A model of what voting SHOULD be in comparison to what it now IS

[NinetySix]

I find it ironic that, particularly in the state of Florida, it used to be the case that a person whose name was SIMILAR to that of a felon, even one from another state, would be kicked off the voter roles and disenfranchised from participatory democracy (e.g., if your name were Stephen K. Martin, and the Secretary of State came across a Steven P. Martens who was a convicted felon in California, you might show up at the poll only to find that they wouldn't provide you a ballot, despite the clear distinction in identity).

But now, the trend is to remove voters for the least difference in name, address, etc. as it appears on the voter's identification and on the official voter roll (e.g., voter Stephen K. Martin might show up with his ID, identifying himself as Stephen Kyle Martin, and not be allowed to cast a ballot).

So clear differences wouldn't save you from being kicked off the list before, whereas slight and completely understandable differences can now get you booted from the voter roll. The pattern here is obvious, trending heavily toward preventing citizens from exercising their RIGHT to vote (and to any wingers who tell you voting is a privilege, simply point to the unambiguous language of the 15th Amendment of the Constitution which explicitly enumerates voting as the right of a citizen).

What needs to be done to remedy this problem? In my opinion, voting should be considered a duty, a condition of one's citizenship, as is serving jury duty, paying taxes, and appearing in court when summoned. There is simply no excuse in participatory democracy for excluding ANYONE who is mentally competent to vote (and again, in my own opinion, this includes even felons).

Election day should be a mandatory public holiday, fines should be levied against anyone who fails to arrive at the polls and cast a ballot (I think $250 should do to motivate most), and transportation should be provided free of charge to any able-bodied individual who needs it to fulfill this requirement for citizenship (with poll workers dispatched to provide ballots to anyone who is incapacitated or incapable of attending the vote at their precinct). Voters should have the right to cast their ballots legitimately, or intentionally spoil their ballots in protest.

The ballots themselves should of necessity include ALL candidates who are officially seeking the presidency; a space in which to write in any other name, including unknown individuals, fictional characters, and even one's own name; and a box to tick for "no preference" for the apolitical among us. Ballots should also universally be printed on paper and marked by voters with pencils. Any mark, such as circling, underlining, an arrow drawn, or brackets surrounding a candidate's name or party, or a box checked, Xed, blacked in, or circled by the candidate's name should be accepted as indicative of voter intent.

Vote totals should be tabulated by a public, meticulously careful triple-count of the ballots by hand, with each count regarded as provisional until all three results have been correlated and confirmed. Official results should not be released until this intensive process is complete; after all, the span from early November to January provides ample time to get everything right, even with no margin for error permitted. If a candidate should happen to win by a single vote, there should BE no margin for error.

Further provisions should also follow regarding proportional representation or instant-runoff-voting, but those issues should only be addressed after the fundamental problems of voting have been addressed in this way or some similar manner.

Only if citizens have confidence in the unimpeachable integrity of their elections can their despair and cynicism regarding the redress of their concerns on the issues be alleviated. This is simply my model of the ideal of democratic participation in our republic.

[NinetySix]

1. What, no criticism, only tacit agreement?

>Shameless self-kick<

[Overseas]

2. I want independent exit polling data continuously available to all.

We had the exit polling data available in 2004, so citizens were able to do screen captures that showed that until around 11 pm, voting and exit polls were in agreement

Kerry 51, Bush 48 .

Later into the night, the vote counts diverged sharply-- Bush UP THREE and Kerry DOWN THREE -- a shift of six points which would have been flagged in monitoring another country's election.

Instead we ADJUSTED THE EXIT POLL DATA to conform to the electronically tabulated vote counts.

I was watching those vote counts and exit polls and so happy with Kerry's lead on election night.

So glad we had the exit poll data continuously available as a check and balance. I'm afraid those results will be hidden from us this time to "spare the public from any confusion."

======PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTING perhaps videotaped, or optical scans with RANDOM AUDITS of various precincts.

Secretaries of State may not serve as party officials like Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris.

Distribution of voting machines shall be based on number of registered voters in each precinct. Not the whim of partisan SOS offices.

[NinetySix]

3. Exit polls are vital for maintaining the integrity of the results.

The irony of the simultaneous a) dismissal of the US exit polling following the 2004 election and b) the use of the 2005 Ukrainian exit polling to declare the official results there illegitimate, was always too bitter a bile for me to stomach, particularly when both were done by the same entity, the Bush Administration, in order to advance their own agenda. It was in essence Bush's explicit expression of will over justice, which can be paraphrased as "I'll have it my own way come hell or high water, and if you don't like it, then fuck you."

As to your point regarding Secretaries of State serving as state campaign chairs, it is so unambiguously a conflict of interest as to serve the same function as the expression of will, paraphrased above. The fact that this practice has continued to be permitted is unconscionable, but will certainly change when it one day acts to the detriment of the Republican Party.

The principle at stake is clear. Liberty without equality is in reality nothing but privilege. Democracy among the privileged is nothing but oligarchy. And oligarchy is nothing but tyranny.