We need to Amend the Constitution

[Cobalt-60]

Where out enemies have failed with lame drek like gay marriage and flag burning, we can succeed with hand counted paper ballots as the only acceptable method of voting.
Where as no one anywhere is actually threatened by gay marriage or flag burning, were are all threatened by electronic "voting".
The Republicans have begun to accuse democrats of electoral cheating. We all know that an accusation from a Republican is in fact a confession of their own crimes. But freepers don't.
So the idiot freepers will be so charged up against vote fraud that they will support it. Consider it electoral Judo.

[Virginian]

1. Please sign up to work as an election officer.

The electoral board has enough trouble finding enough people to work the polls with automatic tabulation, whether it is mechanical or electronic. If we were to hand count the votes, it would take a lot more of us. Please pitch in and help with the vote counting.
Sign up now to work in November. We can use you now, even with the machines doing the counting.

[Cobalt-60]

6. if they'll have me, sure

Sorry, maybe it shouldn't go in there.
We just need the Diebold factor eliminated from the voting booth.
It might prove easier in the long run to dispose of the machines than the fascists that are using them to entrench in Washington.

[longship]

2. With all due respect.

That is a *horrible* Constitutional Amendment.

No where in the Constitution is there such specificity as "paper ballots". The Constitution itself, and especially the Amendments, are termed in looser language which allows the document to grow without continually amending it over and over again.

The last amendment that was so specific outlawed alcohol sales in the US. We all know what happened with that.

A voter rights amendment is entirely appropriate, but I would never, ever support one that mandated a particular technology for voting.

[tocqueville]

3. agrees : this is not a constitutional matter

the constitution is a frame for the rules of the game : liberties, political system etc...

then LAWS passed by elected bodies define the details. It's a misconception to believe that "everything" should be written in a constitution, specially with the horrible and antidemocratic system of having judges appointed for life "translating" what the general statements might mean or not.

For me one of the most blatant flaws in the "progressive" thinking is the fight round the "constitutionality" of abortion. Pro-Choice people go so far that they say that it isn't a "political" matter because it's a"private" story and because "privacy" is constitutional (which stands nowhere). This is completely backwards. The abortion issue is a social issue that should be regulated in voted laws, not at the whim of a judge.

I frankly don't understand why so many progressives mix up the role of a constitution with the role of voted laws.

[longship]

4. Well, I would not go as far as you do.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

And yes, I abide by progressive thinking because I am a liberal.

In short, I support the Constitutional form of government including the form it dictates for the Judiciary.

I'll let you presume my position on abortion.

[tocqueville]

5. it's very difficult to put myths in question

I never said that the "constitutional form of government" is a bad thing and I even think that it is a better form than other systems (like the British where it's "eternal" case for case common law). the French system and the American are relatively alike, some other systems in Europe too, for example the Swedish that I happen to know better.

All these systems are based on the separation of powers, then take different forms for historical reasons : parlamentary, presidential, semi presidential etc...

But the US system has differences that are really bothering and sometimes I wonder if they are not at the base of the current situation when the power can be legally concentrated in a few hands, in total opposition to the Founding Fathers expectations.

A constitution is a frame for the rules of the game. It defines if the country is a monarchy or a republic, a democracy or not. Normally it reminds of civil liberties and gives a rough description an time frame for the organisation and delegation of power. For example that the President shall lead the executive and the Parliament (Congress) shall pass laws and what role and independence the judiciary shall have. It forwards SYSTEMS for the expression of the popular will. It doesn't REPLACE laws.

As said the constitution cannot replace lawmaking. As you took the example of prohibition, I took the example of abortion. If you mix the constitutional aspect with regular lawmaking and let judges decide at every moment what is "right or not" you replace the expression of popular will (passed by laws voted by elected bodies) by "judiciocracy". In the end if the judge is a smoking and gay hater he will say that "smoking or homosexuality is anti-constitutional". And it's practically what's happening in the USA. The Supreme court should be the last resort for civil and criminal law and not judge in constitutional matters. What's constitutional or not should be "ultimately decided" by a separate court or council made of lawyers and laymen and appointed for a limited period of time. This "court" should decide if the new law is OK regarding civil liberties, and if not send back the law to the lawmakers to rewrite the copy. But searching in a mostly 230 years old text if Jefferson meant that or that is preposterous.

Regarding abortion "the right to privacy" in the US is primarily a judicial construction to AVOID to discuss the real issue. Abortion is primarily a social issue concerning the WHOLE society because the fact of not permitting it has profound consequences on the welfare and health of women of children. The privacy aspect is only ONE aspect of the problem, mostly due to sexual taboos and religious idiocy. The European approach is completely different : with a few exception countries permit abortion because it's good for society (and women in particular) and thus regulate how it should be practised. It's not a constitutional matter more than it falls under the right of citizens to have access to welfare. Then the ETHICAL aspect is a private matter.

Basically Roosevelt wanted to diminish the power of the Supreme Court. He didn't succeed. It's interesting to note that the opponents to the New Deal were waving "The Constitution" to stop him. There is primarily a fear of "government" in the US and it goes even among progressives. And the saddest in the whole story is that the opponents of the "government in the bedroom", might they be Democrats or Republicans have succeeded in putting this very government in the bedroom with the use of exactly the same arguments. This shows that there is a system failure somewhere.

[longship]

7. Wow. That's a good post.

These are interesting points to ponder. I'll have to file them away in the ol' gray matter. I'm not saying that I'm coming around to your point of view, but I will say that a well-made lucid argument makes that all the more possible.

Thanks.

[Hosnon]

8. I don't think it is a specific/general issue. The XVIth Amendment allowing

taxation of income is pretty specific and many of the provisions of the Constitution itself are specific. Also, the XIth Amendment was ratified in response to one lawsuit.

I wouldn't be opposed to federal standards for federal elections. However, Amendments are virtually impossible to ratify so the issue is largely moot.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

9. Hand counted is error prone also.

I fully agree that we can use the RW fear of Democratic voter fraud to help bring about fully transparent elections. But we don't need to throw out technological help. Let's not be luddites in the process.

Have you ever been counting and lost count? Or gotten distracted while marking down totals? Or made some other type of error? It can happen with hand tallies, too. They are not infallible.

Instead, we need to look at combinations of paper and technology. I am sure that some very bright people can come up with some great ideas that will give both transparency, accuracy, and speed.

[Virginian]

11. Thank you.

I can imagine what it would be like if after a fourteen hour day we had to stay at the precinct and count 2800 ballots with 5 or 6 different contests. That was why I was inviting OP to try working at the polls instead of against the polls in November.

I don't know how it is handled in other areas but my county wants a balance of parties in the election officers for each precinct. Our population is expanding and our precincts are splitting, so there are lots of openings for more people to get involved in making sure the process runs smoothly.

For one day, we take annual leave from our regular jobs to become county employees. Anyone who is registered to vote can sign up to work. For this we get a one day salary of $100. The Chief gets slightly more because he or she has to go to the Electoral Board training session each time to find out what is new, Pick up the poll books and other supplies from E Board, Call all the Election Officers to make sure they remember they committed to work, Mark the pollbooks with who has voted absentee so that they can't drop in and vote again on election day. Go to the polling place to find out which room has been delegated for the election and arrange for someone to unlock the building by 5:00 am. Go back to the polling place that afternoon or evening to set up the room where the voting will take place and put up signs to direct the voters to that room. Once the polls close and the votes are all counted, the Chief gets to drive the important stuff back to the Electoral Board. For this, the chief gets an additional $50 plus milage.
Our process is supposed to be completely transparent. If a party rep wants to sit there while we work, that is OK. We have a procedure to welcome them after the last voter has finished and require them to stay until the results have been called in to the E Board.
We can always use more workers. If there seem to be too many on a light primary day, consider it experience for when they come back to work again in November.

I would like to hear how other jurisdictions handle elections. If someone else works elections, fill me in.

[Eric J in MN]

13. There can be different people chosen by each party for the counting....

...it doesn't have to be the same people who were at the polls all day.

The Democratic and Republican parties can each assign two people to count in front of a roomful of the public with each ballot projected on a screen.

[Virginian]

15. I can't see it working -- lack of manpower.

And where are they going to find the people to do this?

And how long would they spend on each ballot?
We have over 200 precincts in this county.
In the 2004 election, my precinct had approx 2800 voters. We had the Presidential race, the congressional race, three bond issues and two proposed changes to the state constitution. That makes 5 contests on each ballot.

If we chose the scenerio you suggest:

If we spent only 1 minute to display the ballot and announce the selections in each contest, and no one ate, slept or used the bathroom from the start of the count until the last ballot was examined and talleyed, it would take over 46 hours.

The more you pass off a task to another team, the more error prone it becomes. The longer a person works at a monotonous task, the more error prone he becomes.

The ballots have to be stored somewhere. I am not sure for how long, but they couldn't be distroyed for X number of years in case an audit was requested. Because they are ballots, they have to be in a secure place. They don't make vaults as large as airplane hangars, so that would mean hiring a guard.

Basically, what I am saying is that the population is too large to be using paper ballots. We can't have vaporware either. A compromse is to have verified voting.

The machine prints your votes on a piece of paper and you read it through a protective cover to verify that is what you intended to do. After the election is over, a hand count is done of x number of precincts to make sure the numbers match before certifying the election.

[Eric J in MN]

16. If the ballots are divided into four groups at your precinct,

...counted by four groups simultaneously, then the time it takes goes from 46 hours to 11.5 hours.

[Virginian]

17. Again, where are you going to find the manpower?

And do you really think anyone could do that for 11.5 hours with no breaks and no mistakes? My 46 hours was a very optimistic guess. I think it would take more than a minute for each ballot. I am in a very large county. We have a 226 precincts, some larger and some smaller than mine. That 46 hours was for just my precinct. Do the math on how many people working how many hours to count a half million ballots with seven contests.

Storage of the ballots. I think they have to be stored for two years in a secure place. Real estate is not cheap around here.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Firstly, I think there are lots of people who would be eager

...to work for free in the important job of counting the votes.

But if not, then enough pay could be offered by the state to the political parties to attract enough workers (with two people sent to count each group of ballots by each major party.)

There is all the money which would be saved on shipping, storing, and maintaining voting machines.

[Eric J in MN]

14. The counting should be done in front of the public, with...

..each ballot projected on a screen.

The counters and public can write down numbers at any time, to avoid losing count.

The main counters can be two Democrats and two Republicans appointed by their respective parties.

And NOT people tired from doing other jobs at the polls all day.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

10. As a constitutional amendment, it would be terrible.

It would lock future generations in to a method of voting that could well be horribly obsolete in another generation. The constitution is hard to change. Instead, use congresssional laws to make the needed changes.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Make that "PUBLICLY hand counted" and you have my support. NT

NT

[ce qui la baise1]

18. I agree, I'd be happy if we upheld it for now.