Considering the historical relevance, I can see where these things would be a bit of a collector's item, especially in a few decades after everyone who expects them to be collector's items buys them and then throws them away in a few years.
quote:Originally posted by euphorbia "historical relevance"??
we still use them...we donít have enough liberals or democrats in our county to warrant nice new voting machines I guess...our vote is not as equal as thereís apparently.
this subject makes me mad
Election reform is not likely soon
'There is a lack of consensus' about what to do
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
By LARA JAKES
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Nearly a year after the presidential ballot-count debacle in Florida, few changes have been made to election laws and little is likely to happen before next year's congressional elections or even the presidential race in 2004, experts said yesterday.
"A lot has been done. Very little has changed," said Doug Chapin, director of the Washington-based Election Reform Project, which is funded by the University of Richmond and the Pew Charitable Trusts.
He was referring to the long list of recommendations made by blue-ribbon panels and bills introduced in the House and Senate as a result of last year's ballot recount debacle in Florida. The race between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore was extended by 36 days by court challenges and recounts of confusing ballots in Florida.
"There isn't a lack of commitment and there isn't a lack of will to make voting reforms," Chapin said. "But there is a lack of consensus about what should be done."
At the heart of the issue is disagreement -- mostly between federal lawmakers and their state and county counterparts -- over whether nationwide standards should be put in place to create a uniform election system. Elections currently are administered by state and local officials -- meaning that voting regulations, ballots and polling times generally vary from city to city or state to state.
"This is probably the largest sticking point," said Michael Davidson of the Constitution Project, a non-profit group that examines controversial legal and constitutional issues. "The dialogue has not moved a whit."
By and large, federal lawmakers balk at funding local election systems without simultaneously enacting national standards; state and county officials who have long clamored for much-needed financial aid to boost their balloting plans bristle at being given congressional mandates.
"There are already millions of unfunded mandates" from Washington that local election officials must abide by, said Cameron Quinn of the Virginia State Board of Elections. Moreover, she said, election boards are among the lowest priorities for budget officials. "Typically, elections are not as sexy as roads and education," she said.
Proposals to revamp the election system have run the gamut, from establishing a national ballot and uniform polling hours to replacing all antiquated voting methods with high-tech polling machines. The plan with the most momentum -- at least before the Sept. 11 terror attacks -- was a bill sponsored by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., to give states and localities $2.5 billion over five years to voluntarily upgrade voting procedures and technology.
But such measures have now been pushed aside, probably for the remainder of the year, as the government focuses on counterterrorism efforts. That means that the flawed election system now in place will still be in effect for the House and Senate races in 2002, said congressional scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
Already, there is a "sense that that window of opportunity has closed" for 2002, Mann said. "And the odds of changing the system that most Americans viewed as unacceptable has come and gone."
Quinn said there was great doubt among her elections boards colleagues that widespread and meaningful changes in the law won't be hammered out for many years to come. Creating a better ballot, for example -- in part by abolishing the punch-card system that created havoc in Florida -- "will not be out by next year, not by '04 -- but perhaps by '08 or '10," Quinn said.
Davidson said he does not envision a change before the next presidential election.
Chill, girlie. As much as I know you love to harp on this subject, you only make yourself look even more foolish for denying the historical relevance of those machines. Regardless of the imbeciles who used them, they played a big part in a wierd little segment of history. Their (in)accuracy (whatever the color of your pajamas may be) is not the issue here. Duh.
But then again, you are such a fervent believer in what you believe that I should be ashamed for thinking that you would be able to see that.
what I believe....foolish? MY POINT IS WE ARE STILL USING THE FUCKING MACHINES HERE SO THEY ARE NOT SO HISTORIC...nutri, I donít want to be caustic every time I talk to you...that would be unfortunate but this is the second time you have come in to a thread and called me a fucking name right off the bat in the last week...I hate being talked down to, hate holier than thou people even more...is this a new level for us?
Just because you still use a really old building doesn't make that building not historic, ya know?
Fact 1: We had a huge fucking mess last election, the likes of which were unheard of and unimaginable up to that point.
Fact 2: The voting machines were blamed for it, at least partially. (note: whether the machines actually were at fault or whether it was was user error has NO (nada, zilch, none, nyet, etc, etc) bearing on this fact.)
Fact 3: These machines are now for sale, and (sub-fact 3:) may perhaps develop collectible value due to their role in the neverending comedy we call 'politics.'
Now, dear euphorbia, I told you that you appeared foolish because you choose to go off on a politically motivated rant regarding fact number 2, an act that made you look like a raving right wing lunatic instead of the well reasoned intelligent person that we all know that you are.
I don't appreciate your threats to come down caustic on me everytime. I failed to realize that you are such a fragile wit that you can't handle common discussion about such points. I figured you and I were good enoughs friends to be able to talk back and forth with different opinions without devolving into the arrogant, mindless, feces throwing that so many conversations with you tend to do. You should no that I am not a flamer and don't look to take people down like that. My comment was never intended as an insult, simply an observation.
Christ. Knock the chip off your shoulder, sell it as a door stop, and use that money to go buy a goddamned sense of humor. Chill out and be cool, baby.
(PS: where was the other thread where I was derogatory towards you? I faintly remember it, but can't remember exactly)