Both the P-I and the Times have articles today about the impending end of poll voting. Both articles are mostly about elderly poll worker and voters waxing nostalgic about the end of what is portrayed as a quaint and antiquated tradition, never mind that we're losing a more reliable and accurate way to vote.
The articles are so similar, one gets the impression these articles were "suggested" by the Elections P.R. folks to help prepare the public for the brave new world of forced mail voting.
Wouldn't it be nice if our "real" journalists did a little real work to report on the underlying and not entirely public-minded agendas and motivations of the dishonest election administrators and dishonest partisan politicians who are pushing us needlessly into mail-only voting? And no, it is not because mail voting is any less expensive or more reliable or more secure. The opposite is true. The Democrats like Julia Patterson like it because they think it will help them tweak up their vote count, legitimate or otherwise. That's why the leadership is moving full speed ahead with what fair-minded grassroots Democrats call the "reckless plan" for forced mail voting. Sam Reed's motivations are different -- he likes it, I gather, because it helps election administrators do their jobs without the burden of so much transparency and public involvement. Also, it creates more union jobs and more need for procurement, so more opportunities for patronage and campaign contributions. And frankly, I'm not convinced that Reed is bright enough to realize how destructive his push for mail voting has been to himself, his party and to public trust in elections. But it's not an accident that the trashiest and most partisan of Democrats are celebrating Reed as their useful idiot?
It would be nice if "real" journalists did some real work and analysis on this sort of crap, but I've learned not to expect as much.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 06, 2007 04:34 PM | Email This