Here it comes
I have a bit of unexpected, but welcome, down time this morning. So I get to blog a bit. Today's topic, of course, is the elections that are coming up in just 15 days. Now, I understand that my selection of topic may be offensive to some, and my statements may not coincide with the beliefs and ideas of others, so I'll be a nice guy and put the whole thing behind a cut. You're free to read, or not read, as your own desire dictates.
Much has been made lately of the laws that certain states passed, and which have subsequently struck down by the courts, regarding the need for positive identification of voters at the polls. One side screams about "voter fraud" and says positive identification is the only way to prevent it. The other side screams "civil liberties and voting rights", and says requiring identification is just a way to disenfranchise voters who might cast a ballot for the opposite party.
They're both right...and they're both wrong.
I can make a strong case for requiring identification at the polls.Gone are the days when the workers in a particular precinct knew everyone who came in on sight. Our society has become too mobile, and simultaneously too insular. I don't even know my next-door neighbors, so how would poll workers know me? So asking (note the word I chose there) for positive identification prior to casting a ballot isn't that far out of line. However, requiring a SPECIFIC form of identification, and then requiring the potential voter to pay a fee to obtain that form of identification, is going too far. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me...or, at least, they did back in 1966, when they handed down their decision in the Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections case (383 U.S. 663). That was the decision that declared poll taxes unconstitutional. And to me, if there's a requirement for a specific form of identification, and a fee attached to obtaining it, that's a poll tax. (Standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) So how can this be made to work, without running afoul of that decision? It won't be cheap, but I don't see much alternative: a national identification card, with encoded biometric data, similar to the Personal Identity Verification cards currently issued to government employees and contractors. Other nations have already implemented such national identification systems, in most cases with little fanfare or pushback. And Occam's Razor is going to apply, in that the simplest solution to a given problem is generally the best. I don't see anything simpler at the moment.
Moving to the more recent hullaballoo, much is being made on one side about the son of a Presidential candidate buying enough stock in a corporation which manufactures electronic voting machines so as to obtain a controlling interest in that corporation. I have a HUGE problem with this, simply from the standpoint of propriety. If any argument can be made regarding improper action, or the appearance thereof, regarding such a stock purchase, I believe it falls to either the corporation's executive board, or the SEC, to at least place a hold on the completion of that transaction until the event which produces that appearance of impropriety or improper action is resolved. In this case, the buyer's stock purchase should be placed on hold for at least three more weeks...or should have been, since it appears to have already been completed.
Regarding the machines themselves, this is the same company whose CEO, back in 2004, announced that he intended to give Ohio to George W. Bush. Since those machines are (or, at the time, were) manufactured in Ohio, the implications of that CEO's statement are clear, and speak to the impropriety of which I already wrote. So, since I already addressed the short-term response, to-wit, the delaying of the stock purchase until after the conclusion of the election, the long-term solution must next be addressed. The only viable answer I have come up with for that problem is complicated, and will likely increase the size of the bureaucracy, but I haven't come up with anything that I see as a workable alternative. First, nationalize the entire elections system. Second, design, build, and distribute ONE type of electronic voting machine, brand-new from the ground up, and treat that new machine as a national-security asset. No one person can be responsible for preparing it for an election AND counting and verifying votes afterward. The preparation process must be subject to the same security levels and precautions as the preparation, distribution and implementation of diplomatic cryptography systems and procedures. The vote tabulation process must be subject to verification, which means a hard-copy audit trail must be generated during the voting process. Final acceptance of the new machine for use in any election must be subject to a rigorous test suite, including testing for unauthorized alteration either of the voting scheme or the cast ballots, as well as securing the transmission of tabulations from that machine to the local Board of Elections office.
Finally, a means and timeline for implementing both of these will need to be established. But the identification issues must be addressed first. It's a situation that will just keep recurring, election cycle after election cycle, until it IS addressed. The time to begin the process for the next major election cycle will begin on November 7th, 2012...the day after this election cycle comes to a close. And there needs to be a large, organized and concerted push to get the identification issue resolved within the next two years. The machine issue will be more problematic, simply because of the time requirements for the design-and-test cycle. In a perfect world, that solution could be in place in time for the 2020 presidential-election cycle...anything before that will be rushed, incomplete, and even more expensive in the long run.
The last item that needs to be addressed is how these elections are paid for. I've held for some time that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision (558 U.S. 310, 2010) may prove to be the most destructive decision handed down since Scott v. Sandford (60 U.S. 393,1851). The ONLY reason I don't count it as more destructive than Scott is because no one has died as a result of Citizens United...yet. The Scott decision, on the other hand, was directly responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans. I see two things necessary to completely level the electoral playing field. First, Citizens United must be overturned, either by judiciary action or by legislation. Second, and more importantly, private funding for elections and candidates must end, and be replaced by 100% public funding of elections. Without both of these happening, what President Lincoln termed "government of the People, by the People, for the People" will assuredly vanish from the Earth, and be irrevocably replaced by government of the People, by the Wealthy, for the Dollar. And it may prove the ultimate destruction of the United States.
These are all my own opinions. Yours will likely vary. But this IS my blog. Anyone not liking what I've written here is free to look elsewhere for opinions more closely coinciding with their own.
'Nuff said.
*poof*
Much has been made lately of the laws that certain states passed, and which have subsequently struck down by the courts, regarding the need for positive identification of voters at the polls. One side screams about "voter fraud" and says positive identification is the only way to prevent it. The other side screams "civil liberties and voting rights", and says requiring identification is just a way to disenfranchise voters who might cast a ballot for the opposite party.
They're both right...and they're both wrong.
I can make a strong case for requiring identification at the polls.Gone are the days when the workers in a particular precinct knew everyone who came in on sight. Our society has become too mobile, and simultaneously too insular. I don't even know my next-door neighbors, so how would poll workers know me? So asking (note the word I chose there) for positive identification prior to casting a ballot isn't that far out of line. However, requiring a SPECIFIC form of identification, and then requiring the potential voter to pay a fee to obtain that form of identification, is going too far. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me...or, at least, they did back in 1966, when they handed down their decision in the Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections case (383 U.S. 663). That was the decision that declared poll taxes unconstitutional. And to me, if there's a requirement for a specific form of identification, and a fee attached to obtaining it, that's a poll tax. (Standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) So how can this be made to work, without running afoul of that decision? It won't be cheap, but I don't see much alternative: a national identification card, with encoded biometric data, similar to the Personal Identity Verification cards currently issued to government employees and contractors. Other nations have already implemented such national identification systems, in most cases with little fanfare or pushback. And Occam's Razor is going to apply, in that the simplest solution to a given problem is generally the best. I don't see anything simpler at the moment.
Moving to the more recent hullaballoo, much is being made on one side about the son of a Presidential candidate buying enough stock in a corporation which manufactures electronic voting machines so as to obtain a controlling interest in that corporation. I have a HUGE problem with this, simply from the standpoint of propriety. If any argument can be made regarding improper action, or the appearance thereof, regarding such a stock purchase, I believe it falls to either the corporation's executive board, or the SEC, to at least place a hold on the completion of that transaction until the event which produces that appearance of impropriety or improper action is resolved. In this case, the buyer's stock purchase should be placed on hold for at least three more weeks...or should have been, since it appears to have already been completed.
Regarding the machines themselves, this is the same company whose CEO, back in 2004, announced that he intended to give Ohio to George W. Bush. Since those machines are (or, at the time, were) manufactured in Ohio, the implications of that CEO's statement are clear, and speak to the impropriety of which I already wrote. So, since I already addressed the short-term response, to-wit, the delaying of the stock purchase until after the conclusion of the election, the long-term solution must next be addressed. The only viable answer I have come up with for that problem is complicated, and will likely increase the size of the bureaucracy, but I haven't come up with anything that I see as a workable alternative. First, nationalize the entire elections system. Second, design, build, and distribute ONE type of electronic voting machine, brand-new from the ground up, and treat that new machine as a national-security asset. No one person can be responsible for preparing it for an election AND counting and verifying votes afterward. The preparation process must be subject to the same security levels and precautions as the preparation, distribution and implementation of diplomatic cryptography systems and procedures. The vote tabulation process must be subject to verification, which means a hard-copy audit trail must be generated during the voting process. Final acceptance of the new machine for use in any election must be subject to a rigorous test suite, including testing for unauthorized alteration either of the voting scheme or the cast ballots, as well as securing the transmission of tabulations from that machine to the local Board of Elections office.
Finally, a means and timeline for implementing both of these will need to be established. But the identification issues must be addressed first. It's a situation that will just keep recurring, election cycle after election cycle, until it IS addressed. The time to begin the process for the next major election cycle will begin on November 7th, 2012...the day after this election cycle comes to a close. And there needs to be a large, organized and concerted push to get the identification issue resolved within the next two years. The machine issue will be more problematic, simply because of the time requirements for the design-and-test cycle. In a perfect world, that solution could be in place in time for the 2020 presidential-election cycle...anything before that will be rushed, incomplete, and even more expensive in the long run.
The last item that needs to be addressed is how these elections are paid for. I've held for some time that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision (558 U.S. 310, 2010) may prove to be the most destructive decision handed down since Scott v. Sandford (60 U.S. 393,1851). The ONLY reason I don't count it as more destructive than Scott is because no one has died as a result of Citizens United...yet. The Scott decision, on the other hand, was directly responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans. I see two things necessary to completely level the electoral playing field. First, Citizens United must be overturned, either by judiciary action or by legislation. Second, and more importantly, private funding for elections and candidates must end, and be replaced by 100% public funding of elections. Without both of these happening, what President Lincoln termed "government of the People, by the People, for the People" will assuredly vanish from the Earth, and be irrevocably replaced by government of the People, by the Wealthy, for the Dollar. And it may prove the ultimate destruction of the United States.
These are all my own opinions. Yours will likely vary. But this IS my blog. Anyone not liking what I've written here is free to look elsewhere for opinions more closely coinciding with their own.
'Nuff said.
*poof*