Franken / Coleman Race

The argument against federally regulated voting machines, with the same state-by-state accountability measures usually follows along these lines:

1. It is one more infringement upon states' rights. I think when one is voting for a federal office (say, oh I don't know... President of the United States) it isn't an infringement upon states' rights to have the federal governement regulate the process. Its been done before successfully (Civil rights acts allowing blacks to avoid a poll tax, for example), and it should be done again.

2. It is too difficult to keep track of every vote. This is the weakest argument I've heard. If banks can keep track of every cent we spend, and casinos can keep track of whether one is counting cards, the federal government can keep track of everybody's vote.

The Franken Coleman race is yet another example of why we need federally-regulated voting machines, with the same state-by-state accountability measures:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28372100

My word, this is depressing. It reminds me of the faux "Heller / Salvino" race featured in "Brewster's Millions." In that movie, Richard Pryor has to spend 30 million dollars in thirty days, havign no assets at the end of the month. (The movie took place in 1985. Were it today, blowing 30 million would be easy. Just give it to a US car manufacturer.) But people shouldn't worry about the state of the Senate come January only because of the vacant Coleman / Franken seat from Minnesota.

As I understand it, when Congress goes into session next month, there will be no:
1. Senator from New York (Clinton is Secretary of State).
2. Senator from Delaware (Biden, my favorite of all the candidates is VP).
3. Senator from Illinois (Obama is President and their latest idiot governor was stupid enough to get caught on tape complaining that Obama was too forthright to offer anything but thanks for filling his seat with someone who would work with him. Go figure.)

Senators miss votes all the time (both Sens. Kerry and Edwards missed an important vote on gay marraige in 2004), but this is bordering on the ridiculous and dangerous.

If you think I'm overstating the importance of empty seats in the Senate, consider: VP Dick Cheney has cast seven (7) tie breaking votes in the Senate since 2001. In the first few months of Cheney's first term, the Senate was evenly divided, 50-50, until Sen James Jeffords of Vermont switched sides.

Or this: During Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial (which took place in the Senate House), the vote was 50-50 on one charge of perjury. A two-thirds majority would have been needed to convict Clinton, but I think you see where I'm going here.
And who would have cast a deciding vote against Clinton, were it needed? Al Gore.