Political/Non-Political: This is good for Deomocracy

[Lucifer_Carroll]

February 18, 2005




WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today unveiled comprehensive voting reform legislation to make sure that every American is able to vote and every vote is counted. Senators Clinton and Boxer announced the legislation today in a press conference joined by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who will sponsor the legislation in the House of Representatives, and voting rights advocates.


"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process," said Senator Clinton. "The smooth functioning of our democracy depends on voters having faith in the fairness and accuracy of our voting system, and the Count Every Vote Act is an important step toward restoring this covenant. We must be able to easily and accurately count every vote so that every vote counts."


Added Senator Boxer: "Every citizen of this country should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth, their vote has a much weight as that of any CEO, any member of Congress, or any President. Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation, and we must take action to ensure that the American people have full confidence in our electoral system."


"I am pleased to join with Senators Clinton and Boxer in introducing companion legislation in the House as we continue our efforts to ensure that every American is afforded their Constitutional right to vote," said Representative Tubbs Jones. "This legislation seeks to combat the tremendous voting irregularities that plagued both the 2000 and 2004 elections. If in fact we see it is our obligation to secure democracy around the world, to monitor and oversee free and fair elections in other countries, most recently in Iraq, then we must ensure, protect and guarantee the right to vote right here at home."


The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The bill sets a uniform standard for provisional ballots so that every qualified voter will know their votes are treated equally, and requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and trained election personnel in every community. The bill also improves security measures for electronic voting machines.


To encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote, the Count Every Vote Act designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. It also requires the Election Assistance Commission to work with states to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for felons who have repaid their debt to society.


The Count Every Vote Act also includes measures to protect voters from deceptive practices and conflicts of interest that harm voter trust in the integrity of the system. In particular, the bill restricts the ability of chief state election officials as well as owners and senior managers of voting machine manufacturers to engage in certain kinds of political activity. The bill also makes it a federal crime to commit deceptive practices, such as sending flyers into minority neighborhoods telling voters the wrong voting date, and makes these practices a felony punishable by up to a year of imprisonment.


Today, representatives from civil rights organizations and voting rights advocates praised the legislation, including People For the American Way, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, NAACP, Common Cause, the National Voting Rights Institute, DEMOS and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. The leaders emphasized the urgent need for the bill.


"Every American citizen should be able to cast a vote that counts, and it should not be difficult," said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way, one of the founding members of the Election Protection coalition. "This bill provides practical, secure accessible solutions at the ballot box for Americans with disabilities, those who speak languages other than English, and other Americans who face hurdles in exercising their voting rights. It's a great bill."


"The Count Every Vote Act will go a long way toward restoring dignity to our nation's electoral system and will provide citizens across the nation with an opportunity to effectively participate in democratic decision-making," said Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee.


Senators Clinton and Boxer first introduced election reform legislation in the 108th Congress, together with former Senator Bob Graham. In the meantime, another election cycle showed evidence of problems in the Federal election system, including long wait times to vote, erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation and unequal access to the voting process. The Count Every Vote Act requires that all provisions be in place for the next major election cycle in 2006.


"We cannot let another Election Day go by without doing everything we can to make sure that voters have confidence in our voting system and exercise their right to vote," underscored Senator Clinton. "This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. This is a voter issue, plain and simple. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us to implement these common sense measures."

Okay, feelings about the two senators proposing the bill aside, this is in my opinion one of the most-needed and important reforms needed to help regain confidence in American democracy. People should be positive that the candidate they voted for, they really voted for, that the books aren't stacked against those who work or live in areas where the lines are voter prohibitive. For instance at college, the line to vote in every election is always packed from opening to closing with an hour-two hour line and one single machine. In the suburbs, there were about 6 machines of which only 2 were in use at any given moment and there was no line at rush time.

Security measures like not being able to modify votes in a spreadsheet fashion in an MS operating system should have been no-brainers and elections should be taken at least as seriously as the military (they at least use Unix).

I heard good things about the states that had early voting and overall these moves seem to be no-brainer in my eyes and a rare thing to be excited about in the miasma of shit that politics usually are.

So, with a standard faith in our gloriously elected officials, what will it say if this bill fails miserably?

 

[rgraham666]

If the bill fails miserably, it says the people in power care more for their power than for doing good.

Which probably means this bill is already sunk somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.

Now they have to get to work on campaign contribution reform. I propose individuals only and a maximum of $5,000 per person. And that $5,000 goes only to the party of your choice. And no money going from organisations (such as corporations or unions) to their members or employees to give to a party.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Now they have to get to work on campaign contribution reform. I propose individuals only and a maximum of $5,000 per person. And that $5,000 goes only to the party of your choice. And no money going from organisations (such as corporations or unions) to their members or employees to give to a party.

The evil side of my mind says, they can get all the money they want for a campaign, but it must be earned via standard New Orleans prostitution rates and via only sexual acts.

 

[rgraham666]

Considering how many of them are whores already, I doubt they would have much problem with that.

 

[snooper]

Without wishing to seem to preach to our ex-colony, perhaps a look at the UK voters rolls would help?

In the UK a form arrives at every house every October demanding - on pain of fines and/or imprisonment - who was resident there on a certain date (about 10th October). These forms are returned to full time specialist Electoral Registration Officers. From the forms they produce lists of electors by mid-December and about a month is allowed for checking at any Library or Post office if you are on the list. Mid-February these lists come into force for one year. Give or take some provisos for moving house, if you are on the list you are entitled to vote, if you are not on the list you can't vote.

The list contains no other information than electoral eligibility. Political parties have no influence in the process, nor does the voter declare any allegiance. All the officals concerned are career salaried civil servants. Qualification for voting is relatively simple; almost every citizen is entitled to vote from their eighteenth birthday until they die. I said "almost", Peers of the Realm, certified lunatics and imprisoned criminals have no vote. A very few other people have no vote because the courts have convicted them of offences directly connected with electoral fraud, such as impersonating another voter.

As to voting methods and vote counting, those are an entirely separate issue from voter registration.

In the actual polling station, nobody is allowed to be present except the voter and the presiding officials (again non-political appointments). Interfering with, or even speaking to, a voter going to vote and close to the polling station is illegal, and stamped on hard. Special rules apply if a blind person tries to vote in person, but it almost never happens. Postal voters are available for medically approved cases, and for people whose work takes them away from home, and for people who have moved a long way from where they are registered to vote.

There is a legal limit on electoral expenditure by each candidate, based on the number of voters on the roll and the importance of the election.

 

[cantdog]

But at least there will be services in exchange for the money. A refreshing change from the situation with tax money.

Rep. Goldmouth (R-Hell): Sexual prostitution is illegal in most places in our fair country! Surely we can't prosecute a deperate woman in Albuquerque and simultaneously propose that Senators blow conventioneers in the Ramada to finance their campaigns! The hypocrisy is too rank!

Rep. Snide (D-NM): The esteemed Representative stands revealed as a radical! Does Mr. Goldmouth mean to suggest that lawmakers in this country ought to be held to the same standard as the ordinary citizen? Think very well, my friends and colleagues, before embracing such a radical overturning of the status quo!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would be, extremely suspicious, of any legislation introduced by Hil. Before I could say I supported it, I'd have to read the text of the bill itself. Not to say I am against reforms, but in this case, I'll have to withold any kind of opinion until I read the actual legislation proposed.

 

[cantdog]

Well said, colly. (And she'd be an especially poor candidate to be offering sex for campaign money, too.) Many a "reform" bill, once actually read, turns out to be the usual malarkey, lining someone's pocket, making nothing better. Read them well.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well said, colly. (And she'd be an especially poor candidate to be offering sex for campaign money, too.) Many a "reform" bill, once actually read, turns out to be the usual malarkey, lining someone's pocket, making nothing better. Read them well.

That's true of all bills cant. We should see what they say, rather than what a news article says they say. They are not usually one and the same. In this particular case, Hil has aspirations of running for president, aspirations that she hasn't bothered to conceal. It seems the possibility of a conflict of interest is very large here, i.e. introducing vote reform legislation that might favor her bid in winning the next election.

I'm not saying that is the case, merely saying, the bill should be studied before an endorsement is offered sight unseen.

 

[Liar]

I would be, extremely suspicious, of any legislation introduced by Hil. Before I could say I supported it, I'd have to read the text of the bill itself. Not to say I am against reforms, but in this case, I'll have to withold any kind of opinion until I read the actual legislation proposed.

Sounds like a sober attitude whoever is the name behind any bill.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sounds like a sober attitude whoever is the name behind any bill.

I think it's prudent. Considering the amount of spin that goes on, it might even become essential for people to work through the arcane jargon these bills are couched in, to understand them for themselves. If the average person read through a bill and understood it's probable outcome, I dare say Patriot act would have faced a significantly stronger challenge than it did.

The current bill that will strengthen cencorship is another example. It seems innocent enough, merely adding some teeth to the fines the FCC can impose, but when you read deeper, it really is a threat, one aimed at making self cencorship more rigorous than any form of government imposed cencorship you could get passed. Half a milion dollar fines are more than enough to bankrupt a lot of smaller affiliates. They will begin to rigorusly censor themselves in an attempt to avoid them.

For this particular bill, the sonsor is a red flag. It would seem that anyone with aspirations to be prsident should step back from legislation aimed at changeing the electoral process. As an infomred voter, prudence would demand a through examination of the legislation, to make sure it isn't an attempt, concious or not, to strengthen her own chances in 2008.

 

[Weird Harold]

I heard good things about the states that had early voting and overall these moves seem to be no-brainer in my eyes and a rare thing to be excited about in the miasma of shit that politics usually are.

So, with a standard faith in our gloriously elected officials, what will it say if this bill fails miserably?

The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The bill sets a uniform standard for provisional ballots so that every qualified voter will know their votes are treated equally, and requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and trained election personnel in every community. The bill also improves security measures for electronic voting machines.


To encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote, the Count Every Vote Act designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. It also requires the Election Assistance Commission to work with states to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for felons who have repaid their debt to society.

The parts I marked in bold raise the question, "who is going to pay the increased costs?"

If this Bill fails, perhaps it says Congress has finally gotten smart about passing legislation that imposes expensive requirements without funding them?

On the surface, this Bill seems to strengthen and reinforce changes that were recommended after the 2000 election debacle; Changes Congress recommended and then under-funded so they weren't putinto place by 2002. They passed more legislation to fund improvements but tied so manystings to the funding that many states and municiplities declined to accept the funds and upgrade their voting systems by 2004.

Unless this Bill fully and adequately funds the equipment and training upgrades it mandates, it's just another phot-op band-aid bill that accomplishes nothing.

The changes this bill proposes have been recommended and pushed for close to a decade now and very few places have had the political will and/or the funding to implement them.

According to news reports during the last Election, only Nevada has fully implemented what this Bill recommends -- including security procedures for the protection electronic voting information -- but the State of Nevada was willing to spend the money for the printers needed for the voter verified paper trail on the electronic voting machines they chose.

Regardless of who the sponsors are, the measures outlined in the article are only a change from recommendations to mandates on specifics that almost anyone nowledgeable about voting technologies has recommended for years. The only question bout whether this bill will actually make it happen is "Where's the Money" -- if it's in this Bill's final form, it's a good Bill. Otherwise it's just so much hot air to make Congress look like they care.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The parts I marked in bold raise the question, "who is going to pay the increased costs?"

If this Bill fails, perhaps it says Congress has finally gotten smart about passing legislation that imposes expensive requirements without funding them?

On the surface, this Bill seems to strengthen and reinforce changes that were recommended after the 2000 election debacle; Changes Congress recommended and then under-funded so they weren't putinto place by 2002. They passed more legislation to fund improvements but tied so manystings to the funding that many states and municiplities declined to accept the funds and upgrade their voting systems by 2004.

Unless this Bill fully and adequately funds the equipment and training upgrades it mandates, it's just another phot-op band-aid bill that accomplishes nothing.

The changes this bill proposes have been recommended and pushed for close to a decade now and very few places have had the political will and/or the funding to implement them.

According to news reports during the last Election, only Nevada has fully implemented what this Bill recommends -- including security procedures for the protection electronic voting information -- but the State of Nevada was willing to spend the money for the printers needed for the voter verified paper trail on the electronic voting machines they chose.

Regardless of who the sponsors are, the measures outlined in the article are only a change from recommendations to mandates on specifics that almost anyone nowledgeable about voting technologies has recommended for years. The only question bout whether this bill will actually make it happen is "Where's the Money" -- if it's in this Bill's final form, it's a good Bill. Otherwise it's just so much hot air to make Congress look like they care.

Agreed, but personally I'd find this an issue important enough to spend "your tax dollars," as the suits phrase it, on.

 

[cantdog]

There is money; are congresscritters likely to commit any? Unfunded mandates suck. Regardless, a vote with no record of it is a gossamer dream, Weird. Money or no money, if your district bought a machine system with no paper result, they were jackass stupid. They threw away your cow for a handful of magic beans. That money you worry about-- it's already pissed away.

 

[Op_Cit]

The silly thing is that most people here think that voting in the US/elsewhere is mostly honest.

The reality is that the vote is corrupted in over 70% of precincts in the US. (There's a book called "Vote Scam" that details all this and provides mountains of proof).

One candidate in Arizona a few years back anounced at a press conference that he had absolute proof that the elections there were corrupt. When asked, he replied, "simple: they made it illegal to do a manual recount."

How many jurisdictions do you know of where you are even allowed to watch the count? Computers/electronic media are infinitely more corruptible.

But all of that is moot. Plato recognized the evil of democracy in all its forms thousands of years ago.

 

[cantdog]

In the absence of a state, people will suddenly become very polite.

 

[Weird Harold]

Agreed, but personally I'd find this an issue important enough to spend "your tax dollars," as the suits phrase it, on.

True, but my point is that a federally mandated requirement should be federally funded.

Many precincts/municipalities/counties/states are virtually bankrupt already and have much more immediate needs for their local tax revenues than spendingmoney on equipement that is mandated for one day every other year.

Money or no money, if your district bought a machine system with no paper result, they were jackass stupid. They threw away your cow for a handful of magic beans. That money you worry about-- it's already pissed away.

I live in Nevada -- the only State with 100% eletronic voting, Early Voting, a voeter verified paper trial on every voting machine, AND special procedures and training for Election Workers to protect the integrity of electronic voting data.

We have already spent the money to meet every proposed requirement and then some.

 

[Op_Cit]

In the absence of a state, people will suddenly become very polite.

Well, not suddenly, but over time.

Don't forget that 99% of man's evolution was during a condition of anarchy. Somehow man developed a brain without a state.

Why do so many people think the state is necessary? Even more than those that think that God is necessary. I think it is just another form of deism, after all where is the proof of the necessity of the state? Voting does not make something true or right.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

True, but my point is that a federally mandated requirement should be federally funded.

Many precincts/municipalities/counties/states are virtually bankrupt already and have much more immediate needs for their local tax revenues than spendingmoney on equipement that is mandated for one day every other year.



I live in Nevada -- the only State with 100% eletronic voting, Early Voting, a voeter verified paper trial on every voting machine, AND special procedures and training for Election Workers to protect the integrity of electronic voting data.

We have already spent the money to meet every proposed requirement and then some.

Sure, but the no fund needed reforms also are no-brainers. Making election day a national holiday, having standards for electoral ballot boxes, etc.

And I hope our congress will show the balls to approve and fund the bill because in my opinion a democracy should be proud to spend its money on making sure its laws are legit. That's my main point.

 

[Weird Harold]

Sure, but the no fund needed reforms also are no-brainers. Making election day a national holiday, having standards for electoral ballot boxes, etc.

Those are NOT "no cost" reforms.

Feeral Holidays cost lost tax revenue because businesses close -- or businesses hve extra expenses because they have to pay holiday rates if they can't or won't close.

A plain ordinary metal lock box is fairly cheap, so is a plain ordinary hammer.

A hammer that meets government specifications is very expensive -- even if it's the same brand, model and lot number as the cheap plain ordinary hammer.

From years of dealing with "Milspec" parts and equipment I can't imgine that a box that meets government specifications is going to be a "no cost" proposition for local precincts when compared to a plain ordinary metal lock box that would work just fine.

And I hope our congress will show the balls to approve and fund the bill because in my opinion a democracy should be proud to spend its money on making sure its laws are legit. That's my main point.

I hope they will have the balls to actually fund wht they require, but I'm not going to hold my breath -- I look terrible in Blue.