America's Sick Election System

[IrishEyes]

Do we truly have this issue to contend with? Most voter issues seem to stem from those that are denied the right to vote. Have there been national(US) elections in which voter fraud was an issue? Are we to start ranting about corrupt Diebold machines too? The biggest problem seems to be the denial of individuals the right to vote. Some states have same day registration, and I have seen no problems arise from that.

I agree that being denied the right to vote is an issue. I just don't see it happening today. I mean, how can people be denied the right to vote? Don't give me the overblown hype scenarios. I'm talking about regular people that want to participate in an election and have the legal right to do so. Doesn't every state have voter registration? If you want to vote, how hard is it to fill out the card? I am aware that it was very difficult, especially for those minority groups that have already been mentioned, in the past. Is this still an issue? I'm asking honestly, not rhetorically.

Because, like I said, I wanted to vote, so I found out that all I had to do was fill out a card at the DMV, and I went down and did it. It was important to me to vote, so I walked in, filled out the card, dropped it in the box, and went home. They sent me my registration card within 2 weeks.

What's it like in other states? How exactly are people that are legally entitled, being kept from voting?

[nemo]

This is the first thing that Google spit out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30), and it seems typical of what I saw in the news coverage at the time. People were "denied" the right to vote because they were felons, or because felons had used their names and the private contractor in charge of purging their names from some list screwed it up. When the article talks about *why* people were denied the right to vote, it talks about the law; when the article talks about *who* was denied the right to vote, it talks about minorities. Electoral machines in districts with very little money were old, and some didn't work correctly - sounds remarkably similar to my truck when I didn't have the money to get a new one. Perhaps I was discriminated against. A conspiracy by the "man" to keep the poor down in the gutter. Or perhaps it's because when you don't have the money to spend, you get old equipment. People don't want to pay taxes that would provide things like newer voting machines, but they've been discriminated against when they don't get them? No felons are allowed to vote, but the felons that are minorities have been discriminated against?

Perhaps I'd understand more if I stopped reading so much.

[Qfwfq]

This can't be forced from the federal direction because its a states rights issue and would require a constitutional amendment, and for the reasons stated, such an amendment would never pass...

More than just a mere amendment.

 

It would require quite an overhaul of the US Constitution, which is essentially the defintion of a federation of states rather than one of a single country. It says that each state chuses a certain number of electors and doesn't even explicitly state how. Similar thing for Congress.

 

At that point, you might as well replace the constitution completely with a slightly more modern one.

[Buffy]

More than just a mere amendment. It would require quite an overhaul of the US Constitution, which is essentially the defintion of a federation of states rather than one of a single country. It says that each state chuses a certain number of electors and doesn't even explicitly state how.

Constitutions don't have to be internally consistent: take a look at California's which because of the fact that we can amend it by proposition on 50%+1 votes is a huge bloated thing with all sorts of stuff that has no business being in a "constitution."

 

You could definitely bolt an ugly kluge on the side of the electoral college section that said "electors shall be assigned by states in a proportional manner" while leaving provisions that if a state wants to have its congressional representatives chosen by the "Blood & Bones" society members, they can still do that.

 

In law, just about anything is possible...

 

Legally Blonde,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

I guess I didn't understand exactly what you meant when talking about proportional vote, I took it to mean over the US rather than state by state. I'm not sure what you were getting at with all that, or why constitutions shouldn't have to be internally consistent.

 

In law, just about anything is possible...

Perhaps it depends on which law. Over here, the constitution is The Top. The president doesn't have to promulgate a law if he finds it trivially against the constitution, unless it comes back from parliament with no whatsoever alteration, carbon-copy. This is only the first, simple filter. In any case, any magistrate can raise an exception of anticonstutionality about a law, having it examined by the Constitutional Court. They exist to the sole purpose of guaranteeing that laws don't violate the constitution and their ruling is the Lord's Word. :naughty:

 

If a country chooses to join a federation, ratifying the federal constitution, I don't see why it should have its own constitution in conflict with the federal one. :rolleyes:

[Fishteacher73]

I think the main argument against the electoral college is that it counters the concept of "one person, one vote" that is the true hallmark of a democracy. Just last night I was watching a debate about this on PBS. One fact that stuck me was in the 2004 election a vote related to electoral college votes presented a ratio 4 times higher in California than in Wyoming. This means that essentially a person in Wyoming counts more than an individual in California. IMO this is wrong and goes against the spirit of real democracy.

[C1ay]

IMO this is wrong and goes against the spirit of real democracy.

That depends. We are not electing a President to represent the people, we are electing a President to represent the federation of 50 sovereign states. If we want to wipe out state lines and become just the US then your point would be valid, otherwise the weighted system insures that less populated states are represented proportionately to their enumeration.

[IrishEyes]

That depends. We are not electing a President to represent the people, we are electing a President to represent the federation of 50 sovereign states. If we want to wipe out state lines and become just the US then your point would be valid, otherwise the weighted system insures that less populated states are represented proportionately to their enumeration.

You know, this brings up something that has always baffled me...

Why are we 50 sovereign states (or commonwealths), and a country at the same time. I understand legally how it works, but I'm a little lost on why it is so. If the President represents the federation of 50 states, and the states are made up of people, then doesn't that make him a representative of the people?

And if we are truly sovereign, how can the federal government levy taxes and enforce laws? And why are states not allowed to just back out of the federation? I know a few have tried (besides the Civil War). Hawaii comes to mind right now. But the government will not allow it. I know it's against the (federal) law to do so. But if we are sovereign states, why does the federal law hold more power than the law of the sovereign state?

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but it's bothered me for a while, and since it was mentioned...

[niviene]

Well, actually Texas was its own country at one point.... briefly, though :rolleyes:

[IrishEyes]

Yeah, I know. I used to hear them grumbling about that when I visited my Gram before she moved to Oklahoma. All the men in town gathered at my uncle's store in the mornings for coffee, usually before the crack of dawn, and hemmed and hawed about everything under the moon. Usually the topic would get around to how the country was going down the crapper, and how much better Texans would have it if they were just their own country again. Like they could even remember when that happened! They weren't even born then!! Well, maybe one of them was, he was prety old... :rolleyes:

[Buffy]

Well, actually Texas was its own country at one point.... briefly, though :rolleyes:

Oh it still thinks it is! Do you *know* anyone from Texas? (I mean *really* from Texas: Fish isn't, so he's normal).

 

All-horse-and-no-hat,

Buffy

[IrishEyes]

Oh c'mon now, Buffy... you know "Everything's bigger in Texas"! Including the hats, the drawls and the egos...

Fish, you don't count. You're a transplant!

[Fishteacher73]

It proabaly stems from the wording in the process to become a state. Possibly to back out is paramount to breach of contract?

[Erasmus00]

And if we are truly sovereign, how can the federal government levy taxes and enforce laws?

 

Most federal taxes come from the constitutional clause allowing the federal government to regulate inter-state commerce. Your electric power crosses state lines, so the feds tax it, etc.

-Will

[Fishteacher73]

I hate to double post, but thought some more...sorry.

 

The general idea for the states right was to limit the power of a central gov't. Essentially the people were quite diverse in the colonies and they all wanted specific assurances that they would have a voice. Today the state boundrys are little more than arbitrary lines when it comes to cohesiveness. The culture variances are now not very aligned with the boundries. Much of what we have today is antiquated from a devisive and sepratist ideals. Scared of a monarchy.

[C1ay]

Today the state boundrys are little more than arbitrary lines when it comes to cohesiveness.

The bulk of the laws in this country are state laws, laws which conflict with each other from one state to the next, but laws none-the-less which reflect the will of the people of each state. The boundaries between them are much more than arbitrary lines.

[C1ay]

Why are we 50 sovereign states (or commonwealths), and a country at the same time. I understand legally how it works, but I'm a little lost on why it is so.

From the Articles of Confedation, Article II:

 

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

 

HTH,