|
Thread: URGENT --Americans (and others) PLEASE READ THIS!!! | This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted October 04, 2004 03:29 AM |
|
|
URGENT --Americans (and others) PLEASE READ THIS!!!
All it would take for the vast oceans of the world to evaporate overnight would be for each drop of water to deny the value of its contribution.
Little drops of water can't do that, but you can. Please don't make the ocean of American politics, or the politics in your country, dry up!
PLEASE VOTE
For my American friends: It's not too late. Monday, October 4, 2004 (tomorrow) is the voter registration deadline. If you are of age, and have not registered, please go to your nearest registration location and register. (Driver's license bureaus are the most common, but look up your closest local registration location on the net, or call your post office.)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 04, 2004 06:15 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 Oct 2004
|
Hey Peacemaker,
The title of the thread made me think something different from what you are saying here. Others might be confused. Perhaps a title saying, "Vote For Freedom" or whatever you want. I simply think the word "vote" should be in it.
I believe I've already said in bort's thread that I am a registered democrat in Oregon's Washington county.
If anyone does read this thread, then they should remember our country's people who have come so far to fight for a democracy and freedom of civil liberties. Many american Heroes Community members ought not to forget the sacrifices our elders have made for us that we may be free to vote for a better future for us and our children.
Freedom will ring and the call can be heard but only if the voices of free citizens take action, raise their boisterous votes, and sing liberty and independence to the rest of the world. For if you do not vote, if you should sit and wallow, or disdain in apathy, then you shall never truly be free. May your lives be filled with purpose, your children with food and laughter, and your hearts safe with independence. Let freedom ring, great God Almighty, free at last.
~I wrote this except for the last part. Everyone knows it was Martin Luther King jr who said it, but it certainly isn't restricted to his voice only. It's about sharing responsibility, only then can we be good americans, and only then can we truly be free.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted October 04, 2004 06:43 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 4 Oct 2004
|
http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_primaries.php
This site contains the registration deadlines for each state as well as necessary forms if available. It's aimed at the 18-25 age set, but the info is good for all eligible citizens. If you've moved since the last election, even switched dorms in college, you need to re-register.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
doomfreak
Famous Hero
The Crispinator
|
posted October 04, 2004 07:40 AM |
|
|
I registered last year for voting here in Australia, so I could vote when I turned 18 (earlier this year) and if I don't vote on Saturday, I could be fined becuase voting is compulsory here and I don't get to have my say on who our next PM is......
____________
Holden means a great deal to Australia...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted October 04, 2004 03:13 PM |
|
|
I don't get to vote...
I know more about the process and the candidates than most of the American population, I'm sure of it, but I still can't vote...
Flawed system...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted October 04, 2004 04:02 PM |
|
|
You only have to look at the last election to know it's a flawed system
To quote George Bernard Shaw though...
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 04, 2004 10:12 PM |
|
|
I agree with the attitude some people have that one vote makes almost no difference. It's true that in big national elections one vote does very little, but that's no excuse for not voting. The last presidential election drives home the point that one vote CAN make a difference.
If you don't vote, someone else will do it for you...and they might not vote the same way you would.
All the emphasis is placed on the presidential race, but don't forget about all the other races and issues. Sure the president might be the single most influential person in the country. But when taken in total; the US Congress, Governors, state and local officials, even your local prosecutor and judge have *WAY* more impact on the direction of the country than does the president. People give way too much credit/blame to the president.
Take the time to study and hopefully understand all the other candidates/issues on the ballot. Your choices will make more difference than the presidential election. And the more local it is the more your vote counts. Some small local candidates/issues may have as few as a hundred or so votes.
You also don't have to vote on every single thing on the ballot. I've been voting since the 1970's and I leave some things blank in almost every election. I guess my philosophy is that if I don't understand an issue or know much about the candidates, I'd rather not vote on it than roll the dice and maybe make a wrong choice. This is especially true with the citizen initiated propositions which can be very confusing and difficult to decipher the truth from lies.
You should view voting as a responsibility and something important. You should study and make your own decision based on what you've learned and your own conscience or even "gut feeling". Voting a certain way just because of what your friends say is not the way to do it, you should do your own study and make your own decisions.
And last but not least. If you don't vote you have no right to complain about the results because you let someone else make the choices for you.
____________
|
|
doomfreak
Famous Hero
The Crispinator
|
posted October 05, 2004 07:06 AM |
|
|
Quote: I don't get to vote...
I know more about the process and the candidates than most of the American population, I'm sure of it, but I still can't vote...
Flawed system...
Why? Aren't you 18 yet?
____________
Holden means a great deal to Australia...
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted October 05, 2004 02:03 PM |
|
|
As an outsider with some limited knowledge of your way of "doing Democracy", I maust say that I agree with Wolfman. The system is flawed.
I don't mean that only people who are knowledgeable about the system and the society should be able to vote, or that any one, no matter their age, should be able to, but that your system where each voter FIRST has to register, THEN has to come back to vote a month later is unneccesarily complicated.
In most other countries, all you have to do to vote, is to be of age, show up at election day with some kind of ID, and vote.
Also, imo, the system where you vote not directly on your favourite candidate, but on some kind of Electoral Man (don't know the english term for this), who in turn vote for the candidate you voted for, is unneccesary. We used to arrange our elections like this in Norway, too, but we stopped doing it this way in 1918...
But no matter the current difficulties and flaws: Voting is the main right you "buy" with your tax money; if you don't vote, don't start complaining about how badly run your country is, cos you could have dont something about it, and you didn't...
That's my 5 cents, or whatever it is you yankees say
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
posted October 05, 2004 02:38 PM |
|
|
Quote: As an outsider with some limited knowledge of your way of "doing Democracy", I maust say that I agree with Wolfman. The system is flawed.
I don't mean that only people who are knowledgeable about the system and the society should be able to vote, or that any one, no matter their age, should be able to, but that your system where each voter FIRST has to register, THEN has to come back to vote a month later is unneccesarily complicated.
In most other countries, all you have to do to vote, is to be of age, show up at election day with some kind of ID, and vote.
Also, imo, the system where you vote not directly on your favourite candidate, but on some kind of Electoral Man (don't know the english term for this), who in turn vote for the candidate you voted for, is unneccesary. We used to arrange our elections like this in Norway, too, but we stopped doing it this way in 1918...
But no matter the current difficulties and flaws: Voting is the main right you "buy" with your tax money; if you don't vote, don't start complaining about how badly run your country is, cos you could have dont something about it, and you didn't...
That's my 5 cents, or whatever it is you yankees say
I agree, the US election system is flawed and old fashioned. It's probably that way on purpose, and poor neighborhoods get the worst voting equipment -- like the infamous punch card machines in the Florida elections. I also agree that people who are able to vote, should vote! But the problem is that, in America, eligible voters are sometimes barred from voting for no good reason. In the Florida elections ethnic minority voters were barred from voting, probably because they were most likely to vote for the Democratic leader, Al Gore.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted October 05, 2004 03:28 PM |
|
|
Too Much Michael Moore...
Rindle wrote:Quote: But the problem is that, in America, eligible voters are sometimes barred from voting for no good reason. In the Florida elections ethnic minority voters were barred from voting, probably because they were most likely to vote for the Democratic leader, Al Gore.
In regards to your statement, please see below:
Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You have been watching too many Michael Moore movies. No United States citizen, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is ever denied the right to vote. If minorites were ever denied the right to vote in the United States, then the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the National Association for the Advacement of Colored People (NAACP) and other watchdog groups, would never allow this to happen.
In all fairness to your statement, perhaps what you meant to say was that in Florida certain votes from primarily minority voting districts may not have been accounted for. That would be more acccurate, IMO.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
posted October 05, 2004 03:37 PM |
|
|
What he means is they were % ally on purpose" lost.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
posted October 05, 2004 05:19 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
btw last year i participated in a student conference and my paper was about the flaws of electoral college. I thought it might be interesting for you so i'll post the speech. I might also post my entire paper if i find it.
Electoral College of the United States
Electoral College has been an indivisible part of the American Government since the very first days of the USA. When the founding fathers of the United States wrote the Constitution, they wanted the President to be elected by the Electoral College, an elite group of people, which would nominate and elect the President. Nevertheless, from the very first presidential elections Electoral College proved to have many defects and faults, which make it imperfect. Many reforms have been proposed in order to eliminate these defects. The future of the Electoral College is uncertain since it has many supporters and opponents. In this paper, I am going point out and discuss the main reforms that are proposed to eliminate the defects. American authorities need to find a solution to these problems since during every election there is a potential danger that a minority candidate may become a President. During every election, the candidates focus on these defects and play different strategic games in order to win these elections.
The main defects of the Electoral College may be considered the following:
1. Electoral College vote may contradict the Popular vote. This problem is considered the most important one. A question arises: does a presidential candidate have any moral right to become a president if the majority is against him? However, there have been a few times in the history of the United States when the minority candidate became a president. They are the following: the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote (151,174 votes), while John Quincy Adams won only 113,122 votes. However, when Andrew Jackson did not manage to win the majority of the electoral votes, and the House of Representatives was to elect the president the state delegates elected John Quincy Adams. In 1876 Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden outnumbered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes by 200,000 popular votes, but lost the electoral votes with a difference of one vote. A similar situation happened in 1888 when Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison.
After 1888, it happened several times that a candidate who won the bare majority of popular votes, did not receive enough electoral votes. The most recent example is the presidential election of 2000, when Al Gore won 50,994,086 votes (as compared to George W. Bush’s 50,461,092 votes), but lost the elections to Bush receiving only 266 electoral votes compared with Bush’s 270.
Several reforms have been proposed in order to do away with this defect. Nevertheless, the best reforms are considered the National Bonus Plan and the District Plan.
With National Bonus Plan (also called Electoral College with Super Electors) (article: NSS Report p.48) the candidate who wins the popular vote will receive a bonus 102 votes and the candidate who has at least 321 votes will become the president. This plan will keep the whole system and will do away with most of its defects and that is why it is most likely to be supported by the defenders of Electoral College. Experiments show that only the majority presidential candidate may win with National Bonus Plan.
However, this system is not widely recognized yet, though day after day it is gaining popularity.
District Plan “requires the electors to be elected in their respective state in the same manner the members of Congress are elected” (Book: William A. McClenagham “American Government” p. 396). This means that two electors are elected statewide and the rest are elected in their respective congressional districts. Up till now, only Maine and Nebraska use this system to elect its Electoral College members. This system will also increase the voter turnout and count all votes equally.
However, this reform has a major defect that the House may still interfere to decide the outcome of the election if no candidate receives more than half of the electoral votes. The District Plan depends heavily on how the electoral districts are distributed. Thus, some political powers may change the territory of districts in order to favor one or another candidate. This is called “gerrymandering” (Encyclopedia Encarta 2000 articles “Electoral Reform” “Gerrymander”).
Besides the National Bonus Plan and the District Plan, the Direct Elections may work out this problem as well.
2. The electors may vote for the candidate who was not favored in their respective states by the popular vote. This is also called as “a problem of faithless electors” (Book William A. McClenagham “American Government” p.395). Many states do not practice any law, which requires the elector to vote for the candidate favored by the popular vote. Now twenty-seven states have laws that bind the elector to vote for one or another candidate, but only 3 states (Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina) have penalties for “faithless electors.”
In fact, the problem of “faithless electors” has happened nine times. For example in 1988 a West Virginia Democratic Elector instead of voting for Michael Dukakis as President and Lloyd Bentsen as Vice President, voted for Dukakis as Vice President and Bentsen as President.
Though so far the “faithless electors” have not ever altered the outcome of an election, the potential danger is always present.
This problem can be solved with the help of the Proportional Plan reform. With the Proportional Plan, each candidate will receive the same share of electoral votes as popular votes. This plan will do away with “winner-take-all” (Book Richard M. Pious “American Politics and Government” p.276) and “faithless elector” possibility. It will also increase the voter turnout and make all the votes count equally.
However, the role of electors becomes much or less unimportant, as they will not have possibility to vote for the candidate they favor. This plan will also break down the two-party system and give rise to minor parties. Minor parties get considerable number of popular votes, although they usually do not get many electoral votes. Therefore, with Proportional plan, these parties will get increasingly more electoral votes and there will be a constant potential danger that no candidate may receive enough electoral votes to become a president. However, it is not likely that the Republicans and the Democrats will pass this reform since they do not want to break down the two party system and give the third party leaders a chance to become a president.
Besides the Proportional plan, the direct elections may work out this problem as well.
3. Smaller states are overrepresented in Electoral College. This is considered a major drawback as smaller states as compared to larger states have 2 senator-based electors. For example if we compare California which had a population of 32,666,550 and 54 electors in 1998, with Wyoming which had a population of 480,907 and 3 electors, we will see that each elector in California represents a population of 604,936 while in Wyoming only 106,302. This problem may have a crucial effect on the results of the elections.
This defect can be solved by “Redistribution or Addition of Electoral College” (article NSS Report p.49). According to this reform the Electoral College votes should be distributed according to the state’s actual population, thus solving this problem. About 40 states will get additional votes. However, politicians fear that smaller states, which will not get additional votes, would oppose this reform in order to keep their influence.
Besides this reform, the Direct Elections will eliminate this problem as well.
4. The possibility of interference of the House of Representatives if no candidate receives the required number of votes. This has happened twice: in 1800 and in 1824. In 1800, the House decided the matter in favor of Thomas Jefferson and in 1824 in favor of John Quincy Adams.
This problem can be solved by either National Bonus Plan or Direct Elections.
It should also be mentioned that reforms to change the Electoral College had been proposed by various political parties and groups since 1789 and two very important reforms have been passed becoming Constitutional Amendments 12 and 23. The 12th Amendment (ratified July 27, 1804) requires 2 separate ballots for President and Vice President and the 23rd Amendment (ratified March 29, 1961) gives the District of Columbia the right to have 3 electoral votes.
So far, the Electoral College reform, which is most popular in public, is the Direct Elections reform. It is very popular because it is simple, widely accepted and democratic and the winners will always represent the majority. This reform will increase the voter turnout during the elections and it will eliminate all known disadvantages of Electoral College.
However, the Direct Elections have many known disadvantages. First of all a lot of falsifications may occur during the elections, while in Electoral College the falsifications are virtually impossible. Besides, the Electoral College identifies the winner very quickly, while it takes longer to decide the winner with direct elections. It must also be mentioned that Direct Elections are ideal for smaller countries, while for bigger countries it creates many problems. For example, the cost of presidential campaigns rises steadily and then the candidates must spend more time campaigning in every state, while with Electoral College, they campaign only in the states, which support them.
Despite the defects the Electoral College has, it has many defenders as well. They bring their arguments that the Electoral College is a widely accepted and known process while the proposed reforms may have major drawbacks, which are unknown now. They also mention that generally, the Electoral College proves the expectations of the citizens of the United States of America and that the critics exaggerate its faults.
In conclusion, I want to say that before making any reforms to the system of Electoral College, politicians must consider all possible variants and choose the best one. History proves that there is no perfect voting system, and even Direct Elections, which seem to eliminate all the defects of the Electoral College, has some serious disadvantages on its own.
Every year hundreds of Electoral College reforms are proposed in Congress and in state legislatures. For example, in 2002 15 states tried to switch to District Plan, while Nebraska tried to abolish its District Plan. However, all of these bills failed to pass. In 2001 Virginia became the 27th state to bind its electors to vote for the candidate favored by popular vote. Four states (Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota and Virginia) passed laws to support the Electoral College, while an anti-Electoral College bill failed to pass in Connecticut.
In 1888, when a minority candidate Benjamin Harrison became the president of the United States, there was neither any public discontent, nor complaints from Grover Cleveland (the popular vote winner). However, politicians fear that people may react differently now, as they are politically more active and mature.
If we take a final look on the proposed reforms, we can say the following. National Bonus Plan is the best reform for Electoral College supporters. However, the disadvantages of this system are unknown and it is somehow dangerous to put it into practice without first “testing” it. District plan is the most popular reform among the Electoral College supporters: two states already use it and many other states are likely to use it. However, District plan does not eliminate most of Electoral College defects. Proportional plan is quite complicated and it is not likely to be adopted by state legislature bodies (the bill has already failed in Alabama, Washington, Vermont and West Virginia). Electoral College Redistribution and Addition plan is quite a smart one, and states with large population like California, New York, Texas are likely to support it though smaller states will most likely oppose it, in order to keep their influence. So far, the Direct Election plan is the most popular option among the Electoral College opponents but switching to direct elections will alter the nature of presidential elections.
I think that it would be ideal to reform the system now and not to wait for a moment of crisis making hasty decisions.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted October 05, 2004 07:31 PM |
|
|
I humbly compliment all these excellent posts and observations. Ratmonkey, well done on the paper man. Thanks to you all by honoring the process, and responding to my original post in this thread.
Hey, Khay!!! Long time no talk!
In response to your post:
Quote: Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You have been watching too many Michael Moore movies. No United States citizen, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is ever denied the right to vote. If minorites were ever denied the right to vote in the United States, then the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the National Association for the Advacement of Colored People (NAACP) and other watchdog groups, would never allow this to happen.
Please see the following exerpts from this article recently sent to me by a friend. As you read this article, remember that the polls are tightening considerably and the outcome of the election will very likely be determined by minority vote counts in swing states. Once again, under the electoral college system, only a few hundred of these votes could swing the entire state in one direction of the other.
(PLEASE NOTE: This article was mostly "smoke" and took a long time to get to the actual "fire" -- or evidence -- of a real problem. For that reason I have edited it heavily. For the full text, see the link at the end.)
Quote: The Progressive | October 2004 Issue
Bullies at the Voting Booth
by Anne-Marie Cusac
What if Republican shenanigans tip the election? Many members of the media are looking at the dangers voting machines may pose to the integrity of the national election. Others are wondering whether voters may be disenfranchised by use of faulty felon lists, as happened in Florida in 2000. But there is another danger: Republicans may use a variety of tactics to suppress the vote of racial minorities in swing states. These tactics could determine control of the White House or the Senate...
...In some states, Republicans are threatening to conduct widespread vote challenges in heavily minority areas. In others, recent events suggest that poll workers may wrongly turn away voters. In still
others, new laws passed or enforced by Republicans have erected hurdles to trip up the minority vote. And on Election Day itself, say advocates, Republicans may direct numerous tricks at Democratic districts in an effort to confuse or frighten voters.
Here's a rundown of what's happening in several swing states.
...Florida
The state that started it all in 2000 is no stranger to controversy this election. In July, The Miami Herald revealed that the state issued faulty felon purge lists containing the names of 48,000 people it said were ineligible to vote. Among these were 2,100 who actually were eligible voters. Many of these people were African American Democrats...
In mid-August, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert revealed that the state was investigating get-out-the-vote drives among blacks in Orlando by sending armed police officers into the homes of citizens who had filed
absentee ballots. Most of these citizens were African American, and many were elderly.
And in Florida's late August primary, representatives from People for the American Way saw poll workers turn back registered voters who neglected to bring their IDs. "Under Florida law," noted The New York Times, "registered voters can vote without showing identification."
...Then there's the provisional ballot crisis. In Florida in 2000, many people who attempted to vote found that they were not on the rolls, even though they had registered. This is the reasoning behind the provisional ballot requirement in the federal Help America Vote Act. If a voter is wrongly removed from the rolls in the future, he or she should be able to file a provisional ballot. Most states interpret this part of the act as allowing provisional ballots as long as the voter files them in the correct county.
Florida is a little different. Rather than the correct county, voters must submit their provisional ballots to the correct precinct. "This will disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters," says Gonzalez.
So the AFL-CIO is suing Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, along with two election supervisors from areas of Florida that have seen some of the largest population increases, and some of the most marked changes in precinct lines. The precinct requirements "impermissibly abridge the right
to vote," the AFL says.
...Michigan
Michigan is the state that Jon Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, mentions as a potential trouble spot. On July 16, the Detroit Free Press quoted John Pappageorge, a Republican state representative from Troy, Michigan, who said, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." Detroit is 83 percent African American. Pappageorge later told the Associated Press that he was not advocating suppression of the black vote but that "you get it [the Detroit vote] down
with a good message."
Cecelie Counts, AFL-CIO director of civil, human, and women's rights, says ..."That is the political reality in most of these swing states," ...Democrats "can't win Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania without the African American vote, without a tremendous African American vote." And, she says, by using census numbers, Republican strategists "can pinpoint places" where minority voters are likely to influence an election. "They know it's Detroit. They know it's Kansas City and St. Louis. They know it's Las
Vegas."
...Michigan is no stranger to aggressive poll watchers. In the 1999 election, a group calling itself Citizens for a Better Hamtramck went to the polling centers in Hamtramck, Michigan, and approached people who appeared to be Arab. "As people were standing outside waiting to vote, this group took it upon itself to ask people to prove they were citizens," says Laila Al-Qatami, communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "They were asking voters to step aside and say an oath of citizenship, even if they were capable of producing a U.S. passport." ... The U.S. government filed a lawsuit that claimed violations of the Voting Rights Act...
Missouri
..."In Democratic districts, which also happened to be predominantly African American, there were polls that opened late, like 10 a.m. instead of 7 a.m., which is a real problem for working people," says Counts of the AFL-CIO. "The hours weren't extended during the evening." Counts also says that "people who showed up without ID were turned away from the polls and not given provisional ballots," even though that's what the law required....
Nevada
In late August, Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, met with the registrars from the Reno and Las Vegas areas... The registrar of Washoe County is Daniel Burk. "An official of the Republican Party" came to his office one day with a small group, he says. The official asked how to launch a "full-scale program for challenging voters who come to the polls." Burk says he informed the Republicans that vote challenges should be used narrowly, when one voter with personal knowledge of another calls attention to a problem.
"One said, 'Well, we were thinking of a wider scale use of it. We were thinking of challenging lots of voters,' " says Burk. It was the way they looked at each other, he says. "I began to wonder, what are they up to? I just told them I wouldn't tolerate it. The process isn't designed for one party challenging another."
The revelations, says Peck, are "consistent with reports people are getting all around the country. Republicans have a national strategy of going out and challenging voters" come November 2.
"Our concerns are utterly nonpartisan," says Peck. "It's the integrity and fairness of the election." Although Nevada law does allow for voter challenges when a challenger has personal information about a voter's citizenship or place of residence, "it becomes problematic when people are using this strategically, in a partisan way." ...
...New Mexico
...On September 7, Robert Thompson, a state district judge, refused to issue an injunction to force people to show IDs at the polls. "The eleventh-hour request by the plaintiffs creates a risk of substantially disrupting the public voting process, which far outweighs any potential harm to the plaintiffs," wrote Thompson in his decision...
South Dakota
South Dakota is hardly a swing state in the common sense, since George W. Bush is set to win here by a landslide. But the state is seeing a rough Senatorial race. The Republicans have targeted Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle for removal. And one tool is a new law that requires all voters to show ID at the polls and get all absentee ballots notarized.
During the 2002 election, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson won his seat by only 524 votes. He had strong Native American support. Republicans weren't happy about that. "In South Dakota, the common tactic is to allege voter fraud," particularly when the Democrats win, says Bryan Sells, staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Usually it's called 'Indian voter fraud.' In fact, I can't recall a case of someone alleging 'non-Indian voter fraud.' The idea is, whether true or not, you create the sense" that Native American voters are not to be trusted...
After investigating fifty charges of fraud following that 2002 election, State Attorney General Mark Barnett, a Republican, said, "There was no widespread fraud and the election results are valid. No one stole the election."
Nonetheless, Republicans introduced legislation that... requires South Dakotans to show a picture ID in order to vote or else write up an affidavit. And, if they vote by absentee ballot, they need to get it notarized. The legislation... will make it "harder to vote at the polls, harder to register, and harder to vote by absentee ballot," especially for people on reservations (Sells said). "I don't know if you've ever been to a reservation, but there aren't a lot of notaries around."
...Jesse Clausen, who has been active in many voter registration drives, puts it another way... "Indian people living in poverty might have higher priority on other things than spending $8 to get their driver's license." Clausen points out that many people on the reservations don't have cars.
During a special election held on June 1, the effect of the new law on the Native American vote started to show. "People would go in and say, 'Well, I don't have an ID,' and [poll workers] would let it be known that if they didn't have an ID, they should turn around and leave," says Clausen.
Poll workers weren't supposed to do that. According to the law, they were supposed to give voters who lacked IDs an affidavit. Once signed, the affidavit would allow people to vote. Jason Schulte, executive director of the Democratic Party of South Dakota, says that, "mostly on or near reservations," people who forgot to bring their IDs "were not told about the affidavit scenario." Daschle himself says eh "heard from countless voters who experienced difficulty when attempting to vote."
Jim Gardner, communications director for the Missouri Democratic Party, describes some of the tactics that he says have happened in his state during past elections: "Videotaping people as they're coming into the polling place. Parking near a polling place in a Crown Victoria with a couple of guys in dark suits. . . . A whisper campaign that everyone trying to vote who has outstanding traffic tickets will be arrested." ...the Missouri Democrats have also heard stories in past elections of people handing out flyers in Democratic precincts that say, "Don't forget to vote on Wednesday, November 4," when the election is Tuesday, November 3.
Greenbaum's organization faxed me a series of signs that have appeared in Democratic precincts on or near election day. One sign, which appeared in Baltimore in 2002, is entirely in capital letters. "URGENT NOTICE," it reads. "COME OUT TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6th. BEFORE YOU COME TO VOTE MAKE SURE YOU PAY YOUR
- PARKING TICKETS
- MOTOR VEHICLE TICKETS
- OVERDUE RENT
AND MOST IMPORTANT
ANY WARRANTS"
A second sign, this one from 1996, uses a tiny font to inform prospective voters that they may get into trouble when they walk into the booth.
"Thanks to advances in computer technology Voting Machines can now be equipped with computers inside. The computers can be connected to a phone line to Federal State, and Local government agencies to instantly check if a voter is:
A NON-CITIZEN
Wanted on Criminal or Traffic Warrants or Parole or Probation violations
Is behind on child support payments
Is cheating on Welfare, Food Stamps, AFDC, Section 8 or Medicaid by earning money 'off the books'
Has defaulted on government-backed student loans
Has failed to file income taxes for two or more years."
In late August, People for the American Way and the NAACP released a report entitled, "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today." "In every national American election since
Reconstruction, every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters--particularly African American voters and other minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression," says the report. However, it describes recent voter suppression tactics as "more subtle, cynical, and creative" than "the poll taxes, literacy tests, and physical violence of the Jim Crow era."
Jim Crow is still casting a very long shadow.
-- Anne-Marie Cusac is Investigative Reporter of The Progressive.
http://www.progressive.org
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
posted October 05, 2004 08:27 PM |
|
|
Vote Kerry!
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 05, 2004 11:52 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
First: I wrote this before I saw Ratmonkey's posts. As it happens, much of what I say is in opposition to Ratmonkeys post. I don't want to alter this to address specific points of his. But much of what he calls "problems" with the system are addressed anyway. I want to point out one thing about his post though. His alternatives are variations of the electorial college. The Constitution already allows the states to pick their own method of selecting members for the electorial college. He's simply offering varoius methods being discussed or implimented. My post is more an explanation of the system and why it's in place, and also an argument agaisnt eliminating it entirely. It only coincidentally refutes some of his arguments.
Another point is that to eliminate the electorial college entirely requires a constitutional ammendment. That's not easy to do. And, in the case of ammendments, it's definately not done by popular vote, but on a "one state one vote" basis. It also requires a 3/4 majority which won't happen.
Now the original post.
I want to explain the concept of the electoral college (that's the correct term terje), but a couple other things first.
First: ditto what Khayman said. Eligible voters being banned just wouldn't happen. Well, if it did, it would cause major riots.
Second:
Quote:
It's probably that way on purpose, and poor neighborhoods get the worst voting equipment -- like the infamous punch card machines in the Florida elections
As I mentioned earlier, I've been voting since the 1970's. I've never used anything except punch cards and I've never voted in a poor neighborhood. The controversial punchcards used in Florida were a specific type of punchcard called a butterfly ballot. I've used butterfly ballots also, maybe half the time. They may be *SLIGHTLY* more difficult to use than other types. Let me rephrase that. They may be slightly less easy to use than other types. To do it wrong, someone has to not be paying attention to what they are doing. At worst, the elections board may have been guilty of not teaching the voters how to tie their shoe (which literally is much more complicated than using a butterfly ballot).
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a perfect system. A system and rules are created and approved by everyone involved, including the voters themselves (although 99.9% of them choose not to give input on it). Once the rules are made and approved, they must be followed. There is not other way to do it. I even knew several staunch democrats who thought they were trying to change the rules in the middle of an election and that it was wrong to do.
At the risk of another long post, on to the electoral college.
Contrary to what most people believe, in the United States the citizens *DO NOT* elect the president. I'll repeat, they *DO NOT* elect the president. And I happen to agree with that. I see nothing wrong with the citizens electing the president, but I have reasons for preferring it the way it is.
A little history is needed to explain what I mean.
[bold]U.S. Constitution Article II[/bold]
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ....... [and] be elected, as follows
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint ........ a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.......
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons....
The above does not give reasons for the system, but is the constitutional directive for the electoral college system. Note that Clause 3 has been amended. Originally two votes were cast. The first place winner became president and the second place winner became vice-president. Now there is only one vote and the pres and vice-pres run as a pair and can not be separated. In practice the two are always of the same party, but that's not mandated by the amendment.
The reasons behind this have to do with the founders view of what this country was at the time, and should be in the future. The original thirteen states were largely autonomous.
Websters definition of autonomy: 1: the quality or state of being self-governing; esp : the right of self government 2 : a self governing state 3 : self-directing freedom and esp. moral independence
The founders were keen on the idea of the states remaining largely autonomous. Much of the debate among the founders involved the question of whether there should even be an umbrella government at all. They had just won a war and gained independence from Britain.....a government they felt was oppressive and didn't give them a voice in choosing their own destiny. They knew from experience and history that governments always become overly large, unresponsive to the people, etc. They didn't want that to happen again. On the other hand, they realized the benefits of the states being united and having at least some form of government to act in the common interest of the individual states. This second view prevailed and, hence, the United States was born.
Even still, the states valued their independence and there was still much skepticism about a federal government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were one condition placed on forming a government above the state level.
And the wording of the Constitution itself made an attempt to limit the powers of the government. The part of the constitution which spells out the powers of the government is pretty short. The part about the powers of congress is slightly more than one screen on my computer. The part about the president is less than a screen.
The powers given to the government are all pretty specific with very few generalities. And the Constitution explicitly states that if a power is not specifically given to the federal government, then they don't have that power. Any unspecified power is to lie with the individual state or locality.
The founders envisioned a small limited government to look after the common good. Something very telling in this is the section of the Constitution which states that the members of Congress must get together and meet at least ONE DAY per year. This implies that the founders fully expected the congressional members to spend most of their time in their home states....that they expected there to be times when nothing was of high enough importance to be brought to the federal level of government.
The word "state" can be used interchangeably with "nation". Note the similarity between "United States" and "United Nations". I believe what the founders had in mind was more along the lines of the United Nations. The states, or nations, would be autonomous, but would have a forum to discuss things of common interest and create "rules" for the common good. I'm not trying to make a statement about the United Nations, merely to make a point about what the founders had in mind. It's also not an exact parallel, but a general one.
Which brings me, finally, back to the electoral college. Again the UN analogy. The citizens of the member countries do not vote on the "president" of the United Nations. Each member country has a representative who votes. The citizens don't vote directly, but one way or another each member country chooses someone who will be the voice of that nation.
The electoral college in the US is very similar. The states are (or are supposed to be) autonomous. When the people of the US vote for president, they are not voting for the president directly. As citizens of their state, they are placing a vote for which direction their state will go. In other words, it's a state election, not a federal election. There are no federal elections in this country, only state and local elections.
The US government is set up with various levels of representation. The House of Representatives are the only ones who directly represent the people at the federal level. Each House member represents approximately the same number of people and is the voice of those people or the district where they live.
The members of the Senate were originally elected by the state legislature. They were the federal representatives of the states, not the citizens directly. Their job was to represent the state as a whole, or the prevailing view of the citizens. This is very similar to the UN. Now this has changed and Senators are elected by the people. But in theory, and largely in practice, they still represent the state as a whole.
In the House, each person has approximately the same representation at the federal level. In the Senate, each STATE has the same representation. Each state has an equal vote in the federal government.
The president is somewhere in between these two. The president is elected by the representatives of the states, similar to the Senate. But each state's vote is weighted by the number of people in that state, similar to the House. The more populous STATES have more say in the matter than less populous states. But on the other hand the CITIZENS of the less populous states have more say than the larger states.
The system is a compromise between state autonomy and state rights, and those who believe in direct citizen representation. I think it's a good compromise because both are important. As a citizen I would like to have some direct say in the matter. But I also believe strongly in state autonomy. I would much rather that those who make decisions affecting my life are closer to home.
Hey Dingo, you live in a less populated state, does it bother you that all those people in California have so much say in the election? Do you want them to have so much impact on things which affect your life?
And Hey, whoever lives in California, does it bother you that an individual vote in Idaho carries more weight than your vote?
If the electoral college were eliminated, the vote of individual people would be equal. But the vote of specific areas and cultures would become even more lopsided. Why would the presidential candidates even bother campaigning in Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska or N Dakota. All they would have to do is get the vote in LA, NY City, Detroit etc. and the heck with the rest of the country.
What's more fair, an equal vote of individual citizens, or a more distributed vote based on local cultures, beliefs and lifestyles? Or maybe something in between? Well, that's what we have, something in between.
Is it perfect? Heck no it's not perfect, but at least there are rational reasons for it being as it is.
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
posted October 06, 2004 12:58 AM |
|
|
Quote: Hey Dingo, you live in a less populated state, does it bother you that all those people in California have so much say in the election? Do you want them to have so much impact on things which affect your life?
I never thought of it that way. I don't think of it as a state vs state, for voting for the president. I think it's more about the American People voting. No, It doesn't bother me. However it's hard for me to make my mind up on this issue. I'll probably post more later...
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 06, 2004 01:58 AM |
|
|
You mean you actually read that far?
I posed that question to you partly to get your viewpoint, but also to make a point. You shouldn't look at it as a state vs state thing. It's not about one state being against another. It's about each state, region or culture retaining some of it's own identity.
The structure of the Senate actually does a lot more to keep states autonomous than the electorial college. But the electorial college is set up for much the same reason. At least to some degree it helps give fair representation to states, regions and cultures as well as individuals.
Regardless of how you personally feel, you might even completely agree with the prevelent vote in California, but do you see the point? Do you think someone over in Idaho Falls or Petaluma would see the point? What about the ranchers over in eastern Oregon or northern Nevada? Do you think they should have some extra "weight" given to their way of life as opposed to the vast majority of weight placed within a handfull of big cities? How best do we give those ranchers fair representation? Not representation as individuals, but representation of a way of life....a way of life just as important as other ways of life.
The whole idea of electorial college is a compromise between fairly representing various individuals and fairly representing various lifestyles.
As I've stated before, I'm not entirely oppossed to direct election. The point is there is a bigger picture. One person, one vote is simple and easy to understand. The bigger picture is not so simple and is easily overlooked. I would just not like to see the other side overlooked in a quest for simple answers.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 06, 2004 07:04 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 6 Oct 2004
|
Hrm.....
How quickly we forget an important principle.
Binabik, Ratmonkey, Peacemaker, and Khayman......let me please ask(and in doing so remind you of something important):
~ If we americans have already voted for our respective senators(which as Binabik correctly correlates more representative of their respective districts) and electoral representatives why then do we feel the need to conduct a "popular vote" side by side the constitutional electoral presidential election? Again...why hold a popular vote if the electoral vote is the deciding vote?
Let me address right away that my point is not to say our current voting system is flawed. In my opinion that should be something that everyone understands. No country in the world has a perfect election system. Quite contrary, in fact my purpose for posing the question is to reinforce my belief in the value of our current system.
But before I do, I want to know why you think we would do such a thing; holding such an election with such contradictory possibility. Wouldn't logic dictate the popular vote to be a self-defeating vote when compared to the constitutional electoral vote?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
posted October 06, 2004 06:47 PM |
|
|
thanx binabik and peacemaker for your posts
i have a couple of things to say. First of all i'm not american and living in Armenia which tries hard to become a democracy i have seen all the evils of direct elections. so in my opinion direct elections are not the best alternative for electoral college.
binabik i really enjoyed your post, however i want to say the following. first of all the u.s. constitution without the amendments is perhaps the most imperfect constitution in the world. at the same time it is probably the most important document in the history of mankind as the constitutions of most countries (including Armenia)is written on the basis of the u.s. constitution. so, as the present day USA is not quite the same thing as the founding fathers wanted it to be maybe it is but logical to think that the presidential elections should be of different nature too.
|
|
|
|