One way I have been countering my frustrations is to email praise to every journalist that reports Election 2004 facts accurately. BUT I also take the time to correct journalists that through sloppiness, or intent, spread misinformation. I think we need to let them know that we are watching, and flood their email with consequences. An example:
Dear Mr. Kamb,
In reference to your article on Saturday, January 8, 2005:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/207125_testing08.htmTitled: Untested Voting Systems Used,
State let seven counties by pass checks for federal standards...
I must make a few comments. You begin your article by illustrating some good points about the questionable practices in Washington state's election. You frame the Activists' side of the issue fairly well. This is followed by a Republican defending the election process, which frames the other side of the issue. No problem there. The problem is the following passages which, through the omission of important details, leaves the impression that the Republicans share the Activists' concerns.
"But some reform activists say Washington's failure to meet its
own elections standards by skipping the independent
tests -- recommended by federal officials and required under
Washington rules -- only raises more questions about the
integrity of this state's elections process."
"That's especially true in the aftermath of an extremely close
governor's race that has cast a spotlight on problems with
Washington's election process and caused Republicans to
challenge Gov.-elect Christine Gregoire's 129-vote victory
over Dino Rossi, some say."
Some say?
The implication in the above paragraph is that it is the poor election standards that has "caused" the Republicans to challenge a close win. Coming on the heels of your opening paragraphs, one would think that this close win of the Democrat, was counted by these questionably tested machines, and that the Republicans doubt their accuracy. What you omit, and I HOPE it is out of ignorance, is that the machine count gave Rossi, the Republican, a win of over 200 votes. The challenge to the Governor's race, in fact, came from the Democratic candidate. The Republicans were absolutely fine with the whole process until a first recount shaved around 150 votes off of Rossi's win, and a second hand recount put Rossi behind by 129 votes. The Republican candidate not only sees no problem with the machine's lack of testing, on the contrary, the Republican candidate is challenging the recounted REVERSAL of a machine generated win, some say. You would be surprised how many of your readers may not know that.
The perception one might be left with after reading your article is that the Republican challengers CARE about the 2004 election problems. If they do, it was not apparent on Jan 6th during the Electoral College debate that was shown on c-span. During that debate Democrats stood and bravely highlighted numerous concerns about our election system and informed the world of the problems and violations experienced by U.S. citizens. Republicans —as one— spent their debate time, objecting to the Democrats.
One more pet peeve I have about the omission of certain details (you have company on this one), is illustrated by the following paragraphs:
"Problems experienced on some Snohomish County voting
machines are one example, some say. When some voters
in that county tried to choose a candidate on the new touch
screen voting systems, the machines instead registered
votes to wrong candidates in a few cases."
"But Diepenbrock, the county elections manager, said those
problems involved individual machines calibrated incorrectly --
not system wide problems caused by a lack of testing."
It is impossible for your reader to become education on this issue if you leave out important details. You should mention that the "candidate" people tried to choose was Kerry, and the machine instead registered votes for Bush (the "wrong candidate")! Clearly a well documented problem that happened over and over and over again. An almost, dare I use the word, partisan phenomenon experienced in all the swing states. That is one heck of a calibration problem, and worthy of a line or two in any article dealing with questions about Election 2004, some say.
Thank you,
PS
The Republicans HAVE gone farther in their challenge then the bravest of Democrats, calling for a re-vote, in Washington. Presumably using these same machines. I think a re-vote is a dandy idea, as long as it is voted on paper ballots and hand counted. I would like to see a hand counted re-vote of the entire 2004 election, but as Mick Jagger once said,
"You can't always get what you want"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
