Monday, November 06, 2006

Absentee Voting: When some of the votes aren't there

This is why I have not imbibed the Kool-Aid regarding the Diebold voting machines, and why I have ignored calls (even from Republicans) for voting by absentee ballot. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.)

It's certainly true that voters like no-excuses absentee voting for its convenience. "Forcing voters to go to the polls to cast their ballots is an antiquated, outdated, absurd practice," says Oren Spiegler, a Pennsylvania voter. But it comes at a price. Simply put, absentee voting makes it easier to commit election fraud, because the ballots are cast outside the supervision of election officials. "By loosening up the restrictions on absentee voting they have opened up more chances for fraud," Damon Stone, a former West Virginia election fraud investigator, told the New York Times.
I'm a believer in "Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot." While I'm getting no paychecks from Diebold, does anyone really think that electronic voting machines are less secure than those kludgy mechanical lever machines that Baltimore was using at least as recently as 1992? Those were easy to rig. And anytime you introduce paper into the mix, the chances of human error naturally increase. (Florida 2000, anyone?)

Wake me up when someone invents the 100% tamper-proof voting method. I'll be having a nice long nap.