Here's the thing, Hube. The system is scary as all hell, and it's one of those arguments that there is no "other side" to.

Computer science folks I know at Carnegie Mellon (one of the nation's top CS schools) just laugh at the notion that these systems are safe, or that it would take some sort of vast conspiracy to mess with a few key precincts. Either side could mess with results. Yet it's pretty damning that one party supports a simple paper trail, and the other one doesn't.

How can the GOP opposition to transparency be explained?

Voting integrity should be important to everyone. But just in case I hereby complain about voting [machine] irregularities and/or voter disenfranchisement.

I think it will take less than two hours for President Bush to label the new incoming Democrats as "obstructionists".

Of course, Bush could be like the liberals and spend 6 years taking NO stance on any issue.

The fat cats in my Republican party are going to take their lumps, as they should. They have made a mess of their time in power. If by some freak accident they keep both houses, they had better count their blessings and start keeping their collective nose clean.

Actually, Hube, the complaining has already begun. The story does make one point that most people overlook: "Perhaps the biggest fallacy in this debate is the notion that elections were perfect before Congress decided to hold them on computers. They weren't. 'Stuffing the ballot box' is not an expression from the world of fiction."

I'm not opposed to reform, but I'm curious why it's a new issue for some people. Actually, that's partially incorrect--I know exactly why it's a new issue for some people. Not all, but some.

dan: It's also quite telling what party is opposed to mandated photo ID -- given FREE at state cost -- in order to vote. Why is this, dan?

And what you say MAY be accurate (that the GOP is the party that doesn't care about "transparency"), but you can bet your bottom dollar that when the Dems get in control, this won't even BE an issue anymore. Wanna take me up on that? And Unabrewer is dead right -- it doesn't even need to take computer voting to enable Dem complaining. Look at 2000 in Florida, just to name one.

(Nevertheless, danny, see yonder "Verified Voting" image on the right-hand side? See how reasonable I am -- and I just didn't add that last night, y'know. Maybe you can start vouching for mandated picture ID at the voting station, eh?) ;-)

"How can the GOP opposition to transparency be explained?"

Dan, how can liberals oppose voter IDs?

Jason, I know you speaking tongue in cheek, but I love the term voter disenfranchisement. Basically, if someone doesn't come with a van and drive certain people to the polls, they have been disenfranchised. I live and vote in Philly. If you want to see real "disenfranchisement" wear a republican pin in a union neighborhood. I have been threatened, stopped and even told that I "wouldn't be voting with my hands, if I tried to enter."
I have seen elderly women screamed and cursed at, and elderly men threatened and intimidated. All of this is done by democratic unions, and it happens every time there is an election.
Disenfranchisement is a two-way street; it’s just the coverage on it that’s one way.

I can't wait to tell you about my trials at the polls while wearing my Swann and Santorum pins. Both of these guys have no chance, yet I will be threatened, bullied and possibly even assaulted by drunken union workers all in the name of democracy.

I must have been adding my comments while Hube put his up. However, the point still stands.

What about voter IDs?

God forbid you actually have to prove who you are and where you live! How racist!

Digby,

Santorum? Do me a favor and put you hand on here on this pile of newspapers so I don't get blood everywhere when I hit it with a hammer. Yes. Right here. Thanks.
.
.
.
(WHACK!)

Now vote for Swann with the other hand. He was the man catching those passes. Poetry in motion.

I'm fine with voter ID's. Ooooooh, the crazy liberal shocks and amazes again! Whatever partisan arguments can be made about ID's don't even come close to the simple, untraceable damage that can be done by tampering with these machines. The liberals should propose that trade right now: Diebold transparency for Voter ID. Ya think the GOP will agree? Hmm, I wonder.

You fine with people taking the freakin' voting machines HOME WITH THEM, without oversight? Given that you can program those machines to change, say, every 20th vote from one party to the other -- with hardly any work at all? Saw that little gem on Lou Dobbs' show. But that lifelong Republican is probably too much of a "tin foil hat wearer" for this crowd.

And Hube---putting that little icon on your site doesn't innoculate you from criticism when you then make fun of the very issue you're supposedly "supporting"!!

Both of these guys have no chance, yet I will be threatened, bullied and possibly even assaulted by drunken union workers all in the name of democracy.

And it's the liberal posters around these parts who get lambasted for "hyperbole."

dan: Your high horse has become extremely tiresome. Did you read Unabrewer's comments? Do you know how many conservatives support verified voting?

Are you fine with people having voting booths IN THEIR HOMES, danny boy?? WITHOUT OVERSIGHT?? The fact is, your liberal damage to the voting process has been going on A LOT LONGER than the potential problems w/Diebold and whatnot, yet there has been nary a PEEP from you and yours. So GET BENT you friggin' phony "middle of the road I'm oh-so reasonable holier than-thou pop-instead-of-soda" sayer. I've had it to up to here w/it. Any attempt whatsoever at a middle road from me is constantly met w/disdain from you -- even outright defenses (by me) of, if not your position, you, personally. The FACT is that even though there are potential problems w/Diebold, my post here does not necessarily address that specifically; indeed, as mentioned, look at Florida where your Democrat brethren proved too big brow-ish to even READ a ballot -- or punch a ballot -- correctly and look what you all complained about.

I support verified voting in ALL its forms. Now maybe you'll put up a post about ACORN, right dan? Nah ... easier to make fun of Santorum and/or some "funny" post which someone might accidentally take as serious.

IOW, screw you.

Sorry you feel that way, Hube!

Yeah, I'll bet you are.

Hardly.