EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Plot to Rig the 2008 US Election
In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes. They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for Gore. But they fought - amid the confetti of hanging chads - to stop the state's votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W Bush.
Today, that contempt for democracy is on display again. In California right now, there is a naked, out-in-the-open ploy to rig the 2008 presidential election - and it may succeed.
To understand how this works, we have to roam back to the 18th century, and learn about the odd anachronistic leftover they are trying to use now to thwart democracy. Back then, America's founding fathers decided not to introduce a system where US presidents would be directly elected, with the votes totted up in Washington, DC, and the winner being the man with the most. Instead, they chose a complex system called the electoral college. This stipulates that American citizens do not vote directly for a president. Instead, they technically vote for 539 state-wide "electors", who then gather six weeks after the election to pick the President.
The founders designed it this way for a number of reasons. They wanted the smaller states to have a say, so they gave them a disproportionate number of electoral college votes. They also believed that, in a country that was largely isolated and illiterate, voters wouldn't know much about out-of-state figures, and would be better off picking intermediaries who could exercise discretion on their behalf.
It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state electoral college votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got to be President. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and - most tragically for the world - in 2000.
Today, the Republicans are trying to exploit the discontent with the electoral college among Americans in a way that would rig the system in their favour. At the moment, every state apart from Maine and Nebraska hands out its electoral college votes according to a winner-takes-all system. This means that if 51 per cent of people in California vote Democrat, the Democrats get 100 per cent of California's electoral votes; if 51 per cent of people in Texas vote Republican, the Republicans get 100 per cent of Texas' electoral votes.
The Republicans want to change this - but in only one Democrat-leaning state. California has gone Democratic in presidential elections since 1988, and winning the sunny state is essential if the Democrats are going to retake the White House. So the Republicans have now begun a plan to break up California's electoral college votes - and award a huge chunk of them to their side.
They have launched a campaign called California Counts, and they are trying to secure a state-wide referendum in June to implement their plan. They want California's electoral votes to be divvied up not on a big state-wide basis, but according to the much smaller congressional districts. The practical result? Instead of all the state's 54 electoral college votes going to the Democratic candidate, around 20 would go to the Republicans.
If this was being done in every state, everywhere, it would be an improvement. California's forgotten Republicans would be represented in the electoral college, and so would Texas's forgotten Democrats. But by doing it in California alone, they are simply giving the Republicans a massive electoral gift. Suddenly it would be extremely hard for a Democrat ever to win the White House; they would need a landslide victory everywhere else to counter this vast structural imbalance against them on the West Coast.
You can see this partisan agenda if you look at who is behind the campaign. It was set up by Charles "Chep" Hurth III - a Republican donor to Rudy Giuliani. It was drafted by Tom Hiltachk - a Republican attorney. Its signature drive was co-ordinated by Kevin Eckery - a Republican consultant. Its funds were provided by Paul Singer - a Republican billionaire and one of Rudy Giuliani's biggest donors. Its chief fundraiser is Anne Dunsmore - who went there straight from her post as national deputy campaign manager for Giuliani. Seeing a pattern yet?
Indeed, this bias is so blatant that the state Republican Party itself has now chipped in $80,000 (£39,000) to the campaign. Of course, the campaign is not marketing itself as a Republican rigging escapade. They insist: "This initiative is not about helping any one party or candidate. It simply ensures that every vote cast in our state counts in the electoral college." But the best they can do to provide "balance" is to point to the fact that one of the men who has given them $20,000, Edward Allred, once also gave $2,300 to the campaign of Democratic contender Bill Richardson. Wow.
There is a real risk they could succeed. They are close to getting the number of signatures they need to secure a referendum in June. (The Los Angeles Downtown News claims to have witnessed signature-gatherers offering homeless people food in return for signing.) The turnout for the referendum is expected to be extremely low, because the state-wide primaries usually held on that date have been moved forward to February. So the Republicans only have to activate a small part of their base to push it through - and they have the cash to do it. California dreamin', on such a winter's day.
The Democrats in response shouldn't be trapped in the conservative position of defending the indefensible electoral college. There is an alternative way to reform it - one that would be fair to all parties. It used to be thought it was all but impossible to ditch the system because it would require a constitutional amendment, which needs the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three-quarters of state legislatures.
But then constitutional scholars realised there was another way. The Constitution only requires that each state must "appoint" its presidential electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct". That leaves a glimmer of hope. The Campaign for a National Popular Vote is campaigning for every state simply to commit its delegates to the electoral college to vote 100 per cent for the candidate who wins the popular vote. This would render the electoral college a forgotten technicality. It's very revealing that when the California state senate voted to introduce this genuinely democratic system last year, the Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, with the support of his party.
It shows that the Republicans' rhetoric of wanting "fairness" and "equal representation" in California is a honeyed lie. They want a system that retains their power, even if it subverts the will of the people. It risks becoming Florida Part II: just when you thought it was safe to go back into the polling booth... Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy election.
© 2007 The Independent
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
99 Comments so far
Show AllArticle I, Section 4. "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Congress could make uniform laws for all federal elections in all states, if they choose.
Thanks to the Independent/UK for publishing what ought to be on the front page of every newspaper in America. Evidently others in the world can readily see our folly and foibles, but we can't, because we're too busy following Paris and Britney, the World Series, fantasy football, and other uniquely American nonsense.
This will be one of dozens to thousands of "plots" already in motion, including most especially a little here and a little there with those electronic voting machines. Democrats need about 60% of the real vote to win "officially" with 51%. Please think today about what you will do to avoid having your family's future stolen (again) by those "proud-to-be" conservative
Republicans.
Call in the neutral observers of the world. . .anyone out there? Any large nation or organization not on the take?
ever since reading greg palast's "armed madhouse," an excellent primer on how republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections (in 2004, the scales were tipped on the popular vote in ohio, colorado and new mexico just enough to grab all the electoral votes in those states), i've been wondering how they'd do it in 2008. now i know. if now is not the time for US citizens to follow jefferson's dictum and take back our nation, there will never be a time.
The world has to laugh... or cry.
Sure democracy is a great thing. Now how can it be achieved, especially in the modern age when both technology and corporate sellers and (corporate news agencies) maintain the right to shape the outcome according to who pays the most, when the corporations themselves pay the most?
How will it be achieved in the rest of the world, when the US in turn maintains the right to shape the outcome in foreign lands according to who benefits the US the most, when the US itself can offer bribes greater than entire national economies. The failure of democracy in the US means a failure of democracy in its client states, and covertly in other states as well.
Surely new safeguards are needed if democracy is to have any future meaning.
Sorry, folks. Too late. There are just too many uneducated people out there voting against their own self-interest. Almost half of us. Really frightening. If Americans were well-educated and WATCHING what is going on, things might be different. The vote would be 99% for anyone but the Repukes. Even they couldn't rig that. Ah well,what is it they say? Something about all evil has to do to succeed is for good people to do nothing?
The last 2 elections were stolen outright and only a fool would think the next will magically be legitimate. Rigged trackless voting machines, tossed ballots, "felon lists," inadequate distribution in working class and minority precints, nepotism . . . They hardly need to jerry-rig California. The fact is, barring a major overhaul of our electoral system, the US in incapable of holding legitimate national elections.
You notice that they are not pushing for changes in Texas, Florida and other states. I think most people can figure a probably motive for this.
It's a sad sign of the times when I have to read an article in a British paper to find out how the Republicans are subverting California's electoral system.
There is no plot or conspiracy to steal the election in 2008. A conspiracy or plot is something done in secret requiring cunning and deception. The upcoming theft of the 2008 election is being done right out in the open.
Now here's a question for you common dreamers: why don't progressives favor moving the election day to the weekend when work won't interfere with the civic duty of voting? And why does the United States have such important elections take place in only one day? Why not have a whole week to vote? Even the Naderites don't talk such "electoral heresy" around common dreams dot org. King Solomon never lived around common dreams dot org. (A little Clash reference, for any fans out there)
Given how often Democrats have opposed Instant-Runoff, and other ballot improvements to eliminate Winner-Takes-All, I am not sympathetic to arguments that GOP is "stealing" California's electoral votes.
For those of us tired of the two-party duopoly, this CA initiative will be a huge improvement. It will make it possible for 3rd parties and independents to participate in Presidential elections (as they routinely did earlier in our nation's history, before the system was rigged).
MikeC
Words do have power.
But apparently not enough to overthrow the Bush Regime.
Otherwise it would have happened a long time ago.
There has to some other type of action
Love
Zero
Commander_n_chimp,
"Now here's a question for you common dreamers: why don't progressives favor moving the election day to the weekend when work won't interfere with the civic duty of voting?"
That's the question I've been asking since I moved to this country 4 years ago.
In my country (Mexico) election days are always on Sundays, so people don't have an excuse to not go and vote. I was really surprised to learn that the "greatest democracy on Earth" held elections on a Tuesday, doesn't make sense to me.
I haven't had a chance to read all of this yet, but still would like to throw something in.
Why aren't conservatives worried about vesting all power in a unitary executive? Because they know how to rig things to get their man in there. Much easier to do that than to win majorities in the house and senate, a branch becoming less relevant daily.
They've had their loyalists on the supreme court for years, and even as 7 of 9 of them have been appointed by republican presidents for quite some time now (not just a recent devolpment) they complain about them being activist when they show any signs of compassion toward the individual vs the corporate.
"Let there be an election. It's enough that the people know there was an election. It's not the people casting the votes that matter, it's the people counting them."
I know many inner-city people that hate Bush, but they don't know how to get their representative to vote for impeachment. The real problem is that they don't know there is a bill on the floor. I have been hitting inner-city church parking lots with fliers telling them to contact Gwen Moore and voice their discontent with her for not co-sponsoring. I suggest more people do the same. If the democrats in strongly democratic districts hear enough clamor they will co-sponsor out of fear if nothing else. Tell them to call on their cell phone right now. Fill the answering machines.
Vote on the weekend? Uh- uhhh. On the weekend, we are either watching college sports or pro sports while clicking through the 200 TV channels mostly oblvious of what in hell is going on in the world. Sunday? dress up real nice and grab the Bible grandma used and head for the church service and listen to the band before getting back to the TV sports.
Then many,___ many, have to drive 200 miles to cook hotdogs and E-coli contamined beef boogers on a Bar-B-Que grill and drink beer, then attempt to kill themselves on powered water skis and off road vehicles. Then many more shop at the malls and factory outlets, where they spend $40 bucks for the wasted gas to save $10, for something they don't need and will only use once, if ever.
Tuesday is just fine, no sports on TV, it's not a hangover Monday or a sick out Friday, it's a mundane day and should bring the voters out in our normal 30 to 35% in most areas. That is __ God Bless America and has been since about 1950.
I've been complaining about this for months, but then it looked like the initiative would fail to make the ballot. Now, who knows? The only thing for certain is that if Californians pass it, and they probably would, Ohio will no longer count, since the 22 or so votes the GOP would get from CA would wipe out Ohio if it goes Democratic this time around.
There has been some coverage of this issue in California, but really only if you're looking.
The measure looked like it would be defeated a couple months ago because they couldn't raise enough $$$ to get it on the ballot.
However, according to the LA Times, they re-launched the campaign last month and still may get it on the June ballot.
So, basically, the "election" could be decided in CA on June 3, 2008.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Election_Reform_Act for info and (the very few) links about this story.
KayWrites is correct that the truth of the matter is that there is not enough serious discussion in this country on things that really do matter to people (and by people I include the world as our President's decisions really affect them sometimes more than ourselves). Both the 2000 and 2004 elections were incredibly close and there is no way to deny it. Both sides were well represented and despite the damage the results have caused to rehash old wives tales does not help with 2008. No body likes cry babies especially when they tell distortions. National elections are hardball and both sides play the game.
-"They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes" This is idiotic as you can't loose by a vote that means nothing, which ironically, he then goes on to point out. And by the way, in 2008 GB won the popular by over 3 million- something that people who like to mention the first fail to mention in the latter- causing for me and many others an immediate loss of credibility.
-"and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W Bush." The Republicans didn't take the matter to the courts at all- Al Gore did. And it wasn't to count every vote and have a state wide recount- it was to recount in 2 heavily Democratic counties, where recounting to bring in more votes would statistically bring in more Democratic votes: this was pure hardball politics just as Mr. Hari describes the Republican efforts in CA- both sides play the game. By the way, the reason that it ended up in the Supreme Court was quoted later in his essay: "The Constitution only requires that each state must "appoint" its presidential electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct". For those who conveniently forget the first Supreme Court decision was not along party lines but a unanimous 9-0 judicial spanking of the Florida Supreme Court for assuming the powers of the "legislative" branch in reinventing the "manner" of appointing electors. The final 5-4 equal protection argument to stop the recount was Garbage in my opinion, but again, this was not a simple matter of stealing the elections and most Americans know this. The Supreme Court did not put GWB in office, the Supreme idiots who threw away there votes on Ralph Nader put him in office! By the way, I love RN and live just 10 minutes from his hometown- but a vote for him was a vote for Bush, pure and simple no matter what anyone, including RN, says to the contrary.
Of course the Republicans are playing hardball in CA, that's their job. What Democrats and Progressives should be spending their time talking about is winning big in 2008 and throwing the rascals out! You can't do this from delusional self-pity. Dennis is great, but more importantly, he will never ever ever be President. You have to be smart and you have to fight. Please no more cry babies. No more third party runs to ensure that Rudy is YOUR next President (I don't know about you but he scares the crap out of me). You have to fight the good fight but you have to do it intelligently- had we in 2000, it would've been GWB in President Gore's office and not the other way around (though unlike Gore something tells me our Dummy in Chief would not have been with the other Nobel Laureates!).
The fix has long been in. The fix is now fully consolidated in an anti-democratic corporate power structure.
As soon as "elections" become meaningful the power structure will make sure they cease.
and if we beat them in the system, they will just resort to naked violence. the hour approaches, my friends. get ready.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Everything's changed since 12/12, not entirely.
Playing hardball in CA election strategy was the reason the Governator was supported by the GOP, even though he's friends with H-wood liberals and gays and doesn't support the "social" agenda. His presence brought all the old Pete Wilson people back and they are working to change CA into the GOP stronghold it once was.
Between stuff like this and and gerrymandering tricks, US electoral democracy is a sick joke.
And they dare to criticise Venezuela? Why don't they choke to death on their hypocracy? We can only dream of the having the sort of sort of democracy Venezuelans enjoy!
I'm not sure the Founders ever really meant for people to vote for the president and vice president. They pretty much left the choice of electors up to the state legislatures. The idea was Utopian at its core. The brightest and the best from each state would pick the brightest and best among them to go to the Electoral College and pick someone -- probably one of the people present -- to be president and the other to be vice president. The idea of actual people voting came much later.
I agree with vmulier. As scary as it sounds, that's exactly what's coming.
Thomas J. Comer
If basic morals (honesty, integrity, compassion etc) are corrupted in the majority of active participants, laws and institutions will not help. The corrupt will find workarounds to circumvent the rules.
A much deeper graft is needed (pun not intended): bring back basic morality.
why are we hearing about this from the UK??? does Fux News control everything we hear on TV or read in the papers here??
America...the beacon of fascism??
Not only are they committing fraud by offering food to the homeless in return for their signatures, but they are also hitting up California campuses and slipping the electoral vote initiative under a cancer care for children initiative and saying that they are "similar issues" if anyone asks, or that you have to sign more than once. Thus, a lot of people won't read the initiative that comes with the cancer one (or will presume it is part of the same inititative) and will automatically sign it. Disgusting stuff.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x486034
It's not how you vote that counts, but how you count the votes.
What difference does it make? You'll get a Republocrat no matter what happens. As Mencken said: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Is there really a problem here? I mean, really, what is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican if you really look close.
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol25no3/twoparties.html
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction regarding the 2000 election. The choosing of electors is a States Rights issue.
I live in California and have watched the Republican attempt to redistrict the way in which our electoral votes are awarded carefully.
The funding is coming from the Gulianni campaign, and they are paying signature gatherers $3 per signature. They have three petitions they are pushing. One is to fund cancer research and cancer hospitals for children. That is the issue the signature gatherers use to get people to their table.
Then, they offer a petition regarding eminent domain, "Keep the government from taking your private property."
Then, they have a third petition, "Make elections more fair."
If the signature gatherer gets a voter to sign all three, they make $9, so, as you can imagine, they try pretty hard.
We need to change the law in California to outlaw out of state interests funding petition drives. I do not think it is illegal at this time. Misrepresenting the initiatives to potential signers is illegal, and there is enough evidence of that for our Attorney General, Jerry Brown (yes that Jerry Brown) to be considering legal action if it is warranted by deceptive descriptions offered by the signature gatherers. I have seen video of at least one instance of that at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The gang that has the best computer hackers, will win.
The author is correct about one thing: This should be done everywhere, not just in California. But it has to start somewhere and one wing of the corporate-imperialist duopoly is going to bitch like crazy and suffer temporarily regardless of whether it is a Democrat- or Republican-controlled state. We have to address the real disease, which is the anachronistic Electoral College itself--and the undemocratic "winner take all" system of apportioning electoral votes in the states. Until the day when this is finally abolished--and a truly democratic system of proportional representation is established--why shouldn't a candidate of ANY party--whether Democrat, Green, Socialist, Republican, Libertarian (or independent candidate, for that matter)--who wins a majority in ANY district be entitled to claim the share of electoral votes that he or she earned?
If you really want to see how elections are fixed--and how dirty tricks and unethical and illegal practices are used by DEMOCRATS to rig elections, watch this episode of "Democracy Now!" about the lawsuit Nader v Democratic Committee http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/145208&mode=thread&tid=25
or read the text of the 373-page suit for yourself here: http://newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/2007/10/democratic-party-sued-for-anti.html
More information at:
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee
PS. To commander_n_chimp: the Green Party and so-called "Naderites" have consistently campaigned for the electoral reforms you mention (among others). From the Green Party platform: "We will act to broaden voter participation and ballot access. We advocate universal voter registration and an election day holiday and/or conducting elections over more than one day (say on a weekend)."
If voting could change things they'd make it illegal.
In the last of the article it's mentioned that " ... just when you thought is was safe to go back into the voting booth ...", I would have to whole-heartily disagree with. Since the disaster of 2000 there has been nothing to indicate that progress has been made in fixing the electoral system and every indication that it's gotten worse. This is simply another example.
Leahy - again - came out and said that rove, miers, taylor and the others involved with the firings of the SAG's, which has everything to do with Election Fraud, have no right to executive privilege and hearings on contempt charges should move forward, although - again - he left no timetable.
Know this: if - and that's a big "if" - the American people ever become aware of the extent of Election Fraud there will be a revolution unlike any we've seen since the conception of this country.
If only getting the dems into the presidency would make a difference. We may have a slower trip to the gulag, but nonetheless we're going to the same place with either "winner".
Kucinich is the only viable and he won't win... uninformed and indoctrinated public = no democracy... hasn't been one for quite awhile. The two party system and the electoral college should have been scrapped about 60 years ago. Marionettes for big money... and a plan far more sinister than most are capable of acknowledging.
The late great reggae front man Joseph Hill of Culture wrote a song called "Good Things", urging people to take advantage of the good things of today "Cause the time will come, when you no see it again, the time will come, when you no see it again, said the time will come... when a good thing is like a thing of the past eh!"
The Nader issue happened because some people got smug. Everyone knew Nader couldn't win; as far as most voters were concerned the vote was a protest vote against the two main candidates. But the idea behind the Nader campaign was to turn the Dems' heads in a "ha-ha, you want Nader's votes, WORK FOR THEM"(i.e. move leftward), but it backfired. The Republicans won and the Democrats swung to right to come back. Not saying anybody was right or wrong, but that was the anatomy of it.
I have so often asked different Americans exactly what the 'king making' institution called the electoral college actually was. No American ever responded but the British Mr. Hari has given me an answer. Thank you. I had assumed that it was undemocratic (as Mr. DeWitt wrote, the founders never did wish for the unwashed masses to vote for presidents: we learnt that in high school history). Now, I can say unequivocally, it is about the most ridiculous electoral system besides first past the post.
clarity, I think you need to take a deep breath an think for a moment before ranting about the events concerning the 2000 Florida coup. Al Gore did, without question, win Florida. Period. The Democrats screwed up terribly by not demanding - as was their right under Florida law - a state-wide recount. The recount that was underway was stopped by the Supreme Court before it was finished.
As for the reference to the "votes that mean nothing", if you are referring to the absurd "controversy" over "hanging chads", then you need to educate yourself about the machines, the voter cards, and the method used to operate them.
I lived in Florida for twenty years, used those moronic voting machines many times, and I can say with certainty that not only were they absurdly counter-intuitive and complicated to use, they were poorly maintained and the polling stations were staffed with poorly trained old folk that were worse than the helpers at Home Depot. I should point out that my job requires me to diagnose and repair complicated machinery. And I'm good at it. When I say these machines were antiquated and at times barely functional, I know of what I speak.
The Republicans ranted and screamed that if a hole punched in a card still had the cast-off hanging by even one corner then "we can't be sure who the voter intended to vote for"...well, if a batter fouls one into the bleachers instead of knocking it out of the park, you still know which ball he was trying to hit.
p.s. A wasted vote is one cast for a candidate you don't support. Neither Ralph nor I "lost' the election for Al Gore - Gore won the election. Money stole it back.
This is a tempest in urine pot, much ado do about nothing. The electoral college is the tip of the damn ice berg on this thing. The real need is to get rid of this phony separation of powers BS system completely including the president and the congress being elected separately and change over completely to a real parliamentary democracy such as British and Canadian politics has, electing the national legislature, with the leader of the party winning over 50% of the seats in the lower house of that body being the one to become the chief executive and having tight party discipline to afford people real differences between the parties which we don't now have thus insuring full accountability. Along with all of the above we get question time for the chief executive and the vote of confidence procedure, making impeachment and removal completely unnecessary.
"One small addition"-- it might be necessary to put down most of the two US major parties as terrorist organizations or at least anti democratic organizations with the way they're trying to get Orwellian thought control in this country, and just have the Greens, Labor, Social Workers, and other decent parties for people participate in the process.
Here's something to consider and comment on. I know it's notperfect, but at least it's an alternative. The main problem is, after some research, I found the largest maker of ATM's is, guess who...Diebold, the Republican backed company that rigged the E-vote outcome in Ohio.
****************************
["To begin with, in the United States there must be a powerful demolition of the old political order: We need elections where all votes are cast and counted. The campaign against voter repression is the essential civil rights struggle of our time, even though most progressives don't seem to realize it yet. Prevailing will require fundamental reform such as the introduction of nationwide vote-by-mail (the Oregon system). Without that, and also many relentless prosecutions, nothing else will be achieved".---JAMES K. GALBRAITH March 30, 2006 "Taming Global Capitalism Anew"---(April 17, 2006 issue of The Nation Magazine)
James K. Galbraith, chair of the board of Economists for Peace and Security, teaches at the University of Texas and is senior scholar with the Levy Economics Institute]
====================================================
"A Better Election System" By Paul Magill Smith 3-8-2K6
The latest round of corruption in our government stems from the biggest executive crime of all. In collusion with the Supreme Court our glorious president/dictator/tyrant "stole" the election of 2000, with another criminal (Tom DeLay) "stole" a majority in the house through re-districting, and with corporate henchmen in Diebold & Company "stole" another presidency in 2004. Whether you agree with the presidential election results or not there were statistical anomolies, and thousands of citizen complaints that should have required greater scrutiny & inquiry.
Since the 2000 presidential election our national coffers have been looted to the tune of trillions of dollars, and with almost three more years to go in this theocratic oligarchy there is still much more damage to come. Our financial ruin, through an unsustainable balance of trade deficit, massive fiscal deficits, and a consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals & corporations, bodes ill for generations of Americans to come---IF there are generations to come after the effects of global warming, a state of perpetual global war, and depleted uranium have their way with us.
A bleak picture-yes-but there is cause for hope. Going under the assumption most Americans have a streak of common sense, and an inbred respect for 'the rule of law', the first step toward retrieving our now stolen democracy is restoring honesty to our electoral process. Accountability, verifiability, and transparency are not luxuries; they are necessities if democracy in America (the world) is to be viable.
With these considerations in mind I propose an entirely new election system for this country. It uses, for the most part, existing equipment & technology already in place throughout the entire country, and would only require the development of some software. Election expenses would be reduced, election theft would become a thing of the past, and national referendums on key issues would become a possibility. The 'will of the people' would become king, instead of the preferences of King George/Dick/Karl/Donald/ etc.
So here is the idea. Currently in the US there are 368,000+ ATM machines. They are easy to use (even from a car), provide a paper trail, accessible by use of a card with security features, and very accurately keep track of billions of transactions every month (a 1% accuracy error, which is acceptable for most elections, would land bankers out of their jobs & very likely jailed).
OK, so the first part deals with voting at ATM's, except when they are being used for elections they would become AVM's (Automatic Voting Machines).
The issue of verifiability would be very simple also. Since each registered voter would receive their own magnetic credit-card type, individually numbered card (requiring a personalized identification number-PIN-to make it work), each voter would have a specific number, and security that they were the only one who had the secret code to access the AVM. Following an election their unique number, along with the way their vote was recorded would be published in the local paper & on the internet at a specific site. Since all the voter numbers could be placed in numerical order it would be easy to scan down the list to your number and verify your vote was cast for the person you wanted it to be.
If it was an election with candidates in a number of positions your vote would read as a multi-character number. An example would be 1324113 in which you voted for 7 different people for as many electable posts. The AVM would have given you a hard copy receipt to be used to verify against the posted list.
Elections would start on Friday at 6 PM and end on Sunday at Midnight, eliminating long waiting lines that tend to discourage/disenfranchise voters.
ATM's are already linked to central computers, so collection of the total votes from all the machines should present very little problem. Election officials would be necessary at these institutions to verify all the votes were retrieved, but the elimination of officials at each precinct polling place would eliminate much of the costs of holding elections as with our current system. As a further dis-incentive to election fraud, caused by computer tampering, if a certain percentage or number of voters provide their AVM receipt to election officials, and their vote code doesn't match that of the central computers, the election results are AUTOMATICALLY declared void, resulting in a new election.
Since I have only begun thinking & writing about this new system I am sure there are many details to be considered and worked out. The bottom line is the current election system is broken, with millions of Americans lacking confidence in the extant election process & results.
As the world's oldest democracy, holding our 'system' up as a model for budding or want-to-be democracies around the globe, it behooves us to make sure our own system is the best we can possibly make it, and the one others will wish to emulate. "Do as I say" is not good enough. If America is to 'talk the talk' we must 'walk the walk' also.
Paul Magill Smith
pmsinva2@hotmail.com
(All comments & suggestions welcomed and please forward this idea if you believe it has merit)
It sounds foolproof to me, it would work. the TV pundents would hate it of course, as would the neo-cons who now contol the process.
I hope some in power, have the opportunity to absorb your very fine idea and appreciate your research and thoughs on the subject. Well done Paul.
Our country has become Facist anyway.
Naomi Fox has written a book "The End of America" and her ten point list of the the road to Facsism in America is almost complete. We are running ahead of the "Good Germans" timewise thanks to the current administative policies.
China now owns the US, thank you Georgie, so what do you expect to happen? Hillary is probably the new apointee = another Facisct just like her hubby.
America is screwed and democracy is gone/ Now we will finally know how the Indians felt. Karma, baby.....
Maybe there are different sorts of fascism. Some have argued that Hitler turned the German economy around, and did enjoy charismatic popularity. Bush has much of the fascism but little desire to win over the people or improve the lot of many.
His may be more like a nationalized/militarized crime syndicate, depending on whether your read on the whole Iraq war was little more than a publicly subsidized "hostile takeover" for Halliburton & Co.
Hitler turned the German economy around, Bush turned our economy around. Bush is following the blueprint Hitler wrote step by step, and the end of the blueprint is in sight.
Efforts such as this are only in place should the rigged Black box voting machines be made illegal.
He who places the Black box voting machine wins.
The Republicans are pretty much guaranteed to win presidential elections from here on in.
Our "Democracy" is a sham.