Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Glamkowski) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Aronesty) wrote:  
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Glamkowski) wrote: 
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Aronesty) wrote: 
>
>>>> If we charged people a $200 federal tax penalty for failing to vote in
>>>> a federal election, it would stir a subtle but powerful shift in the
>>>> counciousness of the country.
>>> 
>>> Because not voting should be a viable option.
>> 
>> This would not remove that option.  You can always vote ABSTAIN.

You mean turn in a blank ballot to receive credit?

> What about anarchists who don't vote because its against
> their ideological beliefs?
>
> (ok, I'm getting obtuse... ;-)
>
>> Not having a home and living in the streets is also a viable option. 
>> If you don't want to work.... then that's your fate.  If you don't
>> want to vote, then there should also be consequences.
>
> The consequence is that you have to suffer whatever is the will 
> of the actual voters.  
>
> How many people out there hate Bush, but didn't vote in 2000?
> Well, they have to suffer under a president they don't like
> because of their lack of voting.
>
>> Working and voting are things that we do to keep society running.  I'm
>> not saying that you can't choose not to.  I'm saying there should be
>> consequences for not participating in the country.  For example: there
>> are consequences for not paying taxes.

Perhaps we should put the voting polls on the top of high buildings
and then disable the elevators.  Only those with a real desire to vote
would.  Alternatively, let people vote on the internet using their
credit card to have their account credited as voting confirmation.  Or
alternatively have their account debited for being lazy.

> Taxes are a form of participation in this country.
> And you have to pay them even if you don't vote.
>
>>>> People, feeling compelled to vote, would also feel compelled to talk
>>>> about voting.
> 
>>> Not necessarily. 
>>> In fact, that's really a staggering leap of logic.
>> 
>> Is it?  How about if you had a whole day off for national eleciton
>> day, do you think anyone would talk about it?  

Sorry, but many people would be out of town that day.

> Maybe.  Maybe not.
> It's worth a shot, though.
>
>> That was another proposed suggestion, and a realistic one.  Many 
>> people don't vote because they are too busy.  A national holiday 
>> would change that.

They would be busy doing their favorite recreation smiling about the
bastards that waited in line that day to vote.

> People who claim they are too busy are simply making excuses.
> They will find other excuses.
>
> "Oh!  A day off - great, let's get drunk!"
> And then they'll never make it to the polling stations.
>
> I know, I'm being cynical.
> But perhaps somewhere between your idealism and my cynicism 
> we may find something that will actually work :-p
>
>> I want a government "for the people" and "by the people".... as was
>> originally declared.  
>
> It was NEVER originally declared that way.
>
> Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Consitutution
> uses such a phrase.
>
> Our founders simply didn't believe in that.
>
>> Just because we have a system that fails to meet our expectations, 
>> doesn't mean we have to settle for it as it stands.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>> That's rather very wrong.  It was, for example, republicans who
>>> brought the vote to women and minorities.  Republicans have ALWAYS
>>> supported voting rights.  
>> 
>> LOL.  They also support HAVA and Diebold, which completely strip
>> voting rights.
>
> Just so everyone understands what we're talking about:
> http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt
>
> Diebold, of cousre, refers to the electronic voting machines:
> http://www.diebold.com/
>
> What this Act does is provide federal funding for states to
> replace their punchcard voting systems with electronic ones.
>
> I don't like it, but probably for different reasons then yours.
> I don't like it because it is federal money for what is a state
> issue.  It is not for the federal government to dictate, nor 
> fund, the states' methods of choosing electors.  The constitution
> makes it very clear that it is up to the states to deal with these
> things.
>
> As for Diebold, I don't like that either, this time for the same
> reasons you don't.
>
> Neither of these intrinsicly strip away voting rights, the 
> problem is in the implementation rather then the intent.
>
>>> And which party benefits from that voter fraud?
>> 
>> Both parties do, in their respective states.  Diebold systems, for
>> example, has been used to completely coopt the state of Georgia.
>
> I did have the impression that the mood of the state was 
> against Barnes, if not in favor of Perdue.
>
> Similar to California - a solid number of people wanted
> Davis and the democrats out, and Arnold just happened to
> be the most convenient (i.e. name recognition) candidate 
> to replace him with.
>
> I'm not saying there wasn't fraud in GA - the matter does
> warrant some healthy suspicion (*especially* given the 
> unwillingness to disclose source code in court), but it 
> is not entirely clear that Barnes would have won in a 
> completely tranparent process anyways.  
>
> And punchcards are anything but transparent, since you 
> have no guarnatee that nobody is tampering with them 
> after they've been collected - you just have to trust 
> the poll workers, just like with the electronic machines 
> we just have to trust the manufacturer.  
>
> Although obviously in the Diebold case, it would take only 
> one person to tamper with ALL votes everywhere across the 
> country, while punchcard tampering is a highly localized 
> phenomena.  But my point is that neither process is
> transparent and both require a degree of trust.  Deibold
> just requires a higher degree of trust :-p
>
> But when it comes to politicans and elections, trust 
> is not something that can be given.
> *sigh*
>
>> I want more people to vote.  So do you.  Let's agree on a solution.
>> How about a national holiday on election day?
>
> It certainly couldn't hurt.
> I'd be in favor of it.

A vacation would be a bad idea as would a tax.  I would be more in
favor of establishing electronic identification suitable for voting
over a network.  It could be a token that can only be used once
assigned by the post office for that matter.  I would not care how it
was done, provided there was an electronic audit trail and the cynics
could be made happy.  Then let people vote over the time made
available for absentee up to when the polls close.  It would give poll
takers a hard time however.