Americans Doubt Voting Process

[Was_Immer]

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Memories of Florida's contested 2000 presidential election and a growing number of pre-election lawsuits are making Americans skeptical about a voting process they once took for granted.

Six in 10 of those surveyed in an Associated Press poll say it's likely there will not be a clear winner in the presidential race by Nov. 3 — the day after the election — and fear the results will be challenged in court. The poll was conducted for the AP by Ipsos Public Affairs.

Both Democrats and Republicans worry about the possibility of an unresolved election — though Democrats express more worries. About seven in 10 Democratic voters, 69 percent, say they think it's likely there won't be a clear winner by Election Day, while almost six in 10 Republican voters, 56 percent, say they feel that way.

With both political parties putting thousands of lawyers on call for Election Day, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans — just over half of each — expect the election results will be challenged in court.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041026/ap_on_el_pr/voter_worries_ap_poll

[unblock]

1. ugh. saying "there won't be a clear winner by 11/3" is NOT even relevant

saying "there won't be a clear winner by 11/3" does NOT mean a lack of faith in the electoral process.

where the hell do some people get the crazy idea that we have to know who won the minute we wake up the next morning???

faith in the electoral process would include believing that it's OK to have a close election and that recounts are OK and conducted properly and that when it's all said and done, possibly a MONTH later, that we KNOW who REALLY got the most votes.

note that the problem isn't the lack of an instant count. in fact, i would argue that an instant crowning of a winner, when in fact the election really IS close, would cast DOUBT on the electoral process.

the key questions should center around whether or not the votes are counted properly and accurately, that people who should be able to vote are in fact able to vote, that people aren't being intimidated from the polls, and so on.

the TIMING of the vote counting is NOT the issue.

[Owlet]

2. I can handle not knowing on November 3...

..who has been elected. What worries me, and I think the folks in the survey, was what happens next if there is no clear winner. Is anyone comfortable with the 'courts' determining the outcome? I'm not. We're supposed to elect our leaders in this country, not having them foisted on us by some clutch of judges who may or may not have political debts to pay. If there's no clear winner, there should be provision for a runoff, not a run to the nearest courtroom.

Just my

[Voltaire99]

3. Good. No informed person should trust our electoral process.

Nor was the process ever fair, despite the article's facile assurance that voting was formerly taken for granted.

The only reason for ignoring the helter-skelter apparatus has been sufficiently sizable margins of victory in recent decades. A big enough win obscures small-scale cheating. But the polarization of America since Reagan, and the subsequent rise of the swing state contest, have revealed for everyone what we have.

It's a system of weights and pulleys that all depends on when the ice cube melts, causing the opposing scale to rise, that letting open the bird cage and causing the cat to run and pull a string tied to its leg, which in turn operates a lever that casts a vote. Oh, yes, and nasty Republicans stand outside the window, waiting to shoot the bird.

Rube Goldberg would have understood.

[Zayin]

4. Just look who's running it in places like Florida