Working to Defend American Democracy
— The Civic Obligation of Citizens
No American citizen should fear, regret or restrain themselves or anyone else on account of having sparked a public discussion. It is, instead, a public necessity. The words of the famous
Justice Brandeis tell us why this public deliberation and discussion is so important:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
The Founders believed, and even today it is incorporated in many state constitutions, that “a
frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essentialto the preservation of liberty and representative government.”
If we don’t recur to these fundamental principles, then they are not discussed or considered, and inevitably end up being violated in a big or small way. In this way, they are either eroded or destroyed because inert people are no longer enervated by their own fundamental democratic principles. This is why I regularly call upon people to remember their RIGHTS, and to remember their DEMOCRACY. In fact, whenever this is done, it is the main if not the only thing that has motivated successful civil rights and voting rights movements in our history. For example, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have A Dream” speech evokes language from the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, if we do not recur to fundamental principles frequently, many state constitutions predict that liberty will not be preserved nor will we preserve representative democracy.
In the above sense, we can understand why President Truman said if we want an efficient government, we’d get a dictatorship – the value of efficiency would inevitably lead us to dispense with three separate branches each checking the abuses of the other, and thus the Founders intent of checks and balances, or “power checking power” would be done way with – without a discussion much less a fight….
In elections, the most relevant principles and rights of democracy all flow from “We, the People” and the fact that in all republics and democracies the only and true source of all legitimate power is from the People themselves. I am not engaging in “rhetoric” when I say the people are the Masters (especially in elections) and the government is the servant, and referred to as “public servants”.
A few quoted examples of the ideas of the Founders are below, along with the quotes from the freedom of information and public meetings statutes of states like California, Washington state and West Virginia, which were passed directly by vote of the people in an initiative or referendum. The Founders and the people have said it better than I could.
I do ask everyone to contrast one thing with each of the highlighted phrases below: namely, whether counting votes in electronic computerized and invisible trade secrecy on electronic voting machines (both optical scan and touch screen varieties) is consistent with America’s fundamental principles. If the secret vote counting inherent in counting votes on hard drives is consistent with these principles and rights of democracy, then I ask us all what could possibly justify the violation of those rights and principles, especially WITHOUT DEBATE right on that very point of secretly counting the vote and expecting the public to just accept the magic numbers that pop out of the computers?
This is why I constantly try to say that voting systems are not a technology debate per se, they are a RIGHTS debate, and thus I am not a “HCPB” (Hand Counted Paper Ballots) Person per se, I am a Voting Rights and Democracy Rights person. Any voting system other than HCPB that does not involve any secret counts of any ballots on the first count or on any other count is fully within the realm of debate.
However, compromising a RIGHT is the same as VIOLATING that right, for the simple reason that rights, by their very nature, TRUMP other things. One does not have a right at all if one has to compromise with those that have “concerns” about the right in question. Consequently it is inappropriate and impossible (if you believe in voting rights in democracy) to be “tolerant” of violating the fundamental rights of democracy, for reasons of convenience, political expediency, or any other reason.
The Founders all believed that Elections were the key protection of the people against abuse of government power, or what the Founders called Tyranny. (Can the government count the votes in secret? Remember to ask this question with each quote below).
In the words of James Madison, one of architects of the United States Constitution: “A popular Government, without Popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” “...the
great unalienable right of the people, to reform or to change their governments.” — Speeches of Lord Erskine 524-525 (J. High ed. 1876). (Is this great right preserved with government-sponsored secret vote counting?)
“The protection of our form of government may not be minimized by reasons of temporary economic expediency. “Those who would enjoy the blessings of liberty must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”
Thomas Paine, complete works, Vol. 2, 135. The Fourteenth Amendment is no fair weather protection of the liberties of persons. Its operation is not limited to times of economic security when there is no pressure upon States to curtail liberty. It furnishes a “guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society.”
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1941, citing
US v Cruikshank) Would Thomas Paine in the above quote think that the solution to a lack of poll-working volunteers to count votes openly and publicly would justify electronic secret vote counting and a refusal to even study ways to either get more volunteers, such as using the equivalent of jury summonses to get enough pollworkers? Aren't elections even more important than juries? Could a right to trial by jury survive, and could we even have a “jury of our peers” or random selection in a VOLUNTEER system like we have right now with poll-workers?
The Founders agreed with Thomas Gordon's Cato (No. 2) that
the distinguishing feature of a free nation lay principally in its magistrates having to continually “consult the Voice and Interest of the People” and to obtain the “
consent of the governed” without which, as the Declaration of Independence teaches, government power itself is illegitimate. (Why is our government afraid to prove openly to the people that it has obtained our consent to be governed fairly and legitimately, instead of secretly?)
But in case there is some kind of opposition to this extremely reasonable requirement of democracy, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT ON FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION? Here’s the answer:
The consent of the governed, obtained via elections, is “a key" by which later generations might discover "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument " (Madison, Federalist No. 28). Fellow citizens and patriots, the question for our generation, and before Congress right now with misleading bills that parade as election integrity while preserving electronic secret vote counting, my question is this:
When faced with a choice between
(A) a technological system that might be more easily adopted because we, the people, or our government representatives are less familiar with its hazards, or because parts of the government relish the absolute power that secret vote counting affords — whether they use it or not —
VERSUS
(B) a system that definitely complies with the most fundamental rights of the people to an open and public vote counting process, one that can be proven to be legitimate, but which has potential (alleged) political drawbacks of finding enough citizens to do the counting, along with some governmental opposition to some combination of (1) having to work harder with less convenience, (2) more accountability for officials aka government servants, (3) more transparency by government servants so the people can see what’s going on, and (4) no absolute power of secret vote counting…
WHICH ONE OF THESE CHOICES WOULD A LIBERTY-LOVING PEOPLE MAKE THAT FREQUENTLY RECUR TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES?
It’s worth recurring to the fundamental principles, again:
1. THE PEOPLE ARE THE MASTER OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND
2. “PEOPLE WHO AIM TO BE THEIR OWN GOVERNORS MUST ARM THEMSELVES WITH KNOWLEDGE;” AND
3. THOSE WHO WISH TO ENJOY LIBERTY “MUST UNDERGO THE FATIGUES OF SUPPORTING IT”
Look what We the People have passed via initiative and referendum in much more recent years in states like Washington, California and West Virginia, consistent with the above principles and rights:
"Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government which holds to the principle that government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government they have created . To that end, the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed with the view of carrying out the above declaration of public policy.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/29B/masterfrmFrm.htm §29B-1-1. Declaration of policy.
“…So that they may retain control over the instruments they have created” says this public policy of our generation today.
How in the world does electronic secret vote counting on optical scan computers or touch screen computers comply with “retaining control over the instruments they have created?” There is simply no way on earth this power, this absolute secret power that corrupts absolutely, can be given up or given away. Those who act to support it are selling out or giving away their democracy and your most sacred rights, the right to vote, the one that is known as “protecting all other rights.”
But, in the event that anyone concludes that we are not sufficiently enough of a democracy and freedom loving people to insist upon our voting rights, or that it is too inconvenient now to fight, ask these questions:
(1) When in fact the compromise of a true right is nothing less than the serious violation of that right, how can you violate your own rights and everyone else’s?
(2) When all the sacrifices of past generations in blood and money were asked for and called for expressly in the name of democracy and freedom what gives our generation the right to sacrifice these rights now without a fight?
(3) When these sacrifices have been made by many soldiers, citizens and civil rights activists, why are they not enough to motivate enough pollworkers to count votes openly and honestly?
Of course, if there no longer is such a thing as folks who will defend democracy, and in that defense be willing to harness American know how, can-do spirit and resourcefulness in order to solve a minor administrative challenge of getting some workers a few nights a year, then we really ought to terminate this entire movement to reclaim democracy and restore justice in our United States, and declare freedom and democracy at an end. At least, we would be intellectually honest in doing so, rather than ushering in the end via secret vote counting making election results utterly dubious, combined with attacks on anyone who questions this secret absolute power as a “conspiracy theorist”, as if no one could imagine anybody wanting to control or be an honored official in such a backwater country like the United States of America, the world’s richest country and sole military superpower. Who would want to cheat to control trillions in tax money, right?
If getting enough pollworkers is really an objection, then we are saying that there is not any longer enough love of liberty to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it” as Thomas Paine said -- the very architect of American freedom.
Paine not only said that we must undergo fatigues, he said that we must undergo them, LIKE MEN, in order to support liberty. By using the phrase “like men” he not only referred to the male-only right to vote at that time, but he meant TO MOCK subtly any one who wished to enjoy liberty, but not work for it. This could be deemed to include any elections officials desiring the convenience of computerized voting over real democracy.
If a country in the midst of a Revolutionary fervor for freedom needed to be reminded that they would not be grown-up “men” if they were to decline to work for liberty, it is not out of line for all of us to be reminded of this today. So it is no intended insult to say that if we are not willing to work for liberty and undergo its fatigues, we are not Men and Women who are real citizens, because even the citizens during the Revolutionary War merited this reminder.
Instead of being an insult, this reminder of the need to undergo the fatigues of supporting liberty, like grown up men and women, is instead the wisdom of the Founders who saw that there was a NEED in the people for continual inspiration and frequent recurrence to fundamental principles that were and are absolutely necessary for the cause of freedom to survive in future generations. We are one such future generation.
For citizens to lose the right to vote is literally to render them “a slave” — in Tom Paine’s words — and therefore not citizens. Therefore we must undergo fatigues, in order to support our own rights.
In my call for zero tolerance of secret vote counting, to reject it utterly and completely as a crime against democracy and all American citizens, there is a freedom-loving positive way to put this same idea: When we undergo fatigues of supporting rights, when we frequently recur to fundamental principles, and when we exercise rights to vote and duties to defend democracy, in this context, we are called upon as are all citizens to reject secret vote counting and to proclaim with pride in themselves and their country that we are Citizens, and therefore:
“We are Not Slaves.”
This is the deep connection between democracy, voting, citizenship and FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The reason we are not and will not be slaves for anyone, is because we defend democracy for all. Abraham Lincoln said that as he would not wish to be a slave, so he would not be a Master either. Thus when it comes to our democratic vote, there’s no basis for one corporation or person to have secret vote counting rights that exalt them above all other citizens or persons or entities. Indeed, in the special case of elections it is one person one vote which means that the lowliest citizen (on the occasion of voting) is suddenly exactly equal to the President of the United States in their vote. That is the magic and promise of real democracy.
But we know from Founders that liberty is among the easiest things to lose, and that power is hoarded and it is not the most natural state of unguarded affairs for it to be distributed equally to each citizen, on a one person one vote basis. Therefore we are vigilant for liberty as well. The price of liberty, we remember, is eternal vigilance. “The struggle against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” — Milan Kundera
I submit that this is not “one person's opinion” but the essence of the American dream. I am prepared to and have made sacrifices to pursue this and remind our fellow citizens. But these sacrifices are much smaller than the millions of lives sacrificed, both soldiers and activists and citizens. We can all do something with our time or our money and/or our voices.
It doesn’t look good for any person to even indirectly oppose these democratic principles, because the tent of democracy is big enough for a hundred political parties and points of view opposed to each other or to mine. Why undermine democracy when all points of view could win fairly? The forces of democracy can not long be opposed, though they can be slow to awaken. Though the first who become aware of the threat to liberty, as Thomas Paine also observed, have the burden of summoning and educating their fellow citizens, We should not in our impatience for some sort of victory sacrifice our principles in order to get ourselves a PERSONAL or movement victory in the next months. Rights must be vindicated in their full form, not violated via compromise.
Henry Clay said “I’d rather be right than be President.” We should all say as citizens in a representative democracy: “I’d rather be right, than sacrifice any part of our rights.” If you believe otherwise, try and tell Patrick “give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death” Henry that he was “too radical” and is out of line with modern notions of convenience. He and many others roll in their graves at those who appease the forces not aligned with the requirements of democracy.
But Americans still love freedom and democracy, and we have not fallen so far as to be unable to motivate our citizens to respond to a summons to be a pollworker approximately once every five years (or less often than jury service) even with the summonses including liberal excuses for child care and other necessities that are temporarily more important than the preservation of freedom to individuals from time to time.
I do believe that American know-how, can-do spirit, and work ethic still survive enough to get this job done. Do you?
Please, either tell me secret vote counting is somehow OK, or prove to me that THE OFFICIAL COUNT and especially the first count that creates our headlines and news and “winners” is somehow not secret and, to add difficulty to democratic injury, thereafter largely protected from challenge by financial, legal, political and other hurdles, OR ELSE, if you can’t prove those things, don’t support any system of voting that contains secret vote counting for any reason at all. In fact, it is our duty as citizens to undergo the fatigues of letting our fellow citizens know about this grave threat to freedom and democracy.
If you agree with me that secret vote counting is a violation of democracy, then these objections to public oversight of elections on the grounds of “politically realistic” ideas, all of them made WITHOUT A REAL FIGHT or even without many folks really trying, and these “lack of pollworker” objections, even all of these and more all taken together at the same time can simply never rise to the level necessary to justify compromising the fundamental nature of our system that the government has to prove that it got its authority legitimately from We the People. Compromises are VIOLATIONS of those rights. With rights, we basically get the whole enchilada or we have no rights at all.
The way our soldiers have been motivated to sacrifice their lives is in the name of freedom and democracy. Unless these soldiers were lied to right before they sacrificed their lives, the fact that they responded to the call of freedom and democracy with their very lives proposes beyond that democracy and freedom are more important than Life itself. Election “integrity” movement should not stand for and does not mean violating our fundamental principles. It would seem to stand for and be closer to the idea of “give me liberty or give me death.”
In time, we will all find where we stand for ourselves. On this question, I'd rather be right than “win” in the 110th Congress, so I am opposed to the Holt bill, or HR 811, which preserves secret first counts and at best provides for a paper “trail” to maybe be counted in an audit or recount that occurs when the horse has already left the barn – after the election results are announced and expectations locked in.
In defending democracy, if we find our progress to date insufficient, perhaps it is because not enough have undergone the fatigues of learning from Thomas Paine. It’s just that first responders have the duty of summoning the next waves of responders. It’s everyone’s duty, in the early stages of defending democracy, to take a page out of the playbook of Paul Revere. Americans won’t need much more instruction or inspiration than that to spread the word, will they?
Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor
lehtolawyer@gmail.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
