Look at the first couple paragraphs of this Columbus Dispatch article for an example:
At first, Eric Davies didn’t mind waiting more than four hours to vote on Nov. 2. It was encouraging to see such strong voter turnout, he says.
But later, the Democrat was frustrated to learn that his Columbus precinct had one fewer voting machine than in 2000, while some precincts in the suburbs and elsewhere got more.
"I’m not someone who necessarily jumps on the conspiracy bandwagon, but it certainly shows some favoritism to one community over another," said Davies, 37.
In reality, as my previous posts of demonstrated, it didn't show favoritism. There was a reasonable explanation (turnout ratios, population growth) to explain the redistribution.
I remember feeling the same way Eric did on Nov. 2. The long linese were very encouraging and it felt good to have voted. I told several folks at work that it didn't really matter who won because I was convinced whoever did, it was what the people of Ohio wanted.
I still believe that. It's just a shame that misleading information is causing others to doubt it. And in the end, that hurts all of us.
|