Discriminations

I can't rent a movie at Hollywood Video without showing ID.

"Do Democrats in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) really believe that voting fraud is a less serious matter than freshman fraud?" Not at all. They think it's much more important than freshman fraud. That's why they don't want to do anything to see voting fraud stopped. Since they can no longer count merely on high turnout going their way honestly, they're going to have to rely on dishonesty. That's one of the lessons they will have learned from 2004.

Since I am the GOP precinct chair for my precinct, and therefore the election judge, I have the responsibility of hiring, training, and supervision the poll workers in my precinct. It doesn't matter how much training my workers get -- we cannot know all 3200 people registered in precinct 333. Most of our folks end up showing a driver's license for identification purpose, but not all -- some use the non-photo voter card, or even certain pieces of mail that qualify as proof of residence and identity!

I can train my workers forever, but I don't believe that there is any way I can ever ensure that the guy with the scrap of card stock from the county clerk's office still resides at 815 Third Street. Nor is there any way for them to tell if the person with that card is actually the person registered without a photo id. Why should you be allowed to vote easier than you can cash a check four blocks away at Kroger?

Heck, I'd like to see us adopt the "finger-in-ink" system to ensure that folks vote only once on election day.

Doesn't Mexico require voter ID???

When this is done, WI might have an asterisk next to it for the 2004 election.

W won it.

PrecinctChair, when I have voted in CA (and I've lived here twenty years now), I have not been asked to provide any proof of identity at all. Just name and address, and signing the voter roster. It's an unbelievably porous setup.

I don't find compelling the comparisons to unessential privileges, particularly those offered by the private sector. Voting is our most essential civil right, that from which all others arise, and to require identification in order to vote is tantamount to requiring that all citizens possess identification.

I don't see the tragedy, Nels. It's not like the Gestapo are stopping you on the street and snapping "Papers!" and if they don't like what they see, shipping you off to the camps.

We keep hearing about people who have to stand in line, or whose candidate didn't win, being "disenfranchised". Vote fraud disenfranchises all of us.

Also, this: "Voting is our most essential civil right, that from which all others arise...." is a little over the top. It's true of course, but it's also true that an American citizen who never casts a vote once in his whole life, who never even registers to vote, retains all his other civil rights. I don't think we're promising an anonymous society to anyone.

Laura, that non-voter retains his rights only at the pleasure of those who do vote; he has no guarantee.

It's one thing to argue that the benefits from a reduction of voter fraud would outweigh the tacit requirement that all Americans possess identification, but John and others are comparing voting to unessential, even private-sector, amenities. Certainly the value I place upon voting is dependent upon a high level of confidence that my vote will be equally counted. All I'm asking is that there be an honest debate about the issue; none of my constitutional rights will be rescinded, or war declared, because I failed to take the MCAT or didn't rent a video at Blockbuster.

Sure, we can debate it.

My husband worked at our local polling place one election (he said never again) and recognized one of our longtime neighbors who came in. She claimed not to have any ID and he said he'd vouch for her, but she refused to sign an affidavit saying she lived in the neighborhood and was entitled to vote there. She made a big ugly scene and said they were trying to steal her vote. My husband was embarrassed that he admitted knowing her. They got the election commissioner to come in and he talked her into signing the affidavit. Of course, she drives a car; she drove to the polling place. A policeman could ask her to show her license at any time while she's driving. So what was that about?

When our current city mayor was first elected, I remember that one of my coworkers bragged about the fact that he had moved out in the county but he deliberately didn't change his voter registration so he could vote for this man, our first black mayor. It was a very emotional election in the city, and the mayor won by something like 157 votes. Did he win by a majority of legitimate votes? Who knows? Does it matter? Kind of. I don't think this situation is ideal. I'd like to see it not happen.

It's a violation of personal privacy in CA. I remember that from 2000.

'Since I am the GOP precinct chair for my precinct, and therefore the election judge'

Thats interesting. 'therefore'...

The whole point of remarking that Hollywood Video requires ID to rent a movie is to contrast how seriously they take the idea of somebody pretending to be somebody else with, for instance, Nels' attitude.

If making sure I am who I say I am, so I can exercise my right to rent a movie, is important enough for a "unessential", "private-sector" activity, why isn't it important enough for an essential, public-sector activity? (By the way, showing photo ID is required in addition to showing your Hollywood Video membership card.) Aren't the stakes much, much higher? If not individually, then in the aggregate? If somebody claiming to be me votes in my name, then I am defrauded of my vote, and the body politic is defrauded by an illegitimate vote.

Frankly, this is one of those things that strikes me as so gobsmacking obvious that I can hardly believe that anybody could honestly disagree.

I am continually amazed at the Democratic Party's complaints about voter fraud. Typically, they are petty complaints such as "having to wait too long", or being "intimidated because a police officer near the polling site".

Yet, from examining as many sources of information that I can find, I am absolutely convinced that the Democrats benefit far more from voter fraud than do the Republicans. And, I'm sure that the party leaders all know it very well.

With their tears over Ohio, it astounds me that they have the gall to ignore all the real fraud that favors them. In Washington state where a 2nd recount favored their candidate by 135 votes, there is considerable proof that fraud swung the election their way. And yet, there are no protestations - only self-serving patently false claims that the election was "fair".

Of course we should have national ID cards and have to produce them to vote. But, as long as one party can benefit by phoney voters, they will fight it tooth and nail.

So much for "truth, justice and the American Way!".

Well, I wouldn't go so far as national ID cards because those could be used for other things.

But in my state, you can get a picture ID through the driver's license program even if you don't drive, and it identifies you just as your driver's license does.

ELC, I don't follow how Hollywood Video's policies have any bearing on what is permissible in the public sector. I don't know what the stakes are for Hollywood Video, nor do I really care. As I have nothing to lose by not renting movies from Hollywood Video, it can enact as reasonable or as absurd policies as it wishes.

While individuals are free to not vote, it seems to me not much of a choice. Hollywood Video cannot kill me, imprison me, conscript me, seize my children, take my property, etc., because I failed to rent a movie.

Bob at least is willing to come out and say "of course we should have national ID cards," as that is what this would entail, whether explicitly, or through national standards for state IDs.

Here in Texas, the usual practice is for the precinct chair of the majority party in the precinct to serve as precinct election judge, and the precinct chair of the minority party to be the alternate judge.

Precinct 333 votes about 2-1 Republican, therefore I am it.

If the Democrats can ever change enough minds, I'll be the alternate judge.

Just to show that I'm not opposed to cracking down on voter fraud, here are what I would consider reasonable reforms, the first two of which address problems not properly covered by identification requirements:

(a) End domestic absentee balloting.

(b) Require each voter to dip a finger in indelible ink. An invasion of privacy, but not a long-lasting one. A national ID, coupled with a national database of who voted, would catch multiple-time voters as well, but state ones would not.

(c) Send to each registered voter a numbered or coded card with no other identifying marks. This would be presented when voting, for confirmation that the card corresponds to that district, at which point the card would be destroyed. If somebody wants to vote outside his appropriate district, he'll have to convince somebody else to give up her vote.

Nels, would you not require some sort of identification for a person to register to vote?

Nels - I'm with Laura on this. Since only citizens are allowed to vote, it hardly seems unduly burdensome to require proof of identiy in order to vote. Every state issues ID cards (like drivers licenses, except that they don't license you to drive). Requiring the production of a photo ID card to vote would impose no requirement to carry that ID everywhere.

And by the way, the non-voting citizen does not enjoy his rights "only at the pleasure of those who do vote; he has no guarantee." On the contrary, his guarantees are the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

John, if there were some method to prove citizenship without identity, or to reasonably prevent whatever method was used to identify voters from being used for other purposes, then I'd accept it. But I think it's short-sighted to believe that new uses for general IDs wouldn't be devised once voters were made entirely a subset of ID owners. What official will care about further marginalizing those who can no longer vote for him?

As to your second point, I think you would agree, per the primary focus of this blog, that while it is difficult to amend our Constitution, it is easy to misinterpret and ignore it. Non-voters can only hope that those who do vote wish to uphold its principles.

"John, if there were some method to prove citizenship without identity...."

Whatever happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Are U.S. citizens supposed to be ashamed or afraid to identify themselves?

How about Social Security Numbers? Are there US citizens without SSNs? Would it be hard to set up a central database into which you'd input an SSN for a voter, and see if it had been used already that election? (You'd need a pile of provisional ballots here, obviously.)

Of course, the SSN was never meant originally to be a national citizen-identifier. Nor was a driver's license meant to be all-purpose ID. But here we are. And frankly, the SSN seems as good a check as any to me. Anyone who's ever held a job knows his/her SSN, because you have to give it to get on a payroll. Even people who have never worked have an SSN and can find it out.

'Are U.S. citizens supposed to be ashamed or afraid to identify themselves?'

No. They just don't have to.

They don't have to vote, either.

How idiotic to say a person should not have to identify themself to vote. That is tantamount to defending voter fraud. But wait, are these people democrats? That would explain it, certainly. I was once a democrat myself, so I understand them.

Nels, I'm sorry, but I simply do not find your objections to have any basis in reality or an interest in preventing voter fraud. How can I prove citizenship without proving my identity? If I vote for Candidate X and an illegal voter votes for Candidate Y, I am as disenfranchised as the person who is wrongfully denied the right to vote because my vote was just cancelled ... illegally.

Why are you not taking this seriously? If you really do believe that "... [v]oting is our most essential civil right, that from which all others arise ..." then you would care that an illegal voter is nullifying your vote (i.e. your "most essential civil right") and rendering it pointless.

Your rights are not rescinded just because you are asked to produce a drivers license (or any other form of recognized photo ID) before you vote. If that is the case, your rights are rescinded because you have to register to vote as well.

I personally cannot even ascertain why you're arguing against having to provide ID. You say privacy, but you're also advocating a "national database" of voters (not a totally bad idea), which implies a unique ID for each voter, which is no different in operation from an ID card.

As for your ojection (on what basis?) to voters becoming "a subset of ID owners", voters already are subset ... of registered voters (and if you had your way, a subset of your "national database"). Besides, no-one is advocating a particular ID; it can be a drivers license, state identification card, passport, a work ID with your social security number, military ID, affidavit with picture included and stamped, etc.

So ... again, why are you against having to produce ID before one can vote? It's not as if it's in any way difficult to do so ... if you're a legitimate voter.

'They don't have to vote, either.'

Sure. But they have a right to.

For all intents and purposes, it really doesn't matter WHO shows up to vote on a given election day. It's who COUNTS the votes, and even more insidiously, who BUILT the voting machines and programming systems.
Can you say "Diebold", anyone?
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/bbv/BBVPrimer.pdf

--Cobra

actus, as far as I'm concerned, no one who isn't willing to make a minimal effort to prove that s/he is a US citizen registered to vote in the precinct in which s/he is voting is any great loss to the electorate. And I am absolutely flummoxed by the Democratic attitude generally towards voter fraud. They seem very anxious to deter shenanigans with the voting machines, and not at all interested in making sure that all voters are US citizens, that they aren't felons (in states where felons can't vote), and that they vote once each per election. Recent investigations in various places have turned up legally-dead voters; tens of thousands of people who voted in two states; pets with voter registrations; stacks of provisional ballots thrown into a voting machine so that they can't be disaggregated from the pile of ballots; &c. This is seriously nasty stuff. I thought I'd seen the limit when a box of completed ballots turned up floating around San Francisco Bay awhile back, but evidently not.

And there's Cobra, right on cue!

Cobra, you know, it wasn't all that long ago that the enthusiasts for touch-screen voting were all on the Left. It was easy; it was familiar. For that matter, I remember considerable enthusiasm for Internet voting from the Left. No one in the late 90s seemed particularly interested in whether there was a "paper trail" or not. It is, to say no more, curious that everyone has forgotten about this. (And also about the Democratic enthusiasm for absentee ballots, which lend themselves extremely readily to fraud. I have to agree with Nels here: You shouldn't be able to get an absentee ballot without, at minimum, explaining why you need [not "want"] one.)

I'll say this: I want a balloting system in which there is a physical record that the voter can inspect before handing it in. And it ought to be something unambiguous, like the Scantron-esque system we had in San Rafael. No bloody "hanging chads," just ovals that are either filled in or not. (If there's a touch-screen system, the printout should be the same: unambiguous.)

How idiotic to say a person should not have to identify themself to vote. That is tantamount to defending voter fraud.

So if I say that a person should not have to identify himself in order to purchase a gun, it is tantamount to my defending murder? If I say that a person should not have to identify himself in order to assemble with others at a public park, it is tantamount to my defending criminal gangs? If I say that a person should not have to identify himself in order to distribute a pamphlet, it is tantamount to my defending treason?

Michelle, it sounds as though in the last election you received much the same ballot as we had here in San Diego, and which I agree I'd like to see used in every future election.

No, Nels ... you're being sad here.

What you are advocating is a system whereby someone, even non-American citizens, can vote a multitude of times because he doesn't have to identify himself. He can just walk up to the polls and simply demand a ballot.

PS: None of your analogies hold water. Distributing pamphlets, assembling and, yes, buying a gun DO NOT negate any of my rights. A fraudulent vote negates my vote and so, DOES negate my right.

A more valid analogy is this; you advocate a system where the maximum penalty for any type of murder is two weeks imprisonment minimum security. It doesn't necessarily mean you're advocating murder ... it just shows you're not too concerned about it.

Martin, you are misunderstanding my analogies. Somebody who buys a gun, assembles with others, or distributes pamphlets might be breaking the law in a way that negated your rights. Somebody who casts a ballot without identifying himself might be committing voter fraud, which would negate your rights. You are assuming that anyone who refuses to show identification in order to exercise his constitutional rights must have something to hide.

And you are wrong to say that I don't take seriously voter fraud. I think there should be much harsher penalties for it, just as there should be harsh penalties for murder. I don't think, though, that voter fraud is prevalent enough to justify an infringement of voting rights, just as I don't think murder is prevalent enough to infringe gun rights. So this may be simply a case of us having very different thresholds for crime levels before we accept preventive measures that restrict rights.

To bring in the primary topic of John's blog, just because I oppose public sector affirmative action on the grounds that it violates the Constitution doesn't mean that I don't take seriously discrimination by the government, or think that it shouldn't be harshly punished.

'actus, as far as I'm concerned, no one who isn't willing to make a minimal effort to prove that s/he is a US citizen registered to vote in the precinct in which s/he is voting is any great loss to the electorate.'

I know that's as far as you're concerned. I know you've got opinions as to who is or is not a loss to the electorate.

actus,

I know that's as far as you're concerned. I know you've got opinions as to who is or is not a loss to the electorate.

Yes, actus, I do. I want everyone who votes to know what they're voting for (or against), and I'd just as soon see everyone who hasn't got a clue who the candidates are or what the issues are stay home. I do not vote for or against candidates I don't know anything about. I'm afraid that the ordinary "get-out-the-vote" campaign stops short of telling people that they shouldn't vote on a question or a race if they haven't a clue what the issues are.

And as I said in the comment to which you responded, people who won't make a minimal effort to demonstrate that they're legal voters don't care enough about voting to be worth bothering about. We've just seen people braving death to vote. We saw it earlier in South Africa, and then in Afghanistan. It beggars belief that Americans can't show up to the polls with some proof that they are American citizens and that they are who they say they are. We have it so ridiculously easy here. Can't we do the bloody minimum?

Michelle writes:

>>>I'll say this: I want a balloting system in which there is a physical record that the voter can inspect before handing it in. And it ought to be something unambiguous, like the Scantron-esque system we had in San Rafael. No bloody "hanging chads," just ovals that are either filled in or not. (If there's a touch-screen system, the printout should be the same: unambiguous.)"

Excellent idea, Michelle. I agree wholeheartedly. I'd even go further. I want a bipartisan, federal commission to have oversight of the operating systems and programming of ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING machines in the country, including the source code and any version modifications.

Nels,

You are absolutely correct. I cannot believe that conservatives, who 5 short years ago, were TERRIFIED of big, centralized government, are now the biggest shills for empowerering the same entity when it comes to personal privacy rights. This ID craze is just a precursor...everybody knows how easy it is to get an ID. Underaged kids have been doing it for years. Even some of the terrorist hijackers from 9/11 had Driver's Licenses. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/24/tech/main668667.shtml
What this is all pointing to is what Bob B. posts..."National ID cards.",
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17147&c=206
but that won't be enough. I believe it will go further...
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/yeah-right-awards-STREAM.gif
A national DNA database is already with us, whether we know it or not, in law enforcement. How long before some charismatic legislator gets up there and claims it's in the nation's best interests to catalog all of us?

>>>In 1994, the DNA Identification Act established a national DNA database, run by the FBI, called CODIS (Combined DNA Identification System), which links all state databases. Today, the newspapers regularly bring stories of a murderer identified through a “cold hit” on a DNA database, or an innocent man freed from prison after DNA evidence exonerates him. In March 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a new initiative, “Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology,” that seeks $1 billion over the next five years to aid in “realizing the full potential of DNA technology to solve crime and protect innocent people.” Media coverage focused on the initiative’s efforts to eliminate the backlog of DNA samples at state and federal criminal laboratories, but the initiative seeks something else as well: the expansion of CODIS. The Bush administration is keen on giving the FBI access to the full range of samples in state DNA databases—including those of people placed under arrest but not convicted—rather than the smaller range of samples currently included."
http://www.ccr.buffalo.edu/Workshop03/newatlantis.html

Of course, my right winged friends would say, "So what? If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear from DNA databases."

Well...

>>>James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, recently told the Independent (U.K.) that he supports the creation of a compulsory international database. “With the increase in terrorism,” Watson said, “we want to know who people are.”
http://www.ccr.buffalo.edu/Workshop03/newatlantis.html

Hey, if Bush can get up in front of the American people and with a straight face talk about fantasies like WMD's in Iraq, moon bases, and "saving social security from bankruptcy by letting people take their money out of it" (?????) I can EASILY see him march up there, with his bully pulpit, and ask for compulsory DNA samples so we can find the "evil doers that lurk among us."

--Cobra

Somebody who buys a gun, assembles with others, or distributes pamphlets might be breaking the law in a way that negated your rights.

No. There's no way the simple act of buying a gun, assembling with others or distributing pamphlets, in any way violates my rights. My rights are unaffected. What do any of these things have to do with me? However, when an illegal voter votes (also a simple act), it infringes on my rights as a legal voter. It's as simple as that.

The right to vote is contingent upon you being a citizen and/or a legitimate voter. It is also not something that shows on your face. Therefore, asking that you produce some form of identification, to ASCERTAIN whether or not you have the right to vote, on one day every two years, is not putting some obstacle in your path on your way to the polls.

Cobra,

How is it that the people who feel it is totally ethical and moral for the government to demand to know my gender, race, ethnicity, and religion in order to get admitted to a university, get a job, bid on a government contract, vote, etc, do not want the government to look at my DNA.

If the government should not be able to look into my DNA, it should not be able to ask me my race either?

Oh, my mistake. Knowing my race can be used to promote "progressive" causes but knowning the DNA sequence of career criminals is "facist".

'And as I said in the comment to which you responded, people who won't make a minimal effort to demonstrate that they're legal voters don't care enough about voting to be worth bothering about'

In america, not caring is a right.

Of course, in Iraq, not knowing who you're voting for is a feature, not a bug.

Superdestroyer writes:

>>>How is it that the people who feel it is totally ethical and moral for the government to demand to know my gender, race, ethnicity, and religion in order to get admitted to a university, get a job, bid on a government contract, vote, etc, do not want the government to look at my DNA.

If the government should not be able to look into my DNA, it should not be able to ask me my race either?"

Not to wander totally off the topic of this thread, but racism is an horrific REALITY in America, whereas DNA discrimination hasn't risen to that damnable level yet.

Actus,

Also, as in America with Diebold and other dubious private corporations who control electronic voting apparati, do we truly know exactly WHO is counting all of these ballots in Iraq? Or are we just nodding to the Pentagon/CIA filtered press releases?

---Cobra

Cobra, you do realize that the Iraqis voted on paper ballots and that they are counting them. I hope you are not going to trash the election they just had. I hope you are not one of the people who hope Iraq gets screwed just so they can continue feeling disdain for GWB. Some do, and it's one of the most disgusting points of view I can think of. I'd hate to think I'd been in conversation with somebody who could hope that.

"Of course, in Iraq, not knowing who you're voting for is a feature, not a bug." In the previous elections for president, there was one name on the ballot: Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, he got 100% of the vote. Of course, people knew who they were voting for. I guess that was better.

I can't see a national ID card, and don't want one. It would possibly solve the problem of people voting in NY where they have their summer home and FL where they winter, but that doesn't seem to be an immediate enough problem to warrant another layer of bureaucracy. I don't, however, see the problem with people being asked to show some ID, like a driver's license, when they vote. Unlike Cobra, I don't see a conflict with conservatism there. Most people already have some kind of ID. Show it.

Reason to show ID: Eliminate vote fraud, which disenfranchises every legal voter. Reason not to show ID: I don't have to. Well, that sounds like spoiled brat talk to me, and I've not seen any other reason put forth.

Look, the right to vote is not universal and unlimited. My 17-year-old daughter can't vote. I can vote in elections in Memphis, Shelby County, and Tennessee, but I can't vote in Kentucky, and the State of Kentucky has legitimate reasons to make sure I don't. Isn't the electoral process important enough to try to protect it from fraud?

'I guess that was better.'

You'd be guessing very wrong.

Thank you.

actus,

There were names of the candidates on the ballots with their party affiliations. The people may not have found out the candidates' identities until the last few WEEKS to the date of the election but they did know what they were voting for because they had access to the parties' manifestos.

The system being used is a parliamentary system, where the individual candidate is FAR less important than the party he belongs to while the American system is much less party-centric.

Either way, they went out to vote ... I'm going to believe they knew what they were doing rather than listen to someone thousands of miles away smugly saying they did not.

But I guess the technicalities do not really bother you. The terrorists didn't succeed in stopping the elections. Thousands of people did not die in suicide attacks and massive bombings of polling stations did not occur.

Even the French and UN are happy about it.

Too bad you're not.

I'm very happy that we shut a country down and ban vehicular traffic and pull off an election. its very good. I wished we had done it last year when Sistani first asked for it and the security situation was better.

Let's not forget our own early history (assuming my own memory of it is correct) of indirectly-elected delegates to the Constitutional Convention; the inability of women, slaves, the poor, indentured servants, and Indians to choose the representatives who sent those delegates; and proposals from some delegates for a Constitution that would have restored the monarchy. Iraq seems off to a better start than we were, and we already had a more democratic system prior to independence than did the Iraqis!

Actus,

Of course, the policy of the US under Reagan was to support Saddam Hussein in an attempt to PREVENT Iraq from becoming a radical Islamic Shiia state. I guess the irony is lost on our neo-con loving friends.

Nels writes:

>>>Let's not forget our own early history (assuming my own memory of it is correct) of indirectly-elected delegates to the Constitutional Convention; the inability of women, slaves, the poor, indentured servants, and Indians to choose the representatives who sent those delegates; and proposals from some delegates for a Constitution that would have restored the monarchy"

Oh no, Nels. I CONSTANTLY remind folks in here about the attrocities of America, not only in voting rights, but society as a whole. Many conservatives and AAA-types have "selective memories" about such things. Rest assured, I will continue to remind them of the past, for as the saying goes...if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past...yadda yadda yadda.

--Cobra

Cobra,

Yes, you do constantly remind us about the "attrocities" of America. Might you keep them in perspective, slightly? I see that the latest UN Human Rights Commission working group involves representatives of Cuba, Hungary, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. I can think of three nations on that panel who have no business at all pontificating about "human rights." Can't you?

(You might consider reminding the folks in Brussels exactly what Belgium did to the Congo, as long as you're in the reminding business. Maybe it would wake the UN up, though I doubt it.)

actus,

In america, not caring is a right.

Indeed. But voting if you are not a citizen is not; neither is voting twice, voting on behalf of your recently-deceased relatives, or voting absentee in the name of the family dog. People who care about the integrity of the voting process ought to be willing to put up with some minimal inconvenience to secure it. And the people who don't care enough to put up with said minimal inconvenience probably don't care enough to have bothered with stupid, boring stuff like, say, reading the sample ballot.

Seriously, actus, you'd think that a few decades' worth of experience with Soviet-bloc elections and the like would have cured Americans of the idea that "the more voters, the better." Evidently not so.

Michelle,

Again, what's the difference if EVERYBODY votes legally, when the system and those counting the votes are in question?
And those elections in "democratic" Russia and the Ukraine are sure inspiring, aren't they?
As far as attrocities go, Americans come to the table like William Bennet at a 12 step program for addictive behavior. You can only say so much.

--Cobra

"Again, what's the difference if EVERYBODY votes legally, when the system and those counting the votes are in question?"

Heck, Cobra, you can question anything, and you probably will if the result isn't what you want.

"And those elections in 'democratic' Russia and the Ukraine are sure inspiring, aren't they?"

Who in this country looks to Russia and Ukraine for inspiration when it comes to democracy? For pete's sake? What's your alternative, anyway? Anarchy? Dictatorship? Hereditary monarchy?

The one thing that so many leftists seem to be missing is that security and freedom tend to be opposites.

The more security you have, the less freedom.

The more freedoms you have, the less the security.

The trick comes in figuring what the right balance is, to protect the most important rights and freedoms, while at the same time providing appropriate security.

The most 'secure' country is a dictatorship. It's certainly not free, but every thing can certainly be controlled, down to minute details of daily life. This was the situation for a long time in the old Soviet Union - government control was pervasive. (And incidentally, that sense of 'security' is why many in the former East Block want to return to the days of Soviet communism.)

The most 'free' country tends to be a messy democracy like the U.s.

Some countries may SEEM both free and secure, but that illusion tends to fall away when a crisis looms or when one or more individuals choose not to play by the rules. Witness Switzerland: There was just an armed standoff inside an embassy, where several gunmen tried to rob the embassy. They chose not to 'play by the rules'. The same thing happens in the U.S., when individuals or groups decide not to 'play by the rules' of balance between freedom and security that everyone else has agreed to. When that happens, you have things like calls for national ID cards, or the Patriot Act. And the balance is thrown off, all because of a few.

Cobra,

Again, what's the difference if EVERYBODY votes legally, when the system and those counting the votes are in question?

You might turn that around, you know:

"What's the point of counting the votes meticulously and accurately if you've no clue whether the people voting are legal voters, or whether they're voting only once apiece?"

Cobra, a fair election requires that only people authorized to vote do so; that each of them votes only once; and that the votes are fairly tabulated. I don't see why any of these requirements should be thought to be in conflict with either of the other two. Why not — oh, well, I can dream, can't I? — why not an election in which we do our best to see that the people voting are legally authorized to vote, that they do so once each, and that the votes are fairly and checkably tabulated afterwards? Is that so bloody impossible? Can we not address Diebold's absence of hard copies and also the dead people, household pets, &c. who seem to vote nowadays, or even the, um, interesting large-scale discrepancies between the number of registered voters counted as having voted and the number of ballots counted in various precincts? Do I have to wait for touch-screen voting to be reformed before I complain that dumping a pile of provisional ballots into a voting machine without verifying them is a subversion of the vote?

And those elections in "democratic" Russia and the Ukraine are sure inspiring, aren't they?

Dude, if you weren't inspired by the elections and their aftermath in Ukraine (not "the" Ukraine, btw), you must have slept through a couple of weeks.

As far as at[t]rocities go, Americans come to the table like William Bennet[t] at a 12 step program for addictive behavior. You can only say so much.

Um, OK, Cobra, if you say so. So far as I can see, the worst hellholes in the world are all ex-European colonies, apart from the few that are still copycat ex-Soviet clients. But you know best.

Michelle writes:

>>>Why not — oh, well, I can dream, can't I? — why not an election in which we do our best to see that the people voting are legally authorized to vote, that they do so once each, and that the votes are fairly and checkably tabulated afterwards? Is that so bloody impossible?"

Hey, that is a great dream. And I would agree with you that both issues are important. I have a problem with more emphasis being placed on the voter and not the people tabulating votes.

>>>Dude, if you weren't inspired by the elections and their aftermath in Ukraine (not "the" Ukraine, btw), you must have slept through a couple of weeks."

Poisoning candidates? Riots at the polling places? Hey...could you imagine Florida in 2000 if the folks who were disenfranchised there reacted like the Ukrainians? Or Ohio, after waiting in line 12 hours till 1:30 in the morning to manually cast a vote because you knew a provisional ballot wouldn't count for jack squat?

>>>Um, OK, Cobra, if you say so. So far as I can see, the worst hellholes in the world are all ex-European colonies, apart from the few that are still copycat ex-Soviet clients. But you know best."

Michelle, you'll get no argument from me about the wanton destruction left in the wake of European colonialism. We actually agree wholeheartedly on this aspect.

--Cobra