I would think any action taken to monitor the quality of the election process should naturally come out of the funding for general election procedures.
It shouldn't be up to private citizens to fund quality checks for this process - the funding should be available and budgeted at the outset. In general I've found that big business (and for purposes of this conversation government can be considered a big business) often fails to fund examination of the results of its projects. I may have missed something, but I've not heard anybody suggest that a full, three state recount is needed. I doubt it would even be useful as many of the potential problems occur before the ballots are tallied. Florida in 2000 is a good example I think. Yes, three newspapers spent six months recounting (I'm not sure of that, but I'll take your word on it). However many of the issues at hand then couldn't be addressed with a recount. Were voters disenfranchised by the "felon" list? Were the ballots confusing to seniors? A recount doesn't address those (and a myriad other) potential problems with the system. Personally I would like to see a sincere effort for the states to agree on a single, consistent, peer-reviewed election process. While I completely respect and support the state right to manage their own elections I find it ridiculous that we have literally hundreds of different systems to do the same task. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:135851 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
