Worrying about electronic voting machines
There is probably nothing more important in our civic life than voting. As long as there is the current level of doubt about electronic voting machines, I intend to vote by a mailed ballot that I mark and personally deliver to a collection point, like the county courthouse. This is voting, folks. And this is politics, American-style. There are chances for deliberate manipulation – and accidental human error – with electronic voting machines that do not leave a recordable, reportable and verifiably secure paper trail.
A violation of the citizens’ trust in government is at stake here. Do we want to increase the number of eligible voters above the current disgraceful number who stay away from voting altogether when they don’t trust the system to accurately count their vote? Talk about a real threat to democracy. It is not your credit-card statement with an erroneous charge, it is not an inaccurate call by an NFL referee, and it is not a spoiled recipe that called for a tablespoon of salt instead of the correct teaspoon. It is voting. We live with the consequences for a long, long time. There are no do-overs.
Tom Carllon, Lakewood
…
Real democracy is not about trust. It’s about accountability. Electronic voting machines count votes in secret using proprietary software. That’s not accountability. It’s deeply anti-democratic and an invitation to fraud. People will trust a vote count done openly, in-precinct, on-camera, witnessed by representatives of each interested party in the election. Is that more work for county clerks? Too bad. Trust follows accountability. Secrecy breeds distrust.
Bruce McNaughton, Denver
…
I had the privilege of being an election judge for this year’s primary election in Colorado. I went through the training process. I was given hands-on experience on how to use the machine. I was also taught the security measures installed on these machines. Being an IT professional, I was amazed at the simplicity as well as the security of the voting process, which should not take more than two minutes. At the beginning of the polling day, as well as the end of the day, judges from both the political parties must certify the security measures. It is a tedious procedure. But it had to be done for the sake of security. If there is a challenge, paper printout for every vote is available. With these machines in place, I believe there is no room for voting fraud.
Philip C. Sekar, Westminster
Amendment 41: banning gifts from lobbyists
Re: “A rift in the reform ranks,” Sept. 17 Fred Brown column.
Fred Brown’s column missed the mark. Amendment 41 starts cleaning up Colorado politics by banning gifts from lobbyists to legislators. Instead of focusing on this important feature of the reform measure, Brown dwelled on the bogus argument of a political consultant, Kathie Finger, who opposes it.
Voters should not be fooled. The claim that Amendment 41 would prevent children of government employees from getting scholarships is flat wrong; the claim that state employees can’t go out on dates is just plain weird. If a student earns a scholarship based on merit or need, it is not a gift, it is earned. Period.
Amendment 41 will not affect personal relationships unrelated to government service. Period. Full stop.
On the other hand, Amendment 41 will ban unsolicited “scholarships” that lobbyists might arrange to gain favor with legislators. It will also break up the cozy relationships that lobbyists build with legislators over pricey dinners at steakhouses.
Brown also repeats the claim by the League of Women Voters that the ethics commission in Amendment 41 will duplicate efforts of cities that already have ethics commissions. Wrong again. Cities with strong ethics codes, like Denver, are exempt from the amendment. This is clear to anyone who reads it.
Some lobbyists oppose Amendment 41; they will no longer be able to buy their way into politicians’ graces. They’re upset and now they’re starting to make things up.
It’s time to elevate the voices of ordinary Coloradans above the interests of high-powered lobbyists. Vote “yes” on Amendment 41.
Pete Maysmith, Denver
The writer is co-chair for Coloradans for Clean Government, the issue committee supporting Amendment 41.
…
I commend the League of Women Voters for opposing Amendment 41. I too fear that voters will be seduced by the “ethics in government” amendment. This bad attempt at reform will actually lead to poorer representative government. Why? Because it will limit the ability of many organizations to promote their members’ concerns.
While the public image of a lobbyist is Jack Abramoff doling out bags of money, in Colorado most lobbyists work for groups that promote everything from human services to transportation. Whether you suffer from a medical condition or disability, whether you’re a vegetarian or cattle rancher, whether you drive a bicycle, motorcycle or car, whether you are for or against gay rights, or whether you send your children to public schools or educate them at home, there is someone lobbying on your behalf. The problem with Amendment 41 is that it hurts smaller organizations the most.
Most non-profits can’t afford contract lobbyists and use modest social events as an opportunity to present their vision. Without them, their message won’t be heard. Amendment 41 may be well- intentioned, but it will surely have negative consequences.
Elaine Shoemaker, Denver
Intel report on terror
Re: “Spy agencies say Iraq war fueling terror,” Sept. 25 news story.
The Iraq war “has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” according to the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified report written by U.S. government intelligence agencies. President Bush was also told early last year by then-CIA Director Porter Goss that “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists.” And it was no secret before the war that an unprovoked invasion of Iraq would drive Iraqis into anti-American terrorism. The war has backfired; how many more of our loved ones should we sacrifice to it?
Doug Long, Rio Rancho, N.M.
Immigration roundup
Re: “Suspected illegal workers arrested at military housing site,” Sept. 21 news story.
Regarding your story about suspected illegal immigrants being arrested as they worked on new housing at Buckley Air Force Base, it’s a real stretch for officials to invoke a national security threat.
I would bet that the incidence of dishonesty in the House of Representatives (e.g., Cunningham, Ney and Jefferson) is much higher than that of terrorists among undocumented construction workers.
John Fieser, Highlands Ranch
Conservation voting
Re: “Congressional votes on conservation issues,” Sept. 25 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Steve Johnson notes that Colorado Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Beauprez each have an abysmal 0 percent rating by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) while giving lip service to environmental causes. In 2005, another one of Colorado’s representatives introduced legislation (HR 3855) to sell off 15 percent of our national forests to the highest bidder. This representative’s website claims, “I have worked actively over the last few years to enact policies that will help to protect our precious National Forests … .” Who is the person who thinks that selling our national forests is the same as protecting them? Tom Tancredo, whom the LCV rates as voting to protect the environment in 2005 a whopping 11 percent of the time.
Lawrence Jones, Conifer
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-954-1331
Fax: 303-954-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
