|
Post by duke on Nov 4, 2012 16:33:03 GMT -5
A Cure for America's Corruptible Voting SystemBy Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK 04 November 12 When I went to vote last week in New York City, using an absentee ballot (because I will be out of the country on election day), I had a surreal experience that was also very ordinary: I marked my ballot – put it, as advised by the nice man behind the counter, into a sealed envelope, handed it to him and … nothing. That is, he looked at me quizzically as I waited. For what? I realized that in every transaction I ever had with the government, I get some kind of receipt or documentation. But I had just handed over my most precious possession, my vote, and I had nothing to show for it. No scrap of paper noting for the record what I had done, and no way to verify that what I wished to do got recorded accurately. The fellow offered, when I expressed some wish for something like this, to use my phone camera to take a picture of me holding the sealed envelope – for proof I had voted. Seriously. We treat the black hole where our votes vanish as if we don't dare to validate them partly because the process is so highly mystified. One aspect of this mystification, which gatekeepers use effectively against us, is the glamour around the secret ballot. That noble "secrecy" is what keeps citizen groups from observing the vote count, demanding verification slips, and so on. <snip> readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14351-focus-a cure-for-americas-corruptible-voting system
|
|
|
Post by Smilin' Jack on Nov 4, 2012 18:51:05 GMT -5
This suggestion has its flaws too.
I'm not sure what the right answer can be when those responsible for the system are willing to subvert whatever system's devised. A polling place was commandeered by a NAACP goon squad in Texas, with no response from election officials when called upon. Actually, the did. They ordered the officials at the location to stand down.
What!?
Franken's election was an outrage. Ballot boxes turn up after election day and some how EVERY vote cast therein is for Al, the dumbass, Franken.
What are the odds of that? What came of it?
Considering that the outcome was the result desired by those responsible for the 'system', nothing.
With the polls as close as they seem to be, all of these stories just lay the groundwork to call into question and de-legitimize the result, especially if the current resident of the White House loses. The race card is already in play.
IMO, this time will be far worse than anything in 2000 unless there is a decisive result. The Progressives are so close to pushing America past the point-of-no-return, that they will stop at absolutely nothing to have it come out their way or, destabilize the nation in the process.
You get what you want or you burn the place down. It's politics, the Chicago way.
In their minds, they win either way.
The pain train's comin'. Only two days out. Better prepare as if a hurricane is coming your way.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Nov 4, 2012 19:28:16 GMT -5
Jack: Do you have a link to the news of the irregularities you allege above? Were you there when it happened? When did this incident happen? So far you are very short on details. I am not claiming that it could not happen, just want to get more information.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 5, 2012 9:00:03 GMT -5
I've often thought about that. I know what box I checked, but I have no way of knowing if it got to the final tally. Unfortunately, I've been unable to think of any other method that gives the protection of the secret ballot while still giving any real verification of my vote.
If anything in the election system truly begs for change, it's the electoral college. The all or none system for awarding delegates in most states serves to disenfranchise more voters than all the real or imagined shenanigans of either party. Why should pretty much everyone in the California interior have his delegates awarded contrary to his will? Surely, everyone in upstate NY isn't as pinko as the dregs from NYC, yet their electors are still awarded to the dims.
Change that,and you change electoral politics pretty substantially and for the better.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Nov 5, 2012 18:16:33 GMT -5
If it were structured to represent the popular vote I could get behind it.
The EC has been around forever and was put in place during a time when we didn't have the kind of communications systems we do today in an effort to ensure that even if the voice of the people were not followed than at least the will of the majority could be acted upon.
We are technologically advanced enough now that the EC is just about pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 5, 2012 19:25:11 GMT -5
I disagree. Without the electoral college to give some weight to low population states, they would go entirely unrepresented in Presidential elections. How long do you think it would be before those states started to chafe against that particular insult.
If electors were awarded by congressional district, the representation would be a good deal more, well, representative of the people's will. TN always goes solid red, but it seems difficult to believe that every single congressional district votes R at every election. Given that, the people of the district that votes for the bomma get -0- representation. To me, that's unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Nov 6, 2012 6:34:04 GMT -5
That would work if the high population states didn't carry so much weight as to instantly nullify the votes of other states, or for that matter, the individual citizens of their own state.
10 swing states are the only ones that matter anymore because of the EC.
If it were determined by the actual one person one vote rule, counted by district as opposed to DETERMINED by state then it would be not only fair but more accurately and appropriately enforce the political will of the people, as opposed to being all about the enforcement of the state.
Think about it.
If nobody in California voted today…. It would still be 55 votes to Obama. If everyone in California voted R today… it would still be 55 votes to Obama… how is that fair?
To further illustrate the EC's inherent flaws… if every single person voted R today, all of them… those states that cast EC votes based on the electors party would STILL be enough to counter the ENTIRE VOTE of several states that require the electors to vote based on the popular.
We have the technology to make this a one person one vote system.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 6, 2012 8:51:07 GMT -5
Unfortunately, a direct popular vote system would have two serious pitfalls.
1. It would allow about 5 very populace states to decided every election.
2. It would completely disenfranchise every other state.
The EC system was put in place to ensure that all of the flyover states would have at least some minimal input into the presidential elections. By awarding electors by congressional district, we could fairly effectively dismantle the stranglehold that a few high population counties have on states like NY and California. Candidates might actually have to campaign in the whole country instead of just 5-6 states.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Nov 6, 2012 9:42:40 GMT -5
I think we are saying the same thing just from different directions.
In either model, the EC counts or the Pop vote counts, we have a handful of populace states determining who will win.
If we eliminated the state as a consideration, as in, you vote, it gets counted, thy all get totaled… the state's affiliation would be irrelevant, it would be the final count that mattered.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 6, 2012 9:53:10 GMT -5
Lets look at CA as an example of what I'm trying to say. Here's the '08 electoral map for CA: Under my system, the R would have gotten 22 electoral votes and the D would get the rest thus, breaking up those huge blocks of electors as well as giving all those red districts proper representation. Essentially, the electoral vote from your congressional district would go to the candidate that wins the popular vote in your district.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 6, 2012 9:55:55 GMT -5
Here's a better map. All those red districts get no representation whatsoever under the all or none system.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Nov 6, 2012 11:50:17 GMT -5
I see what you are saying now…
So you would keep the EC but change it to represent the district as opposed to 'by lot' for a state.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 6, 2012 12:11:09 GMT -5
Correct. I think a couple of states have already moved in that direction but it'll be tough to break up the big blocks like CA.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Nov 6, 2012 15:25:56 GMT -5
That's basically what I am in favor of as well. Only further removed to the point that the state itself is a non-entity.
This can be in a number of ways:
1: Each election district gets 1 vote that is counted towards the national total. That vote must be representative of the popular vote. 2: Each election districts numbers are totaled by lot, added together and each vote is counted with no EC at all. 3: Each election districts numbers are totaled by lot, added together and each EC is a representation of the will of the popular vote, which means each state can have their overall EC vote split between candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 6, 2012 16:44:01 GMT -5
Sounds like more or less the same thing. Either way, the people get a more proper representation by breaking up these huge blocks of electors.
|
|
|
Post by Smilin' Jack on Nov 7, 2012 1:49:49 GMT -5
Why not go all the way to a proportional representation system based on popular vote?
That would be the fairest, the most open and competitive system and move beyond the two party system all in one go.
Of course, you'd also have the prospect of a new government every six weeks a la Greece or one every 18 months like they have in Italy.
So IMO the system as it is, balances power very well. It is pure genius but you have to accept the apparent 'flaws' as working exactly as they were intended.
The Founders were well aware of the political tendency toward tyranny and devised a system to buy citizens the time to recognize their danger and the means to alter course.
And if it weren't for the stupid and gullible among us, you'd have a different result this night. It shouldn't even have been close.
|
|
|
Post by Smilin' Jack on Nov 7, 2012 2:29:47 GMT -5
Jack: Do you have a link to the news of the irregularities you allege above? Were you there when it happened? When did this incident happen? So far you are very short on details. I am not claiming that it could not happen, just want to get more information. Are you still in diapers and waiting to get spoon fed? Here's the link to the recent incident and you can use a search engine to do your own backtesting on the other, if you're so inclined. townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_locationI was going from memory and was thinking of both the Franken election which I think turned out to be one of fellons voting (some good number have been prosecuted) and the 2004 race for governor in Washington state, which is where over 700 uncounted ballots 'turned up' to give the Dem a 120 some odd vote win.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Nov 7, 2012 21:15:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the link so we know what you are talking about. The illegal behavior needs to be prosecuted regardless of who does it. But attempting to justify one party's behavior by citing illegal behavior of another does not wash. Both need to be prosecuted. I find that too often only the opposing political party will prosecute and sometimes not even then. Obama did not prosecute anyone in the former administration nor did G.W. Bush prosecute anyone in the Clinton administration, all following Ford's lead in not prosecuting Nixon. The elite never are prosecuted, then they wonder why the commoner does not respect authority and the law. As for the other allegations, they are all false until proven. I furnish links to my allegations, but I'll be damned if I am going to take time to prove yours too.
|
|