I foolishly got in a discussion today about, of all things, the 2000 US presidential election. One thought led to another and now I just want to say this...
Every single time someone comes with an over the top charge, such as Bush "stealing" the 2000 election or that Bush thinks he's above the law with the NSA wiretaps or any of a dozen recurring refrains, it makes it that much harder to get people to take real problems seriously.
The hyperbole and rhetoric is great for energizing the opposition, but it's piss poor for actually getting any work done. Will the problems of the 2000 election be solved by the 2008 election? Were they solved by the 2004 election, or was it better politics to continue to undermine confidence in the democratic process by portraying Republicans as determined to cheat to win? Why wasn't more done to be sure that every legal voter gets to vote and has their vote counted?
What little I've heard about attempts to fix voting problems, the Republicans suggest reforms and the Democrats portray those reforms as racist and/or preferential to Republicans. How can plans to stop fraud and take accurate counts be preferential to Republicans? Yet it seems a matter of faith that Republicans are opposed to fair elections.
What are the 2006 elections going to look like? Will King County Washington have more votes than voters? Will enough voting machines be delivered to polling stations in Ohio?
Has anything been done to ensure that the election in 2008 has a high level of public confidence? Or is everyone too busy attacking Bush to do anything about that? Because I've got news for 'em. Bush isn't running for President in 2008. I realize this is a horrific shock, but no one is ever going to vote for him ever again.
Every single time someone comes with an over the top charge, such as Bush "stealing" the 2000 election or that Bush thinks he's above the law with the NSA wiretaps or any of a dozen recurring refrains, it makes it that much harder to get people to take real problems seriously.
The hyperbole and rhetoric is great for energizing the opposition, but it's piss poor for actually getting any work done. Will the problems of the 2000 election be solved by the 2008 election? Were they solved by the 2004 election, or was it better politics to continue to undermine confidence in the democratic process by portraying Republicans as determined to cheat to win? Why wasn't more done to be sure that every legal voter gets to vote and has their vote counted?
What little I've heard about attempts to fix voting problems, the Republicans suggest reforms and the Democrats portray those reforms as racist and/or preferential to Republicans. How can plans to stop fraud and take accurate counts be preferential to Republicans? Yet it seems a matter of faith that Republicans are opposed to fair elections.
What are the 2006 elections going to look like? Will King County Washington have more votes than voters? Will enough voting machines be delivered to polling stations in Ohio?
Has anything been done to ensure that the election in 2008 has a high level of public confidence? Or is everyone too busy attacking Bush to do anything about that? Because I've got news for 'em. Bush isn't running for President in 2008. I realize this is a horrific shock, but no one is ever going to vote for him ever again.
Comments
Here in California the secretary of state and the courts are deep into "fixing" the vote counting here.
Attention is being paid.
All we can do now is hope for the best.