Yesterday I did something unusual, instead of watching "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert, I varied from this usual and time honored routine and kept the television set tuned to C-Span, on which appearred the author and blogspot Blogger Mark Crispin Miler. So impressed was I with this author that I decided to do a post about him today, and included a link in this title to his blog.
The full title of his book is something of a mouthful-"Fooled Again"-"How The Right Stole The 2004 election and will do it again (Unless We Stop Them)". The cover of the book features a spread of cards the top of which is George Bush as the Joker.
Although I have yet to read the authors book, he talked at length on C-Span about the documentation he had colected as to the voting irregularities and outright fraud and voter intimidation that occurred in the last preidential election. Although his main emphasis seems to have been on the race in Ohio, he asserts that this type of activity transpired on a national basis. Black voters especially, in places such as New Orleans, for example, were intimidated by requests for driver licenses, causing many to be turned away due to concerns over matters as trivial as unpaid parking tickets and other minor type fines. There were unwarranted challenges, and of course insufferably long lines at polls in Democratic areas, where there was a shortage of machines, while many of those that were delivered seemed to malfunction or have some kind of problems or glitches.
Miller asserts that the Diebold Company is a private enterprise and the intimation is obvious that he considers them to have Republican leanings, and possibly are even in leaque with the Republican Party.
But perhaps the most chilling of his assertions was that the Democratic Party seems for the most part uninterested in pursuing any investigation into the matter. For a time, he insists that John Kerry had said he believed the election might have been stolen, and so much as told him so, but now, according to Miller, Kerry denies the conversation ever took place. While Chris Dodd, the Senator from Connecticutt, outright refused to even consider the possibility.
Miller interprets the Democratic reluctance as a kind of fear, a type of denial, that anything could ever happen in this country of this magnitude, that to even entertain the possibility would be an admission that our entire national values and standards have been compromised.
This is the first disagreement that I have with Miller's interpretation of events. I think the explanation is far more malignant. Put quite simply, my feelings are that the problem isn't so much with the Democratic national party as it is with the state leaderships of both the Democratic and the Republican parties. But why would this be the case? Simpy put, the leaders of both parties, on the state levels, have everything to gain by ensuring that no waves are made. Leaders of a Democratic city, county, precinct, district, state, have every bit as much to gain from the Diebold fix as their Republican counterparts do.
When all is said and done, neither the Republican nor the Democratic state/local leadership cares about the national aspirations of their respective parties, so long as their own pieces of the pie is served warm with a plentiful helping a la mode, so to speak. They need never worry about some maverick independant or party insurgent upsetting the apple cart, and putting in jeopardy their own positions of pwer and influence. And it is these party leaders, who may when you get right down to it be no better or worse than the old time party bosses, who can make or break a candidate, even a long time established one such as Dodd or Kerry, or any others, who, after all, may have skeletons in thier closets they would just as soon be kept put.
Another disagreement that I have with Mr. Miller is in his choice of a cure for the problem, which isn't a cure at all. His positon is that the nation should adopt a standardized national policy of - get this , now- paper ballots. Can you say "hanging chads?"
Like I said, this is not a viable alternative. This is like finding out you've caught AIDS and wishing you had caught syphyllis instead. Certainly understandable, but the problem is it is just not good enough. An adequate prophylactic can prevent both, and "pregnant chads" as well.
And so I go back to my previous suggestion from some time back. The voting machines that have been in use in New York State and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are by far the better options. They are fast, dependable, and accurrate, and providing they are checked before hand by workers from both parties, they should be safe.
I wil admit I do not entirely know how they work, only that it is almost impossible to mess up on them. You go into the both, you flip a switch whch opens the voting process. You flip a switch by your candidates name, and can only flip one switch (candidate) per office sought. Yu just figured you flipped the wrong switch? No problem, you merely go back, flip the wrong switch back, and re-vote for the proper candidate. Then you go on down to the next office being sought and repeat the process.
Once you are through, you can check your votes. If you discover you have unwittingly made yet another mistake, you can go back and change it. You are now through voting. You therefore flip the switch, that signifies that you are through voting, and the machine is thus turned off, your votes are tabulated andf registered, and the machine is ready for the next voter. Since you turned the switch to indicate yu have finished (which is required before your votes are tabulated) the next person can not go in behind you and add to or change your vote. He cannot vote at all until he flips the switch, and the process begins again.
I think, though am not entirely certain, that the votes are tabulated and possibly even totaled, per machine. Once the totals are given to the election officials, they merely have to total the statewide results. It is of course up to the various party representatives to ensure that no skulduggery in thevarious precincts, districts, and counties have transpired.
What I do know is that it is fast and efficient, and the system is not computerized, so there is no chance for glitches or hacking, etc. It is solely a mechanical calculating device, I would presume. All I know is, on any given election, Kentucky will be one of the first states - most of the time it wil be the very first state - to announce it's results, which is geneally not too long after the close of voting on election night.
Add to this the fact that Kentucky and New York are the only states to use these machines on a consistent basis. I have an idea (though I as of yet do not know) that this started in Kentucky through the machinations of President Harry Trumans Vice-President Alben Barkley, who wanted to ensure that his political state rivals didn't do him in. Him and Governor A. B. "Happy Chandler" had been at odds for some time. Or it could have been Chandler who was responsible for the machines. All I know is the mnachines have been a part of state Kentucky poitics for some time now, and have served admirably.
Their presence in New York would be a matter of even more speculation on my part, but I would imagine the reputation for chicanery in New York politics, a la Tammany Hall, had something to do with it. This and New Yorks burgeoning population at the time required an efficient and speedy, yet reliable and accurate, method of counting the votes in a way that could be seen to be fair, with little chance for skulduggery.
Whatever the reasons for the use of the machines in New York and Kentucky, it is hard for me to imaginethat any would think something like paper ballots could be more effective, or more efficient, or less prone to the likelihood of error, or chicanery.
Which brings us back to the prospect of state party leaders, again, leaders of both parties. Naturally, a good many of these, if not most-if not all-would prefer to see methods in place that make it easy for them to maniplate the results, as the need arises.
The voting machines in place in Kentucky and New York, if adequately supervised by representatives of both parties, are the way to go to ensure elections that are fast, efficient, and fair.
