The Carter-Baker Commission On Elections Has Compromised Itself

Itsthetruth

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 03:37 PM
Original message

The Carter-Baker Commission On Elections Has Compromised Itself

CounterPunch
April 18, 2005

The Carter-Baker Commission on Elections
Corporate Conflicts of Interest and Bi-Partisan Myopia
By LINDA SCHADE and KEVIN ZEESE

Sadly, the Carter-Baker Commission has compromised itself at the outset by including a figure with an embarrassing corporate conflict of interest on the key question of vote counts. Ralph Munro is the Chairman of VoteHere, a company with millions invested in the 'vote verification' market. VoteHere is literally banking on the successful marketing of their cryptographic product as the verification method in spite of the fact that voter-verified paper ballots are the solution most recommended by independent computer security experts. Munro should recuse himself to save the Commission from further awkwardness. And, Commission Co-Chair James Baker is invested of the Carlyle Group which owns another voting machine company. The Commission should avoid such improprieties.

Why is voter turnout so low in the United States? A recent survey by California Voter Foundation found that the second most common reason people don't vote is: "There are no candidates I believe in." Both infrequent and non-voters agreed: "I don't feel that candidates really speak to me" (49 percent of infrequent voters and 55 percent of nonvoters). As a 'bi-partisan' body, the Commission reproduces a major defect in our electoral system: the straight jacket of the two major parties on our democracy. There is much hand-wringing over how to increase voter participation but will the Commission, with its bi-partisan myopia, be able to see this fundamental flaw? Who on the Commission represents the one third of American voters who identify themselves as independent and unaffiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans?

Indeed America's bi-partisan "democracy" is failing to effectively represent the views of many Americans. The two major parties have created barriers to ballot access for non-major party candidates. Will a partisan commission address this shortcoming in elections? Limiting voters to two major party candidates is at the root of the voters feeling unrepresented. Partisans prefer to limit the competition of other candidates and keep voters trapped into 'lesser evil' voting. Therefore, the obvious solution, ranked choice voting � allowing voters to pick their favorite candidate first and their lesser evil alternative second � and counting their second choice if the first does not win, will be overlooked by partisans.

Will it stand against the redistricting abuses by both major parties? These abuses result in politicians choosing their voters rather than voters choosing their elected officials. Redistricting is designed by incumbents to ensure protect their seats. As a result most Americans are voting in one-party districts where there is no question of the outcome before the first vote is cast. If this were occurring in Communist China or Saudi Arabia we'd call it a phony democracy.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Linda Schade is the director of TrueVoteMD.org and communications director of VoteTrustUSA.org.

Kevin Zeese is president of VoteTrustUSA.org and a member of the board of Velvet Revolution.

Further Information:

California Voter Foundation Comprehensive Results of Survey on Voting Incentives and Barriers, http://www.calvoter.org/news/releases/040705release.html, April 7, 2005.

Larisa Alexandrovna, Partisans Discuss 'Reform,'Questions surface regarding legitimacy of Baker-Carter election reform commission http://rawstory.com/April 14, 2005.