We live in a world where communications are nearly instantaneous.
Some are skeptical of the security and that's fine, but many of us are convinced that with proper precautions we can use automation to simplify certain tasks, like shopping, bill paying and many others.
Mail in a traditional sense is old technology. Still it has an official imprimatur for many and since the envelopes are sealed and privacy is guaranteed by the post office it is proposed as a means to vote.
Is it secure? Sure it is if you build in proper identifiable safeguard. It is true that no system is totally infallible, and that includes in person voting, but mail is guaranteed by the Post Office once mailed.
The objections to it are part of a strategy to make voting difficult for some and those same people are in favor of mail voting for those likely to support them.
There are clearly ways to assure the security of the process, I get lots of proxy votes for Corporations via the mail. It is a system that has been time tested and has very few fraud indicators.
Speaking of those proxy statements, I get the ballot in the mail but I generally can vote at a secure website. My ballot comes with a code and access instructions that allow a one time vote.
There is no reason this can't be used in our elections.
In voting on-line I am usually asked to verify my identity using information not included in the mailing. So unless someone has both hacked my identity and stolen my mail it s a pretty secure system. We cold send ballots out as certified mail to add security.
Once you are in receipt of a ballot, and of course that means you are a registered American citizen, voting would be simple if you can do the on-line verification.
Of course the other methods should be available, but we need to get more people to vote, not less.
It's the heart of a democracy.
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Voter Turnout.
The process we now use in this country to pick our candidates and ultimately our leaders and regulators is based on Democracy.
It is at best partially Democratic since we don't get 100% voter participation.
Whether people who don't bother to vote would make a significant difference in who gets elected is arguable, but there are enough of them that they could make a difference.
There have been some demographic studies that show that non-voters are less white, less wealthy and younger than voters.
Those factors would indicate that they are likely to be a more liberal group, on the whole, than voters which partially explains why one of our political parties is into voter suppression as a tactic.
So getting out more voters, as the Democrats did in 2018 but failed to do in 2016 would seem critical to winning that election.
How to get these voters interested in the process is the problem.
Many are so disgusted by politics in general that they don't thing voting is worthwhile.
Changing that perception might be key and maybe some of the policies that appeal to them need to be prominent.
Of course if you alienate current voters you may have a bigger problem.
It is at best partially Democratic since we don't get 100% voter participation.
Whether people who don't bother to vote would make a significant difference in who gets elected is arguable, but there are enough of them that they could make a difference.
There have been some demographic studies that show that non-voters are less white, less wealthy and younger than voters.
Those factors would indicate that they are likely to be a more liberal group, on the whole, than voters which partially explains why one of our political parties is into voter suppression as a tactic.
So getting out more voters, as the Democrats did in 2018 but failed to do in 2016 would seem critical to winning that election.
How to get these voters interested in the process is the problem.
Many are so disgusted by politics in general that they don't thing voting is worthwhile.
Changing that perception might be key and maybe some of the policies that appeal to them need to be prominent.
Of course if you alienate current voters you may have a bigger problem.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Getting out the Vote
When you consider how many voting age citizens don't bother to vote, even in Presidential elections, it should be no surprise we don't get the Government we want.
Over 90 million people didn't vote in the 2016 election. These are the same people who often argue voting doesn't matter. Well it does and so does not voting.
There are many people in this country who are terribly fearful that more of these people will actually vote and most indication are, it would fundamentally change our approach to many things.
In fact, while usually not stated as such, they are considered by many the uneducated masses who expect the Government to deliver services to them.
Roadblocks are erected to discourage them from voting.
How to get this large group of Americans represented is a significant issue. Some might argue that they are represented by those who do vote, but most indications are they are not really in favor of the establishment in either party.
Increasing voter participation should be an important priority for our Democracy, it just isn't.
Over 90 million people didn't vote in the 2016 election. These are the same people who often argue voting doesn't matter. Well it does and so does not voting.
There are many people in this country who are terribly fearful that more of these people will actually vote and most indication are, it would fundamentally change our approach to many things.
In fact, while usually not stated as such, they are considered by many the uneducated masses who expect the Government to deliver services to them.
Roadblocks are erected to discourage them from voting.
How to get this large group of Americans represented is a significant issue. Some might argue that they are represented by those who do vote, but most indications are they are not really in favor of the establishment in either party.
Increasing voter participation should be an important priority for our Democracy, it just isn't.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Voting Thougts
As we enter our first ever lame duck ala orange period, it will be interesting what the approach is.
For the next seven weeks the republicans still control both houses of congress but traditionally, when we were more civil, the outgoing congress did not so things they know the incoming congress would oppose.
However we are not in an era of actual animosity where its more likely that common courtesy is a forgotten thing.
Maybe civility will actually return.
One of the things the last few elections showed us is that races can be lost before any voting takes place.
Looking at the 2016 election and the mid-terms certain races were decided by less votes than the votes suppressed by restrictive measures.
In North Dakota, they tried to suppress native American votes by requiring a street address, something many of them don't have, although in the election it probably didn't impact the outcome.
In many states, including Georgia and Florida, voter suppression efforts may have actually changed the election outcome. It's hard to actually count those who don't vote because of these efforts, but when the elections are so close, you know every vote mattered.
It seems like the sort of thing we should be able to agree on, giving every citizen the ability to exercise the franchise, but for some that is a path to defeat and they will do what they can to avoid it.
We have two years to make sure the next election is more democratic, its important.
For the next seven weeks the republicans still control both houses of congress but traditionally, when we were more civil, the outgoing congress did not so things they know the incoming congress would oppose.
However we are not in an era of actual animosity where its more likely that common courtesy is a forgotten thing.
Maybe civility will actually return.
One of the things the last few elections showed us is that races can be lost before any voting takes place.
Looking at the 2016 election and the mid-terms certain races were decided by less votes than the votes suppressed by restrictive measures.
In North Dakota, they tried to suppress native American votes by requiring a street address, something many of them don't have, although in the election it probably didn't impact the outcome.
In many states, including Georgia and Florida, voter suppression efforts may have actually changed the election outcome. It's hard to actually count those who don't vote because of these efforts, but when the elections are so close, you know every vote mattered.
It seems like the sort of thing we should be able to agree on, giving every citizen the ability to exercise the franchise, but for some that is a path to defeat and they will do what they can to avoid it.
We have two years to make sure the next election is more democratic, its important.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Another Election
Tomorrow is election day although millions have already voted in early voting in the states the allow it.
The good news is the the electoral college is not a factor,
The bad news is that the gerrymandered congressional districts are a factor, although probably not enough of one to stop the House from changing.
The Senate was very unfavorable this year since most of the seats up for election were held by democrats and the odds of holding all of them and picking up two more was a difficult task.
Still it all depends on who turns out to vote and it looks like we will have a very high turnout for a midterm election.
Of course that is still going to be a pretty low percentage if you think about it of everyone who could or should vote.
Voting should be convenient and easy for citizens who want to exercise their fundamental right.
We have certain interests who prefer some people not vote so we throw up impediments.
The idea that we have any significant voter fraud has been debunked over and over but some still use it to put up restrictions aimed at certain minorities.
Democracy is dependent on the will of all the people, not just some of them.
The really good news is that so far we in America still respect the rule of law and accept the results.
The last time some didn't in 1860 it didn't go very well.
Vote and move America forward.
The good news is the the electoral college is not a factor,
The bad news is that the gerrymandered congressional districts are a factor, although probably not enough of one to stop the House from changing.
The Senate was very unfavorable this year since most of the seats up for election were held by democrats and the odds of holding all of them and picking up two more was a difficult task.
Still it all depends on who turns out to vote and it looks like we will have a very high turnout for a midterm election.
Of course that is still going to be a pretty low percentage if you think about it of everyone who could or should vote.
Voting should be convenient and easy for citizens who want to exercise their fundamental right.
We have certain interests who prefer some people not vote so we throw up impediments.
The idea that we have any significant voter fraud has been debunked over and over but some still use it to put up restrictions aimed at certain minorities.
Democracy is dependent on the will of all the people, not just some of them.
The really good news is that so far we in America still respect the rule of law and accept the results.
The last time some didn't in 1860 it didn't go very well.
Vote and move America forward.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Who Are These People?
I've been in four different states since the current primary season has heated up and I've seen a lot of political ads.
Few of them actually addressed issues, mostly they took the time available to say why their opponent was (fill in the blank).
Part of the reason for this is that on most issues there isn't as much difference as they would like you to believe.
Nobody is campaigning to raise taxes, increase crime, lower education, or cut benefits.
Getting into the strategies to improve these things is probably more than can be expected in a TV slot so we get ads that want to plant negative opponent images and positive images of the candidate.
Unfortunately, these ads have a lot of influence on elections and for many voters it is all they will see.
Issues of course vary based on the level of the election and maybe that's part of the problem.
Someone running for school board has a real problem getting any attention during general elections.
Similarly when you show up to vote and see a list of names for offices ranging from town clerk to governor of the state, you end up going with the party you align with or the names you recognize.
It why you see so many ads aimed at name recognition, including those signs on public by-ways and lawns that simply show a candidates name.
It may become recognizable when you go to vote in a sea of unknowns.
Of course a few of us take time to know the candidates and the issues, but I'm confident in saying its a definite minority, especially when it comes to some of the myriad elected positions where we might not even know what they do.
I think its one of the reasons voter turnout is so low, much of the time we aren't sure what we are voting for.
It certainly could be simplified but it won't be. Simple voting about actual issues wouldn't be good for many of the current candidates, just good for the people.
Few of them actually addressed issues, mostly they took the time available to say why their opponent was (fill in the blank).
Part of the reason for this is that on most issues there isn't as much difference as they would like you to believe.
Nobody is campaigning to raise taxes, increase crime, lower education, or cut benefits.
Getting into the strategies to improve these things is probably more than can be expected in a TV slot so we get ads that want to plant negative opponent images and positive images of the candidate.
Unfortunately, these ads have a lot of influence on elections and for many voters it is all they will see.
Issues of course vary based on the level of the election and maybe that's part of the problem.
Someone running for school board has a real problem getting any attention during general elections.
Similarly when you show up to vote and see a list of names for offices ranging from town clerk to governor of the state, you end up going with the party you align with or the names you recognize.
It why you see so many ads aimed at name recognition, including those signs on public by-ways and lawns that simply show a candidates name.
It may become recognizable when you go to vote in a sea of unknowns.
Of course a few of us take time to know the candidates and the issues, but I'm confident in saying its a definite minority, especially when it comes to some of the myriad elected positions where we might not even know what they do.
I think its one of the reasons voter turnout is so low, much of the time we aren't sure what we are voting for.
It certainly could be simplified but it won't be. Simple voting about actual issues wouldn't be good for many of the current candidates, just good for the people.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Conservative Supreme Court
The point has to be made over an over, voting matters.
We have had many people who felt the entire system was corrupt or uncontrollable so they felt participation was meaningless. Elections in this country are generally decided by a majority of a eligible voters which is not close to a majority of the people.
Even a high participation rate of 75% which is unlikely means that the election is decided by 38% of total eligible voters.
Would the results be different if we had 100% participation, I can't be sure, but at least they would actually reflect the will of the people.
The last election showed how a very small number of votes cast and not cast in a small number of states changed not only that election but policies for possibly a generation as Supreme Court vacancies get filled with ultra-conservatives.
How much will that matter?
Potentially it will be life changing for many although of course the decisions haven't been made.
Voting matters and not voting is in fact a vote. Its a vote for the other side whether you want it to be or don't.
Yes, sometimes the choices aren't the greatest, but almost always one is closer to what you want than the other and if you don't vote you will see the pendulum swing away.
Vote.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Voting
Having the right and obligation to vote is central to being a citizen in this country. It is a basic right that we should all defend.
It shouldn't matter whether a group votes the same as you or not, they're right to vote is inextricably linked to your right to vote.
We have seen, since at least the end of the civil war, various attempts to suppress votes by certain populations.
It actually goes back to the founders who weren't in many ways as democratic as we tend to think they were.
We mask this suppression of the vote in any number of ways to pretend its OK and we heard recently that voter fraud was the reason for the extra requirements being created.
It wasn't and isn't, it simply partisan attempts to retain or obtain power.
Of course if you can't keep them from voting, you can make their votes count less through clever gerrymandering.
While gerrymandering is nothing new, modern technology has elevated it to an art form.
The question is why do so many Americans simply accept this?
Some might actually believe there is widespread voter fraud, even though there isn't, or don't realize that some requirements that seem easy to comply with, aren't for certain people for various reasons.
Of course some of it is simply racism or elitism, hoping the undesirables don't vote at all.
This isn't a problem that is going away easily and it needs to be fixed if we want the country to actually be a citizen of its people for its people, at least if that means, all its people.
It shouldn't matter whether a group votes the same as you or not, they're right to vote is inextricably linked to your right to vote.
We have seen, since at least the end of the civil war, various attempts to suppress votes by certain populations.
It actually goes back to the founders who weren't in many ways as democratic as we tend to think they were.
We mask this suppression of the vote in any number of ways to pretend its OK and we heard recently that voter fraud was the reason for the extra requirements being created.
It wasn't and isn't, it simply partisan attempts to retain or obtain power.
Of course if you can't keep them from voting, you can make their votes count less through clever gerrymandering.
While gerrymandering is nothing new, modern technology has elevated it to an art form.
The question is why do so many Americans simply accept this?
Some might actually believe there is widespread voter fraud, even though there isn't, or don't realize that some requirements that seem easy to comply with, aren't for certain people for various reasons.
Of course some of it is simply racism or elitism, hoping the undesirables don't vote at all.
This isn't a problem that is going away easily and it needs to be fixed if we want the country to actually be a citizen of its people for its people, at least if that means, all its people.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Voting
Maybe one good thing may come out of the current divisiveness in our society and politics, more voter participation.
In the Texas primaries this week we saw a couple of things, but maybe the most impressive were the record turnout in both parties.
The worst thing is the apathy we see so much of. It has allowed fringe candidates more opportunity to impact results but also allows the political machines to have undue influence.
Those two things may seem contradictory but most of the time apathy allows the primaries to be dominated by the party regulars.
The exception to that is when a fringe candidate energizes a base and defeats them.
In neither case is the public well represented.
Participation is the only way to get our Government to reflect our shared goals and ideals, as least our majority ones.
We are all concerned about the same things and our Government should be focused on the right ones, not these hot button issues that appease a strong lobby.
Voting is the cure to a lot of things wrong with this country.
Its something we all can do.
In the Texas primaries this week we saw a couple of things, but maybe the most impressive were the record turnout in both parties.
The worst thing is the apathy we see so much of. It has allowed fringe candidates more opportunity to impact results but also allows the political machines to have undue influence.
Those two things may seem contradictory but most of the time apathy allows the primaries to be dominated by the party regulars.
The exception to that is when a fringe candidate energizes a base and defeats them.
In neither case is the public well represented.
Participation is the only way to get our Government to reflect our shared goals and ideals, as least our majority ones.
We are all concerned about the same things and our Government should be focused on the right ones, not these hot button issues that appease a strong lobby.
Voting is the cure to a lot of things wrong with this country.
Its something we all can do.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Voting
In America today we have one party that is intent on making voting difficult. They argue a concern for voter fraud, although very little voter fraud has been found in the current era and impose retrictions that poorer less educated people have trouble meeting.
On the other hand some want to make voting as easy as possible to get more participation and a more democratic outcome.
It has certain racial and economic overtones, and the people who want to impose barriers feel that their supporters are more likely to meet them. This is very similar to the concept that was behind Jim Crow laws in the south which were set just high enough to allow the "right" people to run things.
The fact that we have a republic and an electoral college reflects the fact that this mind set is as old as America is. Property owners were worried about the rabble who had no stake in the country and might overrun it.
This is why Democracy is scary. Realistically we all know people who shouldn't get to decide the country's future. Who those people are sometimes depends on your viewpoint, but if we are a democracy we have to roll the dice.
One thing that is destructive to the running of a country is the factions that exist. In other words, having parties that decide things that the party supports instead of what the country needs or the majority support.
For example, the majority of the country is in favor of reasonable gun control, but the gun lobby has a lot of influence. Similarly, most of the country supports LGBT rights but Evangelical have significant influence in one of the parties.
With the States and the gerrymandering that goes on, the majority opinions and views get way laid by the system.The recent election cycle showed the problems with party politics and in response we see reactions in both parties because the people are frustrated. Of course different people are frustrated in different ways, but the outcomes we get are ultimately satisfying to no one except the special interests and professional politicians.
In some ways the election of an outsider to be President is a good sign, but his ability to actually influence things is questionable. What is probably sad about this is that the person elected is likely the least qualified person possible, and unlikely to have much real influence on what happens.
The only real solution would be to put significant policy positions to the public for mandatory voting. Of course the odds of this happening in this country are remote and the system would need to be well designed to expedite it. Its a shame that we have instituted a system that has legalized a two party system making every election about party more than issues.
I'll discus this further in the future, but what we have now is now really working for most, just the insiders.
On the other hand some want to make voting as easy as possible to get more participation and a more democratic outcome.
It has certain racial and economic overtones, and the people who want to impose barriers feel that their supporters are more likely to meet them. This is very similar to the concept that was behind Jim Crow laws in the south which were set just high enough to allow the "right" people to run things.
The fact that we have a republic and an electoral college reflects the fact that this mind set is as old as America is. Property owners were worried about the rabble who had no stake in the country and might overrun it.
This is why Democracy is scary. Realistically we all know people who shouldn't get to decide the country's future. Who those people are sometimes depends on your viewpoint, but if we are a democracy we have to roll the dice.
One thing that is destructive to the running of a country is the factions that exist. In other words, having parties that decide things that the party supports instead of what the country needs or the majority support.
For example, the majority of the country is in favor of reasonable gun control, but the gun lobby has a lot of influence. Similarly, most of the country supports LGBT rights but Evangelical have significant influence in one of the parties.
With the States and the gerrymandering that goes on, the majority opinions and views get way laid by the system.The recent election cycle showed the problems with party politics and in response we see reactions in both parties because the people are frustrated. Of course different people are frustrated in different ways, but the outcomes we get are ultimately satisfying to no one except the special interests and professional politicians.
In some ways the election of an outsider to be President is a good sign, but his ability to actually influence things is questionable. What is probably sad about this is that the person elected is likely the least qualified person possible, and unlikely to have much real influence on what happens.
The only real solution would be to put significant policy positions to the public for mandatory voting. Of course the odds of this happening in this country are remote and the system would need to be well designed to expedite it. Its a shame that we have instituted a system that has legalized a two party system making every election about party more than issues.
I'll discus this further in the future, but what we have now is now really working for most, just the insiders.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
More Meandering
Yesterday I was discussing how the parties have become more and more polarized as they respond to the fringe elements in their base. This is because so many Americans don't vote, either in the regular election or even more so in the primaries. The candidates who argued that the system was rigged were correct in a certain way, but it is really rigged in the favor of fringe candidates.
Number of people who voted in the primaries is being reported as 9% of all voting age Americans. This number could actually be representative if it was actually a valid sample of all voters. However it isn't, the ones who vote the most are those with a cause who want to express their point of view. If you are fairly content with things with a busy life, voting is a chore that you decide isn't worth it, especially in primaries.
The only way to fix this would be to make voting easier and rewarding. Unfortunately, having more people vote is not in the self interest of many of our elected officials who got elected by one or more of these fringe elements, especially at the local and state level. Consider the math. If you are in a state or district that always votes for one party you simply have to win that party's primary to get elected. So few people vote in primaries that you need to appeal to one or two fringe groups who will get out and vote for you. This path to success has been followed by many who have to maintain support by catering to the base that supported them and by keeping voting levels low.
In the Republican primaries none of the mainstream candidates lasted very long. Remember that Ted Cruz is by no means mainstream, he got elected by the tea party and evangelical fringe groups. Donald Trump is clearly not mainstream, and in fact has upset the party because he has created a whole new fringe group, angry people.
Are most Americans angry? I don't think so, but some are very angry as they lost high paying jobs in manufacturing or mining. They see an America that is becoming more inclusive which they view as curtailing their prior privileged position (it doesn't). They voted for prior candidates who made promises they couldn't keep even if they meant them and they feel betrayed.
How big is this group? I really don't know but its sizable and when energized can dominate primaries where so few people actually vote. Its not just Republicans, the angry Democrats have different issues, student debt, worthless college degrees, banks that are too big to fail but they are also angry. They made an impact and had the Sanders campaign got organized earlier we could be faced with a Trump vs Sanders general election.
As it is we have Trump vs Clinton. Republicans have always vilified the Clintons mainly because they keep losing to them. Of course they also vilify Obama but by now that's a bit meaningless.
If we want to fix the election process we have to make voting in primaries and regular elections easier and more inclusive. Unfortunately I don't see any real effort in that direction.
More to come.
Jim
Number of people who voted in the primaries is being reported as 9% of all voting age Americans. This number could actually be representative if it was actually a valid sample of all voters. However it isn't, the ones who vote the most are those with a cause who want to express their point of view. If you are fairly content with things with a busy life, voting is a chore that you decide isn't worth it, especially in primaries.
The only way to fix this would be to make voting easier and rewarding. Unfortunately, having more people vote is not in the self interest of many of our elected officials who got elected by one or more of these fringe elements, especially at the local and state level. Consider the math. If you are in a state or district that always votes for one party you simply have to win that party's primary to get elected. So few people vote in primaries that you need to appeal to one or two fringe groups who will get out and vote for you. This path to success has been followed by many who have to maintain support by catering to the base that supported them and by keeping voting levels low.
In the Republican primaries none of the mainstream candidates lasted very long. Remember that Ted Cruz is by no means mainstream, he got elected by the tea party and evangelical fringe groups. Donald Trump is clearly not mainstream, and in fact has upset the party because he has created a whole new fringe group, angry people.
Are most Americans angry? I don't think so, but some are very angry as they lost high paying jobs in manufacturing or mining. They see an America that is becoming more inclusive which they view as curtailing their prior privileged position (it doesn't). They voted for prior candidates who made promises they couldn't keep even if they meant them and they feel betrayed.
How big is this group? I really don't know but its sizable and when energized can dominate primaries where so few people actually vote. Its not just Republicans, the angry Democrats have different issues, student debt, worthless college degrees, banks that are too big to fail but they are also angry. They made an impact and had the Sanders campaign got organized earlier we could be faced with a Trump vs Sanders general election.
As it is we have Trump vs Clinton. Republicans have always vilified the Clintons mainly because they keep losing to them. Of course they also vilify Obama but by now that's a bit meaningless.
If we want to fix the election process we have to make voting in primaries and regular elections easier and more inclusive. Unfortunately I don't see any real effort in that direction.
More to come.
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)