Here's a comparison of ultra-mainstream media on the volatile issue of electronic voting machines and other election reforms. The NY Times today editorializes in favor of Rush Holt's bill to provide a voter-verified paper ballot, while the Post's David Broder praises a report that says not to worry about electronic voting machines.
The Times notes the lobbying effort going on right now:
The House resolution, sponsored by Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, would require not only paper trails, but also random audits of the machines' vote counts, and it would ban the use of undisclosed software. The bill, H.R. 550, has 135 co-sponsors, but it needs more support, especially from Republicans. The lobbying effort that wraps up today - which is supported by groups like Common Cause and the Electronic Frontier Foundation - is aimed at winning that backing. Every member of Congress who cares about American democracy should get behind Mr. Holt's bill.
Broder, the dean of national political reporters, has a column in yesterday's Washington Post that, among other things, highlights the issue of the Lobby Days on HR 550 taking place Thursday and Friday. He cites a report the rehashes the same old arguments against a voter-verified paper ballot.
Broder gives too much credence to a report by the Election Center about a variety of election issues. Broder says that the report "drew on the expertise of the men and women who actually run the voting process in this country". Well, that's fine to an extent, but these are also many of the people who created the mess of a voting system we now have and who have resisted change. And the Election Center's director, Doug Lewis, has been a leading opponent of providing a voter-verified paper ballot - instead he pushes the DRE's manfactured by the very companies who help fund the Election Center.
Broder, in his column, latches onto two ideas - lengthening Election Day, a good idea and centralized supersize voting centers, an idea that seems to be moving forward because it saves money, although many questions remain about them. For one, would fewer people vote if they had to travel further to vote? These centers solve some problems - like too few pollworkers - but they need further study before being put in place as is already happening in some states.
In the end, Broder says this report is worth paying attention to because it represents a consensus and compromise. Consensus with who? Sounds to me like it was put together by the usual suspect alliance of vendors and elections officials.
