An Unprecedented Decade in Voting Manipulation

[Da Skinna]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/watch3.html

Very important for you, America.

The fact is that we're talking here about a fundamental right, no, about the fundamental right. This is the right on which all our other rights depend, as Tom Paine said. Nothing is more important than this right. This is the right for which millions of our forebears have shed their blood, have died. This is what keeps us free. Only this. If we lose the right to pick our representatives and to get rid of the government when we don't like it anymore, if we don't have that right, if we don't have that power, we're as good as slaves.

[Siblesz]

ed. I've read about this before. IMO, seems like there many a dirty nest of people on the top manipulating the elections as they see fit... seems like a modern development too... since 2000, 2004.

[Mikelus Trento]

ed. I've read about this before. IMO, seems like there many a dirty nest of people on the top manipulating the elections as they see fit... seems like a modern development too... since 2000, 2004.

WOW!!! Both Bush elections....hmmmm....coincidence or not...YOU be the judge!

[craziii]

I just watched it. if this is going on, I might have to look for a different country to live in.

this also has a striking similarity to the movie"man of the year"!!! but instead of a computer malfunction, this is intentional!

[Rhinosaur]

Voter fraud is a lie; election fraud is the reality.

[imb39]

There was a program on in Britain recently about the system in America and I came away from it shaking my head. The fact that political parties can be in the same room as those who cast their vote is anathema to me. Highly undemocratic. The fact that the parties are involved in voter registration is despicable.

Whilst Britain doesn't have it perfect - we don't allow political parties:

• To intrude on the actual voting activity - they can canvass outside the voting hall, but that's it - and not as you enter, but after you leave.
• To collect names on who is elligle to register etc. This is the function of the civil service (local authorities, I think).

When I think that America is the arsenal for democracy, I simply shake my head. The level of corruption in one of the most important vote decisions in the world is staggering. To be honest, you have a system that a 3rd world dictatorship would be proud of. Mugabe can only dream of the crass system that operates over that side of the pond.

Republicans berate Democrats. Democrats berate Republicans - the truth is both parties are up to their stinking armpits in voter fraud. Lincoln reminded everyone of the stnadard that America was based on - 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' yet whole sections of the population are disenfranchised for being poor, uneducated and a whole host of other reasons.

The most scandalous thing about this is that it has the tacit approval of you all. Afterall, who cares provided their party wins?

[Rhinosaur]

There was a program on in Britain recently about the system in America and I came away from it shaking my head. The fact that political parties can be in the same room as those who cast their vote is anathema to me. Highly undemocratic. The fact that the parties are involved in voter registration is despicable.

Not just the registration, but deciding who is eligible to vote based on criteria that vary wildly from State to State/County to County.

Whilst Britain doesn't have it perfect - we don't allow political parties:

• To intrude on the actual voting activity - they can canvass outside the voting hall, but that's it - and not as you enter, but after you leave.
• To collect names on who is elligle to register etc. This is the function of the civil service (local authorities, I think).

Not really qualified to comment on UK elections, as I don't know how that goes down.

When I think that America is the arsenal for democracy, I simply shake my head. The level of corruption in one of the most important vote decisions in the world is staggering. To be honest, you have a system that a 3rd world dictatorship would be proud of. Mugabe can only dream of the crass system that operates over that side of the pond.

Sorry you bought into the hype. Most people of the lower classes here have been saying its a joke for a long time.

Republicans berate Democrats. Democrats berate Republicans - the truth is both parties are up to their stinking armpits in voter fraud. Lincoln reminded everyone of the stnadard that America was based on - 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' yet whole sections of the population are disenfranchised for being poor, uneducated and a whole host of other reasons.

voter fraud implies that individual voters are setting up multiple voter identities in order to vote more than once, or for ineligible people to vote, or to vote in places they don't live, which happens so rarely as to be a non issue. Election fraud, is using illegal methods to disqualify large numbers of people's votes from counting due to things like technical errors on the part of the State, deliberate manipulation by political parties (note: the Republicans would be a permanent minority based on numbers of registered voters alone). Since these things can be manipulated by city, county, and state, and we have the ridiculous Electoral College/Supreme Court decide our elections, we get results like those of the past 8 years.

The most scandalous thing about this is that it has the tacit approval of you all. Afterall, who cares provided their party wins?

I went into open rebellion after 2000, just like you are advocating now. It didn't work.

[Roman Rapper]

When I think that America is the arsenal for democracy, I simply shake my head. The level of corruption in one of the most important vote decisions in the world is staggering. To be honest, you have a system that a 3rd world dictatorship would be proud of. Mugabe can only dream of the crass system that operates over that side of the pond.

Okay, fair enough, you can look at George Bush rigging the election and say that is out of order. You can also look at Mugabe intimidating voters during the election and say that is out of order.

But think of it this way: AT LEAST THEY HELD AN ELECTION.

I mean, you couldn't make it up, could you? We are lead by a man called Brown who promised he would hold an election and give the British people the chance to decide if they wanted him as PM.
Brown then realized that he would lose the election and so decided he would just quiety take the job without a mandate from the people.

He wasn't even elected as leader of his own party. Again, he said he would, but all he really did was bully and bribe the other candidates into not standing against him.

[imb39]

It was the involvement of political parties right at the heart of registration that shocked me. The idea that someone from the Tories or Labour would be in the same room as me and checking up on me in some manner and, so I understand, challenging my right to vote is offensive. That this happens in a 'democratic' country undermines that country's claim to that description. That it happens in America was quite shocking. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

How dare some tinpot jobsworth from a party decide on my right to vote? I am a citizen of this country, not under arrest and of legal age. That is all that matters. If it were to happen here I can imagine some brazen language being used, I can tell you. America is a bizarre country in so many ways. Garb asked the question in another thread - where is it unAmerican? I can answer that very question - in an American voting booth.

[Rhinosaur]

It was the involvement of political parties right at the heart of registration that shocked me. The idea that someone from the Tories or Labour would be in the same room as me and checking up on me in some manner and, so I understand, challenging my right to vote is offensive. That this happens in a 'democratic' country undermines that country's claim to that description. That it happens in America was quite shocking. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

How dare some tinpot jobsworth from a party decide on my right to vote? I am a citizen of this country, not under arrest and of legal age. That is all that matters. If it were to happen here I can imagine some brazen language being used, I can tell you. America is a bizarre country in so many ways. Garb asked the question in another thread - where is it unAmerican? I can answer that very question - in an American voting booth.

Another of our anachronistic traditions: our national elections turn on the arcane, backwards, and in many places discriminatory State and County laws with regards to who can vote and when. Also, there isn't ever really any punishment when Rightists undermine and/or break the laws to elect their candidate.

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

It is going on. It's going on because we don't tax fairly at the upper echelons. These people have so much income that they are more powerful than the government and thus they operate outside of the democratic system within our society. If they were being taxed fairly it is doubtful that they would have so much money to wield so much power.

The wealth doesn't trickle down.

It hammers down on your democratic rights.

In the neo-con madness we've created a group of neo-feudal barons who have hi-jacked our country.

))))))))))))))))

Did they mention that many of the poling places are radically right wing Christian Churches? I'm assuming that's another big difference between America and other places.

+_

______________

[imb39]

Actually, in this country we do not actually vote for the PM. There have been many instances where the PM has been replaced - this happened to be one of the least violent changes and an election was not necessary, once you understand what exactly the General Election is about - it is purely you voting for your MP. Period. Now, part of the reason why you vote for one candidate or another might be to do with the leader but, technically, you never, ever vote for the PM, unless he is your constituency candidate.

The PM is, technically, decided by the largest party and then s/he is invited to be PM by the Queen.

Is the election perfect? No. is there gerrymandering and vote rigging - of course, but it is very small scale and seriously frowned upon. The problems you highlighted are as nothing compared to the issues facing America and its claim to be democratic.

[Roman Rapper]

Actually, in this country we do not actually vote for the PM. There have been many instances where the PM has been replaced - this happened to be one of the least violent changes and an election was not necessary, once you understand what exactly the General Election is about - it is purely you voting for your MP. Period. Now, part of the reason why you vote for one candidate or another might be to do with the leader but, technically, you never, ever vote for the PM, unless he is your constituency candidate.

The PM is, technically, decided by the largest party and then s/he is invited to be PM by the Queen.
.

Yes I understand that; we vote for a party rather than a leader.

But the point I'm making is that Gordon Brown wasn't elected leader of his party either.

[Bovril]

There's not that much I like about the British political system, but you've gotta hand it to us, our elections are pretty transparant. Votes are all cast in paper form, they are then counted, and if the count is close recounted if anyone asks for it. Its basically impossible to say the wrong person won. And the voting system is uniform across the country.

What really amazes me is that the US lets private companies run its ellections for them. Incredible.

The PM is, technically, decided by the largest party and then s/he is invited to be PM by the Queen.

It's actually far worse than that, if only in a meaningless technical sense. The monarch not only appoits the Prime Minister (which is not the official name of the position, which is First Lord of the Treasury), but asks him to form a government. That means that the monarch can choose any MP, and ask them to choose any other MPs to fill the cabinet positions. In other words, the monarch has executive controll of the executive branch. Of course practice is something different, but our actual laws are absurd.

[Scar Face]

I'm sure there is electoral fraud, I don't like how the guest is claiming that he knows the 2000 election was stolen, that he knows the Republicans will do it again. I mean, he does mention electoral fraud is on both sides, but he undoubtedly narrows in on the Republicans, acting them to be some big bad dictators.

[Big War Bird]

Very funny, there is no constitutional right to vote in the USA.

[Sphere]

Quite true, the federal government was never meant to be that democratic.The president was originally elected by the state legislators, as where senators. State governments however, are much more democratic, more-so than most European nations.


Though the British are in poor position to criticize, how many Brit's cast their vote for Gordon Brown. How dirty do the House of Lords elections get. Or better yet by what margin did Slovenia win the EU presidency? Maybe you should follow the US example and actually elect the upper house of parliament.

[imb39]

Yes I understand that; we vote for a party rather than a leader.

But the point I'm making is that Gordon Brown wasn't elected leader of his party either.

That is party matter, though. As I said, we vote for a party, or more specifically, an MP, who represents us.

Very funny, there is no constitutional right to vote in the USA.

That doesn't make what is happening in America right. In Britain the big worry when it comes to elections is that people are becoming disenfranchised through choice and the goal is to increase voter participation. In America, it seems, the goal is to remove people for that basic, fundamental right. The fact that your sacred document doesn't mention it, is irrelevent.

Quite true, the federal government was never meant to be that democratic.The president was originally elected by the state legislators, as where senators. State governments however, are much more democratic, more-so than most European nations.


Though the British are in poor position to criticize, how many Brit's cast their vote for Gordon Brown. How dirty do the House of Lords elections get. Or better yet by what margin did Slovenia win the EU presidency? Maybe you should follow the US example and actually elect the upper house of parliament.

I suggest you read how the British system works - we do not vote for our leader specifically, though it is often a major consideration, perhaps a deal breaker at times.

The House of Lords is not elected. Its role is purely as a revising body and can be overruled by the House of Commons (done 4 times, I think, using the Parliament Act). I have never claimed the British system to be perfect but in terms of voter fraud and registration, it seems we are light years ahead of the Americans. Of course, America's form of government is way ahead of Britain's in other aspects.

Personally, I like the House of Lords as it currently stands and do not wish for it to be elected. But time will tell when that happens (almost certainly). It is a relic of our past but the overall system has functioned well for several hundred years.

[Big War Bird]

That doesn't make what is happening in America right. In Britain the big worry when it comes to elections is that people are becoming disenfranchised through choice and the goal is to increase voter participation. In America, it seems, the goal is to remove people for that basic, fundamental right. The fact that your sacred document doesn't mention it, is irrelevent.

I disagree. I do not belive allowing people to vote that do not have a basic understanding of issues or government function is in any way a good thing. We will have people voting one way or another in this elction simply because of a candidate's skin color. That is indefensible.

I would love to see the franchise restricted to those that can pass a citizenship and issues test. I would also like to see a the franchise restricted or proportioned based on taxes. No vote for people who don't pay taxes, or the more taxes you pay the more your vote counts. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It is illogical to expect that extending the franchise to people with little or no understanding or issues or have no appreciation on the impact of government on one's life will result in good government. Voting is not an worthy end unto itself, it serves a much higher purpose.

[Bovril]

I disagree. I do not belive allowing people to vote that do not have a basic understanding of issues or government function is in any way a good thing. We will have people voting one way or another in this elction simply because of a candidate's skin color. That is indefensible.

I would love to see the franchise restricted to those that can pass a citizenship and issues test. I would also like to see a the franchise restricted or proportioned based on taxes. No vote for people who don't pay taxes, or the more taxes you pay the more your vote counts. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It is illogical to expect that extending the franchise to people with little or no understanding or issues or have no appreciation on the impact of government on one's life will result in good government. Voting is not an worthy end unto itself, it serves a much higher purpose.

Let's all go back to the guilded age! Hurrah for child labour! Hurrah for the six day week! Hurrah for unlimitted working hours and unpaid overtime! Hurrah for disenfranchisement! Hurrah for no minimum wage! Hurrah for the workhouse and the bread line! Hurrah for oligarchy!

In China they have a system like you are sugesting. Basically if you're a member of the communist party your enfranchised, and if your not, you can forget about having any say. Being chosen for the party has to do with how rich and politically astute you are, just like you want. So, yeah, go and live in China if you've got the courage of your convictions. Have fun working in a sweat shop.