Is An Uninformed Vote Better Than No Vote?

"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:05:11 -0500, "Opus McDopus"
wrote:

But there's the rub. No one really knows **** about any candidate, I
don't
care how *informed* one claims to be. History is replete with examples of
duplicitous baffoons telling us what we want to hear, only to be elected
to
local, state or federal office for one or the other two major parties.
The
only people these so-called candidates are beholden to are the parties
that
they ran for and the interests that paid their way in.

Yeah, we ended up with one of those out here.
Arnold talked tough but when that didn't work he hired the Democrat's
consultant and put his feet up on the desk.

What I find truly sad is that neither the Dems nor the Repubs care one hoot
about the entire electorate voting. If they did, we wouldn't be relegated
to a 12 or 14 hour period in which to do so. I find it funny, in a sad sort
of way, that in the states and their counties where the voting machines have
malfunctioned, judges are extending polling *hours.* If a person is unable
to cast their ballot the first go round, what makes anyone think that they
will come back to their polling place at 10:00 PM in the night? Why not
force the polls to open again the next morning, as folks are on their way to
work again? Why can't the polls remain open for a few days? I mean, this
is a most important civic responsibility--or so I am told?

Why can't someone figure out a way in which to give every registered voter a
"voter's number", which would be their's for life, no matter where they
might move to. This number could alway be tracked, by the federal
government. Then we could have a secure phone number to call into to cast
our vote. The phone lines would be open for say a week or two, in order to
give everyone a chance to vote their choice.

Is secure voting really so complicated that some great mind can't come up
with a viable method?

Op