Voting process may need to be harder

Everyone knows it but few say it publicly - some people are just too darned dumb to vote. In fact, if I had my way - which I clearly do not - there would be some minimal evaluation or requirement to permit someone to vote.

What brings this to mind is the stupidity currently under way in Minnesota where hundreds of partisan political poll watchers are huddled around ballots rejected for a number of improprieties. Literally thousands of Minnesota residents went to the polls over six weeks ago and yet the outcome of the highly-watched Senatorial race still remains in doubt.

And why, do you ask?

Well, throw out the votes for Mickey Mouse and Bob Dylan. Toss the votes for Tiger Woods and Jesus. And while you're at it, ignore the ballots cast for Donald Duck and Goofy (though I personally would give that vote to Al Franken).

But over 600 voters filled in the ballot oval for one candidate and then - apparently to emphasize their vote - put an X above and below their vote.

So now this army of volunteers are trying to determine "voter intent" weeks after the polls have closed and every other election result is certified.

Complicate the mess of course by throwing in a few hundred lawyers who favor one candidate or the other and you have the recipe for a fiasco.

And a fiasco could describe the voting process in this great land. Surely there is a better way.

You would have thought that following the chaos of the Florida results in 2000 that we would have arrived at a better process. Oh sure, we formed commissions, we had meetings, we spent millions. But in the end, we still have a fiasco under way in Minnesota and odds are the entire mess will end up in the courts. Now isn't that a reassuring thought?!

Under normal circumstances, this would be interesting. But the balance of the Senate's power hinges on the Minnesota results so the spotlight falls on the disastrous voting brouhaha.

There is this stampede in this country to make the voting process more accessible. I say make it more difficult. Do we get better results from an informed electorate or by the sheer weight of more voters? And isn't it frustrating that you can spend countless hours learning of the minute details of a candidate's position and have your vote "cancelled" by someone whose vote is determined by the candidate's hair color or something equally as ridiculous.

Figures out this week indicate that a record 131 million Americans voted for president in November. We got quantity but did we get quality? It's a fairly easy argument, quite frankly.

I don't have the answer when it comes to improving our voting process. But I can recognize a mess when I see one and what's going on in Minnesota is a mess. I think the real answer to "voter intent" is that some people had absolutely no rational nor sane - much less informed - intention when they entered the voting booth.

In this case, we get exactly what we deserve.