Posted on 01/08/2005 10:11:20 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
I commend Senator Boxer from California for joining with members of the House, most particularly Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, in raising the objection because it does permit us to air some of these issues, something that I believe is necessary for the smooth functioning of our democracy and the integrity of the most precious right of any citizen, namely, the right to vote.
As we look at our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its integrity, and they are not confined to the state of Ohio. They are questions that have arisen throughout our country and certainly because of the election of 2000 have been given high relief in the last four years. And then questions were raised additionally with respect to this election, which deepened the concern of many people about whether or not we can assure the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the governed and the acceptance of the results of elections.
Several weeks ago, we stood in great admiration as a nation behind the people of Ukraine as they took to the streets to demand that they be given the right to an election where every vote was counted. In a few weeks, we're going to see an election in Iraq. And we know that there are people literally dying in Iraq for the right to cast a free vote. I am very proud of our country that we have stood with Ukrainians, Iraqis and others around the world, but increasingly, I worry that if this body, this Congress, doesn't stand up on a bipartisan basis for the right to vote here at home, our moral authority will be weakened. I take that very seriously.
This year, we will celebrate the anniversary of the voting rights act, and it will be an opportunity for us to take a look at this landmark legislation and determine how we're going to move it into the 21st century so that it really stands for what it was intended to do when it was first passed. I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of the election because I still think the best rule in the politics is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I worry whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration or a local, county, state or federal election that we are on a slippery slope as a nation.
My colleagues, Senator Boxer, and I along with former Senator Bob Graham of Florida introduced legislation last year to try to assure a verifiable paper audit. We didn't get anywhere with that. We didn't get a hearing before the rules committee. I would hope that the distinguished chair of the rules committee would hold such a hearing this year. Because if we can go buy a lottery ticket or go to a bank and get an ATM deposit, then we know we can use an electronic transfer mechanism that gives us a record.
Last spring, India had an election and 550 million or so people voted from the dot-com billionaire to the poor, illiterate peasant. They all voted. Mr. President, they voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety and security and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election. The result was shocking-they threw out the existing government. Nobody predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity. Surely, we should be setting the standards. I would hope that this body, and thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which has started today will continue.
Fine... they want a verifiable paper audit trail, let's oblige them. Another issue the Democrats won't be able to run on in 2006.
Yes, irony at it's best.
Only one problem--how would you deal with military voters? Many military people don't have addresses within their district of registration. I've been thinking, maybe absentee voters should have to send in a signed copy of their ID along with their ballot. Also, everyone showing up to vote should have to show ID to verify that they are the person listed on the poll roster. And there needs to be a national clearinghouse, to cross-reference names and make sure that when a person registers in a new district, their registration is cancelled in the old district.
As for writing or calling our representatives--my representatives are Feinstein and Boxer (despite my actual location). Feinstein might pay attention to a plea for reform--but Boxer? Is it worth contacting her, knowing she'll ignore my concern (as she has done in the past)?
Bumping your post!
ping
Hillary can reference the exemplary voting record of New york's orthodox jewry, after an executive pardon is granted to several of their own, as her vision for a perfect democracy at work.
She's holding back. She's leading up to the right moment to reintroduce the idea of abandoning the Electoral College. The Democrats can't get the whitehouse back unless they gerrymander our election system. So that they'll try to do.
Dubya should come out smiling, agree that voting irregularities in 04 are very troubling, and then start talking about the WA Governor's race and the need for voter ID.
Newt is a staple on Fox. He is trying to farm himself out to CNN MSNBC and anyplace else he can make a buck. The MSM is on the decline so making his image more in tune with the MSM is just stupid.
These dummycrats complaining about in Ohio some districts have only 1 voting machine. I wonder if these districts had more when Clinton won both times?
Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that we live in a representative republic where laws are decided by representatives, not by the citizens themselves. Still, it is critical that those citizens are able to exercise the right to vote that the Constitution guarantees them.
Two months after the election, it would likely take proof of widespread, centrally-planned voter fraud for any serious discussion of challenging the result. Even if that did occur (which seems very unlikely), it could likely never be proved. However, there is no reason why we should not decrease the possibility for fraud in the next election. For one thing, nobody should have to stand in line for over an hour to vote. Many working people simply cannot afford to stand in line that long (and likely did not). This opens the door for partisan election officials to purposely manufacture such waits.
In addition, something needs to be done to create a paper trail or otherwise validate electronic voting. Stuffing a ballot box in the old days required thousands of paper ballots. Doing so on an electronic voting machine requires one to simply change a few bits.
L.O.L......Hillary where are you????
Hey!...Hillary...If you want to see voter fraud on a grand scale...come to Washington State!!!....
Provisional ballots is a prime example. Let the individual states set their standards and deal with the fallout. That ridiculous measure just made more of a mess. As planned, IMHO.
We had the same number of voting booths we always do. Turnout in our precinct was HUGE. I don't see any way the election officials could have avoided a long wait for voters, since they aren't psychic.
This was the largest turnout I have ever seen since I began voting in 1972, and I have voted in every election since then.
The RATs are going to introduce legislation to make it easier to cheat
This is part of a carefully thought out, post-Florida 2000 strategy to discredit simple arithmetical counting of real votes by legal voters as the cast-iron bottom line of who wins and who loses.
What the real leaders of Boxer's silly little tantrum seek is twofold: First, that people wake up the day after an election, with all the votes counted, and say "I wonder who really won?"
Second, the proliferation of laws for election contests, ballot challenges, election courts and election judges. They want to put elections under the direct control of the Federal government unstead of under the unreviewable control of the People in their localities.
The reason they want this is simple: It's much easier for them to prevail in the courts or in a protracted, lawyer-driven "post-election" process than it is on election day.
It was insanity to collaborate in the "Help America Vote Act" to fix fictitious problems with the Florida 2000 vote. The only problem in Florida was that the democrats lost, and lacked the post-election cheating tools to recover in time.
NOW, they are willing to try to discredit a 100 000+ vote win, while affirming their 100-vote win in WA as sacrosanct.
This is going to get worse and worse, no doubt with the help of stupid Congressional Republicans.
There are no problems with the voting.
There are no problems with the voting.
There are no problems with the voting.
No one who works should have to stand in line for an hour to vote? I would certainly hope you are kidding.
National elections occur once every four years. If a voter is so uninterested in the process that standing in line for over an hour is just too strenuous, I would argue that we do not need that person's vote.
There should be a LITTLE effort put into the voting process and I think people who are shown to put in that effort, such as standing line for a lengthy period of time, are typically committed and informed voters. Just the kind we actually want voting.
As well, this was the highest turnout we've ever had in this country and that should be applauded.
"For one thing, nobody should have to stand in line for over an hour to vote"
Not really - the whole issue of waiting in line somehow being a reason to question the validity of an election is a recent liberal invention. People willingly wait in line for lots of other things, like rides at Disney land, or tickets at Fenway Park, so what's wrong with waiting to vote?
Its also not possible to control how long the waiting line at a polling place is, unless you restrict when people are allowed to come to the polls and that would be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to vote! If lots of people decide to arrive at the same time - say 8:30 on the way to work - you get a line. Just like you've probably noticed that highways around major cities get kind of crowded in the morning. And nobody seems to mind waiting in a line of cars for an hour to get to work.
If you don't want to wait in line go to the polling place when its not as crowded, like mid day.
No matter how many voting booths you have, and how many election day staff you still need to process each voter - mark off their registration, give them a ballot, etc.
At our polls on November 2nd people lined up 1/2 hour before the polls opened, and there were perhaps 100 people in line when the doors opened. How would it be possible for them not to have to wait in line???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.