Posted on 03/17/2005 11:32:52 AM PST by Jean S
Let’s say it’s Election Day 2008. You really, really, really want to vote for the Democratic nominee for president, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), but you’re not registered to vote. You also don’t have a driver’s license or any sort of official photo identification that would tell the people down at the polling place who you are.
You don’t even have anything to show that you’re an American citizen.
But it’s Election Day, and you still want to vote for Clinton. What do you do?
Well, you go right down to that polling place, tell them you want to register, on the spot, and vote. And if anybody questions you, tell them you don’t need a prior registration, or a photo ID, proof of citizenship or anything else.
Clinton said so.
She really did — just a few weeks ago, in the form of her new bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
Although Clinton calls the measure “critical to restoring America’s faith in our voting system,” it might more accurately be described as the most wide-ranging assault ever on the idea that there should be minimum enforceable standards for voters. Just look at some of its provisions.
One section says, “Each state shall permit an individual on the day of a Federal election to register to vote in such election at the polling place ... [and] to cast a vote in such election and have that vote counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible voter who properly registered during the regular registration period.”
Another provision says, “Each state and jurisdiction shall accept and process a voter registration application for an election for Federal office unless there is a material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter. There shall be a presumption that persons who submit voter registration applications should be registered.”
And a third section adds, “The following shall not constitute a ‘material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter’: (1) The failure to provide a Social Security number or driver’s license number. (2) The failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age in a manner other than” a simple statement that one is a citizen.
Put all those together and you have a recipe for chaos. Anyone can show up on Election Day, register and vote, and officials would have no way of knowing whether that person was eligible to vote or not. All Clinton would require is that the person “affirm” that he or she is eligible to vote.
And, as they say, that’s not all.
The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 would also require states to allow anyone to cast a provisional vote anywhere in a state, no questions asked. The number of provisional votes one might cast would be limited only by the number of polling places that could be visited in a day.
The bill would also allow felons to vote after they’ve done their time and are off probation (this is the provision that attracted a lot of criticism from conservatives, although it’s hardly the worst thing in the bill). And it would require that the federal government force states to ensure “an equal waiting time for all voters” at all polling places.
Seriously. The bill actually directs the federal Election Assistance Commission to devise a formula for voting line length.
That formula would be based on “the voting age population; voter turnout in past elections; the number of voters registered; the number of voters who have registered since the most recent federal election; Census data for the population served by such voting site; the educational levels and socio-economic factors of the population served by such voting site; the needs and numbers of disabled voters and voters with limited English proficiency; [and] the type of voting systems used.”
And those are not even the most important parts of the bill, at least according to Clinton. The most crucial provision, she says, is the one requiring that voting machines produce an “individual voter-verifiable paper record” of each vote. That’s a nod to those Democrats who believe that Karl Rove somehow personally hacked the touch-screen voting machines in Ohio to deny Sen. John Kerry his rightful victory.
Making touch-screen machines produce a paper record turns out to be quite complicated, introducing new possibilities for error into the process. But what the hell — Clinton’s entire bill introduces all sorts of new possibilities for error into the process.
In fact, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 might be viewed as a massive, wholly intentional attempt to introduce new possibilities for error into the system, with the hope that most of the errors will benefit Democrats.
Clinton says her bill will “improve the franchise and truly improve our democracy.”
Even if she has to wreck the system to do it.
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com
The only way for evil to triumph is for GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING.
FreeRepublic = good people
She can cheat all she wants - but we know their methods and we have so much dirt on her .. people's heads will be spinning.
That was her plan for our healtcare system.
***Because the Dems don't benefit from massive city dump fraud.***
Where do you think Ted Kennedy came from?
We do need a voting rights act called..
Count every LEGAL vote.
Yes, getting a printer to connect to a computer host and generate output is beyond the ken of even highly trained IT professionals (such as myself).
(sarcasm tag implied)
"So how come I have to show identification to use the city dump?"
...or to rent a movie, tools, floor buffing equipiment, a car, etc.?
As there are no such thing as "Federal" elections, how does she believe that the federal government gets to set the voting requirements for "the several states"?
None probably.. Nah!,,, NONE..
Should be said... loudly and often.. would take a spine though..
The paper receipt is vital for validity of high-tech voting. Anything more complicated than pen-on-paper-insert-in-box voting raises the question of whether a vote actually gets recorded; there must be a means for confirmation.
Published voting records are pretty detailed (at least in NY), indicating vote results down to particular voting machines. A high-tech paper-receipt system could provide verifiable results, publishing votes anonymously yet linked to a given receipt. A receipt could list a random unique number with the intended vote ("vote#314159-Bush" on receipt); after declaring & publishing results, a voter could check voting records and confirm their vote was in fact recorded ("vote#314159-Bush" in published records) - this would guarantee anonymity on par with current methods, yet give each voter the chance to confirm their vote was recorded, and anyone could review the confirmable results.
Lacking a concrete method of positive confirmation, nobody knows if their vote was actually counted. At least with pen-on-paper you know the vote got in the box; with a touchscreen, you don't know squat.
"Because the Dems don't benefit from massive city dump fraud."
Lol
With all the garbage they try to sell to people, seems to me they might
This is the Count ANY Vote Act!
There are only two types of votes. Absentee and the one where you get your thumb painted purple for two weeks before it fades.
Voting anywhere is bad because it takes away from the local election and ballot items. So you have to be registered.
Here is an idea. Purge all voting records today. Starting tomorrow, you have to register to vote, show proper ID and sign your name.
On election day you appear, sign your name to match your signature, vote then get your thumb painted purple. Better than any paper trail.
"and the criminal vote too."
You mean her peers?
If the slot machines can do it, we should be able to get voting machines that can do it too.
Heh... heh. Because they think you're the garbage Jack!
" She spends too much time on folly like this that will never pass or even be taken seriously. Her healthcare fiasco was the same way."
Only problem is that it will not be forgotten by those who thought it was a good idea. Hardly anyone remembers her health care fiasco, except those who supported it.
lol. Alright, I guess I left myself open for that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.