Comments on: What Unites Tennesseans: The Bi-Partisan, Fiscally Responsible, Paper Ballot Edition.

By: Tennessee is Poised to Move Backwards Again

Tennessee is Poised to Move Backwards Again — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:54:35 +0000

[...] of verifiable and auditable paper ballots by the November 2010 election – was passed almost unanimously in the State House and State Senate in 2008. It was a bi-partisan effort and ceremoniously signed [...]

By: OpenPen » Want Fair and Accurate Elections in Tennessee? Call Your Senator Today.

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:08:41 +0000

[...] of the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act (TVCA) until 2012 AND gut the most meaningful provisions (recount and audit) is coming back for a vote in the State Senate during the first two weeks of session (sometime in [...]

By: Bernie Ellis

Bernie Ellis — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:16:11 +0000

Good morning to two of my favorite reality-based journalists, Mary and Jackson.

Just be careful handling hyperbole, Mary. It can be dangerous in the wrong hands (even in the right hands, and even among friends). Leave that to the pros and to suspected terrorists.

Good article. I wonder if Ryan is asleep or on a better class of meds these days.

By: Mary Mancini

Mary Mancini — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:20:29 +0000

Jackson! You’re right, I was being a little hyperbolic with the “rife with inaccuracies.” My apologies.

And I guess I misread the statement as well. I thought you were describing a process in which a printer is attached to the machine and a copy of the ballot is printed after the voting is complete.

And thank you for granting my point about the paper ballots – so important!

See you ’round the ol’ LP soon enough!

By: Jackson Baker

Jackson Baker — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:51:32 +0000

Ooops! There I was, thinking me and Miz Mary wuz on the same page, but I find myself indicted for “an editorial comment, rife with inaccuracies.” Well, gosh, I hope she won’t mind if I plead Not Guilty.

First of all, I was summarizing what I took Hargett to be saying — not making an “editorial statement.”

Secondly, the statement is, I would suggest, perfectly accurate. Even granting her point — that it’s the paper ballots that count, not the means of counting them, it’s still possible to speak of “an optical-scan voting apparatus with paper-trail capability.” The machine is, after all, designed to be used for voting, and, specifically, for counting paper ballots. Ergo, providing for, and being capable of, a paper trail. Wherein is the error?

Although, gee, since I — like most folks who’ve encountered Miss Mancini — am quite taken with her, I don’t mind her considering me “rife.” Just not with inaccuracies, please.