[inquiry]

block the vote

Read it.

[matmat]

shining beacon of democracy.

[macaw]

I wonder why I'm not surprised.

[PassedOut]

Only pipsqueaks and scum approve of tactics like this. Not all republicans are like those mentioned in the article.

[pigpenz]

i remember about 2000 election on how many votes were thrown out in Ohio and Florida for small mistakes on the ballots. This tends to happen in poorer districts.
So nothing suprises me anymore.

[helene_t]

It really amazes me that such practices can persist in an (otherwise) enlightened country. A "president" elected thanks to fraud was overturned in Ukraine and had to use violence to stay in power in Zimbabwe. In the US apparently it is considered normal.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Oct 22 2008, 10:21 AM, said:

It really amazes me that such practices can persist in an (otherwise) enlightened country. A "president" elected thanks to fraud was overturned in Ukraine and had to use violence to stay in power in Zimbabwe. In the US apparently it is considered normal.

I have always attributed this to lack of motivation, after all any voting problems haven't occured in several years whenever it's time to vote again, and there are always pressing concerns that are more current. Also whoever is in office probably has no qualms with the system that got him/her there! I think a president would be very wise to make an overhaul of the voting system a high priority though.

[Al_U_Card]

All part of the plan. Hard to be Machiavellian if you aren't conducting "ends justifies the means" tactics....

[mike777]

I would expect the new Congress and Obama to make improvements in the voting system a very high priority. I expect first they will improve/make large changes to the way unions hold votes and then work on Nat elections such as those for President.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Oct 22 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

I would expect the new Congress and Obama to make improvements in the voting system a very high priority. I expect first they will improve/make large changes to the way unions hold votes and then work on Nat elections such as those for President.

yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections

[akhare]

Pretty depressing (and infuriating), but having seen Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, it's hardly surprising.

It's a good thing we vote by mail out here -- we have already cast our votes for (hopefully) President Obama already...

[matmat]

luke warm, on Oct 22 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections

secret ballot is a precaution against voter intimidation. the voting methods do, however, need to be improved, including voting receipts for the voters (especially from diebold machines).

[Gerben42]

I guess one should ask the candidates what they are going to do about election fraud.

[luke warm]

matmat, on Oct 23 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 22 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections

secret ballot is a precaution against voter intimidation. the voting methods do, however, need to be improved, including voting receipts for the voters (especially from diebold machines).

well if non-secret is good enough for unions it's good enough for me, intimidation or not

[helene_t]

Non-secret votes are idiotic. Since I am active in many charities, community organizations etc. and have served on boards in many as well I have amble experience with non-secret votes, and I hate them.

If there is near-concencus, nobody dares to vote against because of fear of questions. Even voting "blank" on an issue one has no clue about can be daring. When votes are made by hands-up, most will watch the board members and just automatically vote like them.

Sometimes we will even vote non-secret on issues that are about a named individual, such as whether to provide an exemption for an applicant for something. Then of course everyone is in favor because they want to make good friends.

I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives.

[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on Oct 23 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives.

That is the key to all "proxy" type votes (Boards of directors, political representatives etc)

The purpose of the secret vote is to ensure that the "will" of the "people" and not those of special interests, is expressed.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Oct 23 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

Non-secret votes are idiotic. Since I am active in many charities, community organizations etc. and have served on boards in many as well I have amble experience with non-secret votes, and I hate them.

If there is near-concencus, nobody dares to vote against because of fear of questions. Even voting "blank" on an issue one has no clue about can be daring. When votes are made by hands-up, most will watch the board members and just automatically vote like them.

Sometimes we will even vote non-secret on issues that are about a named individual, such as whether to provide an exemption for an applicant for something. Then of course everyone is in favor because they want to make good friends.

I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives.

Helene, perhaps the number one priority of the new Congress will be to pass non secret unionization voting. You will vote in public with a union rep standing next to you as you vote.


Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041),

The point being to improve elections give the employee a free choice.

"Organized labor's top legislative priority"

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labo...hecksecrbal.htm

http://www.heritage....r/cardcheck.cfm

http://blogs.usatoda...iew-on-lab.html

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 23 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 23 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives.

That is the key to all "proxy" type votes (Boards of directors, political representatives etc)

The purpose of the secret vote is to ensure that the "will" of the "people" and not those of special interests, is expressed.

then what is the purpose of the non-secret union vote mike is talking about?

[matmat]

luke warm, on Oct 23 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

then what is the purpose of the non-secret union vote mike is talking about?

tho give the muscle better control over the electorate. it's all about control.

[Lobowolf]

The non-secret vote is pretty much the Prisoner's Dilemma in action, in many cases: You all might be better off voting union, but if you don't get the union, you'll have been better off voting no union.