You know, the state that recently saw Cynthia McKinney elected with 51% of the vote, thereby proving that Diebold has it in for Democrats everywhere.
Otherwise, I've read elsewhere that other Ohio counties do use DREs - can't find the source, sorry. So I have to wonder what was wrong with these particular DREs, compared to the others.
Me, I think this move has more to do with the fact that DREs have lower undervote rates than the punched cards these counties currently use, and therefore would record more votes cast - and given the strong Democratic presence in Lorain and Trumbull, that lower undervote rate translates to more Democratic votes.
Which a Republican, such as the Secretary of State, might not like.
But whatever. Isn't the loss of a few hundred Democratic votes worth allaying the fears of a few conpiracy theorists?
The (Republican) Secretary of State said that these counties may not use Diebold machines.
Of course, the fact that these machines have lower undervote rates than the current voting technology in the very Democratic counties of Lorain and Trumbull had nothing to do with it. He's simply concerned with the security of our elections.
Not, you know, ensuring that about 2% of the ballots are munged in heavily Democratic counties.
I suspect the Senate race will be set by Tuesday evening; Majette and Isakson will both win 50%+.
The Congressional races are another story.
Levetan's polls show that she and McKinney are running first and second, with Woolard a distant third. But these were before Woolard won the endorsement of the AJC, among other papers. Hopefully, that will push her ahead of Levetan.
Barrow vs. Haines vs. Center - who knows?
Another race that deserves mention is the Sears v. Brantley race for Supreme Court. If re-elected, Sears will become the first woman (and possibly the first black) Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. The radical Republicans have attacked her for her outrageous rulings (with the majority, BTW) that it is unconstitutional to criminalize consensual, noncommercial sex and that death by electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment, and also for her supposed position on same-sex marriage - which she's never stated, let alone ruled on, but is nevertheless EVIL.
If we're going to have an anti-Democrat slamfest, why not start at the top? This exercise is pointless and destructive.
But I'll try anyway. Edwards shouldn't be VP because he only won 20% of the primary vote, barely more than every Democrat not named Kerry combined. Democrats would be better off choosing Clark, who ran a competitive race against "Other," even if the latter eventually won.
Edwards shouldn't be VP because only 22% of America would be "angry" or "dissatisfied" with the choice. Better to choose someone like Gephardt, Vilsack, Clark, or Bayh, who would piss off many, many more people.
Finally, Edwards shouldn't be VP, because more Democrats want him than any other candidate, and we all know how bad Democrats are at choosing their leaders.
Feh. I'm no good I this. I should probably stick to "objective" criticisms - you know, the kind that rely on what the voters should think rather than on what they really think.