Wandering the blogs, part one

I have Lean Left to thank for alerting me to this bit from the Albuquerque (NM) Journal for Friday:

Kim Griffith voted on Thursday - over and over and over.

She's among the people in Bernalillo and Sandoval counties who say they have had trouble with early voting equipment. When they have tried to vote for a particular candidate, the touch-screen system has said they voted for somebody else. ...

She went to Valle Del Norte Community Center in Albuquerque, planning to vote for John Kerry. "I pushed his name, but a green check mark appeared before President Bush's name," she said. ...

She again tried to vote for Kerry, but the screen again said she had voted for Bush. The third time, the screen agreed that her vote should go to Kerry.

She faced the same problem repeatedly as she filled out the rest of the ballot. On one item, "I had to vote five or six times," she said.

Elections officials admitted hearing a number of such stories from both Democrats and Republicans and both from those voting for particular candidates and those looking to vote a straight ticket. Does this mean at long last that there's an admission of problems with the machines?

Of course not.

Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera said she doesn't believe the touch-screen system has been making mistakes. It's the fault of voters, she said Thursday. ...

"I have confidence in the machines," she said. "They are touch screens. People are touching them with their palms, or leaning their hand. ... They're hitting the wrong button."

The "it's the stupid voters' fault" sentiment was echoed by other officials quoted. Because of course, oh no, the machines can't be at fault. There can't be glitches. There can't be misaligned touch screens. It's just, well, what are you going to do? Voters are stupid. I find that hard to believe since touch screens are common enough now that most people - at an ATM, a checkout line, somewhere - have had enough experience with them to know how to work them.

But let's test Ms. Herrera's idea. Let her show us just how a person could place their palm on that screen in a way that they could then touch the John Kerry spot and have the vote appear for someone else. I have a feeling we're going to see a Rosemary Woods picture.

But here's another thought. Let's assume how these officials are right, that a series of voter mistakes, voter incompetence, is the cause. Well frankly, voting is not supposed to be a test to see if you're computer literate or not. If the technology is something that easy for voters to screw up, why the hell is it being used in the first place? Why employ a technology that makes mistakes more likely?

Leave aside questions of the risks of conspiracy or manipulation for the moment: If by officials' own admission, this is a technology that runs a demonstrable risk of miscast votes, an electronic version of Florida's infamous "butterfly ballot," just who benefits by its use? Certainly not the voting public. So who?