I deliberately didn't use the word illegal in my previous post, but that's an issue where nobody in either party is willing to "enforce existing laws".

The Republicans want as many new workers as possible (be they legal or illegal), so as to keep the wages of unskilled and semi skilled workers supressed. The Bush/business are not interested in how much the purchase power of workers is falling as long as corporate profits stay up. All the Republicans see is cheap labor. But working in the public sector, like I do, I see that the labor isn't Cheap. It's just subsidezed by the taxpayer. Here in CA the subsidy ends up being about $1200 from every non-illegal family in the state.

The Democrats though are no better. They are so in love with the idea of "multiculturalsim" that they are unwilling to concede that importation of ten or twenty million new poor (and often illiterate) people over the last couple decades has had a negative effect on many parts of America. I think that some of the Democratic activists and polititians would like new clients to social service programs.

And both parties are salivating over the prospect of Latino voters. The Republicans see them as 20 Million Pro-Life voters, while the Democrats see them as 20 Million Pro-Welfare votors.

But that really wasn't the point that I intended to raise. My point is that its silly to worry about massive, electronic voter fraus, when we fail to do even the basic things to ensure that those who vote are legally entitled to.

I can't speak for Connecticut, or anywhere else. But in California it's easy as pie for a felon, legal resident alien, illegal alien, or even a Labrador Retriever, to register to vote. It's even easier just to walk into a polling place with a name of a registered voter and address and vote using that name, and nobody is going to even ask for ID.

I go back to my original point. Worrying about electronic voter fraud may be an issue, but we don't even attempt to make sure that those who register and vote are legally entitled to.

Photo IDs are required or the actual voter's registration cards. If you can defraud the county enough to get the card, sure, you're in. Massive fraud of voter's registration means a two part effort; getting fraudulent cards and then using them. In theory, those people have to live at some address, and at some point there's a paper trail. You might not be able to stop it in an individual election, but you might be able to show you can stop it in a wider sense.

In theory, that means a real effort to have a block of otherwise illegal voters vote in a particular way. Tougher to prove on any individual race.

Machine fraud is can be a lot more like stuffing individual ballot boxes and if done well, electronic fraud is much harder to prove and ... well, the whole point of this is to get that paper trail.

As mentioned before, there's an "E-Slate" device where I live, and while not perfect, I can see more in the way of accountability there.

The voter's registration issue in areas where there are a lot of illegals is certainly an issue, but that's not an issue everywhere. It's an issue that requires enforcement of existing laws.

Where the problem is with e-voting is the lack of laws to enforce. Laws about transparency of voting records.

All the debate about electronic theft of elections seems terribly esoteric when compared with the actual voting fraud that takes place on ground level. For Example:

1. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in CA you are never asked to prove you're the person you claim to be when you go to the poles. You simply walk into the polling place and say I'm so-and-so and they'll cross out your name and let you vote. I've never been asked to show ID or anything.

2. Also in CA. You're never asked for ID when you register, let alone proof of legal right to vote. A few years back a man registered his dog to vote, then went to the media to show how easy voter registration fraud is. He never voted under his dog's name, just showed how easy it would be. Rather than do something to make the system more fraud proof, they punished the dog owner.

3. And in the 1990s, I knew of several incidents where non-citizens voted in presidential elections. Specifically, in the 1992 when Geroge Bush Sr. was pushing NAFTA, a number of non-citizens whom I worked with registered and voted for the elder Bush. I learned about this after the fact when one of them mentioned who he voted for and why. When I asked him about his not being a citizen, he said "nobody checks".

So as far as I'm concerned, all these plans to make electronic voting more tamper proof is like putting a security door on a grash shack.