John, it is interesting that the two states with two SoS's who talk of a radical departure in electioneering are two states with fiscal crisis.

And that one Vudoo election "expert" left the Ohio disaster and now peddles his wares in the California disaster.

The housing market and the electioneering market have similar disfunction in the two states. Here is my last newsletter:

Greetings,

Even good guys don't get it. Our real estate broker did not get it when I explained the foundation of the current housing and liquidity crisis.

I am only a humble citizen, and so major disasters must be left for the elite to do.

The experts make the disasters but remain the primary voice of reason in our "system".

But my "too much inventory" theory was justified in California a short bid ago:

"Another foreclosure record was set in November as 1,336 properties were offered to the highest bidder on the courthouse steps in Modesto, Merced and Stockton.

Now here's the real surprise: Only 17 of them sold, despite lenders offering deeply discounted prices."

(Modesto Bee, emphasis added). That is called 17 buyers chasing 1,336 items for sale. It is the inventory stupid.

But over-building is the symptom of a deeper problem that is built into our "secure" fiscal policy. It is the absolute inability of "experts" to find a way to value housing based on a vision.

By vision I mean looking out the windshield instead of the rear view mirror. The appraisal industry uses "comps", which means houses that sold a while back for x dollars. Vision means knowing what they will be selling for in a year, and factoring that into the value.

And of course, all of that should be geared toward stabilizing the housing market.

Because a devaluation of property is across the board ... everyone looses equity ... even those who did nothing to their home to harm its value.

That is not a just system.

(End of newsletter). Disaster heaped upon disaster as if it were built in to further the interests of ... but not of ...

Perhaps we need a new definition of "expert", such as the way juries and experts are handled?

Just one to go on record with polite dissent from John's opening graf here today. Cuyahoga already has centrally-scanned absentee paper-ballot scanning. I believe the move in Cuyahoga, or anywhere else, to the use of such systems for ALL ballots --- and, thus, away from DREs --- is smart, even with the short time before the primaries.

She should not, however, have recommeded central-based op-scan for the longer run (November general election), as there would have been plenty of time to get to a decentralized (and thus, far more secure) precinct-based counting system by then.

Thank you for the comment Brad.

I think you miss the complete "solution" that Brunner is pushing. It's not to use the low-speed central count op-scan machines the county has now. It is to change vendors to ES&S, pay around $65,000 per high-speed op-scan for 15 to 20 of them, and put ballot-marking devices and precinct-based op-scans in the 50+ voting centers that will replace the polling sites.

All of this is to happen before the March 4 primary.

Early voting, by state law, must begin 35 days before the primary (Jan. 28) which means that ES&S must have all ballots printed for over 7,000 ballot styles and the county must have those ballots sent to the military and overseas voters.

There is no way this can all happen. Does Brunner want to disenfranchise the military and overseas voters? Probably not. Does Brunner understand what she is pushing Cuyahoga Co. into? Probably not.

She disregarded the CA SoS findings of a half-year ago, and came up with similar results, making little mention of CA. Now it's too little, too late. And no apology. A real politician.