, etc.
Now I personally don't care if (for example) the hidebound music industry's slowness to adapt costs it a few billion dollars in profit. But one aspect of our lives that we can't afford to lag behind the curve is our electoral process. Computerized voting is fine, I suppose, for such places as want it, but I believe that an auditable paper trail and a hard-copy archive are a crucially important component of any voting system, electronic or otherwise.
That's why I'm supporting HR 550. The bill faces an uphill battle, I'm afraid, if for no other reason than that it's crafted by a member of the minority party. That's unfortunate, but them's the times we live in. All the more reason that if you have any spare time for political activism, this is a cause you may want to consider supporting.
All right, I'll stop soapboxing now. Just remember, I don't subject my readers to ads or pledge drives, so this is just the price you pay for my peculiar blend of neolibertarian politics and half-assed commentary.
Technorati tags for this posting are:
HR 550,Votes,Elections,Verified
Voting,Rush Holt
Comments
Why would Republicans want this? They have had great success stealing elections of late.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 8, 2005 09:34 AM
I know you are being snarky, Bailey, but the truth is that verified voting is a bipartisan issue, as evidenced by the endorsement of the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, which included notables such as James Baker III, George H. W. Bush's Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services Kay Coles James, and New York State Republican Party Vice Chairperson Rita DiMartino. Republicans support verified voting as well as Democrats. When there is the possibility for the election to be rigged, it hurts the winner and the loser. This bill will never fix any alleged wrong-doing in the past, but it can eliminate it in the future.
Posted by: DBK | December 8, 2005 03:15 PM
Well naturally, I am 100% behind my vote being actually counted. You might find that many politicians, particularly incumbants, on both sides, do not really care for this idea, however.
When you have power, it is better to appoint the vote counters yourself without an audit trial.
That helped Detroit recently "re-elect" a mayor far less popular than even Bush. Strangely enough, his opponents OWN DISTRICT seemed to have turned the tide late in the evening with an astonishing 20 percentage point change of heart.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 8, 2005 03:38 PM