MICHAEL O. ALLEN

All Posts By

michael o. allen

Study: Poor Ballot Designs Still Affect U.S. Elections

By HomepageNo Comments

Study: Poor ballot designs still affect U.S. elections By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Poorly designed ballots continue to plague U.S. elections, even after Congress set aside $3 billion to overhaul voting systems to prevent a recurrence of the flawed Florida ballots that deadlocked the 2000 presidential race, a study out today concludes.

Problems with confusing paper ballots in 2002, absentee ballots in 2004 and touch-screen ballots in 2006 led thousands of voters to skip over key races or make mistakes that invalidated their votes, according to the study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

“In the big election meltdowns … where thousands of votes were lost, ballot design was the primary cause,” says Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center.

Ballot designs could play a big role in mistakes made at the polls this fall because of an infusion of new voters who registered for this year’s presidential race and the introduction of new voting machines in parts of 11 states with 15 million potential voters. Since passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, states have spent more than $2 billion in mostly federal funds to overhaul their voting systems.

Congress approved spending of up to $3 billion because of problems in the 2000 presidential race in Florida. A deciding factor in that race was the confusion caused in Palm Beach County by the “butterfly ballot,” which required voters to punch a hole beside their candidate’s name in a strip between two facing pages that listed the presidential contenders.

Despite all the spending since then, mostly on new electronic voting systems, not enough attention has been paid to ballot design, the new study warns. “There has not been a documented instance where a computer has fouled up the vote by itself,” agrees Kimball Brace of the consulting firm Election Data Services.

The study’s conclusion, endorsed by many federal and state election overseers, is leading counties and election system manufacturers to improve ballot designs by the November election.

Starting this week in Ohio, ballot design experts will show officials how to avoid the kind of voter confusion in Florida’s 13th Congressional District in 2006. More than 18,000 Sarasota County voters skipped that race, which appeared above a more prominently displayed race for governor on the same screen. Republican Vern Buchanan won the congressional race by 369 votes.

BETTER BALLOT: Varied ballot designs are ‘literacy test for voters’ By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
Since 2000, when conservative Pat Buchanan did mysteriously well in Florida’s Palm Beach County at Democrat Al Gore’s expense, the way ballots are designed and explained has never stopped vexing voters.

About 12,000 presidential primary votes went uncounted in Los Angeles County this year because voters didn’t realize they had to fill in two ovals — one for party affiliation and one for candidate — on what came to be called a “double-bubble” ballot.

More than 18,000 voters in Sarasota County, Fla., didn’t choose either congressional candidate in 2006, in part because a more prominent race for governor was displayed on the same page on the touch-screen machines.

In the 2004 presidential race, nearly 3,000 absentee voters in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County mistakenly tried to line up arrows in a booklet with numbers on a ballot, negating their votes. Voters from Illinois to Iowa to Wisconsin met similar fates in 2002 because of poorly designed ballots.

Heading into the 2008 presidential election, officials who have spent billions on new technology are turning to designers for advice on such basic tenets as large type, clear language and simple layouts.

“Maybe we just should have designed a better ballot way back then,” says Oregon’s John Lindback, president of the National Association of State Election Directors. “It might have avoided the rush to touch-screen voting machines.”

A report scheduled for release today by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law shows that poor ballot design and instructions have caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of votes. Because there are no federal regulations, ballots vary significantly between and within states. “It’s kind of a literacy test for voters,” says Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center.

Studies have shown that those most likely to be confused are elderly, low-income and newly registered voters — factors that could influence this year’s race for the White House. “You tend to find the biggest problem in precincts with large numbers” of those voters, says David Kimball, associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, a co-author of the report.

Election directors from counties that experienced recent ballot design problems say more attention should have been paid to the issue since 2000 than to the headlong rush to replace entire voting systems. Some counties in California, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere are dealing with their third systems in eight years:

•Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan says ballot designs and instructions are “the element of the elections process where we have the most opportunity between now and November to try and prevent inadvertent errors that voters might make.”

•Sarasota County elections director Kathy Dent says the changes from paper ballots to electronic machines and back to paper ballots has forced officials to spend more time on ballot preparation than ever. “We could have continued to use the punch cards in Sarasota,” she says.

•Cuyahoga County elections director Jane Platten says a clear, concise ballot isn’t easy to produce in Ohio, where state law demands ballot issues be printed in full. Every page costs 45 cents per voter — and the county has 1.2 million registered voters.

Fossil

By HomepageNo Comments

Blame the Black Guy

“John McCain. Where did you dig up that old fossil.”

This advertisement (I don’t know where it’s running) responds to Sen. John McCain’s idiotic ad blaming Sen. Barack Obama for the high cost of oil. It does not explicitly say that oil was less than $40 a barrel when George W. Bush became president (there was graph onscreen but unremarked upon) but it might as well have said it.

I don’t really want to talk about McCain. His campaign is hardly worth mentioning. The man is so corrupt, so false, so bankrupt of ideas that we might as well debate the fringe candidates running, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader.

The problem is that the Mainstream Media will do its dead level best to pump some air into the McCain sail. That is why we have to respond to some of these.

MoveOn Ad*

By HomepageNo Comments

All in your head

The McCain campaign finally rid itself of former Sen. Phil Gramm. Let’s put aside for the moment whether Gramm should be investigated and, possibly, imprisoned for corruption and economic crimes against this nation when he was a United States senator and destroyed banking in this country.

The particular comments that led to his demise (“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. … We have sort of become a nation of whiners.”) is pretty much what McCain has been saying all along, as this MoveOn.org ad attests.

Americans have a choice to make in the general election: to back a political party that has shifted the wealth of the nation from the working and middle classes to the very rich, or back a Democrat who, maybe, could protect the American way of life.

It’s a no-brainer.

Now, This is Satire!

By HomepageNo Comments

Satire has to have an element of truth to it, I told a friend a couple of days ago in my argument with people over why the New Yorker magazine cover did not work as satire.

I found this piece at Huffingtonpost.com talking about the same subject and using a political cartoon trying to puncture some of the magazine’s editors’ arguments for using the cover. But I believe the HuffPo writer messed up a little. Only a little.

He failed to mention that Cindy McCain was indeed addicted to prescription drugs that she stole from an organization that she headed; Maverick, good ol’ Johnny Mac, is actually very, very old (I hear he’s going to be 150 years old on Inauguration Day); and  he so did  sing that song before an audience.

What I don’t know is whether Mr. Clean hearts Dick Cheney the way B. Hussein O. allegedly adores Osama.

In contrast to the Horsley cartoon, which is a veritable documentary of the lives of the McCains, there’s no piece of information in the New Yorker cartoon that you could point to as being true about either of the Obamas.

So, the New Yorker disseminated the worst of right-wing smears that bear no relationship to the truth about the Obamas.

Finally, Horsley’s cartoon is not likely to get either of the McCains killed. The New Yorker’s cover is an invitation for some deranged patriot to go out and try to kill the Obamas.

Devastating

By HomepageNo Comments

That is the only word that comes to my mind regarding the New Yorker magazine cover drawing of Sen. Barack Obama dapping his wife as an American flag burns in the fireplace in a White House with Osama bin Laden’s picture up on the mantelpiece.

I don’t know how the New Yorker could have, whatever they were thinking, done this.

You cannot call this satire because, in my thinking, there has to be some element of truth for satire to work. What is the truth in that cover illustration? It is a distortion, an attack, unexpected one at that from an unexpected source.

Just because Fox News, power-hungry Republicans and right wing crazies think this is not reason to do their dirty work for them. What the New Yorker did is do the dirty work for the nuts and Obama enemies. It renders in living color their fondest dreams of Obama.
Some people have said that the magazine’s audience is very sophisticated and can process this image and see it for the satire that it is. First of all, sophisticated or not, this audience is not better than the larger population at sifting through distortions. But, the greater damage is that a broader audience than the magazine’s readership will see this image.

Please, just watch how many times Fox News throws up that image.

What Republicans and their coalliton of 527’s make hay with this image.

This image creates another problem for the Sen. Obama’s campaign: every second that they spend trying dispel the noxious fumes from this is precious taken away from making a case for the senator’s candidacy.

What good is the mainstream media? First, the media establishment refuses to be honest brokers in this election. Now, they are generating the filth and introducing more pollution into the political environment.

The insidiousness of this image is that it makes it harder to convince the good people of Findlay, Ohio, for instance, who have goodwill toward Obama but are having a hard time getting past all the garbage that’s been thrown at them. Here it is, more kindling. From the New Yorker no less.

Get ready to be disappointed.

By Homepage2 Comments

Gail Collins makes a good point in today’s New York Times. Addressing the growing chorus of folks on the Left who have expressed dismay over Senator Obama’s so-called shift to the center, including the Times’ own Bob Herbert and most recently the Rev. Jesse Jackson, she notes that Obama’s been in the center all along:

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

I think that a lot of people are going to be disappointed with Senator Obama’s moderate positions in the campaign. Many African Americans and young people, in particular, cast their votes for Obama not because of his policy positions but because of intangible factors like the symbolism of electing the first black president or feelings of hope engendered by the Senator’s soaring rhetoric. As Collins points out, these people are just now waking up to what Senator Obama has been saying all along — that he’s the moderate candidate who can bring the Left and Right together.

Remember that back in December, before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton was the great liberal hope. She had all the policy positions in place to address the concerns of each of the various interest groups that dominate the Democratic nominating process. Indeed, that was the well-known and explicit strategy of her campaign manager Mark “Microtrends” Penn. But after Senator Obama’s superior ground game won him the Iowa caucuses, he became seen as a viable candidate. Emotion took over from reason.

I don’t mean to suggest that there’s anything wrong with voting one’s hopes. Emotion plays an enormous role in politics. But I do agree with Collins that folks who now claim to be disappointed with Senator Obama weren’t really listening to him.

So what’s a disappointed Lefty voter to do? You can vote for Ralph Nader. I fully expect to him to trot out the old canard that Senator Obama isn’t any different from Senator McCain. That worked well for him in 2000 and could easily lead to similar results again this year. You can always stay home on Election Day, which would have the same effect. You might as well vote for Senator McCain.

Or you can suck it up and get ready to be disappointed. Politics ain’t perfect. It’s a constant struggle. You win some, and you lose some. If the Disappointed Left isn’t able to see that they would win more with a President Obama than with a President McCain, then they’ll get the only president that they deserve.

Cross-posted from Facebook.

'Integrity' update

By HomepageNo Comments

I mean, did John McCain really just try to pass off as a joke his crack about killing Iranians?

Are they responding to news of Iranian missile tests? Has no one been listening, or reading the news lately?

File photo of an Israeli fighter jet taking off from an air force base.

Hasn’t Israel been making noise about attacking Iran? The George W. Bush administration giving hints that it may well attack Iran?

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks “unavoidable” given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, a deputy to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said recently.

What is Iran supposed to do? Stand pat?

A photograph released by the news website of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards shows four of the nine missiles test-fired on Wednesday.

It’s leaders would be negligent if, in the face of such threats, they do nothing to show that such an attack on their nation would not be cost-free.

The Times story, by Alan Cowell and William J. Broad, began this way:

Iranian Revolutionary Guards practicing war-game maneuvers test-fired nine missiles on Wednesday, including at least one the government in Tehran describes as having the range to reach Israel.

The tests drew sharp American criticism and came a day after the Iranians had threatened to retaliate against Israel and the United States if attacked.

State-run media said the missiles were long- and medium-range weapons, and included the Shahab-3, which Tehran maintains is able to hit targets up to 1,250 miles away from its firing position. Parts of western Iran are within 650 miles of Tel Aviv.

The tests, shown on Iranian television, coincide with increasingly tense exchanges with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for civilian purposes but which many Western governments suspect is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Iran’s military display came just a day after the United States and the Czech Republic signed an accord to allow the Pentagon to deploy part of its contentious antiballistic missile shield, which Washington maintains is designed to protect in part against Iranian missiles.

If we’re going to go around threatening war, we should not be surprised that the target of our threats show some spine, instead of cowering. We would ask no less of our country. Why do we expect different from Iranians?