The "Never Give Up, Never Give in Attitude": Is it harmful for our Legislative Efforts???

[Land Shark]

Compromise is the mother's milk of politics. But there are exceptions.

When we move into the area of RIGHTS, a so-called "compromise" of a right is nothing less than the VIOLATION of that same right.

Have we considered whether rights, fundamental rights, or fundamental principles of democracy are involved in election reform? If so, an exception applies because rights are a different animal, one that can not be compromised in any significant way.

With rights, you get the whole enchilada, even if others don't like it. In fact, if others not liking or other things weighing against it result in denial of the right, it was never a right in the first place.

Rights are inherently things that TRUMP other considerations. Thus, there's no need to give in, No need to compromise with rights, because the proper view is that rights destroy their opposition. In fact, giving up could properly be considered abject surrender, given that rights are supposed to in the end prevail.

Rights are also things that invalidate legislation offending them, in court. (Hey: Never give in, never give up!)

There is an orderly and logical PROCESS that we all, as Americans, are obligated more or less to go through when examining legislation, especially involving important things like elections. STEP ONE is to consider the Constitution and what other rights and fundamental values are involved. Some of us are still stuck on step one. If we fail to fully consider step one rights, we end up inevitably eroding or violating those rights, in small or large part, because we are not properly considering them, much less giving them their proper and full weight.

That's why many state constitutions state in similar ways that a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is necessary to the preservation of liberty and representative government". We need these constant reminders.

Yet these fundamental rights and values have powered every successful movement in america right up to Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech, which also evokes the language of the Declaration of Independence ("we hold these truths to be self-evident....")

The only way HAVA could get passed is by not recurring to fundamental principles.

The only way Holt is considered the only "realistic" game in town is by not recurring to fundamental principles. When you consider fundamental rights and their power, one wonders how Holt could possibly gain any appreciable support among voting rights-loving Americans WHO FREQUENTLY RECUR TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, as Founders thought necessary for nothing less than the preservation of liberty and representative government.

INTERESTING AND POWERFUL PROPERTIES OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES

RIghts have some REALLY interesting properties that are highly relevant to legislation and debating legislation.

1. They can invalidate that legislation, IN COURT. (But we do not want to have the right violated for months or years before this happens, and have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees, so we don't PREFER this option, it's preferable to fight for the rights up front)

2. They are not subject to significant compromise - a compromised right is a VIOLATED right. In legal lingo, it is called "Burdening" the right, which is illegal or unconstitutional as the case may be.

3. Rights would not be rights if they did not prevail or TRUMP when in conflict with other considerations or interests. One does not have a right AT ALL if the opposition of even 70% of the american public would result in the non-occurrence or non-enforcement of the RIGHT. A right means a court will compel the granting of the right no matter what the state or the public thinks.

4. If the rights are constitutional or foundational fundamental rights, they COMMAND our support as Americans since we are all politically obliged to uphold the constitution (or change it) and elections officials especially have sworn an oath to uphold it. In other words, it's not necessarily OPTIONAL for anyone or everyone. The democracy tent can hold 100 different political parties and points of view. As a private citizen you are free to deny fundamental rights and principles or ignore them deliberately, but then others are free to call you unamerican, because these are core, inclusive american values.

5. Fundamental rights like voting rights are powerfully moving and inspirational to most Americans.

6. Given that fundamental American rights and principles prevail in the end and trump, and even if denied leave one in a VERY POWERFUL POSITION to argue from, to compromise those rights or give up on them is fairly considered SURRENDER without so much as a REAL FIGHT. We're talking about things on people's minds when they died, so these rights are hardly the political playthings of a movement that wants to notch a compromise victory in order to feel good about itself.

So, do any of these four qualities grab anyone's interest in terms of their relevance to VOTING legislation pending in state or federal government???

In summary, fundamental rights and principles are binding on all, they command our attention, they prevail or trump competing interests, they can not be compromised, and they inspire us all. In the event this does not create a powerful enough argument, then the same fundamental rights can be used in court to invalidate offending legislation.

So, when we take the "rights approach" we may well come up with a different result in our analysis of things like the Holt bill.

We may find that the consideration of the administrative difficulty of finding enough pollworkers to openly and publicly count votes is trifling and immaterial and rejected as a reason to deny a voting-related right, rather than something to be "balanced" with the right or some direction that we can't go in because it risks offending powerful election officials or activist organizations. If we shy away from a right on account of the influence or power --- it's not a right, or rather we are acting as if it is not a right.

I submit that it is akin to "activist malpractice" not to use fundamental rights. Actually it is malpractice as a citizen not to frequently recur to them, if we are serious about the preservation of liberty or representative government.

Turns out, that when you discover and apply these rights, you gain power, they command everyone's attention, they transform the debate, they are not supposed to be compromised, and they can later invalidate legislation in court.

Also, if somebody voluntarily and clearly allies themselves AGAINST this fundamental rights position I have against secret vote counting and in favor of public oversight, THEY PLACE THEMSELVES outside the democracy tent, which itself is broad enough to hold 100 political parties and points of view. Who wants to do that?

But there's some things you JUST CAN NOT DO in a representative democracy. It's not subject to compromise, it's a right, it's foundational.

if these foundational rights are implicated, it's not "just one person's opinion" -- these things make CLAIMS upon all Americans that can not be ignored as "just opinion." One can only say the rights are inapplicable because the issue is outside the scope of the right.

All the talk of great "compromise" on voting rights BY ELECTION ACTIVISTS is irrefutable evidence that people are not frequently recurring to fundamental principles. (unless these principles are simply NOT implicated, in which case all of the normal principles of political compromise fully apply...) Moreover it is also tantamount to proof that they are not even putting the fundamental rights and principles INTO PLAY in the political arena, even though they often motivate the internal activist subjectively and internally.

How can rights be vindicated if they are not articulated and vindicated? How can we say something doesn't work or can't be achieved if we have failed to use our most powerful arguments?

E-voting and Holt both preserve and sustain secret vote counting on the all-important FIRST COUNTS, relegating "integrity" to expensive, unwieldy, poorly performed, resisted, and hazardous "sore loser" remedies that take place many days or weeks after the election result is set. Who likes FLorida 13's chances?? Is this our dream? Do we have an army of lawyers paid or volunteering and ready to go?

Because Holt and e-voting sustain secret vote counting on the all-important first counts they simply can't survive anything except us continuing to fail to recur to fundamental principles. But hey, lawyers stand to make a lot of money litigating these post-election "remedies" that are so expensive and rarely successful, and that assumes they don't swear in the "winner" weeks before you can legally file for a recount or election contest, as happend in CA50 on June 13, 2007 when Brian Bilbray was sworn in 7 days after the election, the Congressional record stating 68,500 votes not counted (to the best of Congress's knowledge)

EAC power can not possibly be consolidated to control our elections for on high except for a failure to recur to fundamental principles of federalism. Rights, the compromise of which is a violation of the right....

Time to defend democracy. With rights, compromise is surrender. If there are details that are not within the scope of these rights and principles, then it's fine to compromise. But it is impossible to compromise on public oversight or secret vote counting and call ourselves true defenders of democracy.

So the first question we ask ourselves is whether fundamental rights are involved in the area of voting. If they are, we sure as hell don't compromise on those.

So, Mad Floridian, I think your sarcasm emoticon right next to "never give in, never compromise" was ill-advised indeed. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=470208&mesg_id=470210 Rights analysis flips political compromise considerations on their head.

If the right is liberty for example, I believe the relevant standard was set by Patrick Henry: give me Liberty or Give me Death. Uncompromising, never give in, never give up.... Americans LOVE that!! -- at least in the RIGHTS place.

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. you forgot to state your claim

What, precisely, is the fundamental right that you accuse most of the activist community of ignoring?

"As a private citizen you are free to deny fundamental rights and principles or ignore them deliberately, but then others are free to call you unamerican, because these are core, inclusive american values."

Fine, go ahead and call us unamerican, but at least have the courtesy clearly to state the basis of your accusation.

And I still want to know: if you can demonstrate that your interpretation of this "fundamental right" is constitutionally binding, why don't you just go do that in court, and stop complaining about other people?

[Land Shark]

5. You don't know what rights apply and you remain unmoved by rights approaches?

Voting and elections certainly concern rights somewhere. What's your opinion of those rights and their content?

Rights have a special status, whatever they are, they are not to be compromised so it's a first step in an analysis of a proposed statute.

Do you think it's not important to defend rights, or you don't think they apply here?

The specific content of those rights is the subject of another piece already done. But you don't accept me as any kind of authority on rights even as a lawyer and there's a certain democratic resonance to all of us being entitled to your own opinion. I've said enough but what is YOUR opinion as to the rights applicable and their content?

Can we do election legislation without reference to rights?

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. you refuse to answer the question?

If you aren't prepared to enumerate the rights you think people are disregarding, then quite simply you don't have an argument. You have an unsupported and ill-defined allegation that you love voting rights more than the people who disagree with you about HR 811.

[Land Shark]

8. that's a whole separate post I will share later

I'm gathering though that you don't know what rights are implicated here, or that you don't think a rights analysis of any legislation is needed?

If so, as an "activist" it's interesting that you seem so neutral and blase' about the existence of rights in the area of elections.

Activists in elections by their nature a little passionate about protecting voting rights but that does not at all come through in your comments.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. I'm fairly passionate about decency and civility

And you're not "gathering," you're just making stuff up. And refusing to answer my questions. Noted and logged.

[Land Shark]

41. Those are mere principles, why aren't you passionate about RIGHTS?

Or has the cat got your tongue? Decency in speech and civility in speech are constrained to being more like aspirational, nonbinding goals for behavior by First amendment Free Speech RIGHTS, which include the right to speak even obnoxiously, given that there is really no right to free speech at all unless one can say what others would prefer not to hear. SO, RIGHTS TRUMP.

So, are we to believe that if it is a mere principle that is nonbinding that can be used to critique a specific person named Land Shark, one can imply that Land Shark has stepped out of some bounds, but Land shark can not suggest that one stepping outside the (unidentified, for now) bounds of the core rights of democracy, voting and elections in representative government will result in placing one's self into an untenable and unamerican position?

Why, given that rights are SO MUCH more important than mere principles, and these are the most important rights in our country, and they specifically include the right to vote which is "the right that protects all other rights," can I not use any "negative language" regarding those who would clearly place themselves outside the realm of these rights?

So it's OK for OTOH to be "passionate" about mere principles of decency and civility, and use those to critique and shame offenders,

but

It's just not OK for Land Shark to be "passionate" about core rights of democracy and voting and elections, upon all else depends including liberty itself, and use those to critique and shame offenders (if it turns out there are any)???

OTOH is BUSTED. (see above) All he can do now is pretend that he mentioned decency and civility with no implied reference at all to me or to the OP of this thread or anything within the thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. you are still making stuff up

You have no basis for your inference that I'm not passionate about rights. Honestly, I'm surprised that you continue to resort to this transparent diversionary canard after I've already called you on it. Really, are you capable of defending your posts without resorting to specious aspersions upon other people's motives? Apparently not.

Sure, rights are more important than principles. That, obviously, doesn't mean that it's ethically justified to say anything whatsoever as long as one claims to be defending democracy. No one, obviously, is denying your "right" to declare that other people are outside the democracy tent. I assume that your legal briefs are better reasoned than that.

[Febble]

14. But why don't you answer his question?

if you "gather" that he doesn't know, why not tell him? After all, you are staking out a position that seems antithetical to progress to a lot of people concerned with the rights of the US electorate.

[Land Shark]

20. Because of the history of enjoying himself just dogging me and seeing no merit

in anything I do (to speak of). I'd rather answer the supportive or critical questions of those who are not so committed to having a negative attitude.

A real voting rights activist would be excited about getting their hands on more information to use for arguments, instead we see sarcasm from the get go, as if there's no such things as voting rights, fundamental rights, democratic principles or fundamental principles at play in the area of elections.

Besides, if any activist here can't name any fundamental rights or fundamental principles applicable to elections at all they ought to hang up their career as an election activist. Or they can wait patiently for the next post, just like we all had to wait patiently for part III of the audit study of Lindeman and Stanislevic

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. I'm not enjoying any of this

I want you to stop attacking people and start explaining yourself. Apparently you don't want to explain yourself, so your diversion is to attack me. But I'm in good company there, so it's OK.

[Land Shark]

25. You don't have any answers? You don't know what are voting rights?

These are not attacks, they are questions. On edit: what makes you think anything here, particularly anything by me, is for "your enjoyment"?

[Febble]

33. This isn't an attack on those who disagree with you?

I submit that it is akin to "activist malpractice" not to use fundamental rights.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. that's perhaps the least of it

When we move into the area of RIGHTS, a so-called "compromise" of a right is nothing less than the VIOLATION of that same right.... In fact, giving up could properly be considered abject surrender.... STEP ONE is to consider the Constitution and what other rights and fundamental values are involved. Some of us are still stuck on step one.... When you consider fundamental rights and their power, one wonders how Holt could possibly gain any appreciable support among voting rights-loving Americans WHO FREQUENTLY RECUR TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, as Founders thought necessary for nothing less than the preservation of liberty and representative government.... If the rights are constitutional or foundational fundamental rights, they COMMAND our support as Americans since we are all politically obliged to uphold the constitution (or change it).... As a private citizen you are free to deny fundamental rights and principles or ignore them deliberately, but then others are free to call you unamerican, because these are core, inclusive american values. ...to compromise those rights or give up on them is fairly considered SURRENDER without so much as a REAL FIGHT.... If we shy away from a right on account of the influence or power --- it's not a right, or rather we are acting as if it is not a right.... Also, if somebody voluntarily and clearly allies themselves AGAINST this fundamental rights position I have against secret vote counting and in favor of public oversight, THEY PLACE THEMSELVES outside the democracy tent, which itself is broad enough to hold 100 political parties and points of view.... All the talk of great "compromise" on voting rights BY ELECTION ACTIVISTS is irrefutable evidence that people are not frequently recurring to fundamental principles.... Because Holt and e-voting sustain secret vote counting on the all-important first counts they simply can't survive anything except us continuing to fail to recur to fundamental principles.... Time to defend democracy. With rights, compromise is surrender.

As legal analysis, the OP is fairly quirky. The Constitution as written by the Founders didn't even give us the right to vote for the president -- or even to vote for the president's electors. ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....") It didn't define the scope of the franchise. It certainly didn't specify a particular standard for vote counting. Even today, if "fundamental rights" are defined as those that are legally protected, certainly no one has demonstrated in real life that 100% public hand counts are such a right. The courts might come around to that view, but there is no sign that it will happen soon -- and voting machines have been in use for over a century now.

So, one interpretation of the OP is that "fundamental rights" are those that the courts have upheld -- which indeed applies to a large subclass of "voting rights." However, the OP equivocates by proposing a "fundamental rights position" or "fundamental principles" against "secret vote counting," which supposedly rules out Holt. Worse, it rules out any disagreement with Land Shark on his "fundamental principles," whatever precisely those might be. Let's go back to the nugget:

...if somebody voluntarily and clearly allies themselves AGAINST this fundamental rights position I have against secret vote counting and in favor of public oversight, THEY PLACE THEMSELVES outside the democracy tent.... (emphasis added)

No. The "democracy tent" is not coterminous with Land Shark's personal beliefs about "secret vote counting" and "public oversight." For instance, he rejects optical scanning; Andy Stephenson famously wrote that "(w)ith proper auditing and truly random recounts optical scans are the safest and most accurate way to count an election." We can have an honest discussion about optical scanning, but do we even need to consider whether Land Shark has the moral authority to declare Andy Stephenson "outside the democracy tent"? Does anyone seriously want to defend that proposition? Or are we just supposed to take these words as hazy, "passionate" abstractions that don't have to be applied to anyone in particular?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. you just got called "himself"

where on earth did that bit of grammatical twist come from?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. oh my oh my I do declair!

Oh the outrage being suffered here, the offense against the sensitivities -

"A real voting rights activist would be excited about getting their hands on more information to use for arguments, instead we see sarcasm from the get go, as if there's no such things as voting rights, fundamental rights, democratic principles or fundamental principles at play in the area of elections."

You smear others as not being for voting rights, or for fundamental rights, but take offense at sarcasm?

"Besides, if any activist here can't name any fundamental rights or fundamental principles applicable to elections at all they ought to hang up their career as an election activist."

CAREER???? CAREER!!! You gotta be kidding. You mean a career where you get paid?

IMHO (which actually isn't all that humble), folks who would rather we vote on paperless voting machines this November 2008 SHOULD hang up their careers NOW

[Land Shark]

39. OTOH was right but missed the point, the substantive rights are not HERE identified

so until they are, we may all agree, and at least at the fringes the scope of the rights can be debatable.

But presuming there is a right involved in a given situation, it has the properties above and shouldn't be compromised because in fact it trumps.

To most people, this helps clarify things like the importance of defending and not compromising rights, and makes them interested in finding out what the rights are, and not defensive, seemingly fearing that they will fall on the wrong side of the rights equation.

By way of self-critique, an objective observer might say along the lines of WYVBC's indignation above something like

"While LS makes some interesting and often forgotten points about the special powers of rights, and does so without suggesting who this might specifically be, unfortunately he is suggesting in any event that it is illadvised or unamerican to oppose our rights or deny our voting rights or otherwise ignore them while being an election activist. This denunciation of election activists opposed to or ignoring election rights is totally out of line and uncalled for."

But, given the above, what right or principle allows anyone to be OFFENDED by my expression? (perhaps a civility principle of some sort, which is not a right but a principle, since free speech protects "obnoxious" speech even if it were obnoxious)

Now compare that mere civility principle resulting in someone being offended by someone potentially being called "unamerican" without being even possibly named (because the specific rights are not mentioned yet),

to

the core democratic rights of this country, the most important ones possible because they concern voting, the right that protects all other rights? Here there is not just a principle to fuel one's indignation, what fuels the indigation is the most important rights in our country's system of government.

WillYourVoteBCounted seems to be implicitly saying that there is every right to critique and denounce based on the strength of a perceived civility principle, but there is no right to critique and denounce an anonymous person or persons based on hypothetical violations of the most important rights in our entire country?

How can there be a justification in WYVBC's speech suggesting a specific named DU poster-person is out of line based on a relatively weak (compared to rights) principle, AND NOT BE a justification in LS's speech that is not naming anyone in particular, but is based on the strongest principles in our entire legal and democratic system?

In fact the whole reason civility is a principle is because the RIGHT of free speech prevents civility from growing in strength... Rights trump, you see.

Indeed, since naming those specific rights is left for a subsequent post, all I've said so far is that rights have certain powerful properties we need to be aware of, and that there exists a "cliff" out there somewhere beyond the scope of those rights where we best not go if we want to be considered to be acting in the scope of american rights traditions in voting.

But I still think every one truly interested in our legal system is helped in their understanding by knowing the basic properties of rights, so I am confused by the ENTIRELY negative reaction of a small number of people.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

48. do you ever get to the point

or do you have some sort of text generator that writes these replies?

Its hard to relate - where's the main subject?

What is the point, or is this like some sort of daily diary?

[Land Shark]

66. But do you REALLY want to know what the rights would be? I doubt it

Because if you did, then you would at least be interested to learn about what the properties of rights are that are useful, from the OP. They form more powerful arguments than other considerations in the non-rights areas -- which just tend to get "balanced" and weighed with competing ideas, whereas rights transcend or trump...

But for an example of one inalienable right, at least in the mind of Thomas jefferson, (and much more, though) please see the middle and end of this comment: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4374#comment-218496

[bleever]

23. What's your view on the thesis that a compromised right is not a right?

That's the main point of the OP, and I'd like to hear your response as a frequent contributor.

[Land Shark]

24. Either they admit they knew that, in which case some positions may need explaining

or, in the alternative, they admit they were ignorant of the fact that a compromise regarding a right is a violation of the right, in which case it is likely (the rights having not been considered) that the rights are being eroded or violated in the positions taken. Or, perhaps they will deny that a compromise of a right is the denial of that right.

[Febble]

32. Well, I think the point of the OP

as it is written is too vague to make much of. My right to live freely is compromised by the rights of others to do the same. My right to have as big a car as I want is compromised by my duty to keep my carbon footprint small. All rights are compromised in some way. What I need to know, to respond to the OP, is exactly what right is supposed to be being compromised in what way.

What I DO think is that when reform is required (as reform is required here), imperfect legislation can be better than none. Not necessarily, but sometimes, and it depends how imperfect, and imperfect in what way. For that reason, a general question about "is a compromised right a right?" is too general to answer.

In the case of the Holt bill, there are lots of things I would like to see it include, which it doesn't at present. But on the whole, I'd rather it passed than didn't. I do think the issue is worth discussing. I take huge exception to posts in which anyone who thinks there is anything to discuss is tarred as a denier of rights.

Lastly, I'd say that I think that the idea that hand counted paper ballots are the only thing that ensures the rights of the electorate to a fair election is false. It won't, and there are good arguments that optical scanners with audits, say, would be a better guardian of those rights. However, neither would do anything for people whose votes are spoiled, or who don't get to vote in the first place, which, IMO, is a far bigger problem for US democracy.

Anyway, thanks for asking.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Land Shark]

42. Finding out, and arguing the power of rights seems "antithetical to progress"

to you? So, we should not argue strongly for voting rights and election rights in the area of the voting rights and election reform movements?

Oh right, it's the civility PRINCIPLE. Nonbinding principles trump the need to fight for our rights. I don't think so, do you?

One can, at best, say, it "would be nice" if those opposed to core democratic rights were treated more nicely.

I suppose in 1776 we should have been "more nice" to the British instead of fighting for our rights.

Many state constitutions state similarly to this: A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. . . See, e.g., Wash. Const. Art. I, sec 32.

Nothing less than the survival of rights and free government depends on frequent recurrence to these fundamental rights and principles OF DEMOCRACY. I'd like to see Febble, OTOH and WYVBC recur to those fundamental rights and principles OF GOVERNMENT, but they seem to want only to ignore them, mock them, or critique me for pointing back to this necessity, and then even suggest that my wish to frequently recur to these rights holds back our movement's progress.

They are completely wrong to distract this discussion away from rights. OTOH was right in one thing, the substantive rights have to eventually be identified. But for a first step, it's instructive, and I learned myself, from putting the properties of rights together in one place, they trump, they can not be compromised without being violated, they could even invalidate legislation that offends them. Apparently, I am to get no credit for reminding us about rights, I am only to be condemned and distracted for "condemning" those who oppose America's core rights as (!!) "unamerican."

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. wow

I don't know whether I would be more appalled to learn for a fact that you don't believe all this, or that you do.

You should know better than to equate civility with "niceness," or to imply that it contradicts fighting for democracy. I imagine that you do.

You should know better than to insinuate that anyone here is ignoring or mocking fundamental rights. I imagine that you do.

You should know that your OP did not in the slightest restrict itself to "putting the properties of rights together in one place." I imagine that you do.

I'm done for now, Paul. Your inventiveness knows no bounds, and people will have to draw their own conclusions. You can place your very own personal democracy tent wherever you want, and beat off anyone you choose, and we'll see where we all end up.

[midnight]

12. When I read Landsharks post, I did not see an accusation

of the activist community ignoring the fundamental right. I read it as an encouraging informative piece reasserting the basic right to have visible votes that are counted via a reliable system and not a secret system via e-voting. I hope Landshark continues to keep us informed. Perhaps you can re-read his post again. I did not see anywhere that refereed to us as un american. Please don't assume that my interpretation should be yours, but I never got that impression. I only got the impression that though Landsharks dedication to our rights, he was encouraging us not to give up. And after the news the past few weeks about attorney Gonzales, I was encouraged that DU is so lucky to have Landshark fighting on our behalf. Sorry you don't see it this way.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. with respect, I think you are missing the context

The part I quoted is in numbered point 4. In itself, it isn't objectionable: I agree that it's unamerican to oppose the right to vote. The problem comes with stuff like this: "When you consider fundamental rights and their power, one wonders how Holt could possibly gain any appreciable support among voting rights-loving Americans WHO FREQUENTLY RECUR TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, as Founders thought necessary for nothing less than the preservation of liberty and representative government." Land Shark thinks the Holt bill is antithetical to fundamental principles; a lot of us don't. This annoys him, as his attack on MoveOn.org also attests. Fine, he's annoyed. It doesn't make Holt bill supporters "unamerican."

[loudsue]

15. I have to disagree. The Holt Bill perpetuates the continual stealing of our elections

It's NOT going to fix the problem of votes counted in secret, by programming that nobody has been getting to see. It doesn't allow for any material remedy (reversing an election, for instance) should some DRE count votes according to its programming, and not according to how people voted. And how would we KNOW if the DRE did this? We wouldn't, without TREMENDOUS problem-filled ("bad loser") litigation. In other words, elections aren't going to be any closer to being accurate w/ the Holt bill than they have been.

If we're going to get legislation passed to secure our rights, WHY NOT GET LEGISLATION THAT ACTUALLY DOES, INDEED, SECURE OUR RIGHTS.

That is the question: WHY NOT?? What or who is preventing the uncorrupted, or incorruptible, counting of our votes?

What Land Shark was saying (which was apparent to me), is that there are those of us who feel extremely passionate about our right to vote for our government, and to have that vote counted, and counted accurately and transparently. Compromising that right isn't satisfactory. We see too much quicksand, in other words, and that reservation is well founded, given what we've seen for the past 7 years (and in MY opinion, before then... since the 90's) .

:kick::kick::kick:

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. point by point

First of all, you're welcome to oppose the Holt bill. If you can do it without impugning people's patriotism and commitment to democracy, you will probably receive a respectful hearing from many of us. You're certainly welcome to support changes to the Holt bill, as I do.

I don't know what it means to say that using an optical scanner equals "votes counted in secret." (The part about "programming that nobody has been getting to see" isn't compelling because Holt's critics generally wouldn't be appeased by an open-source requirement.) To me the crucial question is whether the vote count is accurate. That's why I support stringent audits.

I don't know what it means to say that HR811 doesn't allow for material remedy. It mandates paper, mandates that the paper be audited, and mandates that the election results can't be certified until the audit is complete. It seems that you are complaining about how hard it is to get access to the audit trail (if any) through litigation -- well, that's what we are trying to fix.

You say, "elections aren't going to be any closer to being accurate w/ the Holt bill" -- but I don't know why.

Now, I think we all understand that "there are those of us who feel extremely passionate about our right to vote for our government, and to have that vote counted, and counted accurately and transparently." Actually, as far as I know, we all feel that way, although we may disagree about how to interpret "transparently." (I have voted on lever machines most of my life and have never felt that that fact, in itself, compromises my right to vote.)

At the risk of repeating myself: if folks are going to accuse other folks of compromising fundamental rights, they ought to express themselves very clearly and carefully. Or perhaps, better yet, they ought to count to 10 and find some other way of making their point.

[Land Shark]

26. Have you looked at the activists below who are all excited by the rights approach?

Why don't you have a similar attitude? To the extent this adds any strength at all, it will strengthen our hand. An informal discussion on DU can not weaken the hand, it's nobody's official position. So it's all more power to the cause, whether little or great.

mod mom, lonestarnot, helderheid, kiteinthewind, bleever, galloglas, midnight and Kurovski all disagree with your pessimistic assessment. Why don't you try debating with them? You don't have any respect for my opinion so you should avoid me, it would seem. Kurovski says generously: "You are tremendous." Apr-06-07 01:17 AM #22

Does your heart stir even a little to the thought that perhaps this will strengthen the hand of all groups who use arguments concerning rights?

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. "excited by the rights approach"?

First of all, the quality of arguments is not judged -- or should not be judged -- by who expresses the most "excitement." This is not American Idol. (And I won't bother to list the people who are "excited" about challenging your full-throated opposition to HR 811.)

Part of the problem here is that the "rights approach" is an amalgam of legal practice, legal theory, political rhetoric, personal polemic, and guff. You appear to be 'informing' people that what you call 'secret vote counting' is inherently illegal because it is contrary to the 'fundamental right to vote.' That may be exciting as a rhetorical strategy; it's a long shot as a legal strategy, given (among many other things) that voting machines have been in use for over a century. Given the preference you've expressed in the past for litigation over legislation, your approach seems extraordinarily risky to those who would like to see paper in 2008, not some bold and uncompromising future that may never arrive.

No, I will not ignore you. I will continue to push back against defamatory rhetoric, misleading information, and/or dangerous advice, regardless of who presents it. That's an ethical obligation. I am sorry (but not apologetic) if that troubles you, but you can passionately advocate for voting rights in any number of ways without recourse to defamatory rhetoric, misleading information, or dangerous advice, and I think we will all be better off for it.

[Land Shark]

43. "Amalgam" of rights, history and political theory, or not

OTOH, did you know that... Well, I guess you didn't. When it comes to fundamental rights litigation, that's the area of the law where history, political theory and other things normally inadmissible DO COME INTO PLAY. So there you go, misleading others to doubt the power of a rights approach.

Of course there are limits to this admissibility of history, (like relevance) but you don't acknowledge even a core area of "rights" that do exist. If you would then those core rights would have the properties I identify above, generally.

You stretch voting machine use to a century when tiny amounts were used at best. But Here again, you should frequently recur to fundamental principles OF DEMOCRACY. Let's take patriot and Founder James Otis who wrote, and Thomas Paine echoed:

"But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyrannize." http://ahp.gatech.edu/rights_brit_colonies_1764.html

So improper use for a hundred years doesn't result in a sort of adverse possession by the government of the rights of We the People, and it doesn't prove a right to count secretly. By the way, the government does not have "rights" per se, only powers delegated. To even suggest that the government re-absorbs the rights of We the People even by long use of voting machines is a laughable concept from the standpoint of governments set up for the purpose of "protecting individual rights" and to serve the people, not to recapture their rights and reduce their freedoms.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. yikes

Of course you are welcome to assert that such and such is a fundamental right and that, in the fullness of time, we all will come to believe it -- or the courts will come to acknowledge it -- or whatever. A good way to prove "the power of a rights approach" in this regard is actually to win a case.

Meanwhile, I and many of us are unaware of any "fundamental principle() of DEMOCRACY" that entails all the conclusions you draw. But we are working hard to ensure that election outcomes correctly reflect the intent of the voters. Of course you knew that already.

[BeFree]

51. You got that right

It is a right of the people to have election outcomes that correctly reflect the intent of the voters!!!

Whether or not it is written somewhere, that right is a fundamental right, and any, ANY attempt at disturbing that right is un-American.

Unfortunately, we, the people, have compromised that right and, Lawd, are we paying for it -- what with the unelecteds that are *serving* us these days.

But just because we let slip away those - or any other - rights, does not mean we have relinquished those rights.

As it stands, anyone who now knows and realizes where we are today -- having lost our rights to have our votes counted as cast -- to even attempt to suggest that we further allow and further compromise away that right, is, indeed, acting quite un-Americanish.

But hey, it happens every day, right? Yeah, but that doesn't make it right.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. "further compromise"?

"Don't resuscitate the baby -- that would further compromise the fundamental right to universal health care!"

"Don't pass the Voting Rights Act, or any civil rights act -- they all further compromise the fundamental right to equality!"

"Don't require an audit of over 3 million ballots in the next presidential election -- that would further compromise our fundamental right to confirm the outcome!"

:shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. HR 811 Requires us to EAT BABIES

[Land Shark]

19. Wacky. Do you mean that the harms suggested for HR811 are not serious harms?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. WHACKY IS NOV 08 ELECTION ON PAPERLESS MACHINES

WHACKY - THATS WHAT I CALL TRYING TO KILL LEGISLATION THAT WOULD END PAPERLESS VOTING.

Why on earth would someone want any of the US States voting on paperless voting in the next Presidential election?

Some of us in the Election Reform forum are opposed to paperless elections, and we will continue to advocate for legislation, in this case HR 811 - with amendments and to go into affect in time for
November 2008.

We cannot have another disastrous election of the magnitude of 2000 and 2004.

I don't think extremely lengthy speeches will do us a bit of good.

I watched a judge tell a lawyer in court - "talking for a really long time isn't going to help
your case at all".

I sure hope that we don't have a third "WHACKY" paperless Presidential election.

Hopefully this congress, with the NEW SHERRIFF IN TOWN, won't let us go through another disaster and will make the necessary amendments to HR 811, get similar version in the senate, and get it passed ASAP.

[BeFree]

52. Is that an accusation, or what?

This: "Why on earth would someone want any of the US States voting on paperless voting in the next Presidential election?"

No one here wants that, so I guess you are just blowing off steam. That's cool.

Now, it isn't that we feel 811 does not do some good. It does. But some of us see it like this - it is a glass just half full.

Well, we want the whole damn glass full! And we can get it full if we just demand that it be full.

It is a right to have those intended by the people - beyond a reasonable doubt - seated as our governors.

811 will not give us that "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I can't believe you can't see that.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. hey, that All or Nothing Approach is Guaranteed

The all or nothing approach is guaranteed to fail when applied to federal legislation.

When fighting for legislation, you/we aren't talking to a group of people who are exactly like ourselves, but a large group of representatives of 50 states.

1. Please advise, in states that are locked in with paperless voting, what the solution is?

2. What is your proposal for states that cannot get legislation
passed?

Florida's legislature refuses to fund paper ballot equipment, and
several other states cannot get any legislation passed, period.

-Va has a moratorium on further purchases of DRES, but will be voting on mostly paperless this Nov 2008 (they are waiting for federal funding to replace the paperless machines they just bought this year)

-SC has 100% paperless.

-Florida has paperless in its largest counties and the legislature doesn't want to fund optical scan.
Florida also has one large activist group who doesn't want to let go of DREs, because they believe that DRES protect non english speaking voters.

-Ga is 100% paperless. They had a "all or nothing" bill to require all ballots be handcounted at end of election day, but that just didn't fly. So, they still have Diebold.

-Maryland will have paperless in 2008 unless there is federal funding before then.

All I want to know is what do those who want to kill HR 811 propose for the paperless states?
Shall we play the "all or nothing" game and have another 2000 or 2004 style muck up?


Why is it that the vendors' lobby so strongly opposes HR 811?

[BeFree]

63. Guarantee?

So, if 811 is passed you guarantee everything will be fine? That our problems are over? I don't think so.

So, yes, while we still can, we go for it all.

I am surprised you are willing to accept something that is no guarantee, but just another bill that is not much more than a bone. That's alright, that's your prerogative, too give up asking for it all.

But to claim that because we want something akin to a guarantee is hyperbolic and it really doesn't look good on you.

My advice? Don't give up just yet, yes, there's a long way to go and a short time to get there, but it ain't over yet.

[kster]

27. LOUDSUE HITS A HOMERUN!!

:applause: :applause:

[bleever]

28. I agree. Why would we legislate a partial fix? When my plumbing fails,

I don't tape it up, hope for the best, and wait for a better time to fix it.

I fix it.

Great synopsis, loudsue.

[Febble]

34. You tape it up as best you can

until you get an opportunity to fix it properly. What you don't do is leave it leaking all over your property, destroying all your stuff, meanwhile bemoaning that you can't find a plumber. If you do that, you run the risk of drowning all the plumbers.

[kster]

36. The Hava (tape) didn't work, now you want to use the new and improved HR811,( tape)

to fix it, in the mean time your leaky pipe is starting to make your neighbors basements get seapage, at what point, do we stop, with the quick fixes and call the PLUMBER?

:banghead:

[bleever]

50. Congress is the plumber.

Do you hire a plumber who does the tape fix, til you can get someone who actually knows how to fix it?

In my case, I fix my own plumbing. I wouldn't run to the store to get duct tape instead of getting the replacement parts and doing it right.

Congress makes the laws. They shouldn't make laws out of duct tape; they should go straight to the best fix.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. waiting for that perfect law, or the old "All or Nothing" approach

a good bill today is better than a perfect one tomorrow, because

tomorrow never comes.

[Land Shark]

40. In the area of rights, the "perfect is the enemy of the good" is cover for RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

or can be. That's why we need to do a rights analysis at all times, because it tells us where that principle "Dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good" has to yield to more important RIGHTS. RIghts always beat principles.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

47. all this navel gazing is so interesting

:boring:

But seems to accomplish nothing.

Is there anything to this op but a rhetorical whimsy?

[bleever]

49. A principle of law.

It's a fundamental question. E.g., if you have a right as a consumer to expect your bank to handle your money with 100% accuracy, can your bank reasonably say that 90% is acceptable? Or has your right been corrupted and vitiated?

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. well?

Do you have a "fundamental right" to "expect" your bank to handle your money accurately? I don't know. I do know that legislative codes, political institutions, administrative regulations, and case law delineate what recourse you may have if the bank mishandles your money. Elections work, imperfectly, in much the same way.

Now, a "fundamental right" may indeed be well established in legal codes and precedent. However, the proposed "fundamental right" that all elections be conducted with 100% hand-counted paper ballots -- or whatever "fundamental right" is proposed -- is not well established. Anyone can rhetorically assert the existence of a fundamental right -- and declare that anyone who disagrees is "outside the democracy tent" -- but that assertion in itself has no force of law.

So, what principle of law is at stake here?

I think citizens should have ultimate control over how elections are conducted, although they may choose to delegate any portion of that control. We citizens of New York have been well within our rights to support the use of lever machines to conduct our elections. If we decide that we prefer 100% hand-counted paper ballots, we are entitled to that choice, and we can enforce it by amending the state constitution if we choose. But I've seen no sign that we are pining for someone to come and file suit on behalf of our "right" to HCPB -- whether we want it or not. Someone might be justified in insisting that we cannot legitimately forego that "right," but it's far from a slam dunk.

[eomer]

57. Like you, I'm not sure what fundamental right is being proposed...

but let me say what I propose it to be.

It is a right for the people to elect their Representatives, Senators and Presidential Electors.

Inherent in that right to elect are the right to vote and the right to have the vote counted.

But those fundamental rights are stated as general principles and could be implemented many different ways.

HCPB is neither required nor sufficient to deliver on those rights. It is orthogonal.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. that sounds close to my view

Given some of the discourse in this thread, it might be better not to state "rights" as "principles," but I think the point is: the right to have the vote counted doesn't entail particular mechanisms.

It's probably reasonable to add "public oversight" in some sense -- whether or not it is a fundamental right in itself, it seems requisite to defending the right to a fair count. (If we really wanted to be strict here, we might want to think about whether there are interesting distinctions between individuals' right to equal protection in the vote count, and a collective right to an accurate count. In general they seem to point in the same direction.) And to the extent that a "secret vote count" makes "public oversight" impossible, it is out.

But I don't think that "public oversight" entails particular mechanisms, either. Generally I think of politics-and-law as the multifaceted arena in which we continually redefine the scope and means of "public oversight," not just of elections, but of everything else.

ETA: I would also distinguish, in some contexts, between a right that the courts will uphold, and a right that we are obligated to fight for whether the courts presently would uphold it or not. One thing I find confusing about the OP is that it appears to assert that courts "will compel the granting" of a right, but also appears to assert the existence of rights that courts have never compelled anyone to grant.

[eomer]

59. Interestingly, that sounds closer to my view

than even my own view does.

(If that is possible. I'm going to have to consult Godel's theorems and will let you know.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. and if you did

about rights, you said:

But I've seen no sign that we are pining for someone to come and file suit on behalf of our "right" to HCPB -- whether we want it or not. Someone might be justified in insisting that we cannot legitimately forego that 'right,' but it's far from a slam dunk.

and if you did pine for someone to come and file suit on behalf of your "right" to HCPB,
then I hope you hire a lawyer with a winning track record.

NC's state law provides the choice of hand counted paper ballots as a "certified voting system", yet none of our counties have chosen that method. Our 3 HCPB counties switched to optical scan and Automark.

Now, if we made our ballots simpler, and held elections more frequently, it would be easier to
do the HCPB thing.

Keep in mind, our state requires us to print 1 ballot per every registered voter, so if we hold more elections we spend more on ballots. (fine with me, but remember the cost factor and the labor as incentive to election officials to mechanize the process).

LAWYERING UP IS ONLY A VERY VERY SMALL TACTIC OR TOOL IN THE PROCESS, AS WE CAN SEE, IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE MAIN PROBLEMS.

Having laws in place to specifically ban paperless voting are needed, since paperless voting has been going on since the 1800s.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. oh, and lawyers aren't cheap

if folks want to hire good lawyers, keep in mind the costs, and the likelihood
of winning.

Further, we've been that route before.

See www.voteraction.org for instances of where litigation has been successful.

Also www.eff.org

We had a county sue their BOE, and the activists spent $40 K of their own money
to do so. They had a partial victory, but got stuck with their legal fees.

We had to change the law in my state to get rid of the paperless machines.

Litigating would have accomplished nothing at all.

[mod mom]

2. My long standing focus in ER has been on the right of equal protection under

law.

Why are some votes counted while others (in my state of Ohio it was low income Af Am votes that were targeted) are not?

Those of us who cried foul were ridiculed as conspiracy theorists. Members of our own party dismissed our claims of mis-allocation and an unfair election, yet now we hear from the source:

Bush's long history of tilting Justice

The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer.

By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

March 29, 2007


THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

We did not have an election with equal protection for every voter. We saw how some folks with brown skin, especially in OH, FL and NM, had their right to vote challenged, and when they did vote-the chances of that vote counting diminished. Laws are only worth their weight if they are enforced properly. What we have is a justice system run amuk with favoritism for a particular political party. This is a travesty and a very dark cloud of shame on our country.

my 2 cents.

[lonestarnot]

3. Here here Landshark!

"Americans LOVE that." But do are you marketing rights in the last paragraph? I'm not so sure they do. Isn't Move on a perfect example of a marketing of rights? They are lukewarm, and I prefer red hot where my rights and the Country's rights are concerned.

[helderheid]

4. to the greatest with you!!

#5

[kiteinthewind]

7. "When we move into the area of RIGHTS, a so-called "compromise" of a right is nothing less than

the VIOLATION of that same right". Precisely, Land Shark! Bottom line, nail on the head, et al.
:toast:

[bleever]

9. Voting rights are enumerated in the federal constitution and in state constitutions,

and are the subject of an enormous body of legislation and judicial holdings.

I am unaware of any provisions, short of legal disenfranchisement, that allow any impingements on those rights. Are we to believe that the right to vote does not implicitly contain the notion of a fair and honest count?

I think this is a very powerful formulation, Land Shark, and I really appreciate the necessity of this kind of approach.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[galloglas]

18. A like question

for "Are we to believe that the right to vote does not implicitly contain the notion of a fair and honest count?


"Are we to believe that 'federal mathematics' does not implicitly contain the notion that '2 + 2 = 4'"?

(Notice to Neocons: Answers to the above question using references to Federal Budget are hereby disqualified.)

[midnight]

11. I've almost finished reading this post on rights. It is ever thing

I have known instinctively from growing up in America before 2000. Your necessary argument for fighting, for these rights, and never giving them up touches a personal note for me at this time. I won't go into it here. Instead I hope to clarify my understanding of rights as they apply to amendments and changes that have accrued like the patriot act,and hippa. These were sold to us as ways to protect us yet they violate our rights of privacy. I know this is off topic, but I was struck by your "rights are inherent things that trump other considerations". My question is if this is true, how can we be subjected to them snooping through our medical, phone, e-mail accounts as acceptable or for that matter-legal? As always thanks for working toward bringing to America a more visible voting system.

[Kurovski]

22. You are tremendous.

Thank you for this.

You understand the passion of Americans who love their country.

Recommended and bookmarked

[eomer]

54. On the right to vote

According to google, there is a different answer depending on which office you're talking about.

There is not an unconditional right to vote for President. A state legislature could, under the U.S. Constitution, set up a system where it picks the presidential electors itself (by vote of the state legislators, say). However, once they set up a system where the presidential electors are chosen by a vote of citizens of the state then there is a right to vote that is fundamental, even though it is conditional.

This particular limitation does not apply to elections for the House of Representatives, which is elected directly by the people. The Constitution, as improved by Amendments 14, 19, and 26, grants the right to elect representatives to all citizens age eighteen or older. Such right can be abridged due to "participation in rebellion, or other crime" but other than that limitation, it is a right of all citizens.

The Senate was originally elected not by the citizens but by the state legislatures. Amendment 17 changed it so that the Senate is now constitutionally elected by the people.

Amendments 14, 19, and 26 use generalized language that grants rights whenever there are elections even when the right to an election is itself not granted (as in the case of Presidential electors).

So my conclusion, which as I said at the start is based on a quick google, is that there are various rights to vote. Admittedly I'm looking at just the high-level view. I'm sure there are many details and legal intricacies that I neither have the time nor the qualifications to consider. So the following citations are those of the lay person's view of just the very basic principles:

Bush v. Gore on the right to vote for President:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

Article I of the Constitution on the right to vote for representatives:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Amendment 14

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Amendment 17

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment 26

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

[eomer]

56. Here are some things I think we all agree on, and then one where we don't:

What we agree on (I think):

• There is a constitutionally protected right of the citizens to elect their Representatives, Senators, and, conditionally, Presidential Electors and such right may not be abridged except due to participation in rebellion or crime.
  
• The right to have one's vote counted is inherent in the right to vote.
  
• We would be justified in seeking to have our right to vote honored and in pursuing that end in the courts, by trying to enact laws, by taking to the streets, by agitating for it in a forum such as this, and by other means. There is no conflict between these parallel efforts and no reason we shouldn't apply any and all means at once.

What we don't agree on:

Where we apparently part ways is on the question of tactics, specifically on the question of whether incremental improvements will help us get to the ultimate goal or rather will take steam out of the efforts and cause us to fall somewhere short of a full realization.

There are obvious examples where an incremental approach has been followed. Clearly the rights of women and of racial minorities have been established gradually through a series of changes that took generations to accomplish. These examples, though, could probably be claimed as supporting either side of the debate. Women's and minority rights have been vastly improved but are still (I say) short of perfected.

[Land Shark]

68. women and minority VOTING rights were not incremental

you either get to vote the same as everyone else, or you don't, period. Some states granted the right to vote before we had it federally but the point still stands that voting comes in units of 100% or nothing.

the idea that incremental progress can't be achieved comes from several things.

1. computer security: given the high stakes of election (world's richest country) we can fully expect that if a single door is left unlocked, the "burglars" will find it. Thus, incremental progress on security is an illusion.

2. Computer security: Security people will say that there's no such thing as anything like absolute security, we can only increase the cost to penetrate a system to be quite high. But this restricts those who can beat the elections systems just to nation states, large corporations and CIA/KGB types, which are PRECISELY the ones i'm worried about from the get go. Here again, no incremental proess

[eomer]

70. It's not that simple, is it?

The fifteenth amendment gave African American men the right to vote on February 3rd, 1870:

...the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

But unfortunately that measure, which sounds like a 100% solution in its wording, did not mean that African American men got to vote the same as everyone else, as you put it.

The reality is that gaining the ability to actually vote, the same as everyone else, has been a long, hard slog that continues even today, more than a century later. You are well aware of the history and because it is voluminous I won't try to list it here.

So maybe here's where we can agree: every citizen over the age of eighteen already has the right to vote under the Constitution. We don't need to fight to achieve that Constitutional right -- we already have it. What we do need to fight for is the ability to actually vote. In other words, we need to fight to have our right respected. It is the latter fight that we are engaged in and that fight has surely, without any doubt, been incremental, will continue to be incremental, and we still have increments left to achieve.

Unfortunately we will never achieve 100% respect for and implementation of the right to vote. The amount of administrative burden that the Supreme Court will allow the federal and state legislatures and executive branches to apply will always be somewhat more than nothing. In fact, we ourselves would not want the administrative burden to be zero because that would permit easy cheating in the form of voting by those who do not have a right to. From the unavoidability of administrative burden there will always arise disputes over exactly where the line between voting and not voting should be drawn in a particular set of facts. An obvious example is the requirement to register to vote. Many states require a citizen to register by some deadline (30 days, perhaps) before an election. As far as I know that level of administrative burden is not considered by the Supreme Court to be an abridgment of the right. But it could have been. Some particular Supreme Court bench could have ruled (and may yet rule) that states must allow citizens to appear at the polling place and register and then vote without any previous action. But even then there would still be cases where, for example, a citizen did not bring the proper documents. The line between a reasonable and unreasonable level of administrative burden is subjective and, like it or not, it is going to slide around on us. At any rate, even when we win the fight to the greatest extent possible, there will still be something less than a 100% ability to actually vote by citizens who have a Constitutional right to do so.

The reason that this fact of life turns into a struggle -- an incremental struggle -- is that there have always been and will always be those who attempt to manipulate the administrative burden to their advantage; they will attempt to place a higher burden on the supporters of their opponents and thereby win elections that they would not have won on a level playing field. The percentage of African American men who successfully vote has increased tremendously from the dreadfully low (effectively non-existent in much of the South) levels that existed after the "100%" granting of the right in 1870 until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. But even after that tremendous increase, the ability of African American men to vote is still at a level below where it can and should be. We've achieved incrementally a large percentage of the total but still have very important, though smaller, increments to go.

Edit to add: and even if we are talking about the basic Constitutional right (rather than the imperfect implementation of it) the 100%^* coverage of citizens over the age of eighteen was achieved in increments:

• White males age 21 or over (previously it was left up to the states) - Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868
  
• African American men - Fifteenth Amendment ratified in 1870
  
• Women - Nineteenth Amendment ratified in 1920
  
• Citizens age 18 or over - Twenty-sixth Amendment ratified in 1971

^*100% except that citizens may be excluded and are excluded in some cases due to participation in rebellion or crime. The exclusion due to participation in crime has been a moving standard that is changing still today.

[foo_bar]

64. btw, your Ben Franklin sig quote went from "apocryphal" to "fabricated by Land Shark"

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

o Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence, it is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.

A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

This statement also definitely occurs in the "Conclusion" (p. 333) of his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

But then, I love Neal Boortz, and he always says that a "true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". Majority rules.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/united-states-of-america-is-not.html

(et cetera)

The apparent author, before you decided Franklin didn't say or write "well-armed" despite previously attributing those same words to Franklin, and changing the capitalization to "Lamb" to make the quote seem more antiquated than the internet post from which it originates:

* Tony Satterwhite tells us: "I came up with my signature below, a twist on the old wolf-and-sheep political definitions. I've received more positive comments on this sig in the past two months than all my others combined!"

Here's Tony's signature -- truly a great one:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep."

http://www.theadvocates.org/communicating/email-signatures.html

Rights are inherently things that TRUMP other considerations.

Considerations such as not putting words in other people's mouths, or honesty in general? If the cause is so important that you have to make stuff up, reality eventually trumps the "right" to cry wolf (or Lamb (optionally well-armed)).

[Land Shark]

67. Pretty good that I pointed to the disputed or doubtful nature of the quote

don't you think? THe last sentence is "fabricated" or original to me, that's why I put the (ben franklin, apocryphal) part where it is.

You are working hard to make me look bad foobar, but at least you are working and learning.

[foo_bar]

69. it isn't disputed or doubtful: you changed the quote to your liking

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed Lamb contesting the vote!"

--Ben Franklin

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Land%20Shark/61 <Land Shark, 3/15/2006>

Evidently the "well-armed" part hinted at the tract's conservative origin, so you snipped the expression accordingly, before capitalizing Lamb to evince the 18th century, and changing "what's for lunch" to "what to have for lunch", presumably to further mislead the reader as to the hackneyed nature of the quotation. Yet you continue to credit the very same Ben Franklin, apocryphal:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is the Lamb contesting the vote. (Ben Franklin, apocryphal)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=470225&mesg_id=470225 <Land Shark, present>

"Apocryphal" doesn't mean "Anonymous" or "Because I Said So"; it refers to a subset of work that isn't considered canonical in the context of a greater opus. In this instance, you added new words to what was once an apocryphal quotation, and removed words that didn't fit the libertarian agenda for which it was designed, so "apocryphal" can no longer be a truthful description of something you personally know Ben Franklin didn't write, seeing as you composed the revision. So let me rephrase my question: is pointing out the veracity of a statement, or lack thereof, a form of political compromise by not accepting Propositions In Hoary Caps on faith?

You are working hard to make me look bad foobar, but at least you are working and learning.

I believe that was my first reply to you in months, so you should save the world's tiniest violin for a more plausible performance.

[kster]

65. kick.nt