Get Fucking Over It
 

This can't make a difference in this election, and everyone knows that. But, there is significant angst about Ohio's voting problems in some circles (although there is significant ignorance of the reasons) and it's probably important to have this national debate just to let people feel like their issue has been raised, however cursory in scope. For the price - two hours of debate - it's far better to do this, and move on. Had this debate NOT occurred, we'd be listening to "they swept it under!!!" for four more years.

Gonzales hearings
 

From Scrappleface:

• Gonzales Won't Answer, Cites Geneva Conventions
  by Scott Ott
  
  (2005-01-06) -- Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's Attorney General nominee, told the Senate Judiciary Committee today that he would state only his name, rank, date of birth and Air Force serial number, which is all that is required under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
  
  Mr. Gonzales, who faces criticism from Democrat senators over a memo he wrote seeking to clarify whether the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspects, refused to answer further questions from committee members at his confirmation hearing.
  
  White House spokesman Trent Duffy said President Bush hopes Senators will, at least, treat Mr. Gonzales according to Article 14 of the Third Geneva Convention, which states: "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. "
  
  Mr. Gonzales' refusal to answer Senators' questions did not affect the committee's inquiry, which consists primarily of speeches to a gathering of journalists.

Get Fucking Over It
 

It is for you guys. You aren't the sore losers here. Even Hank is scoring points off this one, despite his recent slump which saw him reduced to "the Clintons will kill me if I back up my point" argumentation.

It would have been better to raise the point and move on. Boxer is using Jo Galloway trial tactics.

You'll hear it anyway. What else do we have to talk about?

Get Fucking Over It
 

No, I do think this moves things in a better direction than not, even for Dems. Even though the results won't change, no one should have to stand in line for seven hours to vote for prez. No election should be untraceable due to paperless results. There are good points being made here, and this is the only "right" time during which they can be made with any passion and weight. I don't think the Dems suffer for this at all.

Andrea Yates
 

OK, how about just cases where the death penalty is sought? That's where resources are being spent on appeal. 'Twould be better to get it right the first time.

Andrea Yates
 

Agree. Completely. (Or, better, spend nothing on death penalty cases - get rid of it.)

Get Fucking Over It
 

It figures that you would agree with Barbara Boxer.


Wait. I'm confused.

Get Fucking Over It
 

It's a knee-jerk thing with me.

(There are problems with our election process and the attendant tools. But, there was no fraud, no conspiracy, no intent to screw - hell, most of the problems occurred under the supervision of Democrat officials. Still, we should fix the problems. )

Get Fucking Over It
 

I was going to disagree with your prior post, which I thought was suggesting that raising all this was good as catharsis so we don't have to hear the fringe types (not in that sense, fringey) bitching about this for years. Disagree with that idea, since they'll bitch anyway. But agree completely with you here. Elections maybe work better than we expect them to, given that they are run only sporadically by county and municipal governments. If there's a time to fix things, now is it.

eta: Who put something in my drinking water? Or bilmore's?

Get Fucking Over It
 

I have generally been of the "come the paperless revolution" persuasion, particularly with respect to lawyering (where computing seems to have produced vastly more, not less, paper, sigh) but also generally, including with respect to voting. However, I have been set on my back foot by the fact that every last "computer guy" I have talked to about it insists that, knowing what they do about computers, they will never, never, never agree to vote electronically and will always insist on voting by paper ballot.

Get Fucking Over It
 

In past lives I've written source code for programable controllers and computers. I will never, ever, ever, ever agree to vote on anything significant electronically. (Just to add to your anecdotal weight.)

Get Fucking Over It
 

I can understand that. I'm curious -- does the answer change if the result includes a printout of your selections, which can establish a hard-copy record?

I know that such an approach sorta makes the savings and speed advantages moot, but it does help ameliorate the fraud/bugs problems, and the hanging chad/no bubbles-filled-in problems.

Get Fucking Over It
 

Not at all. Easiest thing in the world to throw in a command that takes every tenth or fiftieth vote for John Doe and prints it out accurately but clicks one more vote for Joe Blow in the internal tabulator instead. That form of paper trail is useless unless, for a recount, you can get everyone who voted to show up again with their printed receipt for counting.

Get Fucking Over It
 

Perhaps then a system which prints out the ballot (which is the official ballot), which the election officials keep, and then it's scanned to calculate the totals. Seems like electronics can help deal with the problem of people who don't understand or can't read or fill out a ballot the way they wanted to -- something that tells Grandma "You voted for Buchanan, you nitwit. Are you sure you meant to do that?"

Get Fucking Over It
 

We have an election that was won by 42 votes here in Harris County. One of the nice things about the recount was that it got to demonstrate to everyone that our electronic voting system (called eSlate) DOES generate a paper record. Of course the asshole Republican wouldn't let it go and has asked the legislature to overturn the entire election based on unspecified allegations of voter fraud and the hearing will be January 27.