Why Wait?

The New York Times has proposed 12 "New Standards for Elections":

1. A holiday for voting.
2. Early voting.
3. Improved electronic voting.
4. Shorter lines at the polls.
5. Impartial election administrators.
6. Uniform and inclusive voter registration standards.
7. Accurate and transparent voting roll purges.
8. Uniform and voter-friendly standards for counting provisional ballots.
9. Upgraded voting machines and improved ballot design.
10. Fair and uniform voter ID rules.
11. An end to minority vote suppression.
12. Improved absentee ballot procedures.

All of these proposals make a great deal of sense. But then The Times goes on to say:

"This year's election, thankfully, did not end in the kind of breakdown we witnessed in 2000. But that was because of luck. There were many places in the country where, if the vote had been closer, scrutiny of the election process would have produced the same sort of consternation. In a closely divided political world, we cannot depend on a margin for error when it comes to counting votes. We have four years now to make things right."

Um, no. Luck had nothing to to with it. Reluctancy to deal with possibilities other than the "America-Needs-To-Heal" scenario, perhaps. But not luck. How much closer does the vote need to be for The Times to experience consternation? The Big Turd Sandwich "won" Ohio by (at last count) 136,483 votes. According to many sources, the voting situation in Ohio was a freakin' mess. Yet, that slim margin of 136,483 votes negated millions of other votes across the country.

We had four years "to make things right" after the 2000 debacle, but guess who was in charge? Do you think the Republicants will push these or any of the 12 suggestions forward in time for the next presidential (s)election? Why wait to find out? We need to do something now. This election ain't over till it's over.