Election Reform

[PatrickHenry]

I was reading Devvy Kidd just now and realized that she has some great suggesstions for cleaning up the voting process.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd153.htm

I would rather have an orderly, hand counted process and be sure of the outcome than a fast, fraud-ridden election. Which one do you want? Fast, crooked elections or slow, accurate and honest elections? Do you want your vote to count or do you want to have a power behind the scenes determine the election for you? ............................................................... The Motor Voter Law of 1993 must be repealed. It has been a massive invitation for registering illegal aliens. This must come from Congress. Get busy America and demand the Motor Voter Law of 1993 be repealed at once. Now is the time to start the clean up process, a month before the ’06 elections. ................................................................... We must have paper ballots that are marked with a black felt pen that are then put into a clear plastic box that sits in everyone's view until time to count them. The count must take place in front of anyone who wants to watch. This will accomplish a number of things: With a plain, sturdy paper ballot, using a black felt pen, there can be no mistakes about “chads” in any state of pregnancy, or this other diversion they're calling “voter intent.” If someone makes a mistake, they can either X it out clearly and remark their choice, or bad ballots would be shredded right there in front of everyone and a new ballot issued. All ballots in a clear plastic box that never leave the precinct can't be stolen or stuffed. After the count, the boxes could then be escorted to the county clerk's office for secured storage in the event a recount is requested. We agree that 21st Century high-technology is fine, but not for our elections. Speed should not be the order of the day in elections. Fairness and impartiality to obtain an honest outcome should be the number one consideration. Internet voting would simply be the end of any fair elections in this country, period. .................................................................... Break down the precincts. No more 20,000 voters per precinct. Even it out through a district so that hand counting is manageable, accurate and time effective. Don't let the politicians at any level in your state tell you they don't have the money. We the people pay for every phase of an election in all 50 states and it's our right to have accurate elections. Paper ballots will eliminate the cost of these machines – tens of millions of dollars - for machines that cheat us. Look at the time and money that will be saved on litigation alone. How much do you think the mess in Florida cost taxpayers – not just Florida, but all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? ...................................................................... The fate of our Republic is in your hands. Electronic elections continue to steal our sacred right to vote our lawmakers into or out of office. I leave you with these words from George Washington back in 1776: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.” © 2006 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved

What do you think of these ides? Can you think of more accurate voting methods?

[nm420]

They're about as accurate as one could get, which is why they're being phased out. Fairness and accuracy are passé; secrecy and corruption are the orders of the day.

[xyzer]

I'm inclined to agree! The states should include some reforms in their election laws!

In the recent gubenatorial election in this state it turns out that some 45,000 ballots in King Country(Seattle) were changed/edited/corrected after the voter had cast them because they were improperly filled out! I don't recall how many were changed statewide.This was particularly significant because only about 100 votes separated the winner from the loser.

This evidently stems from the 2000 Florida fiasco in which Gore loudly proclaimed we must COUNT ALL THE VOTES! An election where people were interpreting and counting 'chads'!
IMNSHO if a ballot is improperly cast or flawed by the voter it should not be interpreted by someone else and counted. It should be discarded..i.e. we can't count all the votes, we can count only the valid votes.

[PatrickHenry]

Clearly marked paper ballots provide a record of what the voter did. They can be accurately recounted, if necessary. Electronic machines can easily be changed from the tally program and there is no backup. That's why I favor a paper ballot system, even if the counting takes a bit longer. What about a paper ballot with a machine reader? That's how I have been voting here in Hawaii...

[Osborn F Enready]

I concur with all of the original posters quoted words.

We the people must start making demands for voting system changes NOW.

[Mr.Vicchio]

You want fair and accurate, start by requiring every voter have a photo ID. Hand counted ballots are not more accurate... hello, flordia should have showed that to be the case. People haggling over what a voter "really meant"...

Then you can redistrict the house and Senate based on census data, put a giant grid across each state and make each distric fit per population, and ONLY population.

And finally, term limits. House members get four, two year terms, Senate gets two, five year terms and I think you would see a much bigger fix then the article PH posted.

[Nono]

Quote by: PH Clearly marked paper ballots provide a record of what the voter did. They can be accurately recounted, if necessary. Electronic machines can easily be changed from the tally program and there is no backup. That's why I favor a paper ballot system, even if the counting takes a bit longer. What about a paper ballot with a machine reader? That's how I have been voting here in Hawaii...

Here's the system in Canada (last time I voted there):

The ballot is a black piece of paper with the candidates' names in white and a white circle beside it. The voter marks the circle of his choice, places it in the envelope provided, leaves the polling booth and hands the envelope to the poll clerk, who places it in the box in the presence of a representative of each candidate.

The votes are later counted in the presence of the same representatives, and they can challenge any ballot. Challenges are reviewed by the "returning officer" in charge of the vote in that constituency. In certain cases he can order a recount.

It's low-tech nature is the beauty of it, and the guarantee of no shenanigans.

[Apeman81]

I should think that the cost of such elections would be an important factor in deciding methodology. Paper ballots, hand counts, and the redistricting of voters all drive the cost up with marginal reliability.

I do agree about the repeal of the motor voter law. It was a foolish boondoggle who's time should never have come.

There is no real problem with the rapidity of counts performed today, as either candidate can request recounts. The months intervening election and assumption of position leaves plenty of time for investigation.

I cannot understand the reluctance of some to require approved photo ID in order to vote. No argument against this requirements holds water. None.

As for term limits, that's up to the voters to remove those they don't approve of. I don't support limts. I see them as more of a cosmetic fix to the apathy that keeps people in place. Teach the voter to make the difference.

A marked paper ballot and machine scan sounds fine. The technology is well established. Should it be necessary, hand counts can settle the matter in court. Naturally, dishonesty can ALWAYS occur.

How about voter signatures on ballots? Maybe a photo copy of the ID used to prove voter eligibilty right on the ballot printed while the voter prepares to vote?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You want fair and accurate, start by requiring every voter have a photo ID. Hand counted ballots are not more accurate... hello, flordia should have showed that to be the case. People haggling over what a voter "really meant"... Then you can redistrict the house and Senate based on census data, put a giant grid across each state and make each distric fit per population, and ONLY population.

Now there is the idea. Lets put more information, and power into the hands of those we don't trust to do the counting, or tell the truth to begin with.


Pure genious.


I'd wager thats one of the talking points being bandied about by of of Vicchio's "conservative" groups. Who else could come up with such a cerebral solution?


Ah, the benefits of group think.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Huh, Milton? What are you blathering about?

To rent a movie from Blockbuster takes more ID then voting... you act as if requireing proof of who the voter is, is a bad thing... amazing. I suppose you think if someoen shows up and says "I want to vote man" they should just be handed a ballot without question as to who they are. What a great idea! No one could abuse a system like that now could they?

Changing the districts from control of the party in power to set, hard grids based SOLEY on population forcing the canidates to represent everyone, not just the group targeted by their party is a bad thing in your opinion? I thought you were against power hordeing by political parties...

That's amazing you took such a stance, I bet you didn't even READ what I wrote, you just saw I wrote something and made a base claim because "It's Vicchio".

Good job, kiddo.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would easily support VOTER ONLY picture I.D. cards if they could be provided without cost.

Money should be no barrier to voting rights, and even as a libertarian I could see the sense in having a private company contracted to provide I.D. cards at a set % of profit off of each card produced, which would be paid for through a specific tax, with a specification that NO additions could be made to the bill, and a specification that stipulated no deviation, or additional case for taxation could be made in relation to this tax, as it is strictly a tax to be used for ONLY the specified purpose at ratification of the bill to law.

As a "tax-protestor", even I can say that I think one of the only VALID reasons for a income tax, would be to have elections completely run and limited by an "Election Tax" that would be used to regulate fairness and equality of all parties canidates for any election by insuring that each party only have a set, equal amount of money to utilize for their campaign. I think it would be wisest to remove private money from elections, campaigns and poltics all together, since money is THE tool of influence peddling. By providing an equal and level playing field for money for campaign finance, as well as keeping that cost low by requiring all radio and television broadcasters, to offer equal airtime to all canidates equally, at no cost, as per agreement to use the "publicly owned" airwaves they use for profit. The time each broadcaster would allow equally, would have to be debated and agreed to by the Congress, after a hearing from all parties as to the costs and effects of the action and how to make the entire market "suffer" equally.

I would also fully support a method of IRV, using the best proven method of protection from tamper-ability.

That is just my 2 cents.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Well Osborn, we agree on something, imagine that hehe. It jsut boggles my mind that people demand accountability in voting, yet balk at something so, simple as identity verification. I would support a no cost Voter ID, or even a sliding scale ID cost. People making XX amount, say 35k a year and below get their cost free, 36k and above can pay a small fee. think about it, instead of another tax, jsut use the money paid for by the more affluent to pay for the other cards. It's a peice of paper, with a phote, some basic Identification information and a plastic coating. It could be done for a profit and not cost much.

I like the idea of a private company handiling that end of the issue as well. That would ensure they kept costs down.

Of course, everytime some brings up voter ID they are called a racist but hey, it's a good idea IMHO.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Huh, Milton? What are you blathering about? To rent a movie from Blockbuster takes more ID then voting... you act as if requireing proof of who the voter is, is a bad thing... amazing. I suppose you think if someoen shows up and says "I want to vote man" they should just be handed a ballot without question as to who they are. What a great idea! No one could abuse a system like that now could they? Changing the districts from control of the party in power to set, hard grids based SOLEY on population forcing the canidates to represent everyone, not just the group targeted by their party is a bad thing in your opinion? I thought you were against power hordeing by political parties... That's amazing you took such a stance, I bet you didn't even READ what I wrote, you just saw I wrote something and made a base claim because "It's Vicchio". Good job, kiddo.

What you are advocating is putting the onus on the voter, rather than targeting the bad guys first.


I never said I was against reform, I am just not comfortable putting more power into the hands of the people I don trust to begin with. I say we need more reforms to the voting process, which may, or may not include voter I.D.'s, but I do not think that should be the first reform that is implemented.


Lets rework the process so that the process is accountable before putting additional requirements on the citizens, who already boycott enmass by not voting.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said:
Well Osborn, we agree on something, imagine that hehe. It jsut boggles my mind that people demand accountability in voting, yet balk at something so, simple as identity verification.

I say:
I don't think identity verification is needed for anything MORE than citizenship. It should be in my opinion simply a picture, the citizens street address, and a password selected by the citizen to be encoded on a magnetic strip on the card itself. The password and photo ONLY would be kept on record, with no information other than that and street address being printed on the record, and the card itself. No SS#, no personal information other than that, including party affiiliation.

Vic said:
I would support a no cost Voter ID, or even a sliding scale ID cost. People making XX amount, say 35k a year and below get their cost free, 36k and above can pay a small fee. think about it, instead of another tax, jsut use the money paid for by the more affluent to pay for the other cards. It's a peice of paper, with a phote, some basic Identification information and a plastic coating. It could be done for a profit and not cost much.

I say:
Well, I hate the slippery slope of socialist ways of thought involved with this. I would probably only support it if it was kept privatized, with no government money handling, with lots of oversight by SEATED congressmen (no special oversight committees to further drain the taxpayers) and the cost was a FIXED % of profit. I understand that material costs fluctuate, but the profit margin should not!
I also would prefer it be a fixed cost to anyone that has an income above poverty level. Please note this is the ONLY case I have EVER recommended anything of this sort, as it is most definitely akin to socialist principle, which I abhor.

Vic said:
I like the idea of a private company handiling that end of the issue as well. That would ensure they kept costs down.

I say:
I think there are some libertarian values in you there Vic. I fully agree for the same reasons, as well as removing a large possibility of corruption when money is being handled by politicians.

Vic said:
Of course, everytime some brings up voter ID they are called a racist but hey, it's a good idea IMHO.

I say:
The funny thing is Vic, as a hard core Libertarian I am against it, because I see the dangers in the state knowing too much about the voters. But, I also understand that in our modern world of technology and border problems, we need a competent system of voter identification that respects both privacy as well as democratic funtion of the republic.

I think most Libs, and Constitutionalists would agree to a voter I.D. card if the bill was written well enough, and there were solid barriers in the writing of the bill preventing ANY possibility of access to information other than by the voting bureaus for the stated purposes of identification of citizenship.

In order for me to agree with it, it has to meet up to Constitutional limitations.

[Mr.Vicchio]

ACtually Osborn, it's the conservative sI have noted that seem to want the ID, and the liberals that are the most against it, in the washington circles. Namely the big Black and minority liberal leaderships claim it's a nefarious attempt to scare voters through racist tactics. I kid you not.

BTW I am more libertarian then you may believe(and on a few issues, very liberal), I just don't agree with the way the Libertarian party runs things.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic, I have to ask the obvious question then.....

You say you "don't agree with the way the Lib party runs things", but you have never seen one in major office in your lifetime. Both major parties have been in there your WHOLE life, and a lot more.
Are you saying you agree with their illegal, non-honest, lying, deceitful, pro-government, strong central government way of running things?

If so, please state what turned you so much against the Libs, as it surely must have been a monumental infraction to make you prefer the two largest evils out there!

[Mr.Vicchio]

Osborn, I keep tabs on the Libertarian Party, believe me. I think they waste energy pushing a presidential canidate... he can't win, not right now, and even if he did, he would have no power. What good would it do the Libertarians to have a President? The two parties would fight him tooth and nail and nothing he set agenda wise would ever get passed. It would be 4 years of waste.

Start small, state and local. Find a good canidate that can reach Washington, someone that can inspire people. Brown, that was the last Prez canidate yes? I might be wrong, been outside all day working barbwire, didn't inspire me.

I don't like the GOP as much as you might think from my writing here. I support the GOP because I think that at it's heart, the Conservative message of Reagan still lives. I believe in that. I do not like many of the things the GOP has done over the last 8 years, namely spending and pork barrel, but the Libertarian Party doesn't seem serious about taking the long view. America has been a Two Party System, you cannot break that without a good, hard long term stratagy, and so far, I haven't seen that from them.

I am... practical when it comes to politics. I hadf a GREAT Poli-Sci Proffessor that opened my eyes to the science of politics. Yes, I am partisan, but I also see what goes on behind it all.

Mr.Vicchio

[Cephus]

Quote by: Nono Here's the system in Canada (last time I voted there): The ballot is a black piece of paper with the candidates' names in white and a white circle beside it. The voter marks the circle of his choice, places it in the envelope provided, leaves the polling booth and hands the envelope to the poll clerk, who places it in the box in the presence of a representative of each candidate. The votes are later counted in the presence of the same representatives, and they can challenge any ballot. Challenges are reviewed by the "returning officer" in charge of the vote in that constituency. In certain cases he can order a recount. It's low-tech nature is the beauty of it, and the guarantee of no shenanigans.

How does that guarantee anything? It relies on the trustworthyness of the representatives to accurately count and report the numbers. If the voters were 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B, what's to stop the representatives from declaring candidate B the winner?

There simply is no guarantee no matter what the system says, and Florida proves it.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If so, please state what turned you so much against the Libs, as it surely must have been a monumental infraction to make you prefer the two largest evils out there!

I don't think the libertarians or the greens or anyone else isn't going to be just as "evil" as the Democrats or Republicans. The problem is POLITICIANS, regardless of what party they claim to represent. When you have people in power and their entire lives are centered around maintaining that power and political influence, you're going to get corruption.

Personally, I disagree with professional politicians. I think anyone in public office should be required to work at least one term in the private sector for every three they work in politics. It might humble a few of them who have never had to do an honest day's work in their lives.

[Jeff]

There are several interesting ideas in this post. Does anyone really think that whatever measures are put in place will work? Politicians look at rules and regulations as challenges to overcome. Campaign finance reform gave us the first election where over a billion dollars were spent in the presidential race. Election fraud is part of the political process and it always will be in one form or another.