Voter confidence is at stake as we elect a president
Published August 1, 2004
Re: Touch screen opponents are great at ignoring facts, by Howard Troxler, July 25.
I believe Howard Troxler's article about the concern over touch-screen voting machines was a poor representation of the facts because there are a number of facts on this that show we should be concerned. Here are just a few he did not cover:
Nearly every computer expert who has looked into this issue has said that the "potential" for serious errors or even fraud is quite evident in these machines.
A recent study by the Sun-Sentinal showed that in the March election, Florida counties that used these machines produced eight times as many undervotes as counties using optical scan machines (Hillsborough had 5.5 times as many undervotes). These machines are used primarily in more heavily populated counties that tend to vote Democratic, while the more reliable optical scan machines (with a paper trail) are used in the Republican-leaning rural counties.
When you consider these few facts with the numerous stories about voting problems in the 2000 election and what was being seen by many as a deliberate attempt by Gov. Jeb Bush's office to gain advantage with the seriously flawed voter felon list (which purged far more legal voters than felons) you can see why some might be a little concerned.
This is perhaps the most important presidential election in our history, but what will be more important than the accuracy of the results is the confidence of the public that those results are accurate. That confidence was lost in 2000 and we must get it back.
-- Terry Regan, Tampa
Humans are tampering types
Re: Touch screen opponents are great at ignoring facts.
If Howard Troxler understands what it takes to ensure that voting machines could be made completely honest, I'm sure he has an edge on most of us. Not many people have enough technical knowledge to program their remotes let alone begin to understand how their vote could be changed by a machine. Is it possible to have a machine work in one way and then during a specific time work in another way? I think a VCR can do that.
I'd love to assume that people in a position to possibly alter the voting would never be so dishonest as to give it a thought. Or can we believe that people in high places never take chances for their own greedy gains? Who's going to be the next CEO to be marched off to prison? So there goes the theory that they will be honest just because they might get caught. Politics can be a dirty business.
I hate what sounds like conspiracy theories as much as the next person. But isn't some of that born from the fact that we are constantly faced with one disapppointment after another regarding the conduct of our fellow human beings? We've all been barraged by more information than we can comprehend and a lot of it that we wished we never had to see. But as far as the election goes, there are still some of us that want to see it done right.
-- Russ Kelley, Largo
Take voting seriously
Re: Touch screen voting flaws ignored, July 21.
It seems some people take my vote as insignificant. How can people entrusted with guarding my right to vote and to have that vote counted simply ignore problems with the system that is in place?
When I was in the military I voted by absentee ballot, which is not as simple as going to a polling place. You have to have others to witness that you voted and sign the document before it can be submitted. When I was in college my relatives drove me across Massachusetts in a snow storm in relay fashion and I got to my polling place and voted. I have stood in the New England cold, in sleet, to wait my turn to cast my ballot.
I take voting seriously. Why do some of our elected officials have a problem with being as serious and dedicated in their responsibility to ensure my vote and every person's vote is counted?
There is no insignificant vote. Democracy is not a spectator sport.
-- Frank Donnellan, St. Petersburg
Defend society's building block
Re: Pandering politicians' wedge du jour.
Though I don't always agree with Martin Dyckman's opinions, I enjoy reading them because his well-reasoned arguments serve to elucidate opposing viewpoints. His July 25 column in support of same-sex marriage failed to accomplish that.
I was most surprised by his first point, that same-sex marriages cannot hurt his marriage or anyone else's. Because it is a fallacious argument, I haven't heard anyone opposed to same-sex marriage actually use it. The only people I've heard use it are those who try to make the opposition look foolish. That is not a tactic I associate with Mr. Dyckman.
He goes on to say that the concept of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman is a fairly recent development. It is not a recent development in our society. It always has been the accepted concept of marriage, and that, to me, is the point we should be discussing.
The family unit of man, woman, child has been the building block of our society. Can we alter the basic nature of our building block without changing the nature of the structure? Dyckman points out that marriage does not necessitate children. Ideally, though, children necessitate marriage. Some will be quick to say that few things are ideal. Is that reason enough to disregard the ideal? A mother and father each provide different kinds of nurturing and strengths for a child. Children receive much of their self-image and feelings of worth from the combination of both mother and father. We give thanks when we see examples of children who turn out well even though such optimum conditions were not present, but we all know there are many who suffer deep emotional pain that afflicts them forever. Should we not do all we can to provide and facilitate the optimum situation for children?
Each of us should show compassion to every person we encounter, but that does not mean we should keep silent about something that could undermine a stable foundation for future generations.
The advent of same-sex marriages will have little impact on me and my immediate family, but conscientious citizens should view social trends with vision that goes beyond the limited world of me and mine. Good public policies are those which benefit our society as a whole.
-- Lynda Haislip, Palm Harbor
A sign of positive change
Thank you for Martin Dyckman's July 25 column, Pandering politicians' wedge du jour. It's about time someone pointed out that the current legal concept of marriage as a contract between two (different-sexed) partners is not, as conservative politicians are so fond of saying, an institution that has been unchanged for thousands of years. If the framers of the Constitution had included a definition of marriage, it would not have mentioned "the union of one man and one woman." Instead, it would have been something about property rights (a husband's ownership over his wife and the right of his "legitimate" children to inherit his property). And it almost certainly would have prohibited so-called "race mixing."
Over time, our society's marriage laws changed to give women the status of full-fledged human beings, able to enter into marriage contracts of our own free will, not just as property changing hands. In another leap forward, laws banning interracial marriage were dropped from the books. Both of these changes revolutionized the definition of marriage. And today, no respectable politician advocates turning back the clock to strip women or racial minorities of the civil right to marry whomever they choose.
But back in their day, both of these legal advances were met by the same sort of political grandstanding and doomsday predictions about the collapse of civilized society that we are hearing now in regard to same-sex marriage. So I consider the "pandering politicians' " diatribes against same-sex marriage to be a positive sign, a sign that yet another bigoted law is on its way to the junk heap of history.
-- R.M. Thorn, Riverview
To really defend marriage
With all the problems facing our country this year, the Republicans run on a phony defense-of-marriage issue.
This administration should get its priorities straight. If administration officials really wanted to defend marriage, we would have an affordable national health care plan. Medical bills are the single largest cause of bankruptcies in this country, and by extension, divorce. When families have stable, good-paying jobs, they stay together, and we're a stronger country.
-- Richard Chapman, Holiday
[Last modified July 31, 2004, 23:50:19]
