The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

31 October 2004

Reflections in a glittering eye

More precisely, The Glittering Eye, whence comes this story of election duty in a nursing home:

I arrived a little before 9:00am, helped my colleagues complete the setup, assisted about half of the voters in preparing their ballots (the other half either required no assistance or were assisted by someone else). For those who are concerned about this process, the voter must complete an affidavit requesting assistance and they are then assisted by two people — one Republican and one Democrat. We do our best to preserve the voter's privacy during the process.

I won't violate my voters' privacy by telling you how they voted. Suffice it to say that it will be interesting to see how good a predictor the nursing home vote is for the final results.

Indeed. And while we're beset with reports of fraud, it's something of a relief to hear that somewhere the job of conducting an election is considered a civic responsibility rather than an excuse to indulge one's emotions.

I came upon this site by following a comment the Eye had left at Beldar's, on the subject of whether American actions are "breeding" terrorists, an idea which Beldar flatly, and correctly, rejects. Said the Eye:

[T]he argument that the U. S. prosecution of the War on Terror has created more terrorists is true in the same sense that private property has created thieves and our desire for life creates murderers. The question is not "Is it true?" but "So what?"

You go to the movies; you come out two hours later, and there's an empty space where your car used to be. If you can argue with a straight face that you brought it on yourself for going there in the first place, then maybe you can try to make the case that fighting terror causes terrorism — but you'll have to do it from right there in the parking lot.

Posted at 2:48 PM to Political Science Fiction


Thank you, dustbury. You are two for two on getting the points of my comments. I've been going all over the blogosphere trying to remind people that 99.999% of the time the election process here is conducted conscientiously and honestly by people who are your neighbors. That is the nature and the strength of our system.

Posted by: Dave Schuler (gEye) at 6:04 PM on 31 October 2004

And it's why I've been of the opinion that fraud will really have no significant direct impact on the outcome.

Of course, a widespread assumption of fraud having a significant direct impact, would have a ... significant direct impact.

I really, really hate mass psychology.

Posted by: McGehee at 6:23 AM on 1 November 2004

And there's the man-bites-dog syndrome: if two million votes are cast in this state with no incident, what you'll hear about from the "news" media is a kerfuffle over a handful.

I'm waiting to see if anyone pitches a fit over the fact that rather a lot of precincts in this area, including mine, vote in actual churches.

Posted by: CGHill at 11:53 AM on 1 November 2004