You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #6: GO VIRGINIA! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
BPfaffenberger Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. GO VIRGINIA!
I love Virginia Martin's letter and her courage -- and I am grateful for her insight. I've been working on the history of lever voting machines and New York election law for some years now, and I find it illuminating to think of New York's elections as a system -- that is, a collection of components that have been adapted to each other so they work smoothly and achieve their purpose.

Lever voting machines represent an embodiment of the wisdom acquired in New York's century-long struggle to deal with unbelievably sweeping currents of social change (industrialization,urbanization, immigration) and the onset of world-class corruption. Virginia knows that, in every election, the procedures, laws, people, and machinery constitute a collectivity -- a system -- that bring the hard-won principles of that century of struggle to life: bipartisan observation of every process that could be corrupted, and above all else, a "get it right on election night" philosophy that refrains from projecting ambiguous election data into the volatile post-election environment.

Conceptualized as a system, there's no doubt in my mind that New York meets HAVA's requirements.

But there's more. It is clear from the plain text of HAVA that Congress intended HAVA's voting system requirements to be read very loosely. For example, one such requirement is that voters ought to be able to change their votes before finalizing them, which lever machines of course can do. But HAVA provides an exemption for centrally located optical scan systems, which do NOT provide voters an opportunity to remedy an error. This exemption says that the state just needs to educate voters about the need to be careful about overvoting.

Any reasonable person should be able to see, in light of the hugely fuzzy way that HAVA interprets its own requirements, that there's plenty of room for Virginia's interpretation.

--Bryan Pfaffenberger, Charlottesville, VA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC