Democratic Senators Rodham and Kerry are sponsoring a bill, the ?Count Every Vote Act?, that could be a winning issue for them if they play their cards right. The problem will be that the Republican strategists will try to peg it as, ironically, an opportunity for electoral fraud. What the Dem?s need to do is deal with the legitimate gripes (as I see them I have noted below) and then push this to high heaven. I would also, if I were a fire-eating Boomer, tie this to the E2K4 nonsense in Ohio, big time.

What follows in blue is a summary of the bill.


More Accountable and Accessible Voting Systems

1. Require that all voting systems produce a paper record that can be verified by the individual voter and that would constitute the official record for any recount;
2. Require a mandatory recount of voter-verified paper records in 2 percent of all polling places or precincts in each state;
3. Set minimum standards for the number of voting systems and poll workers at each precinct, and require that every precinct have at least one machine that can provide audio and pictorial verification and that is accessible to language minority voters;
4. Establish new security standards for voting equipment manufacturers, including a ban on using undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems.

This sounds great. I don't see how the Republican leadership could in good conscience want to fight this stuff, but as the Schiavo case (among other things) has made abundantly clear, many running the party are amoral or at least morally blind.

More Opportunities for Citizens to Register to Vote and Cast Their Ballots

1. Allow voters to register and cast a ballot on election day;
2. Require states to provide in-person early voting opportunities before Election Day;
3. Prohibit states from demanding excuses from voters who request absentee ballots;
4. Give voters more options for proving their identity to election officials;
5. Prohibit election officials from rejecting voter registration applications that are missing information which has no effect on the specific voter's eligibility.

Discourage Partisan Manipulation and Deceptive Practices in Elections

1. Make certain federal election campaign activities off limits to chief state election officials and top-level executives and owners of voting system manufacturers;
2. Require states to act in a uniform and transparent manner when attempting to purge voters from state registration lists;
3. Provide for the prosecution of those who engage in deceptive practices to keep people from voting in federal elections.

These last two sections sound good in principle. But I would like some safeguards to make sure there is not goofing around going the other way too, i.e., fraud in the form of ?vote early and vote often?. The Democratic sponsors of this bill need to remember all fraud is detrimental to the democratic process.

The absolute best part is Item #1 and to me is one of the most important parts of this bill. If nothing else made it through I want that plank. Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, and Bob Urosevich of Diebold are all poster children for this item.

Expand the Right to Vote

1. Require states to allow ex-felons who have completed their prison, parole and probation terms to register and vote in federal elections.

This is an interesting item. Should we allow released felons to vote? I know the current policy is ?no? and I am emotionally inclined to keep it that way. But what are the logical arguments either way?

One thing I am fairly sure of is that this is controversial enough, and relatively minor enough, to scrap so as to not detract from the rest of the bill. It would unnecessarily put the rest of the bill at risk. The issue can be dealt with later.

Ensure That All Votes Are Counted

Require that provisional ballots be counted state-wide, allowing voters who are registered in a state but cast provisional ballots in a wrong precinct to still have their votes counted for all eligible federal races.

This sounds utterly reasonable, esp. if some sort of safeguard is involved.

In addition to the above in blue, I believe the bill requires certain kinds of voting machines become mandatory by the next Presidential election and it offers $500 million in Federal money to the states to help them become compliant with that and other issues.

I will rely on Justin "Blue Stater" 79 and the Hopeless Fatalist, and anyone else, to fill in on details I left out.

Overall, this bill if past, esp. with some tweaks, would greatly help my confidence in the current system. I am a registered Republican (albeit one who just voted for his first Democratic Presidential candidate) and I am frightened by what happened in Ohio last year, far more than I was disturbed by Florida in 2000. I am not saying we can prove any decisive hanky-panky took place, but we can't disprove it either, and that really, really bothers me.

Thanks for the heads up. It was informative.

PS Did anyone ever tell you that you like a TV detective?

National rubbish to be sure. Elections are up to the several States. If you want to change things Amend the Constitution. Corruption of chosing the Electors in a few of the several States is what I would prefer over continued corruption of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

National rubbish to be sure. Elections are up to the several States. If you want to change things Amend the Constitution. Corruption of chosing the Electors in a few of the several States is what I would prefer over continued corruption of the Constitution.

That is a good point. The situation is so dire that I think they should try anyway, but you're right that the courts may throw it out as unconstitutional (and perhaps with reason). I would say an amendment should be pursued if that's the case. If the Republicans leadership then manages to block such an effort, I would support going after them tooth and nail as enemies of democracy, because that is exactly what they would be fighting.

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

DC's position is interesting. Technically they should have representation. Other than making them a state, maybe some arrangement could be made with the State of Maryland? Maybe, like I believe wih Puerto Rico, there could be a reduction or elimination of federal taxes in return for the lack of vote?

What are the commonly discussed solutions out there for DC?

As for the felon issue, like I said it's an interesting point, and I didn't realize there is so much state-by-state variation (thanks for the info), but I'd like to see it sidelined so as to not distract from the larger point.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

DC's position is interesting. Technically they should have representation. Other than making them a state, maybe some arrangement could be made with the State of Maryland? Maybe, like I believe wih Puerto Rico, there could be a reduction or elimination of federal taxes in return for the lack of vote?

What are the commonly discussed solutions out there for DC?

If you read the Constitution, the District is already truncated from the mandated ten miles square. Arlington and Alexandria are both supposed to be part of the District, but aren't. Why not just let the remainin 2/3 go back to Maryland, from whence it came.

Fair's fair.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

DC's position is interesting. Technically they should have representation. Other than making them a state, maybe some arrangement could be made with the State of Maryland? Maybe, like I believe wih Puerto Rico, there could be a reduction or elimination of federal taxes in return for the lack of vote?

What are the commonly discussed solutions out there for DC?

If you read the Constitution, the District is already truncated from the mandated ten miles square. Arlington and Alexandria are both supposed to be part of the District, but aren't. Why not just let the remaining 2/3 go back to Maryland, from whence it came.

Fair's fair.

Because Maryland doesn't want DC.

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

DC's position is interesting. Technically they should have representation. Other than making them a state, maybe some arrangement could be made with the State of Maryland? Maybe, like I believe wih Puerto Rico, there could be a reduction or elimination of federal taxes in return for the lack of vote?

What are the commonly discussed solutions out there for DC?

If you read the Constitution, the District is already truncated from the mandated ten miles square. Arlington and Alexandria are both supposed to be part of the District, but aren't. Why not just let the remaining 2/3 go back to Maryland, from whence it came.

Fair's fair.

Because Maryland doesn't want DC.

I'm sure that's true for many (perhaps most) in the state, but there is a group that's lobbied for it in the past. If I was a Democratic politician, I'd drool over all those voters - 80+% in the 'D' column.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

John and Hillary left something out: What about the taxation without representation problem in Washington, D.C.?

And furthermore, only 13 states ban ex-felons from voting for the rest of their lives; in addition, Texas requires them to be off parole etc. for two years after their release, and two other states (Arizona and Maryland) permanently ban two-time felons. In 13 other states, felons who are on probation can't vote, and these 13 plus three others also do not allow parolees to vote. That leaves 18 states which permit anyone who is not currently incarcerated in a state prison to vote - and in four of these (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont) you can actually vote from behind bars.

DC's position is interesting. Technically they should have representation. Other than making them a state, maybe some arrangement could be made with the State of Maryland? Maybe, like I believe wih Puerto Rico, there could be a reduction or elimination of federal taxes in return for the lack of vote?

What are the commonly discussed solutions out there for DC?

If you read the Constitution, the District is already truncated from the mandated ten miles square. Arlington and Alexandria are both supposed to be part of the District, but aren't. Why not just let the remaining 2/3 go back to Maryland, from whence it came.

Fair's fair.

Because Maryland doesn't want DC.

I'm sure that's true for many (perhaps most) in the state, but there is a group that's lobbied for it in the past. If I was a Democratic politician, I'd drool over all those voters - 80+% in the 'D' column.

It isn't the votes. It's running the city services. :shock:

They deserve 2 Senators and a voting Congressman.
If Wyoming (pop 506,000) is entitled to it, then DC (pop. 553,000) should be as well. It is wholly unfair, and undemocratic, and it just sucks to high heaven and shouldn't be.
Of course the Rethugs don't mind this abomination in their own backyard, as they step over homeless people and drive by schools that look like they're from the poorer sections of Minsk on their way to wine and dine at the capitol.
But the reality is the last thing they want is two more solidly Democratic Senators.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

They deserve 2 Senators and a voting Congressman.
If Wyoming (pop 506,000) is entitled to it, then DC (pop. 553,000) should be as well. It is wholly unfair, and undemocratic, and it just sucks to high heaven and shouldn't be.
Of course the Rethugs don't mind this abomination in their own backyard, as they step over homeless people and drive by schools that look like they're from the poorer sections of Minsk on their way to wine and dine at the capitol.
But the reality is the last thing they want is two more solidly Democratic Senators.

Absorbing them into Maryland makes sense to me.