Whatever Happened To Military Votes?

Posted by Dagney Taggert at 11/11/2006 2:06 PM
Categories: Patriotism

As we celebrate and remember our heroes, our veterans, on this Veterans Day, as promised I went looking for answers to the question of their voting disenfranchisment.  Harry Truman had the same question as me, though present day Donks never seem to care if the military aren't voting.  According to this article, not much has changed since he got his answers;

  • "Guess what? Not much has changed [since Truman's time.]. In this era of the 21st Century where trillions of dollars change hands throughout the world by electronic transmission, are we using that technology to ensure our sons and daughters deployed overseas get to vote for our national leaders? NOPE!! We're still using the same system we used in World War I and 1952 to mail paper ballots all over the world. The Congress knows this is an inefficient system that often doesn't work, and allocated $22 million to test electronic military absentee voting in this years elections. GREAT, you say — somebody finally cares about our troops and since they all have e-mail to stay in touch with their families, NOW they'll be able to vote as well, RIGHT? BZZZZZZZTTTTTT. Sorry, wrong answer. Based on a minority report [4 out of 10*] of a computer advisory panel on the electronic voting test which expressed concerns about the testing, the test was canceled. A new and unique voting system is hereby instituted — with 40% of the advisory panel voting NO, "the motion passes"? Hmmmm. Now there's a unique approach. Perhaps we need another Congressional Hearing to look into this new voting system where the side with the least votes wins?
  • If the opinion of 4 out of 10 panelists cancels the test of military absentee voting, then how does the use of modern technology ever get tested? And if it's never tested, then it can't ever be proven workable, and thus can't be fielded, right? So the same problems that the deployed troops had in voting in World War I and in 1952 will still exist in 2004, right? Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions is "RIGHT"."

    Listening to Fox News Channel this morning, I heard one of the talking heads they never seem to run out of say "if we shortened"...the election cycle, it might have been different/better/less stressful...whatever her lame point was, and I came to the same conclusion as the author of the article.  Where the HELL is the outrage that our fighting forces don't seem to matter when it comes to electing the people sending them into war zones? 

    The only attempt to bring the system up-to-date to count military votes, happened under Rummy's watch [I am one of the "FURIOUS" about his ousting, btw] ...but as usual, the entrenched bureaucracy nixed it.* On this, their special Day of Honor, I am outraged

  • I am outraged that Senator George Allen did not say, before he conceded, "I want the military absentee votes to be counted."

  • I am outraged that Burns conceded in Montana without awaiting or demanding a full count of military votes in his state!

  • I am outraged that any election is considered a "done deal" before each and every active duty military vote is counted!

    •  

    What did you think of this article?




    Trackbacks
    Trackback specific URL for this post
    • No trackbacks exist for this post.
    Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.