What could Congress do? Outlaw the use of electronic voting machines in federal elections? It's too late for this election and, I suspect, such an action would be stopped before it could happen by threats of martial law.
Martial law also negates any direct action by the People.
The President isn't going to do anything about it and neither is the Supreme Court.
That leaves the military, which I'm not sure we want, honestly. The best case would be the military defending the Constitution from a criminal regime and enforcing transparent, fair elections.
It doesn't have to be military unless the US gets militaristic over the notion of a new vote WITHOUT the use of voting machines. However such a thing would take time to put in place.
Talk to Elections Canada for assistance on doing it with pencils and paper ballots. :)
It's definitely the better choice of the two, but it's still a false sense of security, what with reports of entire boxes of ballots going missing or spending the weekend at someone's house (last two presidential elections).
I know I've said this before, and everyone's tired of hearing it, but why the hell don't you count the damn paper ballots at the polls the night of, in front of reps from each party as well as an Election Official? No need for machines, and it's quicker, easier, and more accurate. Oh, and it makes cheating a hell of a lot harder. Need a model? We'll send some scrutineers from Canadian elections to show you how it's done. Yes, it's infinitely scalable with no noticeable time difference.
No, we will not let up on your stupid ballot procedures until you change them.
They can't change them. Changing them requires that someone who wants them to change be elected. Since only Republicans can be elected, only Republicans can change the system that guarantees their own election.
Only people who are elected can change the process of getting elected. Republicans have changed the process so that only Republicans can be elected. In order to stop using the machines that only elect Republicans, you have to elect someone other than Republicans.
Remember Gore *won* the Popular vote, and lost, and the essential reaction was: 'Oh wait, he got the most votes, but because of an obscure system that says a vote cast *here* is worth more than a vote cast *there* he loses? Well.. okay.'
That's not technically true, because the Republicans haven't held 100% of the power for the last little while.
Change could easily have been enacted by the Democratic Legislative branch to order more rules and enforcement etc, which would have forced Bush into the position of signing such legislation or facing the very real amount of domestic and international scrutiny that would come from vetoing a bill the insures fair and honest elections.
But they didn't.
Just like they could have started impeachment proceedings, or at least cngressional inquiries into some of the issues that are at best borderline at worst completely illegal.
They've done nothing, which is crazy making. We've gotten a bit of fist-shaking and sabre-rattling, but none of it amounted to squat.
I find the move to electronic voting machines *insane* the Diebolds are ridiculously easy to hack, and the abiliy to co-opt one machine and have that co-opt all the others? Ridiculously abusable.
THe only saving grace is that I trust the republicans in some of these key districts, if they do attempt to steal the election, to do an incredibly unsubtle job of it.
Of course, what will we do when we can *prove* fraud? I really have no idea.
Republicans haven't held the *federal* government, but mechanisms of voting and oversight are a *state* issue.
And trying to pass federal laws about how people can vote would immediately start a shitstorm of "state's rights"[1] protests and a (successful) constitutional challenge, meaning the law would be struck down.
[1]: A euphemism for "racism". Always. Always has been, always is. If someone starts talking about "state's rights", they're talking about preserving and protecting bigotry.
[1]: A euphemism for "racism". Always. Always has been, always is. If someone starts talking about "state's rights", they're talking about preserving and protecting bigotry.
Not *totally* true... sometimes it's because they're stupid and/or greedy.
Some people do honestly and earnestly think that the state's should have self-governance to make local laws and establish precedence that stand outside of federal law because of unique circumstance etc.
But if they did that you'd have no need for the political minor leagues.
The largest argument against state's rights always equaling bigotry? Is that it's state's rights that allow gays in CT to get married.
But nobody uses "state's rights", the phrase, as an argument in California or Massachusetts or Connecticut. Nobody says "state's rights" about Oregon's right to die statute, either.
The *phrase* is the warning. It's like using "kind" instead of "species" or "pro-life" instead of "anti-woman".
Hi there. I'm new here. I was notified of your existence via ozy_y2k in this post (http://ozy-y2k.livejournal.com/404169.html).
All I have to say about this whole thing is that it doesn't surprise me. In the 2004 election, the president of the Diebold company, a registered Republican, came out on the record and guaranteed Bush a victory. And boy were there ever some wacky vote tallies 4 years ago. Especially in Ohio, which, of course, ended up being the deciding state.
Well, that sounds like an entirely honest mistake. I'm sure it's just coincidence that there are no reports of the same thing happening to Republicans.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Problem ...
Date: 2008-10-20 06:30 pm (UTC)What could Congress do? Outlaw the use of electronic voting machines in federal elections? It's too late for this election and, I suspect, such an action would be stopped before it could happen by threats of martial law.
Martial law also negates any direct action by the People.
The President isn't going to do anything about it and neither is the Supreme Court.
That leaves the military, which I'm not sure we want, honestly. The best case would be the military defending the Constitution from a criminal regime and enforcing transparent, fair elections.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 06:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:32 pm (UTC)Talk to Elections Canada for assistance on doing it with pencils and paper ballots. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 12:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 06:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:03 pm (UTC)I know I've said this before, and everyone's tired of hearing it, but why the hell don't you count the damn paper ballots at the polls the night of, in front of reps from each party as well as an Election Official? No need for machines, and it's quicker, easier, and more accurate. Oh, and it makes cheating a hell of a lot harder. Need a model? We'll send some scrutineers from Canadian elections to show you how it's done. Yes, it's infinitely scalable with no noticeable time difference.
No, we will not let up on your stupid ballot procedures until you change them.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:12 pm (UTC)Only people who are elected can change the process of getting elected.
Republicans have changed the process so that only Republicans can be elected.
In order to stop using the machines that only elect Republicans, you have to elect someone other than Republicans.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:29 pm (UTC)Do you think the American people will get into an upraor if Obama is NOT elected? I mean, even a lot of Republicans are backing him.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 08:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 04:41 am (UTC)I'm really not so sure.
Remember Gore *won* the Popular vote, and lost, and the essential reaction was: 'Oh wait, he got the most votes, but because of an obscure system that says a vote cast *here* is worth more than a vote cast *there* he loses? Well.. okay.'
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 04:39 am (UTC)Change could easily have been enacted by the Democratic Legislative branch to order more rules and enforcement etc, which would have forced Bush into the position of signing such legislation or facing the very real amount of domestic and international scrutiny that would come from vetoing a bill the insures fair and honest elections.
But they didn't.
Just like they could have started impeachment proceedings, or at least cngressional inquiries into some of the issues that are at best borderline at worst completely illegal.
They've done nothing, which is crazy making. We've gotten a bit of fist-shaking and sabre-rattling, but none of it amounted to squat.
I find the move to electronic voting machines *insane* the Diebolds are ridiculously easy to hack, and the abiliy to co-opt one machine and have that co-opt all the others? Ridiculously abusable.
THe only saving grace is that I trust the republicans in some of these key districts, if they do attempt to steal the election, to do an incredibly unsubtle job of it.
Of course, what will we do when we can *prove* fraud? I really have no idea.
And.. it's sort of petrifying.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 11:51 am (UTC)And trying to pass federal laws about how people can vote would immediately start a shitstorm of "state's rights"[1] protests and a (successful) constitutional challenge, meaning the law would be struck down.
[1]: A euphemism for "racism". Always. Always has been, always is. If someone starts talking about "state's rights", they're talking about preserving and protecting bigotry.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 04:06 pm (UTC)Not *totally* true... sometimes it's because they're stupid and/or greedy.
Some people do honestly and earnestly think that the state's should have self-governance to make local laws and establish precedence that stand outside of federal law because of unique circumstance etc.
But if they did that you'd have no need for the political minor leagues.
The largest argument against state's rights always equaling bigotry? Is that it's state's rights that allow gays in CT to get married.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 04:22 pm (UTC)The *phrase* is the warning. It's like using "kind" instead of "species" or "pro-life" instead of "anti-woman".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 07:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:06 pm (UTC)...especially since Guy Fawkes is the day after the election, this year...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:49 pm (UTC)All I have to say about this whole thing is that it doesn't surprise me. In the 2004 election, the president of the Diebold company, a registered Republican, came out on the record and guaranteed Bush a victory. And boy were there ever some wacky vote tallies 4 years ago. Especially in Ohio, which, of course, ended up being the deciding state.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 11:53 pm (UTC)