Electronic Votes, Bush Haters, and Conspiracy Nuts

Thanks to Betsy's Page, who quoted Ann Applebaum

When the ATM asks whether I want a receipt, I usually say no. When a Web site wants my credit card number, I usually say yes. When I pay bills online, there is no paper record of the transaction. In my failure to demand physical evidence when money changes hands, I am not very unusual. Most Americans now conduct at least some of their financial transactions without paper, or at least sleep happily knowing that others do. Yet when it comes to voting -- a far simpler and more straightforward activity than electronic bank transfers -- we suddenly become positively 19th century in our need for a physical record.

It is, if you think about it, quite inexplicable.

Two weeks after the election, the Internet rumor mill continues to spout stories of computer-stolen votes. Nutcase conspiracy theories re: Diebold "giving" Ohio to Bush and the machines being "hacked" (despite the fact that they are standalone and have NO networking capabilities) spring up like toadstools. No sooner are they disproved than others appear. Some are demanding an Ohio recount. Otherwise sober people are asking whether there can be smoke without fire. Last weekend the New York Times published an editorial that found "no evidence" of vote fraud but called electronic voting "a problem" all the same. After all, the editorial noted, there is "no way to be sure" that votes weren't changed "by secret software" inside the machines. If you're tempted to believe that analysis is rational, just ask yourself this question: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week? And if the answer is no, why aren't you up in arms about that, too?

It is just willing self deception that springs from a deep hatred of Bush.