If You Can't Beat 'Em, Cheat 'Em
This brilliant piece of subterfuge comes in the form of a California ballot initiative that would ditch our 'winner-take-all' system in favor of splitting our electors roughly in line with the popular vote. Proposed by Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento lawyer with deep ties to the GOP, this measure would basically give Republicans the presidency in 2008 by stripping as many as 20 electors from the Democrats, and if you think that Hiltachk isn't getting his orders from the RNC or Karl Rove, think again.
But to get this passed in California, Hiltachk and his supporters will have to tell three BIG LIES. These are:
This System Would Be More Fair - Almost certainly true, but only if it's implemented all over the country, all at once! As it stands, it does nothing more than tilt the electoral college further toward the GOP.
This System Is Better For California - The argument being that candidates will spend more time campaigning in California. But moving our primary up will accomplish the same thing without rigging the election's outcome.
This Isn't Any Different Than the 'Popular Vote Movement' - The biggest lie of all because the popular vote movement has a built in fail safe--it doesn't go into effect unless 19 states carrying the balance of the electors all agree to join. This measure does exactly the opposite. Without being rolled out nation wide, it fixes the election's outcome, probably for a generation.
With such bad prospects for 2008, Republicans have apparently decided, "If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em!"
President Bush was not looking at national security when he invaded Iraq, he was looking at showing how big his balls were and how democracy is like herpes. Something you can spread whether or not the person wants and you can never get rid of.
-- Head Spinner Scott
On presidential debates:
...any candidate for any office unwilling to answer live, unscreened, unfiltered questions from a live unscreened audience is a sniveling, puling coward unworthy of a single vote for dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States.
-- The Local Crank
Open Source Voting Machines
Predictably, with hearings on the findings and potential decertification looming, manufacturers complain that the tests were biased. Counties with multi-million dollar investments worry that they'll be forced junk their expensive little bundles of potential election fraud. But in all cases, the proponents of electronic voting systems make an economic argument at the expensive of the democratic argument: "We should be allowed to do business in any way we see fit." "We shouldn't be forced to make our systems available for testing." "We shouldn't have to junk expensive systems that we've already purchased."
Even the federal government is getting involved, attempting to deal with the electorate's 'crisis of confidence' regarding the reliability of electronic voting systems. As evidence of deliberate vote manipulation in 2000 and 2004 mounts, many people have become convinced that their vote no longer counts. So...in steps Congress to put a band aid on the issue with a law mandating a 'verifiable paper trail'. But what our leader's conveniently ignore is that once an electronic tally has been compromised, the paper trail can easily be forged to reflect the doctored results. Unless the voters themselves are put in control election audits (way too unwieldy to manage), this bill is worthless.
The only solution to these problems is to restore the public's confidence in the systems themselves. This means mechanical systems with physical results that are hard to manipulate. Or...if we must have electronic voting machines, they must be open-source systems that have been subjected to the scrutiny of security researchers and submitted to rigorous validation processes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we must mandate open-source for electronic voting machines because only open-source can provide the transparency necessary for something as important as elections. The Diebolds of the world can still make money building and deploying machines, but we should never again hear an argument that goes: "Our machines contain proprietary IP that is too important for us to expose." This is an invitation to wide spread election fraud.