Count Every Vote Act
Thomas has the skinny on The Count Every Vote Act. On paper, it looks like a good idea but I have issues with the fact it would essentially federalize a lot of state functions.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 15th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
So I guess you were unhappy with the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000, too? As I understood that ruling, it made it a principle that the electoral process had be done the same way across the country and across the counties of a state.
But that’s all partisan water under the partisan bridge now. Which elements of the CEVA do you specifically have concerns with? How do you propose addressing issues of e-voting without paper receipts, access to polling stations, and so forth, without minimum federal standards? Or do you think there’s no problem worth solving here?
Constructively,
Thomas Nephew
March 15th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Thanks for linking to this, by the way. I look forward to discussing this with you and readers, I sincerely hope this bill can get bipartisan support.
March 15th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Bush v. Gore, don’t care. Bush had the votes, gore didn’t.
As for issues, i don’t like the constant encroachment of the feds on local and state issues. This would be one more straw on the camel’s back.
There are clearly problems (washington state, florida, and elsewhere) but I don’t know the solution. Simply mandating in law that a system must do X doesn’t mean that X is possible.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
I see your point, and share the general belief that less federal intrusion into state and local affairs is better than more, if for no other reason than efficient division of labor. In the case of how to run federal elections, however, I think there’s a strong, principled case to be made for federal standards.
I don’t know which particular X you believe may not be possible, but there are certainly paper receipt systems for e-voting that have been used already.
March 15th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
There are some good aspects of the law, but some of those points will massively inflate the count of fraudulent votes. We shouldn’t count all the votes. We should only count votes from real, live people who are properly registered to vote in their home district and who can show proper ID. Anything else invites voter fraud.
Also not listed in the bullet points: this will allow convicted felons to vote. Search for “felon” in the bill’s text.
March 15th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Uncle:
You should care about Bush v. Gore, because irrespective of the results of that ruling, the fact is that the federal court overruled a state’s highest court on what is supposed to be a state matter, at least according to the consitution. It may very well be true, as you imply, that if the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling had stood, Bush would have won the state anyway. That does nothing to diminish the fact that the federal court stomped on a state jurisdiction.
That’s why the principled states’ righters and anti-judicial-activism folks blush about that particular ruling, and those who don’t are (to my mind, anyway) hypocritical.
March 15th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Tgirsch, you’re wrong on two levels. First, there is no “states’ rights” defense to the 14th Amendment, which by its terms applies to the states. Second, the U.S. Constitution reserves federal elections to state legislatures, not to “the states” as such. If we’re going to allow any courts to even touch that issue, there’s no reason to assume the Florida courts are any more competent to decide the matter than the federal ones are.
March 16th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Les, I did mention the felon provision — actually, the *ex*-felon provision: “Expand the Right to Vote
The Count Every Vote Act would:
1. Require states to allow ex-felons who have completed their prison, parole and probation terms to register and vote in federal elections.”
I admit, this took me aback too. But then I thought, why not? They’re no longer in jail, they can’t vote themselves chocolate pudding or get out of jail free cards, they’ve paid the debt they owe. Why shouldn’t they get the vote back with their freedom — isn’t that an essential component of freedom?
I’m with you that we shouldn’t count fraudulent votes, any more than we shouldn’t ignore legitimate ones. I think fraud will always be a threat, but I think that’s no reason to avoid insisting on standards assuring access to voting. If you think a particular element of CEVA is too fraud-prone, I’ll try to look into it.