[Vision2020] polarizing and the two-party system

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

I understand what you mean about the cost of voting...

Your introduction of the subject of the cost of voting inspired my response
regarding the under funding of many aspects of voting systems in the US, and
other glaring problems, subjects rather neglected, it seems to me.

In the past six years, since Gore v. Bush 2000, I have studied the problems
with voting systems in the US, and the more I learn the more I am astonished
at the faults and fraud in the voting systems of a nation that is ostensibly
the world's leading democracy.  Why does the public tolerate this state of
affairs?

My idealism on this issue has only increased as I get older, while at the
same time I am even more aware of the cynical manipulations of those who
seek to undermine truly fair, non-partisan and transparent voting systems,
accessible to all eligible.  Redistricting indeed!

As to the Internet, people must be motivated to want to use the resources of
the Internet to dig for and compare information providers on political
issues.  The Internet can be used to misinform and mislead just as well as
provide accurate information from credible sources.  The critical skeptical
analytical logical skills of the human mind is still the primary determinant
of truth, as to whether the Internet will result in a truly more empowered
democratic grass roots politics in the US.  The Internet is no replacement
for critical analytical thinking skills, and absent these in the voting
public, cannot solve political problems.  Some analysts think computers and
the Internet are actually reducing independent critical logical analytical
skills in the public.

Howard Dean was claimed to represent the new power of the Internet to
determine politics, but we saw what happened to his campaign.  Ned Lamont in
his defeat of Lieberman in the Democratic primary, has also been linked to
the increasing power of the Internet and Blogging in politics, but we shall
see who wins the election they will be facing, and whether the Internet is a
major factor in the final outcome.

Ted Moffett

On 10/15/06, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> Perhaps it's the case that we're not yet as internet-savvy as a group as
> we think we are.  I know I use the internet more and more for checking facts
> and learning about new things, and I've been on the internet since at least
> 1989.  So my hope is that people are simply new at this and will make it a
> part of their lives more and more.  But as I say, it's a hope - I have no
> idea how it will actually turn out.
>
> Also, when I was talking about the cost of voting, I meant the cost to the
> voter at the time of voting (which is free).  I was just trying to make the
> point that although Candidate A hasn't spent one dime on advertising or
> exposure and Candidate B has spent billions, it makes no difference at all
> if the voter somehow found out about Candidate A in some other fashion -
> they can still vote for them.  All of Candidate B's money would have been
> wasted, which suits me fine.  I'm hoping that the internet will be the place
> that makes this possible.  Grassroots politics has never been easier.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
>
>
> >  With the
> > Internet tearing down what would have seemed to be rock-solid
> > institutions, the landscape will probably be a whole lot different in a
> > few elections from now.
>
>
> This seems logical, yet certain facts contradict this hope.
>
> I approached a very committed local anti-Iraq invasion activist recently
> asking how they might explain the US public and US Congress pathetically
> buying into the yellow cake uranium from Niger, aluminum tube centrifuge
> nuclear fuel processing, remote controlled air plane drone dispersing bio or
> chemical weapons, etc. fabricated WMD "mushroom cloud over America" scare
> tactics, sheepishly accepted as it was insisted Iraq presented an immanent
> threat of attack against the USA via WMDs, in the age of.....INSTANT
> INTERNET FACT CHECKING OF GOVERNMENT
> PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> I abandoned using caps in Vision2020 posts long ago, but I could not
> resist.
>
> The conclusion?  The Internet made no substantive difference, for reasons
> that were hard to decipher, though anyone with a limited effort via the
> Internet could have determined that Bush, et. al. were spinning better than
> Lance Armstrong...
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's my guess, and my hope, that the money will matter less and less in
> > this process as time goes on.  It doesn't cost anything to vote,
> > regardless of how much money your candidate has spent.
>
>
> Actually, it costs a lot to vote.  Taxpayers pay for voting.  And for
> easily accessible, fair, well monitored and maintained voting systems, it
> will cost far more than we are now spending.
>
> Often voting systems in the USA are so ill prepared, underfunded and
> understaffed that there are lines around the block on a Tuesday afternoon,
> frustrating voters into abandoning their efforts.
>
> Why don't we vote on Saturday, or have a national holiday, for the most
> important act in the functioning of democracy?  We have a national holiday
> to eat turkey!  What is wrong with this picture?  Why vote on a working
> day?  Does this not discourage participation?
>
> Voting machines are sometimes in poor condition or malfunctioning, or
> susceptible to tampering, as it seems clear applies also to the new computer
> voting machines.  Ensuring voting machines are reliable and not subject to
> tampering costs money, both for the machines and the monitoring.
>
> I won't even start with Ohio in 2004...
>
> There are numerous problems with US voting systems that require more
> funding to address.
>
> Even a libertarian should be able to accept the essential need for full
> government funding of well monitored, non-partisan, easily accessable and
> well constructed voting systems everywhere in the USA.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061015/eaca850a/attachment.htm