Who can work, who may vote (Addended) (updated 12sep2011)

George Rebane

[This is the submitted version of my column that was scheduled to appear in the print and online editions of the 10sep11 Union.  It was rescheduled and has been printed in the 17sep11 print and online editions (here) due to the Union's focus on 9/11 commentaries.  This piece clearly would not have fit.]

The election season is here, and the economy is in the tank.  America is at a gore point – we can take the left fork and double down on the great mistake of ’08, or we can believe that there is a future for us which rejects the global socialism in UN’s Agenda 21.  (Agenda 21? See Judi Caler’s excellent ‘The many tentacles of Agenda 21’ in the 3sep11 Union available online.)  But before next November our focus will be on jobs, and which way the electorate will swing and sway.

Readers familiar with my arguments on our workforce and employability know that the recovery, when it comes, will be unique in American history.  Comparing all kinds of data and charts on past recessions and depressions shows that we have already tipped into an unknown world.  Technology and globalism is obsolescing tens of millions of our workers.  And today only 81% of America’s potential workers between 20 and 64 are even in the workforce.  From 1948 to 1980, this was 98%.  Since then it has been steadily dropping in all worker categories.

We can argue what caused this decline – global competition, technology advances, productivity increases, worker “dumbth”, government friction, transfer payment subsidies, … - but the bottom line is that today the almost 40 million un/under-employed will increase to way over the 70 million that I recently predicted for 2020.  These folks will have to be sustained by massive wealth redistribution payments from a government that has no idea how an economy generates the needed wealth.

And now education turns out to not be the automatic cure it once was for getting a job.  We have graduated too many young people whose skill sets limit them to competing with computers, changing diapers for the aged, or becoming government counselors who listen to life stories of the desperate, deranged, or delusional.  The simple fact is that such jobs cannot command the much-touted ‘living wage’ that progressives demand for everyone.

As an aside, a definite growth industry for jobs is government regulation enforcement.  Today, led by the EPA, the number and size of rogue agencies is on the rise.   Job intensive businesses from world-famous guitar makers to local auto body shops are being raided by merciless teams of government thugs.  These are sent by unelected bureaucrats at all levels to gratuitously enforce regulations that would never be passed as standalone laws by any legislature in the land.

Bureaucrats levy crippling fines, mandate new operating procedures, and order changes in physical plants and equipments that do little or no good, and make less sense. Their devastating impact forces layoffs, delays hiring, and even closes companies.

So instead of doing the obvious things to promote enterprise, build businesses, and create jobs during this recession heading for depression, governments are adding burdens ranging from new rules to new fees and taxes.  And while governments claim a shortage of revenues to do things like educate kids or catch criminals, oddly enough, there is still plenty of money to fund hassling recently criminalized taxpayers. 

So we may ask, who enables and supports such blatant destruction of our economy and individual liberties.  The answer is simply our uninformed and ignorant voters, those whose voices are manipulated and strengthened as we abandon the republic our Founders and forefathers left us, and march toward the new American democracy.

Under the guise of correcting civil rights abuses, the left is now reducing voter qualifications from being able to fog a mirror on election day, to having once been able to do that.  Richard Rahn of Cato writes –

Many a democracy has been upended by excessive government spending — and, unfortunately, America, despite the latest budget agreement, is well on its way to fiscal and, perhaps, democratic collapse. The American Founding Fathers well understood that democracy could destroy liberty through both excessive spending and oppressive actions by democratic majorities. This is why the U.S. Constitution creates a federal republic and not a parliamentary democracy.

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property. To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending others' money, they deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long. John Adams wrote, "Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

As if following some agenda, we realize Franklin’s fears.

George Rebane is an entrepreneur and a retired systems scientist in Nevada County who regularly expands these and other themes on KVMR and Rebane’s Ruminations (www.georgerebane.com).

[Addendum]  First off, let me say that I don’t have a pat answer for what America’s voter requirements should be, but I do propose that the form of today’s voting franchise is largely the reason for the country’s headlong rush toward autocracy via socialist democracy.

To undertake an exercise in fashioning a ‘better’ voting system I would like to proceed by first framing such an effort in a reasonable manner, and then see where that would take us.  And the starting point should be to get a common understanding of ‘better’, or to define a voting franchise utility (VFU) function.  I’ll offer that a VFU will highly rate –

•    Adherence to the Constitution as amended, specifically excluding strictures based on race, religion, gender, political persuasion, sexual preference, ethnicity, previous condition of servitude, etc.
•    Maximize the expected number of franchised voters, but err in the direction of minimizing unqualified voters,
•    Pareto-optimality (see below),
•    Require some demonstration of minimum cognitive function and relevant knowledge base.

The last bullet, of course, is the tricky one.  And in passing, I believe that the several states should each fashion their own voting franchises or VFs that conform to the minimum federal voting rights laws.

I also believe that no one wants to grant the vote to people who are not American citizens and demonstrably do not know what they are voting for, and propose that these considerations should be part of every VF definition across the land.  In other words, these conditions may be taken axiomatically to disqualify a person from being granted the franchise.

(As a footnote here, I feel that, in a democracy or republic, voting is the most sacrosanct civic act and duty of a franchised citizen, it is the ‘holy of holies’ of a socially responsible citizen, and the qualifications to exercise the right to vote via a secret ballot should be more stringent than the cognitive (not kinesthetic) requirements for such privileges as obtaining a driver’s license.)

We already have laws that somewhat arbitrarily prevent people under a certain age from voting, and laws that deny the vote to the clinically demented, comatose, or dead.

But now come questions like, ‘Should the person be franchised if s/he –

•    Does not comprehend written English?
•    Demonstrates no/negligible knowledge of American governance?
•    Demonstrates no/negligible knowledge of ballot candidates, propositions, issues?

My own general response to such questions is NO.  But defining appropriate tests to allow adjudication of qualified voters is the next task that faces us.  And this is where it becomes highly political, since the left’s agenda is arguably promoted by letting more than fewer people vote, and the right’s is promoted by more stringent voting qualifications.

Finally, we may also want to consider voting methods since our current one embodies definite benefits and liabilities, and many others exist.  The study of voting systems may be considered to be a special subset of what are known as fair division algorithms.  (Part of a system scientist’s toolkit, and one that I used extensively when I was in harness – actually, I still do.)  Dr Pierre Lemieux of the University of Quebec has written an excellent, short, and non-technical paper – ‘The Public Choice Revolution’  – wherein he describes the entire field of public choice, various voting schemas, and Pareto optimality.  To make progress in this discussion, I offer it as a minimal preparation.

[12sep2011 update]  Given the course of the comment thread on voting as it reflects the divergent concerns of the left and right, a Wizard of Id commentary comes to mind that pretty well sums things up.

Comments

[RL Crabb]

Being the Culture Vulture that I am, it's hard to ignore the proliferation of zombies in mainstream TV, and I'm looking forward to AMC's second season of "The Walking Dead". There have been zombie sightings in popular commercials lately as well , although the product they are pushing escapes me at this hour of the morning.

I'm sure this is all being orchestrated by the Democrats, and it could have a profound effect on next year's election. After all, wasn't it the graveyard vote that pushed Jack Kennedy over the top in Illinois back in 1960? It's happening again, because after all, the undead are people too, or at least they used to be.

Look for the mantra of next year's election to be "must eat brains".

[RL Crabb]

Afterthought: Election day falls right after the Day of the Dead. More evidence of a Latino-led conspiracy.

Conservatives will counter with the corporate vote, because, after all, corporations are people too, or at least the Supreme Court says they are. Not content to flood the airwaves with corporate dollars, they will enlist their own creations to stuff the ballot boxes of America. This will be led by the Disney Corporation. And before you say "but Bob, they are liberals", remember that most of those characters (Mickey Mouse, Goofy, etc.) are elderly and will vote like their flash-frozen creator, Uncle Walt, who pissed off LBJ by wearing a Goldwater pin at the ceremony where the Prez gave him the Medal of Freedom.

[Mike Thornton]

And here we have it, another perfect example of "regressivism"
George wants to roll back voting rights and democracy itself to the place where only the monied property owners have a say in the way government should be run.
This is called "Oligarchy"!

[Todd Juvinall]

All I can say is look at the results of the elections and the turnout. People stay home even though they can vote from home. The nastiness of the process (democrat liars and thieves abound), the demise of people thinking their vote makes a difference (Obamacare for instance) and the frustration many have with the process itself (motor voter and same day registration) have made our elections less important in people's minds than they should be. Since we are a free country (well almost), people have the right to take stay home without an immediate consequence. The long term consequence however is the place gets run by Teddy Kennedy's and Darrell Steinberg's and of course Willie Brown and Nancy Pelosi. We get to see the results all around us.

It should be taught every year starting in 8th grade, the Constitution I mean. It should be taught and drummed into the heads of our kids. Along with classes on balancing a checkbook, these basic necessities should be mandatory for five years of teaching our mushy headed kids. Then we would not have people like we see in charge perhaps, those lefty fools that have wrecked the place.

Lastly, I would like to see a mandatory picture ID required and also return voting to a voters booth and get rid of the ease of the absentee vote. It does not increase anything except the chance of fraud. With most elections officials across the country registered democrats, we cannot trust the outcomes.

[George Rebane]

MikeT re 645am - There are so many things you could have addressed about voter fraud and voting rights for a nation with open borders, high populations of illegal aliens, an indifferent/uninformed electorate, impact of money on voter sentiment, ... .

Instead, you again launch a pitiful personal attack on me as if you were a simpleton, indicating that you understand nothing or ...? Reviewing your contributions to these dialogues over the last weeks, I find little of redeeming value. I leave that comment here as your swan song. Substance or silence are your choices.

[Kathy Jones]

As a kid I remember the fun of dressing up for Halloween. Often we as kids would claim our character and then go about creating our persona. I also remember the Star Trek and Star Wars marathons where grown ups would show up in costume.

Fast forward to today, zombies, and a host of other "make believe" characters occupy the time, minds and pockets of a large number of 20-30 something younger adults. Look at some of the pictures produced from these multimillion dollar conventions, which are behind held all over America. http://www.wlsam.com/sectional.asp?id=41069&cid=1 Look at the age of most of those who dress up. I have to say the "elder" creators of these characters are making buck off these events, as well as big hotels! Do we have a younger generation simply tuning out of their hopeless and ugly reality and just find themselves as walking dead as society crumbles? Do they get sucked into this unreal world because the one they really live in holds out a dull future?

This generation of young adults spends hours watching and talking about the unreal ie ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAofuIlX9i8&feature=player_embedded ) and seem to try a avoid reality at every turn.

If you were 20-30s something today, what would you be thinking, our would you be trying to avoid the reality about the future offers you?

Would you even bother to vote?

[RL Crabb]

Much of the popular culture portrayed in comics and movies is a reflection of the real world, and not all of it is of a liberal bent. As an example, the Batman character was transformed from ZAP! POW! cartoon image of the TV series to the Dark Knight image has has today. The original Dark Knight graphic novel appeared in the eighties, and was a reaction to the Bernie Getz subway shooting incident. Batman became the outlaw avenger of justice who bypassed laws that protected the criminal and punished the victim.

[Todd Juvinall]

Here is a link to a possible major incredible upset on Tuesday. If it hold up perhaps I will reevaluate the voter.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/09/poll-republican-2.php

[Paul Emery]

George

Who may vote:

or

Who may vote?

Was that a question and if is what are your ideas?

[George Rebane]

PaulE - actually it was a declarative statement as an intro to our lax voter requirements that were highlighted in the piece. But it does invite discussion of the question you have presciently indicated. Please let me put down some thoughts to frame the discussion as an addendum to this piece.

[Douglas Keachie]

This is called "You get screwed"!

I suspect history will see little or no difference between the robber barons of the late 19th century, and their corporate counterparts of the present day. Both are incredible destructive of Thomas Jefferson's Dream.

RL Bob, you are a double threat with a pen in hand, just as good at the keyboard as at the drawing board.

[Douglas Keachie]

BTW, anyone know how that $175 tax on every parcel in the county for fire protection services from the state went? Plus an additional $1 per acre?

Seems to me the state should insure for full value every house that burns down if they don' save it from a wildfire, despite the home owner following all the safe fire practice rules.

[George Rebane]

DougK - here's some info on that bill
http://cssrc.us/web/4/news.aspx?id=11230

Apparently LaMalfa introduced a bill to repeal the one that became law. Let us know what more you find out. Thanks.

[Ben]

Wow. Brilliant column George, thanks so much for the work you put into this.

[Douglas Keachie]

OK, so I think I get it.

The average USA citizen soon discovers that even though his job seemed secure, so many of his neighbors' jobs weren't, and soon there is indeed a giant sucking sound. Without his neighbors chipping in their pitiful amounts of purchasing power and taxes, soon the whole government payroll dies (did you know that to have street lights in Marysville outside your house these days, you and your neighbors have to agree to pay to keep them on?) and when the government as a whole dies, along with all the unnecessary bureaucracy, also goes police fire and road maintenance, and guess what, the home schoolers will get their wish, everybody gets to home school because there's not enough taxes to keep the public schools open anymore.

Does that define the Great Divide or not? At what point does the megaCorps owned government start supplying troops to keep the homes of the wealthiest safe? Obviously they will vote for this, and since soon they will be the only ones allowed to vote, it will pass. Bastiat Triangle in Action!

[Douglas Keachie]

Oh, and BTW, just how many Tea Party Patriots will be just thrilled to have Social Security and Medicare fail for the same tipping point style reason?

Your vision of Apocalypse Now seems to miss some very elementary points about human nature. Lincoln got it right.

"You can fool some of the people, all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the poeple, all of the time."

When the great bulk of the TTP'ers realize they've been had, they are not going to be happy. Can you say, "General Strike" and "no son or daughter of mine is going to serve in a military run for the protection of only the rich?" Wake up and smell the coffee!

[Douglas Keachie]

Well, well, well, the fountains of Conservative Knowledge and Blather seem to have run dry...

[Greg Goodknight]

I don't know about the conservatives, but the libertarians were just ignoring you, Keach. No matter who chimes in, you'll just be writing another monologue.

[George Rebane]

Actually DougK, your message comes through loud and clear (and with a minimum of vitriol). It was one of your fellow liberals who asked me to expand on the voting franchise I included in the original piece. This I did in the addendum above. Perhaps we all think alike on the matter.

[Douglas Keachie]

So how deep is your bunker, George?

[George Rebane]

Thanks for resolving that attempt DougK.

[Russ Steele]

Keachie,

Despite many predictions to the contrary, the Tea Party continues to be a relevant force because it is based upon sustained anger among the electorate. It is an organic movement that was largely created by people who were frustrated with Washington. They recognize the enemy is the elites in Washington, both Democrat and Republican. They are not controlled by a central committee, they are genuine angry citizens that grew organically from the grass roots. Washington will be unable to control, or to crush, this organic anger, as Washington elites are the enemy and "we the people" are well aware of who we have to defeat.

[Steve Frisch]

Applying the litmus test fantasized above, I wonder if Aimee gets a vote.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

[This URL doesn't go anywhere you intended SteveF. gjr]

[Greg Goodknight]

"did you know that to have street lights in Marysville outside your house these days, you and your neighbors have to agree to pay to keep them on?"

Anyone care to guess the percentage of Marysville's budget that goes to public employee pensions, and how that compares to the cost of street lighting?

[stevenfrisch]

OK Lets try this one. It is Aimee Allen's Ron Paul Revolution song from MTV :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYb3ipCeAOQ

[George Rebane]

Spirited song SteveF. The addendum above is not a "litmus test", but just my attempt to frame a discussion of voting rights. Don't know how to answer the "Aimee get a vote" question; was there information in the video that I missed?

[Paul Emery]

George

So you propose a literacy requirement to qualify to vote? In our first elections there was a large percentage of people who could neither read nor write in English and they were allowed to vote. I'm curious as to how you find this idea Constitutional?

And this one

"Require some demonstration of minimum cognitive function and relevant knowledge base."

Again how do you defend the constitutionality of such a provision. Who designs the IQ tests and can they be modified according to the flavor of the day.

Also
"• Demonstrates no/negligible knowledge of ballot candidates, propositions, issues?"

How can you possibly fairly create such a threshold? By your admission you generally support such a requirement but you don't know how it can be enacted. I question the constitutionality to start with. You'd have to have some kind of multiple choice quiz before every election before they let you in the voting booth.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, none of the issues that you bring up really deal with the Constitution as amended, the document is silent on them. But before we can go ahead with any discussion on voter franchises, you have to do something more that sharpshoot from the side. Are you in favor of any franchise requirements beyond fogging a mirror? If not, the conversation cannot go very far.

[Account Deleted]

Wait a minute - Paul is concerned with the Constitution? When did this start? George's concerns are understandable, but it will be very hard to administer any sort of competency test for voters. It would seem best if we just nip the problem in the bud and get rid of the folks that shouldn't be here in the first place. Then we require a system of voting that mandates no more than one vote per person and all voters must have an ID that links them to the voter registration rolls. The only ones against that are the folks that want continued fraud, such as the thousands of voters in Seattle that all had their address listed as the Dem campaign office and could not be found after the election.

[Paul Emery]

George

Are you saying that unless I agree with the need to alter voting requirements I shouldn't participate in a conversation opposing someone who does? So for the purpose of conversation I'm for not much more than fogging the mirror as you put it. I'm certainly opposed to any sort of literacy or IQ test. Dummys and illiterates have a right to vote as much as smart well informed people like us.

Let me ask you this George, how do you define the right to vote for American citizens?

Scott

I don't have time right now to go back and forth trading examples of alleged voter fraud. In fact why not confine our discussion to actual convictions for a start. The rest is all accusations from all sides. Were there convictions in the Seattle you describe?

So "first we nip the problem in the bud and get rid of folks...."

Who are these folks Scott?

[Douglas Keachie]

If a very large percentage of the population is no longer able to get even a minimum wage job, and the rich are voting themselves free of paying any taxes, the treasuries from Marysville to Sacramento, to Washington D.C. will all run dry. The street lights in Marysville (or at least 1/2 of them) are no longer affordable by taxation, despite their best efforts to install red light cameras as a revenue source.

When those treasuries run dry, and soc security and medicare stop, due to outsourcing and mechanization, then the not quite so rich TP'ers will not be happy. The media have been used to convince the TP'ers that the immigrants, the welfare slackers, and the public employees have all stolen the cash. When those groups are all unemployed and unpaid, then it should be much more obvious to the TP'ers who the real culprits are. We shall see, because as George's Great Divide occurs, those who could previously only do subtraction, will suddenly see that the public employees fault math doesn't add up, to the mess the corporations have put the country in.

[George Rebane]

No PaulE, you can participate in any conversation you wish, only you will have a hard time attracting me to have a serious conversation about attempting to improve voting requirements when you feel that no such improvement is necessary. Apparently you did not even accept the broad terms of the VFU in my addendum.

This would be a difficult conversation even with two people who accepted the aforementioned broad terms; with someone who doesn't, it becomes impossible IMHO.

Re defining the "right to vote for American citizens"; I thought that this was the whole purpose for having the conversation that I framed per your request. Maybe you would like to have a conversation about voting that you would frame; and that's OK with me too.

Maybe this helps in the framing -
http://archive.fairvote.org/articles/jessejr.htm

[George Rebane]

DougK - It seems that you want to launch another conversation thread that does not involve discussing the adequacy and/or improvement of our voting system. Is it about tax policy, public services, role of government, or ...?

[Account Deleted]

Whom to get rid of? How about those not in the country legally? Do you have a problem with that? As to convictions, did you bother to actually read what I posted? They can't find the voters. How do you convict some one you can't find? But they still counted the votes. Left wing voter fraud and it gets worse, but since the left won, who cares? Not you.

[George Rebane]

ScottO, thanks for bringing that up as one of many instances of voter fraud that pass by the board during every election. Voter fraud is one the very important parts that is broken with our voting system. And it is sad but understandable that one side of our political spectrum sees nothing wrong with such status quo.

[Account Deleted]

Paul's complaint about lack of convictions is telling. Since there is no way to keep track of who voted when and how often, there is also no way to convict anyone of fraud unless they confess to that fact. So the left brings that up as "proof" that there is no fraud. If some one in Nevada County won an election by 100 votes and there were 300 votes cast by voters (none of whom could be later found) with a registered address as the Republican party HQ, and those votes were all to the Rep party candidate, would the good leftists of Nevada County just put their palms up and say "oh well"? How about the Dem in Nevada County wins by 100 votes and then the registrar who is Rep and put into office by the R's then changes the rules after the vote and manages to pull in 200 votes by R's previously not allowed to upset the vote and the Rep candidate wins? Sound good to the left in this fair county? It happened in King County WA and the judge said that since no one could show any actual proof of prior conspiracy, he would have to let the vote stand. He did wave his Democratic finger at the court and say it better not happen again. Wow! Tough justice there.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

This thing you posted
"The only ones against that are the folks that want continued fraud, such as the thousands of voters in Seattle that all had their address listed as the Dem campaign office and could not be found after the election. "

That would require a conspiracy of massive complexity to organize and pull off. You provide no link to any documentation or details of your story.

Let's see how it could be done

"Hey guys, let's make up a couple thousand names and signatures to pad the election in our favor. Let's see, Everybody take a couple of hundred names and make sure you use different pens and writing styles so we won't get caught. Everybody is free to make up any name they want. Okay, let's get started, We want this done by tomorrow so there might be overtime pay. Remember, we want thousands of fake names so get started."

Or it could be

We want thousands of you to vote twice so use your real address the first time and later come back and use the Dem headquarters address. Okay thousands of you, let's get started.

Pretty silly Scott.

Where's the link ?

[Paul Emery]

George

You seem to favor educational, literacy and basic knowledge of current affairs as a condition of having the right to vote. Is that an accurate summary of your opinion?

[Account Deleted]

So Paul thinks voter fraud is silly. OK. No, it doesn't involve massive anything, just a few fraudsters and a Democratic machine in King County. He could find the link, but he's too stupid to find it himself. OK. I'll find it for him. Hold your hand out Paul, and I'll lead you into the land of mature thinking humans. Hmmm.... Google -"Voter Fraud In King County" Still with me Paul? or did we lose you.. try to focus.... Oh LOOK!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003808207_votefraud27m.html hey, there is voter fraud in 2007. From the Seattle Times. (for full disclosure, I just found out my son is working for the on-line advertisements for the Sun Times)! Conspiracy theorists can make of it what they will. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2726_134/ai_n15866255/ Of course, that's CBS and you know how right wing they are.....Well there's the PI but aren't they out of business? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php Have to ignore them. Oops then there's this poor woman...http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005338.html And this ... http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003103.html and this ...http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2004/12/dec_13_443_pm_e.html The bottom line is that in King County they wanted to make sure that all the votes were counted but in other counties they didn't want all the votes to count. King County made up new rules after the fact, but the other counties had to use the old rules. http://lewwaters.wordpress.com/tag/voter-fraud/ The worst is that election fraud is part of Washington State law. You could be anywhere on the planet and vote for a Democrat in Washington State. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311655/posts Of course that would apply to Republicans too, but they don't take advantage of this kindness. Remember ... according to Paul "Pretty silly Scott" -- Yes, voter fraud is silly, Paul.

[Todd Juvinall]

seem to recall that comedian from the Midwest beating a Republican for US Senate in 2008 I think. The R had won but a recount of three to four times by the democrat in charge of the tallies kept adding votes for the dem and after a while he won (seems they kept finding boxes of ballots). Also, the governor's race in Washington State had the same outcome. Voter fraud is hard to prove and Scott has it nailed why. I seem to recall Jimmy Carter traipsing all over the planet along with many liberals, to oversee elections in other countries to supposedly ensure a fair election. Turns out he should have stayed here and watched out for the liberals in charge of elections in our local and state offices.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks for the links Scott. Still all I see are allegations.

What is your opinion of computer voting machines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1IlAXeV30

[George Rebane]

Paul re 1114pm. Yes, I believe that a voter should understand what he is voting for, and he should possess the minimum ability to acquire such understanding. Else we vote as we vote today, and reap the kind of government(s) that we have.

[Paul Emery]

And therein lies the problem. Who and how would administer such a process. Also the statement the "kind of government that we have" is a judgment that that government is wrong in fundamental areas according to your opinion. How do we decide what "wrong" is and who decides that? Obviously there are lots of different versions of wrong as this blog reveals. What you are advocating is some state mandated political education program. I say no. That's putting our foot in something pretty stinky.

[Todd Juvinall]

Tammany took those immigrants right off the ships an put a number of ballots in their hands. We know how that turned out.

[George Rebane]

PaulE - who are you quoting "wrong"?? My "judgment" that our government needs repair is shared by about 4 out 5 Americans if we are to believe the polls, our own experience, and the people we meet.

We don't need anyone to define 'wrong' or 'right' once we have an informed electorate, they (we) will do that automatically according to the path on which our Founders launched.

The process of turning out voters who could inform themselves was the goal of the great experiment of public schools started in the latter half of the 19th century. Politics and teachers unions have now made shambles of this goal, and "dumbth" has ruled the land for the last 30 or so years.

(BTW, in the 1950s the government, via written exams, fully vetted my parents' ability to be informed voters before they were naturalized as citizens. Mom and dad studied long and hard about American government and history, and they were already literate in English.)

In this piece I invite discussion of how may an electorate be obtained that is conducive to sustaining our liberties. To partake in such a discussion, we should all be motivated by Jefferson's demonstrable 'A nation ignorant and free, that never was and never shall be.'

And no one has said the solution is an easy and obvious one - IMHO only sticking our heads in the sand or keeping them up our asses is.

[Todd Juvinall]

What facisnates me regarding people who hold the view as PaulE does is their support of government schools which have dumbed down the electorate enough to make them reliable democrat voters.

[Account Deleted]

Not allegations, but uncontested facts. The Dems were proud of what they did and never denied that they registered voters with addresses at the Dem party address. They were correct that since the voters were homeless it would be difficult to locate them later. Real difficult. The problem ultimately lies in the fact that it is legal to have votes by absentee ballots counted in an election with names of people that have never been physically verified by the voting registrar. You never replied how you would react to the R's doing the same here. These are not secret info items from some conspiracy web site, they were open news at the time. I take the right to vote and participate in elections to be a very serious thing. Good people by the millions have died for that right. I'm incensed that the general public is so blase about sloppy regs and lack of positive IDs being required for voting. Openly changing the rules after the vote to "find" the required number of votes for the "correct" person to win should be a crime with all involved going to prison. Instead, they are proud of doing that in order to make sure that all of the "right" voters get to be counted. Were the new rules applied to all of Washington State? Ha ha - noooo. The other areas were far more conservative and it was OK that those "wrong" voters weren't counted. I don't care who is fiddling with the vote, R or D or anyone. Here in California the new rules are really going to turn off voters that don't vote for Dems. Open primaries sound nice, but smaller parties will be shut out of the general elections. And that will tend to make them less viable and visable. Not good. The new peoples' gerrymandering committee was a joke. There was a highly partisan person that lied to get on the panel and the whole thing has resulted in more grotesque districts that don't even follow the rules of how districts were to be drawn. I don't care which party wins or loses a district, I just want what was promised when we voted for this new law.
George is right to want that the voter should be at least dimly aware of what he or she is voting for, but the voting process itself is not a good arena for that. It starts in the schools and the immigration process, but we know who controls that, and they certainly are not interested in educated, thinking voters.

[Account Deleted]

BTW - Acorn has had to pay fines - hardly just allegations. And just what did happen to that fine institution? Had to change their name for some reason.
Machines are fine, computers have been used in the voting process for decades. It all boils down to openness and integrity and intent. We can, and have had voter fraud with and without machines of all sorts for decades. The machines just do what they are designed (and programmed) to do. Who's running the show and who is showing up to vote? Therein lies the problem.

[Todd Juvinall]

I got to experience some of the tomfoolery on voters in Nevada City. I had the voter lists and was going door to door. There would be 15 voters at an address for a 700 sf house. When I knocked the resident would say the others were not there. It happened the next election too. The official was a democrat and I was always suspicious. Also, there was a well known secret that many people would come down from the ridge, re register in time to vote in the primary at someone's house, then re register back on the ridge for the general. Why do you think that was happening PaulE?

[Steve Enos]

Hey Scott.. regarding your 12 September 2011 at 01:31 AM post:

You posted this abut Paul E... "He could find the link, but he's too stupid to find it himself".

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting people and calling them names?

Is it possible to show a little common respect? Can you make you points without calling Paul "too stupid"?

[Paul Emery]

"How can an electorate be obtained that is conducive to sustaining our liberties."

Well here we go George.

For example

I am a firm believer of a national health care system similar to Western Europe and Canada. You believe that those are socialistic systems and they take from our liberties. You certainly believe that about Obama care. It is safe to assume then that whatever education system you prefer would teach that a national health care system is wrong because it is socialistic would take away our freedom. Where does that lead us then except to some system of indoctrination of voters to a political position? Once in place this could to apply to many other programs and policies. Sounds like Orwells Brave New World from a conservative perspective.

Scott

These changes in voting procedures to eliminate fraud that you prefer would have to be enacted on a state by state process right? You don't see this being a Federal law do you?

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Once again. I will not respond to you so please don't solicit me again.

[George Rebane]

PaulE - Today our public schools, taught by marginal teachers union members, have for some decades been the most efficient institutions of progressive indoctrination imaginable - and you are worried that a bit of the Austrian school of economics might sneak in there someplace?

But then, I don't even care if we exclude revamping public schools for the purpose of improving the electorate (I do care about doing it for other purposes like becoming competitive in the job markets). Having voters just being able to read and know basic elements of American governance would be a tremendous leap forward for sustaining the Republic.

[Paul Emery]

I'm concerned that you want to impose some kind of political litmus test before people are allowed to vote. Your concerns about American liberties are different from mine and that seems to be part of what you seek. I prefer to err on the side of the mirror breath test and keep agendas out of it.

Even requiring a level of reading and knowing basic elements of American governance would require some form of testing. Any idea how that would happen and who would do it? Would it be like applying for a drivers license except you get a basic American governance test?

[George Rebane]

PaulE, I understand your concern. Political litmus tests are an established institution in today's schools. I propose no political litmus test for voters. But it is clear to me and millions of Americans that the left prefers the uneducated voter above all. And we also understand why educating the voter to literacy and simple basics is a fearful thing to contemplate.

Voter education along with voting rights are primarily a matter for the states to sort out. My ignored comment about my parents and other immigrants seem to have solved that problem in days of yore. Testing was rampant for damn near everything. You had to have more than self-esteem to qualify.

My 728pm still seems to sum up the futility of even discussing this effort to improve the electorate. Any change must be a bipartisan effort, and one party will have none of it. In the meantime we are heading pell-mell from a Republic into a popular democracy through a process led by leftwing politicians, and followed lemming-like by a growing cohort of voters who have no clue and no tools with which to get a clue.

(In this environment Obama's re-election is a lead-pipe cinch since half of his supporters believe that we can tax the rich to return to prosperity, and the other half believes that "the President has a stash" that even obviates taxing.)

I hope that readers who still have yet to make up their minds on this issue will benefit from reading the disparate left/right arguments here. By not agreeing on the fundamentals of who gets to vote, we continue to lay the boundary markers of the Great Divide.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE is simply wrong, but what's new. He favors a uneducated electorate which is the best guarantee of electing his buddies. He has extreme views on most issues and that is fine but he is in a small teeny minority of people who think as he does. A better educated electorate by the government employees, oops, teachers and professors would go a long way to secure our democracy. PaulE and his ilk want a country of dumb serfs. We on the right have it correct and his position will be popular only in Denmark.

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh and BTW, a person can be stupid in America, no problem, but I have the right to object to their stupidity voting for stupidity.

[Paul Emery]

George

"Political litmus tests are an established institution in today's schools."

Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to teachers, students, administration? Give me an idea of how the this test is applied so I can better understand the applications of your statement.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, both in high school and at university level students in the 'soft subjects' are often taught the teachers ideological interpretation of history, public policy, literature, criminal law, etc. Woe be to the student who will contend with such teachers, especially on exams.

[Todd Juvinall]

Teachers and Professors, just like the media, is hugely liberal while liberals are only 20% of the country. That alone needs conservative affirmative action. The left is on the run.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ, I wish you and all of us the joy of your assessment. However, that 20% is a very dedicated percentage with an even more powerful message. With the evidence presented in the last decades, a voter who still has trouble making up his mind is much more inclined to accept the easy to understand nostrums of the left than the right. And the undecideds account for 40% of the electorate; this is a steep hill to climb. To clarify -

http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/10/obamanations-big-question.html

[Ben Emery]

Didn't read through the thread but wanted to put the idea out there that it was the private sector/ Free Trade Agreements passed through government and the big banks that brought us this financial crisis.

[Paul Emery]

So its biased liberal teachers spewing dogma on unknowing students that cause them to be ignorant voters that needs to be changed by installing more conservative teachers or muting their message. How do you propose that could be accomplished?

[Ben Emery]

Todd,
Can you show any credible source for your statement "Teachers and Professors, just like the media, is hugely liberal while liberals are only 20% of the country. That alone needs conservative affirmative action. The left is on the run."

Pointless I know but read who owns the media in the US.
http://www.dailypaul.com/35701/why-media-ownership-matters

I talked to many people about this issue all the time and use this example-
excerpt from Why Media Ownership Matters

"In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.

Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS."

[George Rebane]

BenE - not sure what you intend by citing the 'anti-war active' stations. Powell's speech reflected the international common wisdom re WMD and other reasons for war. No one has shown that there was an alternative intelligence base which was conspiratorially hidden.

The media reported what their journalism revealed as the truth of the time, and these outlets you cite are not exactly paragons of rightwing ideology.

BTW, are you serious about doubting that the OVERWHELMING fraction of humanities departments in American universities are staffed by progressives?

[Todd Juvinall]

There have been many studies and polls confirming hthe liberal hegemony of the media and the education profession and you know that is true. I have talked to local teachers who experienced the ostracism right here in river city when it became known they were republican. Just a few. Also, 93% of the Washington press corp voted democrat in 2008. That was reported just last week. You can Google but maybe you never thought to Google conservative/teacher/professor because it really is hard to find.

Regarding fixing the imbalance in education professional political leanings. I say the political bent of someone is as important as a immutable quality. Why should the children of our country be subjected only to liberal bias intermingled in their studies? Affirmative action in the hiring of conservatives seems to be as fair as the affirmative action hires for other qualities.

[Todd Juvinall]

Here you go PaulE and BenE. A instant find on Google typing in "liberal professor polls". Wow, so tough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh, 72% liberal, 15% conservative.

[George Rebane]

PaulE re 409pm - You misunderstand. Liberal teachers "spewing" whatever they believe to be truth is not the point. It's that they don't (can't?) teach the kids to read, write, cipher, and think. They turn out kids who can spout some slogans, and connect very few dots in the world around them. If they do go to college or get a job, it is that school or employer that now must teach (remediate) them the minimum skills so that they can make progress.

Instead of coming out of school hitting the ground running, they come out of school and land on their ass.

[Todd Juvinall]

I think PaulE's premise has been destroyed by you. He has bailed.

[stevenfrisch]

I love how certain Tea Party members tout the need to return to the wisdom of the American people and then out of the other side of their mouths contend that the people are stupid. And who is the elitist?

[Ben Emery]

George,
The military example is to show that the big interlocking/ multi-interest corporations that own the media will promote an idea that benefits their bottom line over the public good. We don't have a mainstream media or as you obediently follow the messaging of Ms. Palin lamestream media, we have a corporate-media that is gobbling up all competitors leaving us with a very slanted pro-consumerism bottom line agenda media.

Outside of your opinion of milking the government for money and benefits what do you feel the core purpose for teachers/ professors from K-Graduate School? Do you teaching about the brutal, murderous, and immoral anti-union practices of the past liberal. Or that unregulated banks/ housing bubble led us to the great crash of 29' and then into the great depression is liberal? Or helping others over making profits is bad business model is liberal? I will post what liberal President Kennedy had to say about being labeled liberal.

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960."
September 14, 1960

[Kathy Jones]

Steve,

You need to be a little clearer about your above jab at the Tea Party.

Where did your "stupid" declaration originate?

[stevenfrisch]

"......a Wizard of Id commentary comes to mind that pretty well sums things up."

It's now at the top of the page endorsed by Mr. Rebane.

[Account Deleted]

SteveE At 11:58 - you are correct. I do apologise as I have no direct knowledge as to why he is unable to perform a simple search on line. I simply will make a note of his lack of abilities and move on. It was late and I was tired and grouchy at the tone of his post.

[George Rebane]

Re 'elitist' as a member of the 'elite'. Most classical non-pejorative definitions define such a member as a person ascribed to belong to a class or category that is exclusive because its members have demonstrated superior performance, achievement, and/or derivation in some recognized manner.

The pejorative versions of 'elitist' and 'elite' describe people who are self-aggrandizing by claiming exclusivity without having demonstrated any superior performance, achievement, and/or derivation in some recognized manner.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

Generally it's good form to make some attempt at documentation and it's certainly not appropriate to call someone names who asks for it. I will always ask you for documentation especially when your attempting to prove a point.

[Ben Emery]

George,
We are on your turf, what is your definition of elitist? Balking by giving other definitions is using weasel words/ phrasing.

[Ben Emery]

Todd looked at your link, the topics covered I tend to think as wedge issues not primary issues.

The topics I would consider important would be

Free Trade- Giving the statistics of 50,000 factories shutting down in the last decade while losing 7 million manufacturing private sector jobs in the same time period.

Supply Side Economics- Giving the average private sector wage since 1980 has remained stagnant and in some segments has gone down while the top 1% has seen a 23% increase in their income in the same time period

Social Security- Giving that the program is funded through the payroll not government general fund and has not contributed one penny to the national deficit/ debt.

Medicare - Giving the knowledge it was republican pushed Medicare Part D that has bankrupted the program to the tune of trillions due to the fact Medicare cannot negotiate for whole sale prices but have to pay retail despite being the largest consumer in the world of pharmaceuticals. This program was not paid for by the republican majority and Bush administration.

Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq- Giving the facts that neither nation had direct links to the attacks of 9/11 and they were not paid for by the republican led congress and Bush administration.

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy and Big Corporations- Giving the numbers of how much of the income gains have been accumulated by the top 1% and how many tax loop holes lobbied by the big corps ($100 billion annually).

If you ask the American people these issues with the numbers you would find that we live in a very progressive country. Their have been many progressives that were from the republican party Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower are some that come to mind.

[George Rebane]

No weasel words intended BenE (reading these pages, you should know better than that, otherwise you'd be at some other blog discussing 'Jantz selected Big12 player of week'). I define and use 'elitist' in the sense of the first paragraph of 721pm.

[Todd Juvinall]

One thing about BenE and his ilk, when they are trapped by words or someone brings forth facts to show them wrong, they divert and diminish. I supplied the proof from a "progressive" newspaper and BenE diverts. PaulE does the same thing. That is why I don't usually supply more info or research for them. They are never able to agree.Pretty elitist in my view.

[Ben Emery]

Todd,
Lets say you're analysis is correct that professors at top colleges are liberal, what does that tell us. It tells us the more a person researches, learns, and understands about other cultures, eras, politics, and policies they become more liberal. Maybe we should take away something from this or is it more of a conspiracy thing for you?

[Ben Emery]

George,
"a member as a person ascribed to belong to a class or category that is exclusive because its members have demonstrated superior performance, achievement, and/or derivation in some recognized manner."

Would you say the elite schools that have their liberal professors have earned their non-pejorative definition? Yet RR seem to have a real problem with accepting this definition. What gives? Could it be possibly that being liberal is just a way of saying being open to other ideas and not rigidly constricted to a certain way of doing things?

generic online definitions

Liberal- Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Conservative- Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

[George Rebane]

BenE - there is no record of RR having any problem with accepting the non-pejorative definition of elitist. And yes, in general I cannot deny liberal professors who have distinguished themselves the non-pejorative label. Although I am surprised at your ignorance of the overwhelming political tilt of faculties at American universities.

Re liberal and conservative definitions - we've sung that song several times on these pages. Today's conservatives hold the values and world views of the classical liberals of early 19th century - e.g. Bastiat. 'Liberal' was co-opted by the progressive left at the turn of the 20th century, and now we have these mostly baseless discussions. There is very little liberal in the modern 'liberal', most certainly not when it comes to liberty and freedom for the individual - it's the state über alles!

[Ben Emery]

George,
That's interesting because it seems that the term conservative no longer resembles the right, especially when it comes to liberty and freedom. The shredding of the US Constitution and the stripping of our liberties during the Bush administration was supported and advocated by the so called conservatives. My guess on these pages as well.

By our standards the paradigm of what we have grown to accept with these political definitions no longer exists, maybe Paul Emery is a step ahead of RR by creating a new definition of a green libertarian, personal liberty with government/ corporate responsibility/ accountability.

[Todd Juvinall]

George, you are unable to penetrate a rock.

[Kathy Jones]

Ben,

I think you may have missed a very important point in your attempt to label liberal and conservative, that being a fact that "history repeats itself", some people understand this proven concept and realize the "wheel works" and can't be improved by changing its shape.

[George Rebane]

PaulE is definitely "a step ahead of RR by creating a new definition of green libertarian ...". Because of its strong advocacy of "caring economics", it is also a step ahead in a direction that RR definitely will not follow.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/05/true-value-of-work-and-caring-economics.html

[Todd Juvinall]

Green libertarian is not possible. Green only works by government subsidy or the complete lack of government intervention. Libertarians want little government intervention so there is no way the GL's definition makes any sense whatsoever. But, when greens are smoking the green, anything is possible inside the noggin.

[Ben Emery]

Kathy,
That is a good saying. I don't agree with your applying it in this situation but like it.

[Ben Emery]

George,
I will post a short list of things that greens and libertarians agree on

Iraq Invasion/ Occupation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5_ThKD2g4U
War on Terror and Nation Building
Seeing acts of terror as criminal and going after those specific individuals who perpetrated the acts.

Audit the Federal Reserve
US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 AKA Bank Bailout
This only made the problem worse and transparency was made even more opaque
I would of Voted “NO”

World Trade Organization or WTO
Our agreements with WTO, GATT, and NAFTA strips US sovereignty over its trade and economic policies. This is why our jobs are leaving the country.

FISA Act
Violates our 4th amendment rights

Patriot Act
Strips our liberties and US Constitutional Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdT0RNYoFfM

Guantanano Detainee’s, Habeas Corpus, and Secret Prisons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjpmdJGFv5U

Decriminalization of Marijuana
This would help empty out our prisons and save tax dollar money

Real ID Card
Assumes we are guilty and we need to prove our innocence.

[Ben Emery]

13 September 2011 at 01:10 PM Is a list of things that I agree with Ron Paul and the local libertarian party on.

Another issue would be same sex marriage and no second class citizens.

[Paul Emery]

Being a Green Libertarian is quite logical and understandable. First you can not have true liberty without a healthy earth. Secondly it is the responsibility of every individual and business to support a healthy earth through voluntary lifestyle and business practices. For example you don't need a law to make theft illegal. Most people are honest and do not steal. The same with living within a healthy balance with the earth. People should respect and honor that which sustains us. When that does not happen then it is necessary for the government, that represents the common good, to intervene through legislation and enforcement. Pretty simple

[Todd Juvinall]

Ah, manna fest destiny, it turns everything green. Not. Green ideology is an arrogant manifestation of pagan worshipers. The rocks they lay on at the Yuba River are sacred rocks. I have been reading green tripe for years and all it does is sap the taxpayers of non profit dollars. Greens are the stealth recipients of democrat largesse. The 4th Amendment is missing as are the rest. Property rights and gun rights are not supported by Greens are they? It is my intent to receive NO response from any greenie.

[Paul Emery]

You've got it Todd

[Ben Emery]

Todd,
I support the second amendment and am opposed to eminent domain.

True Greens and true Libertarians do not carry water for either of the major two parties due to the fact that the big two are the biggest enemies of third parties entering into the political arena. The big two are owned by the same entities that work against any advancement of democracy (people power). Ask yourself why will virtually almost all reps tell you privately they hate all the fundraising bs but will not speak a peep about it publicly? Much of our reps spend their time fundraising for their next election especially the US House. Who writes the legislation? The lobbyists and big industry do that's who.

A perfect example of this is the Medicare Part D law that is bankrupting the program. I will argue the republican party did this on purpose, ruin the program at the same time hand over trillions of dollars to their pharmaceutical masters. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml

The question then becomes where were the Democrats and their filibuster?
Unfortunately for the American people the democratic party has become corrupted by these special interests groups enough to where the people no longer have a chance over big industry. Hence the condition of our nation and its dim outlook at this point in time.

A perfect quote that even rumination regulars can agree with when we talk about the Bush bailouts of the banks and auto industry.

"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out"
Ralph Nader

The banks should of been left to fail on their own as the auto industry. Socialize the losses and privatize the profits is the paradigm we are operating at present time.

[Ben Emery]

It should read the Bush bailouts of the banks and Obama with the auto industry.

[Todd Juvinall]

The greens have destroyed more jobs in the fortests of our country than the pine beetle. Greens are not for property rights they prove it all the time. It is the most important thing to them, that is, the return of the land to its state before people started to live on it and own it. I have not seen to many greens joining the military and the only ones carrying a weapon are bureaucrat greens like forest rangers and fish and game police.

[Paul Emery]

As one chose to home during the Viet Nam war and let others spill their blood for what you believe you have no grounds to speak critically of those who don't join the military.