About your vote: We don't care. We don't have to.

In a nod acknowledging the hue and cry over The Great Florida Voting Debacle, the government passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).  Interpretation of this law's provisions in part resulted in many counties in many states rushing out to (republican-owned) e-voting machine vendors such as Diebold to purchase their wares ASAP.  Generally this occurred without actually learning in advance whether unverifiable, hackable, black-box-voting might be better or worse than hanging, pregnant or dimpled chads.

The rumbling from the concerned voting public is growing louder and louder, though, as people learn about the dangers in the technology--and the extreme risk to the principle of "one person, one vote" when you can't even verify your own ballot.  Websites are springing up like crabgrass.  Restless folks gathering at their local Election Reform Meetups and letters are being written.  Next week the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will even hold a symposium with the delicious title of "1st SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN VOTING SYSTEMS", related to their role in the implementation of HAVA.  
(Details here .)  

But what really has my goat, at the moment, is this:

Last year's Help America Vote Act outlined election reforms meant to spare the nation from a repeat of the Florida fiasco of 2000.

But many of those reforms have been on hold since February, awaiting the appointment of a key commission. Senate insiders now say it is unlikely the panel will be in place before early next year.

The delays all but dash any hopes of resolving doubts about the security of electronic voting machines before next year's presidential election, according to computer experts.