This entry comes in response to the recent allegations of electronically-assisted voter fraud.  Most of this is posted as a comment to the thread on the subject, but I think the idea stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the existence of fraud to validate it.
_______________________________

Conspiracy or no, the system would ideally be transparent.  The difficulty with that arises here:

Everybody votes individually, but the only ways to look at the votes themselves are either cumulatively, by state, by county, or by precinct.  There is no manageable, bite-size block of votes that can be examined and confirmed in retrospect.

THE REMEDY:

Check out the User Account Confidentiality statement at http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/register:

"User agrees to protect user's account and password and not to disclose account information to any third party."

(emphasis mine)

Nice little sidestep, no?

Remember, no matter how predictably and smoothly the political process trundles along, no matter how certain you are that the choice you have made is the right one (and that you wouldn't possibly budge from it), it is not too late to gimp up and vote your fear.

All you need is a good reason.  Something...scary.

I am interested in visiting some sites such as this (where rational discourse is encouraged), but that lean right instead of left.  Can anyone recommend any?

Please, jabs at the right, however tempting, are obvious and guileless, so don't bother posting 'em.

Regarding the questions that Carlson Tucker hammered Jon Stewart for asking John Kerry:

I am amazed that anybody would consider it a suck-up to ask a man who is going through what you know has to be a harrowing ordeal, "How are you holding up?" or "Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" But that's compassionate partisanism for you.  Jon was "bowing to the Buddha" in the man, and honoring him as one human being to another. Perhaps this is what made Tucker chafe and writhe?

It is simplistic and thoughtless to believe that the only valid method of discourse with a politician is an argumentative one. I would personally like to see as many dimensions of my prospective representatives as I possibly can before making my decision. (And, yes, I am undecided.) But I guess a great deal of Americans would rather view the political process as more of a sport, where human qualities are secondary at best, and not really critical at all.

Here is a well-researched article about Karl Rove's history as a political strategist.  Lengthy...but well worth the complete read.

A few things about the upcoming election have me on pins and needles, but one in particular: The so-called "October surprise".  There has been a lot of speculation.  Many people are expecting Bin Laden to be trotted out at the last minute.  I say nay to this.  Knowing the "win at any cost" mentality that drives Karl Rove and the tactics he has employed to do this, it is much more likely that the October surprise, if there is one, will be something dreadful, not something pretty.

What surprise, then? Well, Dems are out in force "preemptively striking", alleging voter intimidation and the like in case we suddenly go to orange or red alert as the election approaches, a tactic that many believe would discourage people from going the polls. And that would, indeed, fall into line with what we have already seen. (Interestingly, the Repubs are denouncing the Dems for this tactic. In Colorado, one called it  "a criminal act to falsely allege something that does not exist."  Want some irony with your freedom fries?)

Ah, but what if there WAS an attack? Who would that serve? If there is an attack before or during the election, rest assured that it will not be perpetrated by middle-eastern fundamentalist Islamic radicals. Absolutely not. If they don't want Bush in (and they don't), the last thing they are going to do is try to sway the U.S. citizenry to vote against him with an act like the Madrid train bombing. Not gun-happy, war-like, heavily militarised America, no.  If there is an attack, the kneejerk-reaction will be twofold: Fewer people voting AND proportionally fewer people voting for Kerry.