From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
the reality is, we can do much better than we are...
Published on May 7, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics
The American people are discontent with out election process. Some of us prefer to "pick and choose" our particlar issues, especially the left and right wing pundits. But the fact is that our whole elcetion process, from start to finish needs a makeover. A big extreme makeover.

Let's start with campaign finance. It is a big issue indeed. One one hand, you have the people that believe money = free speech. In the other camp, we find the "regular people can't afford to run for office" crowd.

McCain - Feingold was a disaster overall, as it turns out. Which is a shame. Both Senators are good and decent men in my view and did have some good intentions in their legislation. Unfortunately, their well intended legislation ended up being loophole rampant. But that doesn't mean we can't try again. It is apparant that campaigns, are getting increasingly expensive to run. And as our 2008 Presidential fundraising is showing, the escalation is getting ridiculous. Not that every single person should be given a huge satchel of money and sent on his/her way to campaign for leader of the free world. But there has got to be a better way than billion dollar campaigns. even the most hardened pundits have to realize that money has to have aless than positive impact at that level. People who can afford to get candidates to those dollar levels aren't the types who just toss money around. They expect return for their investment. Not that they don't all believe whole-heartedly in their pet causes, but the investments are made with expectations. And that needs to change if our government is going to remain sound for the 21st century.

Then there's the electoral college. Which is 100% obsolete at this point. A lot has changed since our days of being 13 new states in a land where it took 3 days to get from Pittsburgh to Washington.

The trip averages about 4 or 5 hours now. And a few other things exist now that weren't even conceptualized then. Things like telephones, faxes, the internets and so on...Things that can instantaneously convey results. Things that make a delegate to represent a segment of a population useless. We may not be ready to abandon our representative democracy as a whole, but I think we can do better than the antiquated college to determine our Presidential winners. I'm all for tradition, but let's move on. I really think if the founders had our tools at their disposal, the electoral college wouldn't be a consideration. The system simply isn't fairly democratic. 1 electoral vote could represent as few as 100,000 people or as many as 1/2 a million. So each person's vote is by no means equal. This is wrong, in my view. This needs to change.

And then there is voter fraud, in all it's forms. Voter fraud is one of the hardest crimes to prove. The evidence is usually slim at best, and the people who commit fraud usually are fairly hardened to their cause. And it's not like their getting the Abu Gihrab treatment by the CIA to fess up usually.

But that doesn't mean we can't do things that keep our elections fair and honest. Electronic voting is more accurate than paper ballots. But there are legitimate fears about hacking. So, it doesn't take an expert to figure out that perhaps electronic voting with a paper trail is the answer. Of course, we need to ensure everyone's privacy rights at the same time. But that's hardly an impossible mountain to climb.

And where we can debate on the merits or demerits of a tamper proof ID card for all Americans being required just to exist here, do we have to avoid making tamper proof documents? We already have a social security card. Is it so unconstitutional to make that card tamper proof? And is it so unconstitutional to make state id's and driver's licenses tamper proof? Or at least as tamper proof as something can be? And i've thought long and hard about the arguments of requiring id to vote vs. the right not to have an id and be allowed to vote. And again, I have to conclude, that this isn't 1776. And if anyone has to have an ID to cash a check, open an account, buy a beer or see an R rated movie, then this isn't such a big deal anymore. I do acknowledge that this might be a hardship in isolated cases. But if the people who do voter drives really care, then maybe they will just need to expand their services to include helping the ID-less get an ID so they can vote. Just like technology has helped in the other examples of our election problems, it can here too. Like a lot things, despite what the opposing pundits claim, it isn't a one-way street.

And there are other areas where we can improve. Like dropping the nonsense of Tuesday elections. In colonial times, a weekday may have been better for whatever reason. But today, with the pace of our America, we need to move it to a weekend. And a 24 window would suit our 24 hour world better in my view as well.

And I won't even untap the genie bottle that is the fraud of our "Presidential debates."

Where tradition is a great thing, holding on to traditions for their own sake while people use and abuse those traditions is hardly worth it. Where technology allows us to do better, we should. Where we can reasonably make elections more about the issues and at least less about the fundraising, we must. Not everyone will be happy, and some will surely make a lot of noise. But most of that will come from the camps more interested in power than country.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 08, 2007
  

just a shameless bump...
on May 08, 2007
i mostly agree with you here
on May 08, 2007
thanks dan:)
on May 08, 2007
your surprised aren't you

look at my new post

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=152194
on May 08, 2007
In colonial times, a weekday may have been better for whatever reason.



haven't you heard there are now some people in california wanting to reduce the work week to two days
on May 08, 2007
The root evil in the American political system is the parties. They decide who we are going to vote for. Others will differ, but the day I see a double digit percentage of candidates win a national election who isn't a member of the two parties, AND WHO WASN'T FOSTERED TO THEIR POSITION BY THEM, I'll be more apt to agree.

I've always said that the further from your front door the decisions about your life are made, the less real freedom you have. Sadly, many decisions aren't even made in the government, they are made by the parties, who have no moral oversight and who care about as much for us as the beancounters who decide what our entertainment is going to look like.

After all, it is the same job. Ratings, votes, same thing. They pick based upon likability, physical image, broad consumer appeal. By the time we see a debate like last weeks, anyone "dangerous" has been weeded out and they have a block of programming ready that will assure them a safe win, or at least a relatively painless defeat.

You want to overhaul politics in America, break the parties. They are meaningless anyway. No two parties can represent the myriad of interests citizens have. At one time when the average American elected officials because they were too uneducated and unaware to handle their world for themselves, it worked. Now, granted to a less than stellar degree, we're better than that.

More power to the communities, counties, states, and less hidden away in the Washington beltway. More government representing the people of a given area, and not a flaccid, ineffectual agreement between 300 million people who can't agree. Keep the crooks close to home, in meetings you can attend, and they won't get away with nearly as much.
on May 08, 2007
You want to overhaul politics in America, break the parties


love to

...where do we start?

More power to the communities, counties, states, and less hidden away in the Washington beltway. More government representing the people of a given area, and not a flaccid, ineffectual agreement between 300 million people who can't agree. Keep the crooks close to home, in meetings you can attend, and they won't get away with nearly as much.


a lot to be said for that. various people might interpret the particulars in different ways...but that's america.
on May 08, 2007
your surprised aren't you

look at my new post


yes, and i appreciate the support.

and i did look at your post and left you some comments (and some points) there.
on May 09, 2007
i saw it
on May 09, 2007
maybe instead of getting rid of the college

we make it that one vote goes to the canadet instead of the whole state

except for my spelling does that make sense


the state of maine already does it this way
on May 09, 2007
we make it that one vote goes to the canadet instead of the whole state


well, that would make say, a californian's vote even less valuable than say a north dakotan's is today. the electoral college reflects the numbers of members in both the house and senate. the number you send to washington (delaware is 3, 1 house, 2 senate) is the total number of delagates you get.

but along the lines of your thinking, i have suggested a more localized college model...or the allowance of splitting of delagates becoming the standard. some fear that 1 man = 1 vote will favor the big states too much, i'm not sure about that, but the college in it's present form doesn't work for me at all.
on May 09, 2007
in our current position you only need 15 or 16 states to win
on May 09, 2007
in our current position you only need 15 or 16 states to win


well, if all those big states swung 1 way, that would be true. but he reality is this..california tends to go democrat
texas tends to go republican
new york tends to go democrat
pennsylvania tends to go democrat, but not always
florida goes back and forth
ohio goes back and forth
new jersey tends to go democrat
tennesee tends to go republican

so each side needs some small states to win. but the strategies for both sides tends to be to pay attention to the few "swing states" that go back and forth. in that scenario, most of the country always gets ignored. we've had the occasional blowout, like with reagan in 84. but that is the exception, not the rule.
as time goes on, the strategists are getting better and better at pinpointing states that will matter. the end result is that most of us get ignored, esp after the primaries.
on May 09, 2007
Wouldn't you need even less states if it was one person, one vote?
on May 09, 2007
Wouldn't you need even less states if it was one person, one vote?


that is one side of it, as i said...

some fear that 1 man = 1 vote will favor the big states too much, i'm not sure about that,


and also suggested other possiblilities....

a more localized college model...or the allowance of splitting of delagates


but my bottom line was...

but the college in it's present form doesn't work for me at all.


any suggestions from the bakerman on improving? or do you support the college as being the best we can do?



2 Pages1 2