Slashdot Mirror

The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.

I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.

Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:

1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.

2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.

3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.

4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.

5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.

6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.

7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.

I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.

Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.

How deliciously naive.

Campaign finance reform is designed from the ground up to protect incumbents.

Incumbents don't need money to win elections.They can get all of the free coverage that they want. Challengers and minor parties, however, require large sums before they can get any coverage.

See Real Campaign Reform for more information, including the 1st amendment violations of the FEC.

Peter

Oh yeah, term limits, that'll fix it. /sarcasm

The problem is all the crap we collectively call 'the (one party posing as) two party system.' The winner take all electoral system. The very high bar third parties have to meet to get on the ballot, while the state-approved parties get it automatically. The 'campaign finance' laws that make sure that third parties can't raise their issues and campaigns into the public eye effectively, while the big media corporations are free to spend all they want effectively campaigning for the incumbents.

Term limits won't do a thing about any of this. A win in the current Supreme Court case could help though. Our lawsuit challenging the federal campaign finance laws is moving to the Supreme Court

As badly as we may need campaign finance reform to keep corporate money from polluting politics...

"When buying and selling things is controlled by the legislature, the first things that get bought and sold are legislators." -- P.J. O'Rourke

We don't need the Incumbent Insurance type of campaign reform touted by the politicos. Instead we need Real Campaign Reform.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be instituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be insituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

Our case would ask for Buckley [Buckley v. Valeo, The Supreme Court decision that permitted all of these abuses: Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Commission for Presidential Debates (CPD), and the federal campaign funding system] to be reconsidered and overturned. It is very rare that a constitutional case challenging the status quo starts out with such a receptive Supreme Court.

Our coalition includes Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne, the Harry Browne for President Committee, Citizens United, Gun Owners of America, Constitution Party presidential nominee Howard Phillips, the Phillips 2000 Committee, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian National Committee.

Our lead attorneys are Herbert W. Titus (former Dean of Regent Law School) and William J. Olson, who has practiced election law since 1977 and has worked for many candidates for president, Senate, and Congress.

Our prospects for success depend on building the factual evidence and soliciting the expert testimony that will prove our claims. This will be expensive. We need your help. We have arranged for you to make a tax-deductible contribution to this case through the good offices of the U.S. Justice Foundation. If you want real campaign reform, if you want to restore your rights as a voter, if you want to make free speech legal again, then please click here to make a contribution.

I think that Browne was deliberately tight-lipped on the electoral system issue because the Libertarian Party is preparing to mount a tremendous legal battle to dismantle the FEC and the CPD! According to a LibertyWire mailing I received today, they've hired Herbert Titus and William Olson along with a team of other attorneys in order to challenge the Supreme Court decision that allowed these entities to become legal when they are, in fact, unconstitutional. Check out this site for more information.