Still waiting....
On 11/19/07 7:11 PM, "Booth Martin" <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A fairly new thing I have seen (at least it seems new to me) is the idea
of putting forth a solution that has zero impact on the problem and then
pronouncing the problem fixed. The obsession with blaming illegals for
voting irregularities is typical.
The most recent of these so-called solutions is the Bush Plan to "fix"
flight delays at busy airports by temporarily allowing civilian planes
to be stacked in military airspace. The bottle neck is take-offs and
landings. How does more stack-space help that problem? It doesn't, but
GW is claiming that he's fixed the holiday flight problems. Yeah, right.
qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Chuck Lewis wrote:
You've had folks on the list who have worked it, say it isn't and you say
it's amazingly effective ?
Chuck:
Would you take a few moments to think over what you said, please?
What you're saying /might/ be paraphrased something like "There are
people on this list who directly witnessed voting irregularities."
If so, were such irregularities fixed? Were protests lodged by those
witnesses? Were reports of irregularities created, signed and
delivered to appropriate officials? (Ideally including the "loyal
opposition" and news outlets.) Was there followup to ensure
resolution? Note that a poll-watcher or precinct chairman or similar
would not be an appropriate official; a state-level Board of
Elections might be, as well as a State Attorney General perhaps. I
suppose it depends on the State.
Or were the irregularities simply allowed to continue with little
more than a few complaints? (Who then is to blame?)
And if it instead involved no irregularities but was purely a matter
of efficiency, maybe inefficiencies aren't necessarily bad. I'm no
fan of current attempts to improve efficiencies through use of
various "voting computers" with proprietary software.
Perhaps some time should be spent on agreeing on what "effective" means.
There are troublesome implications if members have been directly
involved in procedures with irregularities and their involvement did
not result in improvements where improvements seemed called for. One
aspect that's troubling to me is that there seems to be more passion
for blocking DLs for illegal aliens than there is for _fixing_ our
freakin' voting process. That makes zero sense to me. It's as if one
is utterly taboo but the other is kind of okay as long as you don't
get caught.
Tom Liotta
-----Original Message-----
Of course there is, Paul. All voter districts have a voter verification
process, and usually it is amazingly effective.
