Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

A few years ago a reporter from a local newspaper asked if Naugle, who it was assumed voted regularly with Republicans, ever interacted with Democrats, his registration preference.  Maintaining a straight face, Mayor Naugle replied, "I interact with them all the time at Democrats for Bush meetings."

The day that I cast my vote in what was a futile effort to rid Fort Lauderdale of Naugle the ballot was made simple because the mayor's race was the only one on the ballot.  The woman who checked me in and provided me with my instructions let me know that she was available if I needed any assistance in this new process that was being touted as the simple and advanced route to follow in current voting procedures.

I was compelled to return to the lady, who accompanied me back to my screen.  The effort resulted in what she assured me had produced a vote.  

I couldn't help thinking that a lot of effort was being expended over what could have been done more simply, particularly considering that there was only one race involving two candidates.  I had nagging thoughts about not having any kind of paper trail to corroborate my vote.

Apparently the confusion I felt that day persists.  Florida had another one of those problematical Election Day aftermaths recently with more problems relating to the "wonders" of advanced voting technology.

The contrast between what happened to me in Fort Lauderdale and what occurred in the recent mid-term election of 2006 in my local precinct at Seattle Center, beneath the shadow of the world famous Space Needle, prompted me to think of an old southern saying:

"If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'."

My own political philosophy has been that the most successful and practical working yardstick is a combination of liberal progressive and conservative forces.  A liberal progressive looks toward the future and seeks new innovative ways to achieve progress.

True conservatism, as embodied by Edmund Burke, the great Irish political philosopher who found a niche in Britain's Parliament, was a far cry from the neocons such as Cheney and Bush who falsely seek to apply the concept of conservatism to themselves.  

Burke was not resistant to change, but was of a more cautionary bent than liberal progressives.  His guide was tradition as he sought to apply the historical principles tested by time to current exigencies.

Edmund Burke and the old southern saying occupied my thoughts when I observed the stark contrast between the touch screen experiment of Fort Lauderdale and the time tested tradition embodied in my Seattle voting experience.

While voters had the opportunity to punch holes in their ballots another option was made available that I utilized.  Voters had the option of sitting down in a comfortable chair and filling in circles with ink in making their choices.  

There were no pressuring time constraints and voters were able to fill out their ballots while consulting their voting guides that had been sent to them by the state registrar of voters.  Florida sent no such guide to its voters.

When I left the polling station I pondered what prompted the Florida experiment, which was totally unnecessary and was riddled with problems.  A Republican corporation such as Diebold raked in huge profits through the process of using the new touch screen machines.  

There was also the important added bonus of easy manipulation to secure desired results, without any nagging problems resulting from those potentially bothersome and corroborative pieces of paper.  Ah, the freedom from paper trails, a blessing in the hands of a Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris!