So; Welcome back.
Well; we have talked alot about the current political and election system. Now we will speak of a less depressing subject and I hope; the one you have been waiting with baited breath to hear about.
My plan. A description of a direct popular election procedure might read something like this
(if it were written in English that we could all understand):
In accordance with statute “this or that” of the National election code each state shall provide polling places and shall provide a voting system that is capable of tracking the total number of voters entering the polling place, total number of voters leaving the polling place and the total Presidential votes cast.
All tracking devices shall be inspected and calibrated to assure that they are not tampered with no more than twelve hours prior to the opening of the polls on election day by a certified technician approved by one member of each party designated by the candidates no less than six days prior to the election.
Any discrepancy in the totals in excess of 2% either way will result in that states voting totals being disregarded
All national elections will be supervised in each state by a member of congress from each of the parties on the ballot or in the case of independents a person designated by the independent candidate or in the case of a party with less than the required number of congressional members, those members and a number of designates equal to the difference.
These supervisors will be assisted in this task at each polling place by one member of the secret service, one member of the states National Guard and one designate from each of the parties on the ballot to insure that the election procedure is carried out strictly in accordance with this statute.
Once the tracking devices are calibrated and inspected, they will be guarded by at least one member of the secret service and one member from each party on the ballot until the polling place has opened to voters on Election Day.
All polling places shall be constructed so as to create a narrow, easily controlled entrance to the voting area where the only way in is through the tracking device and a similar design at the exit.
In the case of a citizen attempting to circumvent the tracking devices or in any way attempting to commit any type of election fraud, upon agreement of two of the supervisors the secret service and/or National Guard shall have the right to take the individual into custody pending consideration of the facts by the whole group of supervisors.
If a majority of the supervisors agree that the individual was indeed in violation of the election procedures, the individual would be held until the close of polls and at that time a decision as to charging or not charging them will be made by the States Attorney General based on the seriousness of the crime, i.e. was an act of violence committed during the attempted act, and the actual evidence presented by the election supervisors on site.
My plan would require some major changes not the least of which is that the elections would be jointly supervised by both the state and the federal government.
This seems like a good idea because both would be concerned and responsible for an accurate, clean election.
Perversion of the peoples will is not to be tolerated.
The polling places would need to be constructed with total control in mind so that we would avoid the haphazard attitude and at best lax attention to who-goes-where that I have witnessed myself and been told of more often.
A vote of the American people to elect the leader that they chose to follow for four years is a serious thing, perhaps even sacred.
It is the manifestation of a trust between the people and the government.
It is that government’s performance review where the people get to decide if they are happy or not. If they want a new President or want to give the current one another go at it.
It seems to me unthinkable that we allow anything less than a direct vote of the people, procured, secured and counted under the most rigorous of conditions to assure its accuracy and validity to be the mechanism for that decision making process or for the fulfillment of that trust between the people and their elected government.
Maybe more people would care if they felt that their vote was actually going to count.
A system such as that I have described would put the responsibility for honest elections on the states. So rather than a system which is wide open to corruption, easily maneuvered by those with money and power, and does not represent the will of the American people reliably, we would have a system that would be difficult to corrupt, hard to maneuver due to the direct involvement of the people, and would reliably represent the real will of the very real population of this country.
Instead of a system where states are constantly jockeying for more clout, using whatever type of antiquated, unclear voting system they chose, ex. the hanging chads in the Florida election of 2000, and being allowed to hold the election of the President hostage to their whims and ideosynchrocies, we would have a system where the states are given total responsibility for seeing that the election procedures are carried out in a fair and honest manner.
They will be moved to do this because failure to do so would result in the states entire vote (and therefore their right to have a say in the election at all) would be at stake.
They will stop worrying about cultivating the wealthy, hanging chads, and trying to influence the election results with false tallies and they will be forced to concern themselves with assuring that each person of voting age has the opportunity to cast a free and honest vote, assuring that they get as many of their voters registered and involved as possible because this is the only way to exert a greater influence on the election results.
Of course detractors will say that to institute this process we would need to amend the constitution so that the federal government could take partial responsibility for the oversight of elections that are the states right to hold as they see fit.
They will say that we are taking away the right of the states to elect the President.
And they would be right.
As it stands; the states choose Electors and the Electors choose the President and Vice-President. As I have said, they are pledged to vote or required by the law of their state to vote in accord with the states choice but nothing really stops them from doing whatever they please, even in states where it is illegal to do so because the penalties are primarily social or the law never enforced.
So, yes, I guess what I am proposing is just that. Amend the constitution if that is what is required. I feel pretty sure that if the people were ever offered the opportunity to do so in order to change to a direct election process, they would say Yes! Hell yes! Amend that sucker!
The people should be the ones to elect the President. Not the states.
It might be instructive to mention that during the procedure of writing the Constitution, strong consideration was given to allowing the State Legislatures to elect the President thereby removing the people even farther from having a voice by allowing Senators and Congressman with their own personal political agendas to make this weighty decision for us.
Airtight plan right? Well they finally agreed on the next best thing, from their point of view. And that’s what we have now.
A system that pretends to give the power to the people. My plan may be a bit rough yet but it is the basis of a system that would give the American people each; One True Vote.