>I would like to see some sort of feedback when I put my ballot in the
machine.
>The logistics of all of that and assuring people of their anonymity are not
>trivial, however.

The way our voting machines work, there should be no problem.  The ballot
has a unique number and it is assigned to me when I walk in.  I fill in the
ovals (optical recognition) and take my ballot to the "ballot box".  The
ballot is wrapped in a folder so it is kept private.  The attendant tears
off the unique number and the machine sucks in the ballot and spits it out
if the ballot is spoiled.  Your vote is counted and the ballot is sealed in
the machine.  The number of ballots in the box must be within the range of
the ballot numbers issued and the number of voters checked off on the
register.

>We obviously couldn't ensure voting the exact same way--after all, at least
>19,000 folks had better *not* vote the same way ;-), but we could ensure
that
>the same people voted.  They have to keep track of who voted to make sure
that
>no one voted twice.

You would think so, but that's not necessarily true either.  In Florida, if
you request an absentee ballot but you can still go to the polls and sign an
affidavit (called a 'blue-sheet' on the news) swearing you will not vote
twice, i.e. vote in person and send in your ballot.  I am not sure how they
can check this and maintain anonymity though.

>That being said, I concede the point about reopening the election.  Your
>arguments are good.  All the same, a run-off election (which is not the
same
>thing) would be a reasonable move in this case.  In that case you would
>definitely have the Buchanan and Nader (and other) voters voting for Bush
or
>Gore and having higher turnout would be fine.

Certainly a run-off is not the same thing.  A run-off would determine the
winner of a race with some of the candidates removed.  In this instance, we
don't care who wins the county, we want the actual vote count for the winner
of the state.  So in this case, it would essentially be reopening the
election.

>It also wouldn't, I think, engender the sort of legal games which you've
argued reopening an
>election would.

You faith in lawyers is far greater than mine.  Where there's a will,
there's a lawyer trying to screw someone out of money. ;-)

>What I was talking about was getting elected on a difference of 229 votes
out
>of 2 million with anywhere from 2,000 to 20,000 ballots in question.

There is no doubt that the signal is lost in the noise.  In my heart, I
think Gore won the election; I think O.J. was guilty; I think the Chicago
Cubs should have had three home games in the 1984 playoffs (lights vs. TV,
an OT for another time perhaps.)  But, what are you going to do?  You have
to play by the rules or have chaos for evermore.

>> Anyway, I don't expect such class from either Gov. Bush or VP Gore.

>Actually, we did see a little of that from Gore when he stood up and said
that
>even if he did have the popular vote by a little, that didn't matter--so
long
>as the electoral college votes were decided fairly and legally, if they
went
>to Bush that was what mattered and he would support George W. as the
president.

Ah yes, but while each candidate is talking class, they have their lawyers
doing their dirty work even while their soft words echo in our ears.

Mark "Voted only once and correctly" Wonsil