Don’s Random Thoughts

Here we go for a third election here in Santa Clara County using electronic voting. We still do not have a paper trail (as in “capable of being audited”) to allow for a true recount. Why is this? Why would the people in charge of elections chose a system that doesn’t provide it. ITS CRIMINAL in my opinion! These same machines are used all over the country.
When Mr Bush was “re-elected” last year, why is it that, evidently, the exit pole numbers differed from the election results by approximately 5% only where there was electronic voting without a paper trail? There were reports of machines having vote counts in them before the polls opened. Again in today’s election, when our governator, Mr Schwarzenegger, tried to cast his vote he was told he had already voted. Supposedly his name was used to “test” the system? If thats so, why did the data still exist when it should have been cleared before the election? How many other votes pre-existed? Did his previous vote get removed?
This worries me greatly. This used to be a democratic government. If the votes don’t really count then democracy doesn’t exist. What really amazes me is that we have more security in our state lottery results that we do with our voting system.
It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

***** A Better IDEA *****

Here is what I think would make for an honest election that every voter could have confidence in. First, let me say, I’m a believer in electronic voting, I just think the system has to be designed properly. The current systems are not.
The key is for a voter to be able to verify that their vote exists in the data and that the choices are the ones they made. Further, the public should be able to see all the votes, download the data and perform their own counts if they desire.
This can be accomplished quite easily while still providing anonymous voting. It would allow for a means for any citizen to challenge the vote results, with proof.
Obviously, the key is a trail. When you vote, you get a printed ticket with a vote ID number and the vote choices. There would not be a relation between the voter and the vote ID just a ticket with the votes and an ID number. The voter, or anyone else, would immediately be able to check the votes via the Internet by browsing to a page showing a group of vote ID numbers and the votes each recorded. In fact, all vote data could be seen and downloaded for analysis. The key to anonymity is that no one could identify who voted, only the votes that were cast. That is, except for the fact that a voter could confirm their own vote using the ID number on their ticket. No one could monitor who browsed where and use it to identify how they voted because the data would only be presented in groups of votes. Only the voter would now which was their vote. The voter could then confirm that the choices were their own choices. If not, then hang the Chief of Elections and hold another election. Another key to this is that voters take the responsibility to check their vote results to confirm their vote was actually counted. Any voter could download the data and make their own count and check the results against the reported results.
This would not limit who manufactures the voting machines, they should all be designed to the same standard. The data is what is important. Even more importantly, the validity and honesty of the results is what is important.
There are probably other methods that would work as effectively but can anyone explain to me why we ended up with the systems we have. They are so obviously weak in providing any of the capabilities needed to insure an honest election, which I would have thought was the entire purpose.

What ever happened to debates? A good debate can really help in seeing something more clearly. In days of old, politicians debated and the voters were able to understand the thinking of the polititions better. Now days, we get sound bites and advertisements neither of which do anything to enlighten the listener. The former is the result of lazy news people, the later an attempt by the advertiser to confuse the voter. Neither is a good thing.
This came to mind yesterday while watching a program on NBC from Los Angeles where the Governator of California responded to questions from the news people and audience during the first half hour of the show. Then, in the second half hour, the opposition to the Governator did the same. Why not a debate Mr Governator, unless you don’t really understand your proposals well enough to debate them?

I’ve tried to keep politics out of my travel blog. I now think that’s been a big mistake. Too many people must be doing the same or we wouldn’t have a “president” like Bush. So, I created this blog for my thoughts. Not all entries are anti Bush, but there will be a lot. This is the first entry.
Why protect a corrupt government by listening to its hype. The incompetent and co-conspiring press that has ignored important stories, failed to do its own investigation, failed to hold government accountable and has become too “embedded” with this countries greatest enemy, our own politicians. It is time to kick the money grubbers out of government and into prison in many cases. Government should serve the “people” not the contributors.
Is the direction of this entry clear yet?
I’m quite upset about governmental response to the recent weather event in New Orleans. We’ve had more than 3.5 years to prepare for “events” like 9/11 and any other type of disruption. Most of the budget has been spent in preparation, almost everything that hasn’t been flushed into Iraq. Government agencies have been restructured to help in this effort. Most such events will not come with multi-days to respond like the approach of a hurricane. If this is how we respond with such extended warning, how will we fare for an “unscheduled” event? The response is extremely embarrassing. Mr. Bush demonstrated his great concern by flying out of town as fast as he could and not returning for days. He did get back before the first federal response was apparent three and a half days later?
While the press fails to adequately investigate and report the failings of the administration, they are more efficient than the administration. Reporters had no problem being on the scene the next morning. Perhaps government needs to be run by reporters rather than politicians? I know there’s a slight conflict in this thinking but how could they do worse?
I’m from Northern California so my politics may not be too surprising. I am grossly anti-Republican, because they seem to be totally against the ideals for which this country was founded. The Republican politicians seem to be very adept at saying one thing and doing the opposite. They are very good salesmen. If you are a non-politician Republican, this doesn’t mean I hate you, only that I think you are misinformed and blinded by the hype. You don’t have to dig deep to find the difference in what is said and what “is”. (Isn’t it odd that many Republicans found Bill Clintons statement that “it depends on what the definition ‘is’ is” to be a problem in his character?). Our current administration plays with what “is” more than any administration before it and the press doesn’t even question them. The current administration appears to not even care what “is”. What they say has no relationship to what “is”. Clinton, on the other hand, knew the definition and could even spell “is
There is lots more to say but I think I’ll stop here for now. But I must ask you to “question authority” it isn’t un-American, it is the responsibility of all citizens! Defend your rights against those who say “trust me.”