Although I’m not naive enough to think that voter fraud doesn’t occur, I’d like to go on the record as saying that I believe the outcome was legitimate on Tuesday. However, I am still distressed that there is no paper trail for some of these voting machines. It seems that a redudant electronic and paper trail would help immensely. Here’s a good overview article by the Economist from a couple months ago and another from earlier in the year.
Also, in the intro to Jay Nordlinger’s Impromptus on National Review Online, he writes:
The most disturbing aspect of the morning was the ease with which I voted — and I’m not talking about a laudable ease. I gave my name, gave my address, and that was it. No ID, no nothing. How did they know my name was Jay Nordlinger, and that I lived where I said I lived? True, I had to sign my name under a previous signature of mine — but such things are easy enough to copy. So too, I’m fairly sure I could have written “Mickey Mouse” and waltzed right in.
The whole setup seemed to me an invitation to fraud.
Speaking of which, an informed Michigan source told me they were “passing out provisional ballots like candy,” and, moreover, running them through — counting them as votes, contrary to the rules. This misbehavior was rampant, said my source, amazed and disgusted. I know that I, personally, as a citizen and as a journalist, have been far too ignorant about the mechanics of Election Day. If I had more discipline (and time), I would read John Fund’s Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
Maybe I will.
(This book he mentions is a partisan hackjob and is paired by Amazon.com with the extremely subtle: If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It by Hugh Hewitt. Hopefully, there are some more even-handed takes on election techonology out there. If anybody knows of any, let me know.
