[Winona Online Democracy]
Duane & Bob,
While I agree with Bob that the issue need to move forward to maintain the
fairness of voting in contested primaries and Metro verses Greater
Minnesota it is to me one that the Legislature has the public
responsibility to fund and correct the problem. The Metro or other
counties that have funded the scanners should be reimbursed. The counties
that might opt out should not be allowed to disenfranchise their
constituents on state elective offices therefore as a mandate of fairness
the state should fund. Large geographic counties such as St. Louis or
small counties like Red Lake should be equal when it comes to the voting
rights of their citizens.
We are not at consensus yet on the solution but are on everyone wanting
fairness to the voters. I just hope we don't have to agree on the color
and shape of the machines. :-)
Paul Double
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Duane Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:24:25 -0600
>Dear Bob, Your suggestion that we bring up the subject to the County Board
>may be the first deadly step toward consensus. What do you think, Paul, are
>we in deep trouble if we arrive at a consensus on this subject?
>From: "bobsebo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:47 PM
>> Paul...you make a very good point...I, for one, do not believe that the
>> Florida mess could happen in Minnesota, but there is always room for
>> improvement.
>>
>> You refer to the precinct-based vote tabulators that they use in the
>> twin cities...there was a major push early in her term by Mary Kiffmeyer
>> to encourage greater Minnesota to adopt these machines.
>> They are expensive, costing at least two or three thousand dollars
>> each...but as the seven county metro area gains clout in the state
>> legislature, we need to make sure that every rural Minnesota vote
>> counts. We did great in November in Winona County...not a single
>> spoiled ballot out of 25,000 cast, according to Cherie MacLennan...
>> but the new machines would help ensure good counts each time.
>>
>> It may have already been posted here, but I loved Molly Ivans'
>> take on the current system. "Did you know," she asks, "that
>> elections are run by our Grandparents and no one has bought them
>> any new equipment for 35 years?"
>>
>> Two counties in Wisconsin still use that 88 hole punch card they
>> used in Florida, they are not used in Minnesota. We have a good
>> system that could be better...and there is no more politically
>> opportune time to ask the county board (who better?) to make the
>> investment for all county precincts...we would be assured a more
>> accurate count, and we could all go to bed a little earlier, too...
>> those new machines keep running totals and just tell you the
>> results when polls close...the ballots are already read.
>>
>> God save the President-elect...whoever that may be. I will be
>> satisfied with whatever result if it is arrived at as prescribed
>> by the constitution. I have to admit, however, that one prospect
>> for resolution troubles me, even though I know it is constitutional.
>> The idea that a Republican majority in the Florida legislature
>> could simply choose to annul the election and name it's own slate
>> of electors to vote for George Bush...that may be constitutional,
>> but while that may have been palatable to our eighteenth century
>> founders, it does not conform to my twenty-first century ideas about
>> how a president is elected. I have no argument with federalism,
>> but the president should be elected by the people of the states,
>> not by legislators of those states...
>>
>> I would like to advocate for a constitutional amendment to direct
>> that electors be selected in a popular vote, but in general I am
>> opposed to tinkering with a document that has served us well all
>> these many years...this kind of situation probably won't be seen
>> for another 225 years.
>>
>> I would advocate for an equal rights amendment...but that's fodder
>> for a later discussion...
>>
>> Have a great day, all
>>
>> Bobb Sebo
>>
>> Paul Double wrote:
>> > While the nation looks at Florida raising questions of election
>procedures
>> > etc. we need to look at outstate Minnesota and the fact that in our
>primary
>> > election this year 20-30 percent of our ballots were rejected because
>they
>> > were not filled out incorrectly. This is not new but what is new is the
>> > fact that in the metro area scanners reviewed those ballots for
>correctness
>> > (no cross overs) and spit out the bad ballots to be redone until they
>are
>> > correct. Would this have changed the US DFL Senate race or any other
>> > contested Federal or State Constitutional Office race had the number two
>> > candidate been stronger in the rural area? What if the difference in
>vote
>> > count was 1000 votes with 20-30 percent of the thousands of non counted
>> > votes coming from Greater Minnesota where the number two was the
>strongest.
>> >
>> > Do we need to wait until we have a public problem, like Florida?
>> > Was the DFL Senate Primary Winner the true choice of all of Minnesota?
>> > Should the Legislature fund the machines so that all of Minnesota is
>heard
>> > not just the metro area?
>> > Will will support technology funding for the Minnesota Secretary of
>State
>> > efforts to get it right every time?
>> >
>> > Paul Double
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
