Please try reading.
It indicates that their systems are so old as to require special purpose hardware.
A VGA monitor is now considered "special-purpose hardware"?
Having a CRT monitor indicates only that the system is compatible with a CRT monitor. If you're making further assumptions about the system's capabilities based on the age of a peripheral device, that's your fault, not the system's.
As one example, in the mid-2000s, I worked at a company whose main computer was built in 1988...
Sure, one single system in the back of one company did not get upgraded.
No, that was the main system running the whole industry-leading company.
I'd be willing to bet that the reason it didn't get upgraded was simple - it had got so old that it was at this point a major pain, and a major cost to upgrade.
That's only half of it. The other half was that it wouldn't bring any benefit. The company's production was limited by physical processes and market demand, not the computer's record-keeping.
Furthermore, how many of the systems sat on the desks of average employees were that old?
Outside of the customer service area (who had shiny new Windows XP boxes, with DSL Internet access!), there were three other new computers in the company, all for special-purpose workstations that needed to do processing-intensive tasks. Most desks had VT terminals (ranging from VT300s to VT520s) to connect to the mainframe.
Care to take a guess at the reason?
I'll go with "the cost/benefit analysis did not support an upgrade", since that was the CEO's answer when I asked. Each department did one thing, and one thing only. The system already existed, and was known to work well for the necessary tasks. The company had the source to the software, and made software changes when necessary to support improved workflows, but for the most part the process was mature.
It takes a bunch of literal paper pushing, and probably a bunch more employee time in the back office.
So it's not actually related to the CRT monitors?
In the UK, this is 5 minutes of the customer's time to fill on a form on the internet, and no time spent by employees at all (bar the amortised cost of the guys running the IT system and database).
...that you know of. Realistically, there could be a herd of paper-pushers in the back end that you'd never know about, because you're getting distracted by the shiny interface.
Let me just interrupt this rant with "your mileage may vary". The last time I went to the DMV, it was for a full re-issue of a driver's license after a relocation, and required a test. The whole process, from entering the building to walking out, took about an hour.
After the queue, the agent scanned my old license to read the data, checked it for accuracy, and sent it to the back for processing while I waited for an available test machine. The tests were administered on kiosks built around CRT touchscreens, that looked like they had been operating since I was using that aforementioned mainframe. One test machine was being serviced, and I noticed that the kiosk was just a commodity desktop PC running Windows 7. The PC had a small form factor case, sitting in a cabinet just the right size for a full tower. Clearly, the machine had been upgraded, but the cabinet and interface was original.
By the time I had finished the test, my forms had been processed, and the agent handled the registration of my vehicle while my license was being printed. The agent submitted the vehicle paperwork to be processed while retrieving the license and handling payment. Once the vehicle processing was finished, I was handed new vehicle plates and wished a pleasant day.
Every single interaction with the DMV involves 3 hours of the customers time, 20-30 minutes of the time of various employees filling out and stamping forms, and all of this has to happen in a pretty large building which has to be maintained. Those buildings have to be regularly spread out all over the place, because the amount of time taken is huge. Meanwhile, the DVLA manages to process all this, with far far fewer employees, because they actually had some investment in setting up database systems and web pages so that most of the job can be automated.
Do you really think that a large computer system doesn't need employees? In addition to the sysadmins keeping the thing running, there is also a team of programmers handling the incompatibilities with clients' new browsers and operating systems, a support team to handle the users who can't figure out the new-fangled system, and a security team trying to make sure your personal information isn't being handed off to any script kiddy with a new exploit.
Of course, they're also in a huge building which has to be maintained, and the servers are in a data center that needs maintenance, and there are offsite facilities to ensure availability. The expenses are different, but they're hidden.
The US's government systems are *hugely* inefficient and bureaucratic, not because they're doing things that they don't need to be doing, but instead because no one has spent any money on doing those things in an efficient way.
That may very well be the case, but you have absolutely no evidence that it's any more the Republican party's fault than the Democrats, or the Independents, or the Green, or the Whig, or anybody else's. All you've managed to say is that the UK does things differently, for a different demographic with different service requirements under different regulatory needs, and they have a different efficiency. It's absolutely shocking.
Now, if you'd like to provide some actual statistics to back up your flames, I'd love to see them. How about comparing Republican-favoring states' DMV budgets and satisfaction ratings to those of Democrat-favoring states?