Have this damnable thought ever slipped through your mind that

[Alex_Sanders]

Search Diebold machine people. There are a lot entries showing there are a lot people who do not feel quite secure about their votes. And you have to wonder, are those machines made in the states?

 

[wuliheron]

I too am a bit lost by your statements. What particular truth is it to which the public/politicians do not want whom to know?

In case you missed it, this thread is about how much your vote matters.

 

[Galteeth]

Search Diebold machine people. There are a lot entries showing there are a lot people who do not feel quite secure about their votes. And you have to wonder, are those machines made in the states?

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/
"Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold#History

"In August 2003, Walden O'Dell, then the chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends in the Republican Party, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.[9]
In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.[10]
In March 2007, it was reported by the Associated Press that Diebold was considering divesting itself of its voting machine subsidiary because it was "widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation".[6]
In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Controversy
"Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Information Security Institute has analyzed the source code used in these voting machines and reports "this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts."[6] Following the publication of this paper, the State of Maryland hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform another analysis of the Diebold voting machines. SAIC concluded “[t]he system, as implemented in policy, procedure, and technology, is at high risk of compromise.”[7]"

 

[Hobin]

I'm stating unequivocally that if the overwhelming majority of voters are dissatisfied with congress yet the seats in the house almost never change party hands then by definition their vote does not count for much.

That's actually not entirely true. A lot of people like to complain about politicians, because, well, they're politicians (of course, there are a many good reasons as well). However, when the time comes where they'll actually get to vote, most of them will keep voting for the same old people. Thus, while people may be dissatisfied with the politicians currently running the country, this does not necessarily mean their votes don't count.

 

[wuliheron]

That's actually not entirely true. A lot of people like to complain about politicians, because, well, they're politicians (of course, there are a many good reasons as well). However, when the time comes where they'll actually get to vote, most of them will keep voting for the same old people. Thus, while people may be dissatisfied with the politicians currently running the country, this does not necessarily mean their votes don't count.

It's true that most people believe their own congressman is a good choice, but they also believe congress as a whole is worthless. If their congressman has no real impact on the final result it doesn't matter how much they like him, he's worthless and their vote is worthless.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm still not sure where you're going here as it could be taken on several different levels, but there is no doubt in my mind that voting matters. I said from the beginning that a Bush admin would be a disaster and I was right. It was just as bad as I feared it woud be. Neither Gore nor Kerry were anything to get excited about, but I think history would read quite differently had Gore [especially] won in 2000. I am just as sure of that as I was that Bush would be a disaster.

Of course, there is no way to prove how history might have read...

I've already given two examples of how your vote can be worthless. In the survey I mentioned people who said they intended to abstain from voting usually claimed it was because their vote would make no difference in the outcome of the election. Sure enough, the results of the election showed that even if every person had voted it would have made no difference in the outcome. The second example I gave was that even if people like their own congressman, if they don't believe congress as a whole is serving them well their vote becomes meaningless. By their own admission they are not getting the results they were voting for.

Of course, if all you care about is the dog and pony act then by all means keep voting for your favorite dog or pony even if they can't get the job done. If all you care about is the ritual of voting even when it makes no difference in the outcome, then by all means keep voting. My own view is such things are worthless.

In some countries the politicians literally have mock wrestling matches on the floor of the legislature to prove to their constituencies they are fighting for them. In Italy one province elected a hard core porn star to office repeatedly to mock the entire election process. In the US it is now illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse in the state of Maryland because one year he got 1/3 of the vote. Such things are all clear signs of just how worthless people's votes are, but I don't really see anyone promoting any research into the subject. Instead of "pissed off and angry disenfranchised voters" those who abstain are called "apathetic" and instead of people insisting there is proof their vote matters, they keep coming up lame excuses exactly like the ones I'm hearing now for why voting matters.

 

[Galteeth]

I agree that gerrymandering is a problem but I think your premise is flawed. People have a problem with everyone else's representitives, not their own.



I'm still not sure where you're going here as it could be taken on several different levels, but there is no doubt in my mind that voting matters. I said from the beginning that a Bush admin would be a disaster and I was right. It was just as bad as I feared it woud be. Neither Gore nor Kerry were anything to get excited about, but I think history would read quite differently had Gore [especially] won in 2000. I am just as sure of that as I was that Bush would be a disaster.

Of course, there is no way to prove how history might have read...

A good example of the fact that voting does matter to an extent is the recent SOPA protest. The reason politicians backed down was because the public response was so overwhelming. They care about this precisely because they can be voted out.

The idea of voting could be seen at least to be something of a check on very unpopular laws.

 

[wuliheron]

A good example of the fact that voting does matter to an extent is the recent SOPA protest. The reason politicians backed down was because the public response was so overwhelming. They care about this precisely because they can be voted out.

The idea of voting could be seen at least to be something of a check on very unpopular laws.

This year congress seriously debated whether or not they should be allowed to vote on legislation concerning companies they own stock in and whether or not to suspend habeas corpus. They've indefinitely suspended parts of the constitution, passed secret laws that were not available for public scrutiny, invaded peoples' privacy as never before, and last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day on trumped up charges to prevent them from covering OWS. About the only thing SOPA proves is that sometimes, just sometimes, they are willing to appease the mob by publicly encouraging them to give a thumbs up or down.

 

[JonDE]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
- Mahatma Gandhi

 

[wuliheron]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

[ThomasT]

Electing candidates via middle persons (electoral college, etc.) should be done away with, imho. It makes no sense to me to give all the votes from a state to one candidate if the popular vote is almost evenly split. It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election.

I think that doing away with that sort of thing, and doing away with gerrymandering and other practices that legally but sometimes questionably skew the control of election results away from the actual vote of the populace, might precipitate a feeling among a vast number of Americans (who choose not to vote because they feel that their vote doesn't count) that their vote actually does count.

One of the big problems with the legislature, imho, is that you have career politicians who're able to gain inordinate power because of the absence of term limits.

Anyway, I think I have a certain understanding of why someone would feel that their vote doesn't count. But the thing is, unless one is part of a mass 'nonvoting' movement aimed at making a mass statement that professional politicians can't ignore, then it makes no sense to not vote. However, if one is interested in helping to bring about changes in the status quo, then the best course of action, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Galteeth]

Electing candidates via middle persons (electoral college, etc.) should be done away with, imho. It makes no sense to me to give all the votes from a state to one candidate if the popular vote is almost evenly split. It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election.

I think that doing away with that sort of thing, and doing away with gerrymandering and other practices that legally but sometimes questionably skew the control of election results away from the actual vote of the populace, might precipitate a feeling among a vast number of Americans (who choose not to vote because they feel that their vote doesn't count) that their vote actually does count.

One of the big problems with the legislature, imho, is that you have career politicians who're able to gain inordinate power because of the absence of term limits.

Anyway, I think I have a certain understanding of why someone would feel that their vote doesn't count. But the thing is, unless one is part of a mass 'nonvoting' movement aimed at making a mass statement that professional politicians can't ignore, then it makes no sense to not vote. However, if one is interested in helping to bring about changes in the status quo, then the best course of action, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats.

A state doesn't have to be winner-take all for the electoral college, but that's exactly what every state does. I have a theory that the political parties like the winner take all system, because it means they have to spend less resources for the presidential election.

"It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election."
Do you understand the theory behind it?

 

[Galteeth]

This year congress seriously debated whether or not they should be allowed to vote on legislation concerning companies they own stock in and whether or not to suspend habeas corpus. They've indefinitely suspended parts of the constitution, passed secret laws that were not available for public scrutiny, invaded peoples' privacy as never before, and last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day on trumped up charges to prevent them from covering OWS. About the only thing SOPA proves is that sometimes, just sometimes, they are willing to appease the mob by publicly encouraging them to give a thumbs up or down.

I don't think congress encouraged people to "give a thumbs up or down" on SOPA.

I am anarchist. I despise government. I think the concept of democracy and voting in the context of a state is absurd. But voting does have some effect.

Also, as far as NYC goes, we don't vote for the cops. Maybe if we did, they would behave a bit more reasonably. I am not going to go that far, but it is interesting to note that the portion of the government that does not have to face the ballot box behaves the most recklessly and cares the least what people think about their actions.

 

[Hobin]

but it is interesting to note that the portion of the government that does not have to face the ballot box behaves the most recklessly and cares the least what people think about their actions.

And you know this how? That just seems to be an overgeneralization without anything to support it to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Instead of "pissed off and angry disenfranchised voters" those who abstain are called "apathetic" and instead of people insisting there is proof their vote matters, they keep coming up lame excuses exactly like the ones I'm hearing now for why voting matters.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

 

[shashankac655]

If you are from Russia and if you vote against Putin ,your vote doesn't count ,right?? but in some other countries it might count.

 

[Evo]

There is a concerted move in the GOP to disenfranchise voters who are poor, disabled, elderly, and minorities. If the local poll-watchers challenge your ballot, it will be put in the "provisional" pile and may or may not get counted. In Maine, the Tea Party tried to eliminate same-day registration and early voting, citing voter fraud. The Secretary of State used our staff to go hunting and found exactly ONE example of an ineligible voter, and had to go back ten years to find that example. We managed to get the Tea Party measure repealed with a citizens' initiative, but the Secretary of State wants to require state-issued IDs before you can vote, which would be a severe hardship on people who are elderly or poor or don't have access to vehicles. If you are holding down two or three jobs trying to keep your family fed, should you have to blow a half-day at the Department of Motor Vehicles to get an ID? The poll-tax is back.

Please furnish the mainstream articles that back your post up. If you are going to make a statement of fact, it requires proof.

 

[turbo]

It's been all through the news, and I figured everybody paying attention should know about the disenfranchisement movement. I can go back and get more links if you want.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20120311/FON0101/203110367/Judge-delays-ruling-voter-ID-lawsuit

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/10/441831/minnesota-third-way-voter-id/?mobile=nc

http://www.dnj.com/article/20120308/NEWS05/303080019/24-must-show-ID-vote-count?odyssey=nav%7Chead

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120311/OPINION/303110043/-1/groupblogs/Hard-find-examples-voter-fraud

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/gop-war-on-voting-targets-swing-states-20120309

http://info.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10622507-rev-al-sharpton-to-speak-at-conclusion-of-historic-voting-rights-and-immigration-reform-march-in-alabama

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2012/mar/09/tdmain06-voter-id-bill-headed-to-the-governor-ar-1751923/

 

[eggshell]

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

pure democracy is possibly one of the worst forms of government out there; nothing more than the majority enslaving the minority, even if it be 51% vs 49%.

 

[Hobin]

pure democracy is possibly one of the worst forms of government out there; nothing more than the majority enslaving the minority, even if it be 51% vs 49%.

How is that one of the worst forms of government? I quite agree that it is worse than an indirect democratic government with an additional set of rules along the lines of "if more than 30% of the people would experience a significant negative effect because of decision X, then we don't do it" (although the governments I know don't have such rules, all the indirectness more or less introduces them). This does not, however, make direct democracy 'one of the worst'. Requiring a 50+% approval rating before introducing a new law is significantly more than than in pretty much all other Xcracies.

...Unless you have a theocracy where more than half of the population are high priests, or an aristocracy where more than 50% are nobles, and so on and so forth.

 

[mege]

It's been all through the news, and I figured everybody paying attention should know about the disenfranchisement movement. I can go back and get more links if you want.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20120311/FON0101/203110367/Judge-delays-ruling-voter-ID-lawsuit

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/10/441831/minnesota-third-way-voter-id/?mobile=nc

http://www.dnj.com/article/20120308/NEWS05/303080019/24-must-show-ID-vote-count?odyssey=nav%7Chead

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120311/OPINION/303110043/-1/groupblogs/Hard-find-examples-voter-fraud

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/gop-war-on-voting-targets-swing-states-20120309

http://info.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10622507-rev-al-sharpton-to-speak-at-conclusion-of-historic-voting-rights-and-immigration-reform-march-in-alabama

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2012/mar/09/tdmain06-voter-id-bill-headed-to-the-governor-ar-1751923/

None of the articles say anything that this is a purposeful 'attack' by anyone (Al Sharpton makes the allusion, but it's unsubstantiated hyperbole). The articles only address concerns that 'there is no fraud' rather than any real purposeful campaign to 'disenfranchise'. Attack the claims that the voter ID law doesn't need to exist because there is no harm inherent in the system, fine, but accusing a political party (or whomever) of trying to 'disenfranchise' voters by pushing a reasonable piece of legislation is very extreme (and quite frankly: disgustingly insulting). Where has anyone of merit, whom supports the voter id legislation, actually made the claim that this legislation is intended to remove certain legitimate voters from the rolls? I think that's a burden of proof for this being some 'disenfranchisement movement'.

To address the harms: have we all forgotten about ACORN and their thousands of fraudulent registrations (I wonder how many undiscovered fraudulent registrations were submitted and votes actually cast - just from their organization alone, too bad that opponents of voter id laws are opposed to any system that would actually have a chance of checking...).

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think congress encouraged people to "give a thumbs up or down" on SOPA.

I am anarchist. I despise government. I think the concept of democracy and voting in the context of a state is absurd. But voting does have some effect.

Also, as far as NYC goes, we don't vote for the cops. Maybe if we did, they would behave a bit more reasonably. I am not going to go that far, but it is interesting to note that the portion of the government that does not have to face the ballot box behaves the most recklessly and cares the least what people think about their actions.

NYC doesn't even own their cops anymore. Wall Street literally owns them now and the city voted to give the entire government to big business. It's their prerogative to sell their government to the highest bidder, but when your mayor is a billionaire businessman who sells the services of public servants like the cops to the highest bidder and has 26 reporters arrested in one day to stifle freedom of the press its not much of a democracy by modern standards.

 

[wuliheron]

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Democracy comes in an assortment of styles and flavors. Nobody has to settle for a crappy democracy if they don't want to.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

NYC doesn't even own their cops anymore. Wall Street literally owns them now and the city voted to give the entire government to big business. It's their prerogative to sell their government to the highest bidder, but when your mayor is a billionaire businessman who sells the services of public servants like the cops to the highest bidder and has 26 reporters arrested in one day to stifle freedom of the press its not much of a democracy by modern standards.

"literally"? You're making some controversial claims there, do you have any evidence that the police forces of NYC are owned by "Wall Street"?

 

[eggshell]

How is that one of the worst forms of government? I quite agree that it is worse than an indirect democratic government with an additional set of rules along the lines of "if more than 30% of the people would experience a significant negative effect because of decision X, then we don't do it" (although the governments I know don't have such rules, all the indirectness more or less introduces them). This does not, however, make direct democracy 'one of the worst'. Requiring a 50+% approval rating before introducing a new law is significantly more than than in pretty much all other Xcracies.

...Unless you have a theocracy where more than half of the population are high priests, or an aristocracy where more than 50% are nobles, and so on and so forth.

from a philosophical standpoint i find nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole, there is a reason why the U.S is a republic. it all depends on whether you are a proponent of negative liberty or positive liberty i suppose. i'd prefer an enlightened despot such as pisistratus as opposed to a government with pure democracy.

 

[fellupahill]

Didn't we vote for Al Gore...

But when I look in the history books there is just this picture of some retarded looking cowboy.

 

[ThomasT]

Do you understand the theory behind it?

No. I thought it was just based on lack of fast transportation and communication in the old days. Like lectures in school were done because there weren't enough books to go around.

 

[Galteeth]

No. I thought it was just based on lack of fast transportation and communication in the old days. Like lectures in school were done because there weren't enough books to go around.

The different states were wary of each other, and during the process of devising the constitution, different concerns went into the plans to assure all states would ratify. One of these concerns was that the larger states would dominate the interests of the smaller states. The apportion of electoral delegates is like the congress; each state gets two electors, and then more based on their individual population.

As for the more general idea of a popular vote not being the ideal determinant, there are situations where this makes sense. For example, one historical problem with the Roman Empire was appeasing the urban residents at the cost of the agricultural sectors (it was extremely pronounced how better off one was as an urban resident.

The president is the leader of a federation of states, thus each state has the right to determine how it will decide its electors. A state could, in theory, decide to let its state congress vote for electors or have its governors appoint them. Keep in mind, the role of he federal government, and the executive especially, is far greater then what was envisioned when the electoral college was devised.

I said something incorrect in a previous post, that all states had a direct election with a winner take all for the electoral college. In fact, 48 states have this system, with Maine and Nebraska having a different system.

Note that I am not personally advocating for or against this system, just trying to explain how it came about.

The system was almost changed in 1969-1970.

 

[ThomasT]

The system was almost changed in 1969-1970.

What happened?

 

[Galteeth]

What happened?

Nixon won a decisive electoral college victory but won the popular vote by less then one percent. A motion was adopted to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a system that was closer to popular election (40% minimum required to win, failing that, a runoff between the top two candidates.

It passed the house, and the president gave his approval, with 2 out of six undecided states having to decide to approve to gain the 3/5s state requirement (this was a constitutional amendment.)

When it reached the Senate, it was narrowly filibustered. In order to break the filibuster, the senate needed 2/3 majority, and in two votes narrowly missed (five votes short the second time).

 

[ThomasT]

Nixon won a decisive electoral college victory but won the popular vote by less then one percent. A motion was adopted to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a system that was closer to popular election (40% minimum required to win, failing that, a runoff between the top two candidates.

It passed the house, and the president gave his approval, with 2 out of six undecided states having to decide to approve to gain the 3/5s state requirement (this was a constitutional amendment.)

When it reached the Senate, it was narrowly filibustered. In order to break the filibuster, the senate needed 2/3 majority, and in two votes narrowly missed (five votes short the second time).

Thanks, I was in the armed forces then and more or less oblivious to political issues. Too bad it didn't pass, imho. I would hope that this would be considered again, sometime in the foreseeable future.

 

[edward]

None of the articles say anything that this is a purposeful 'attack' by anyone (Al Sharpton makes the allusion, but it's unsubstantiated hyperbole). The articles only address concerns that 'there is no fraud' rather than any real purposeful campaign to 'disenfranchise'. Attack the claims that the voter ID law doesn't need to exist because there is no harm inherent in the system, fine, but accusing a political party (or whomever) of trying to 'disenfranchise' voters by pushing a reasonable piece of legislation is very extreme (and quite frankly: disgustingly insulting). Where has anyone of merit, whom supports the voter id legislation, actually made the claim that this legislation is intended to remove certain legitimate voters from the rolls? I think that's a burden of proof for this being some 'disenfranchisement movement'.

Bold mine.

Actually there are many links that make that exact assertion.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/30/nation/la-na-vote-florida-20111031

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country

 

[wuliheron]

"literally"? You're making some controversial claims there, do you have any evidence that the police forces of NYC are owned by "Wall Street"?

Literally. Here's a quick Google search for "wall street owns nyc cops":

https://www.google.com/webhp?source....r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=993

The city mayor decided in his infinite wisdom the cops could work for wall street as security guards. Personally I don't care if a cop has a second job as a bouncer in a nightclub, but they should not be wearing their uniform, the public should not be paying their medical bills, and it just plain looks bad when the police force starts accepting record multi-million dollar "donations" from Wall Street firms.

Its the same problem we have with congress today. "Public servant" has come to be synonymous with corporate owned and sponsored. For the mayor of NY to then order the police to blatantly suppress freedom of the press during a demonstration organized against exactly this kind of corruption is outrageous. That congress later seriously debated allowing the military to suspend habeas corpus and round people up like cattle into makeshift camps without due process is a sign of just how far the mighty have fallen from grace.

 

[ThomasT]

Where has anyone of merit, whom supports the voter id legislation, actually made the claim that this legislation is intended to remove certain legitimate voters from the rolls?

If that's the intent, then it wouldn't make much sense for advocates of it to claim that as the intent. Would it? I'm not sure what the intent is, but the net effect would seem to be the disenfranchisement of a certain number of legitimately eligible voters.

 

[ThomasT]

"Public servant" has come to be synonymous with corporate owned and sponsored.

That's one view. Maybe it's correct. The solution, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats. Maybe those votes will count for something.