It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7 Things That Could Go Wrong on Election Day

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

7 Things That Could Go Wrong on Election Day


www.time.com

We can go to the moon, split atoms to power submarines, squeeze profits from a 99 cent hamburger and watch football highlights on cell phones. But the most successful democracy in human history has yet to figure out how to conduct a proper election. As it stands, the American voting system is a worrisome mess, a labyrinth of local, state and federal laws spotted with bewildered volunteers, harried public officials, partisan distortions, misdesigned forms, malfunctioning machines and polling-place confusion. Each time, problems pop up on the margins; if the election is close, these problems matter a great deal. Republicans and Democrats predict record turnouts, perhaps 130 million people, including millions who have never voted before. The vast majority will cast their votes without a hitch. But some voters will find themselves at the mercy of registration rolls that have been poorly maintained or, in some cases, improperly handled. Others will endure long lines, too few voting machines and observers who challenge their identities. Long a prerogative of local government, the patchwork of election rules often defies logic. A convicted felon can vote in Maine, but not in Virginia. A government-issued photo ID is required of all voters at the polls in Indiana, but not in New York. Voting lines are shorter in the suburbs, and the rules governing when provisional ballots count sometimes vary from state to state. As Americans cast their ballots on Nov. 4, here are some problems that threaten to throw this election to the courts again.

1. The Database Dilemma
2. 'Mickey Mouse' Registrations And Polling-Place Challenges
3. Bad Forms
4. The Voting-Machine Fiasco
5. Unequal Distribution of Resources
6. New Burdens of Proof
7. Confusing Rules, Bad Information

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
And you can add to this list corrupt officials such as Ohio's Ken Blackwell and Florida's Katherine Harris whose obvious and blatant conflicts of interest in the elections of 2000 and 2004 should have automatically recused them from managing the elections in their respective states. The same situation exists currently in Colorado but there its even more egregious where Mike Coffman the Republican Sec. of State is managing an election in which he himself is running for congress in.

When you add to this the fact that every state has its own election rules, well you are asking for disaster.

Why there are not national standards for national elections is beyond me but there should be, just as the person who manages the elections in each state shouldn't have a vested interest in the outcome.

Why can't we just automatically register people as voters when they get their social security cards and then automatically activate them when they reach voting age?

www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I think the cure all is the requirement of a state issued ID.
End of story.

You start requiring a state issued ID or Driver's license and only one vote per person is the outcome.

Seems simple doesn't it?
Have you ever wondered why some politicians are against this?
Ever wondered what party these politicians belong to?
Me too, I am going to research this issue a little more.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I would say that the main reason is that states are against it... it would infringe on their rights. That's fine for internal state elections but when it comes to national elections there should be national standards.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 
A federal voting I.D.?
Other countries have such an animal why can't we?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Just 7? Of course Time Magazine would never bring up not counting Military Absentee ballots. Just heard that Virginia is throwing alot of Military ballots out because of minor errors.

www.humanevents.com...


Fairfax County Registrar Rokey Suleman is disqualifying an overwhelming majority of the military federal write-in absentee ballots received in his county on the basis that no address had been given for those witnessing the voter signatures on the ballots. According to Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity and four former members of the military who held a press conference on Thursday, over 98 percent of these military absentee ballots in Fairfax County are being rejected.


This is an unacceptable disenfranchisement of our military serving overseas, yet Time Magazine doesn't think it is a problem?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Personally I don't see any reason why not but why not use the social security to do it... and for security's sake each person would get a separate voter ID number.

Haven't you noticed though its funny how all these major voting problems reared their ugly little heads for the first time nationally with the 2000 election.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Personally I don't see any reason why not but why not use the social security to do it... and for security's sake each person would get a separate voter ID number.

Haven't you noticed though its funny how all these major voting problems reared their ugly little heads for the first time nationally with the 2000 election.

I think at a minimum though it would have to be a picture ID, yeah maybe add a picture to the SS card ?

I think we noticed it more in 2000 because, well, myself anyway I did not pay attention to elections prior because I wasn't old enough to vote., but I think they have been around at every election.

Is my avatar too wide? what is the max width?

[edit on 27-10-2008 by deathhasnosound]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


I doubt there is any political motivations so much as just following procedures. How do you not put an address on an absentee? Can't servicemen/women write in the address of the base they are stationed at?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I understand that in our cousin-country Australia they have a process which requires people to register as 'no vote'.

This brings a base number of eligible voters back to work as a checksum for the process. I wonder if we could implement such a thing?

If we know how many voters there could be, it would be easier to spot malfeasance or error. Problem is now, we can't really rely on the political party to act honorably; as they will get away with marginalizing the competition at any cost. This includes redrawing boundaries for eligibility, and also, employing 'media tactics' to dissuade voters from even participating by reinforcing the meme that 'a third-party vote is a waste' and or 'your vote doesn't count anyway.' Also, for all the egalitarian rhetoric behind the dogmatic adherence to the 'electoral college,' most people I converse with see it as at best, as a anachronistic effort to resolve issues we have had the technology to overcome for decades; and at worst, a tool which erodes the voting voice of the people in deference to the will of the political parties (because in a system where the political party itself is more powerful than its constituent body, there is a problem that no amount of voting reform will overcome.)



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Since RR believes this is true, I seriously doubt it's happening.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by RRconservative
 


I doubt there is any political motivations so much as just following procedures. How do you not put an address on an absentee? Can't servicemen/women write in the address of the base they are stationed at?


No address for the "witness" of the signature...not the voter. To reject a ballot for this is ludacris, and very political.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by RRconservative]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join