Election fixes

This month's general elections pointed out some problems that need fixing before we vote for the 2004 election. These changes are needed in both registration and voting procedures.

Changes in the registration process are especially needed in Wisconsin. First, the state should issue a voter card when citizens register to vote. The registration process also should require the presenting of a photo ID card (such as a driver's license) and proof of citizenship. In order to cast a ballot, voters would need to produce both the registration card and the separate photo ID card.

Of course, these steps would not stop someone from voting more than once, but it should limit that and keep people from voting in the name of another person. It might help, too, if there were a central computer where voters would be checked off as they cast their ballots. But the state of computers probably would not allow that given the possibility of crashes or the whole system slowing down to a crawl.

Other states seem to have had problems with getting motor-voter registrations put into the system. Steps must be taken to improve that situation.

The actual voting process needs modernization too. States need to replace the punch ballots with either a marking system (similar to what's used on standardized tests given in schools) or some other computerized system. As the recounting in Florida has shown, punch ballots have numerous problems. One Florida official pointed out that machine counts of punch ballots would arrive at different totals seven out of 10 times, unlike the marked ballot where the results remain the same.

A computer system that would use a device similar to an ATM machine also merits study. Such a system would allow voters to easily change their vote before making it final and the counting would be instantaneous. But, computers can be rigged, so such a system should include a printout the voter could scan to make sure it agrees with their intended vote. This printout would then be retained in a ballot box in case of recounts or for random precinct checks to make sure votes were being counted correctly.

All of these changes will carry a financial toll that needs to be divided up by county, state and federal governments. The federal government should pay the largest share because of the national repercussions and because it has the money.

There are numerous other concerns that citizens may have, including the future of the electoral college. There are good arguments to be made from both sides, but given the clout it gives small states, it's probably here to stay. But one good change would be for states to award electoral votes based on who wins that congressional district with two votes going to the candidate who wins the state.

We do, indeed, live in interesting and historic times.