Progressives!
Check your Progressive Score Card. How have we Progressives been doing on your most urgent issue? Environment, Economy, Education, War and Peace, Health Care, Criminal Justice System, Immigration, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Marijuana …
What is the hold up on progress for each of these? While every issue has unique features, the obstacle common to them all is the money-dependent two-party system of elections.
Why have our political efforts produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.
That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.
The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.
Rather than an immigration policy that treats hard working men and women with dignity, ICE raids have increased under Obama, Tea Partiers are on the verge of having laws allowing lynching passed.
Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in campaign financing. The Supreme Court has given them, not us, Citizens United.
Our candidate election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.
The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.
Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.
For these, and other, reasons, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.
Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.
Internet voting presents a Fantastic Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power. I discuss that issue fully at, http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2012/10/three-reasons-to-support-internet.html
The security technology refined by superrich banks and wealthy corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections. Also see, http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-political-argument-for-internet.html
How would the elections work? Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.
At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.
In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.
Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all of their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize every one of their pernicious efforts.
TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.
Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.
The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!
The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.
Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?
Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.
Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!
Let us focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.
See, in paper or on Kindle, Internet Voting Now!
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
THE AUDIT PROBLEM FOR INTERNET VOTING AND DEMOCRACY
Unlike business transactions, the name of the voter cannot be linked to the vote, if voting is to be secret. So, auditing votes cannot be done in the same way that business auditing can be done. The voter can never be asked "is this your vote?" But there are ways to provide assurances that the vote count was done right. For example, if the number of ballots equals the number of voters, then one aspect of accuracy is shown.
No one can know for sure if votes have been changed within the number cast, but there are ways to monitor that. For example, each module in the secure Internet voting server can be tested to be sure its operating code is exactly as specified for the work the module is to do. This can be done both before and after an election. In addition, computer scientist Ed Gerck has shown that "electronic witnesses" can be put on each module in the process to monitor the operation of the module. If the module does something off course, the witness can record the event, or set off an alarm to get the attention of a human operator. This can be done for every step, from authenticating the voter to counting the votes.
Political parties can install their own electronic witnesses on the government’s secure server. If those witnesses do not report any missteps, then the integrity of the election would seem to be fully verified.
There are some informal ways of auditing an election based on Internet voting. One informal audit procedure would be that if people who follow elections closely are satisfied that the results are within the realm of reasonableness, then the process was very likely done right.
Of course, there would be no exit polls for Internet voting. But scientific samples of voters could be taken by phone. This could be another informal test of an election’s integrity. But there are problems with polling voters that makes it only a suggestive tool, and not definitive. When people are asked how they voted, there is a higher likelihood of misreporting than with ordinary opinion surveys.
Ultimately, any vote that is too large for a hand count will require some trust in the people who count the vote. The term “verified” contains a large element of psychology. There are folks so possessed by fear that unless they can see all the hands raised in a room, they will not trust the results of an election. For them, even paper ballots are no security blanket. At the worst extreme would be people who disbelieved the report from the hand count in the next room, but only accepted the hand count he or she could make.
Larger scale democracies must have some element of trust in the integrity of people one does not know personally, if they are to succeed.
No one can know for sure if votes have been changed within the number cast, but there are ways to monitor that. For example, each module in the secure Internet voting server can be tested to be sure its operating code is exactly as specified for the work the module is to do. This can be done both before and after an election. In addition, computer scientist Ed Gerck has shown that "electronic witnesses" can be put on each module in the process to monitor the operation of the module. If the module does something off course, the witness can record the event, or set off an alarm to get the attention of a human operator. This can be done for every step, from authenticating the voter to counting the votes.
Political parties can install their own electronic witnesses on the government’s secure server. If those witnesses do not report any missteps, then the integrity of the election would seem to be fully verified.
There are some informal ways of auditing an election based on Internet voting. One informal audit procedure would be that if people who follow elections closely are satisfied that the results are within the realm of reasonableness, then the process was very likely done right.
Of course, there would be no exit polls for Internet voting. But scientific samples of voters could be taken by phone. This could be another informal test of an election’s integrity. But there are problems with polling voters that makes it only a suggestive tool, and not definitive. When people are asked how they voted, there is a higher likelihood of misreporting than with ordinary opinion surveys.
Ultimately, any vote that is too large for a hand count will require some trust in the people who count the vote. The term “verified” contains a large element of psychology. There are folks so possessed by fear that unless they can see all the hands raised in a room, they will not trust the results of an election. For them, even paper ballots are no security blanket. At the worst extreme would be people who disbelieved the report from the hand count in the next room, but only accepted the hand count he or she could make.
Larger scale democracies must have some element of trust in the integrity of people one does not know personally, if they are to succeed.
QUOTES AND NOTES FROM HALL AND ALVAREZ
Hall and Alvarez have been involved in the study of Internet voting since the early 1990s. They are consulted by the US government, and other governments around the world. Here are a few notes and quotes from their book, Electronic Elections (2008).
REASON OVER EMOTION
These two political scientists are committed to the rational study of all sorts of electronic voting systems, and they warn against the folly of letting fear overcome reason in the Internet voting policy debate.
“Passions can overcome rational debate …” 154 “We should move to a level of scientific study …” 130 “This debate needs to become more rational …” 11
NO REPORTED SECURITY PROBLEMS WITH INTERNET VOTING TRIALS
Internet voting trials have been conducted in Alaska and Arizona in 2000, Michigan in 2004, from 2000 on: France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Netherlands, and several parts of Canada.
“The United Kingdom provides a model of [pilot testing of Internet voting].” 72 Every step in the process has been carefully monitored and studies made of public opinion, and improvements made where needed.
“As of late 2006, a total of eight [European] nations have conducted real remote Internet voting pilots.” 76
“In these trials, there had not been any documented security problems, …the experiences were problem free.” 71
In fact, “none of the threats that security experts claim will occur with Internet voting has occurred in the many elections that have tested such systems.” 89
THE MICHIGAN 2004 PRIMARY
The Democratic Party offered an Internet voting option, along with vote by mail and at polling places, in its 2004 primary.
Again, with the Internet voting, “there were no successful attacks from pranksters and hackers.” 97
The Internet voting technology did not favor any particular candidate or age group.(97) Computers were provided in public places, and lap tops brought to home-bound voters.(97) More voters used the Internet than voted by mail.(97)
No voters were disenfranchised by Internet voting, but paper based polling place problems did cause some people to not vote.(97) E.g., long lines, registration verification snags, lack of supplies (like proper ballots).
67% said they used Internet voting for convenience, and 90% of these said they voted from home, and 8% from work.
Contrary to expectations, Internet voting had very little extra draw on young voters (95)
EMAIL and FAX VOTING OK
This year at least 33 states are going to try some form of voting over the Internet for their overseas voters. Despite all the testimony from the critics and alarmists, Congress has allocated funds for these trials. The testimony of experts who assured Congress that techniques of mitigation exist for all the risks listed by those opposed to any voting technology but paper was more convincing than the unreason of alarmists like "Jefferson et al." Some states, like California and Arizona, have been using fax returned ballots for overseas military voters for several years. Studies of these practices show that
“There have not been any allegations of widespread fraud or irregularities associated with faxed UOCAVA ballots …” 87
Also, when asked if they are willing to take the alleged risks of Internet voting systems, military people overwhelmingly agree to it, so they can vote.
PAPER BASED VOTING SYSTEMS ARE WORSE THAN ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
In Chapter Two, and throughout the book, H/A discuss all the faults of paper based voting systems. The US has about 200 years of experience with paper ballots. Most of the criticisms of Internet voting are also proven problems of paper, such as denial of service, fraud, spoofing, buying/selling, invasions of privacy, vote changing, intimidation, etc. (cf 87)
CONLUSION
Don't let scary stories and fear drive your opinions. Look at the facts.
REASON OVER EMOTION
These two political scientists are committed to the rational study of all sorts of electronic voting systems, and they warn against the folly of letting fear overcome reason in the Internet voting policy debate.
“Passions can overcome rational debate …” 154 “We should move to a level of scientific study …” 130 “This debate needs to become more rational …” 11
NO REPORTED SECURITY PROBLEMS WITH INTERNET VOTING TRIALS
Internet voting trials have been conducted in Alaska and Arizona in 2000, Michigan in 2004, from 2000 on: France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Netherlands, and several parts of Canada.
“The United Kingdom provides a model of [pilot testing of Internet voting].” 72 Every step in the process has been carefully monitored and studies made of public opinion, and improvements made where needed.
“As of late 2006, a total of eight [European] nations have conducted real remote Internet voting pilots.” 76
“In these trials, there had not been any documented security problems, …the experiences were problem free.” 71
In fact, “none of the threats that security experts claim will occur with Internet voting has occurred in the many elections that have tested such systems.” 89
THE MICHIGAN 2004 PRIMARY
The Democratic Party offered an Internet voting option, along with vote by mail and at polling places, in its 2004 primary.
Again, with the Internet voting, “there were no successful attacks from pranksters and hackers.” 97
The Internet voting technology did not favor any particular candidate or age group.(97) Computers were provided in public places, and lap tops brought to home-bound voters.(97) More voters used the Internet than voted by mail.(97)
No voters were disenfranchised by Internet voting, but paper based polling place problems did cause some people to not vote.(97) E.g., long lines, registration verification snags, lack of supplies (like proper ballots).
67% said they used Internet voting for convenience, and 90% of these said they voted from home, and 8% from work.
Contrary to expectations, Internet voting had very little extra draw on young voters (95)
EMAIL and FAX VOTING OK
This year at least 33 states are going to try some form of voting over the Internet for their overseas voters. Despite all the testimony from the critics and alarmists, Congress has allocated funds for these trials. The testimony of experts who assured Congress that techniques of mitigation exist for all the risks listed by those opposed to any voting technology but paper was more convincing than the unreason of alarmists like "Jefferson et al." Some states, like California and Arizona, have been using fax returned ballots for overseas military voters for several years. Studies of these practices show that
“There have not been any allegations of widespread fraud or irregularities associated with faxed UOCAVA ballots …” 87
Also, when asked if they are willing to take the alleged risks of Internet voting systems, military people overwhelmingly agree to it, so they can vote.
PAPER BASED VOTING SYSTEMS ARE WORSE THAN ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
In Chapter Two, and throughout the book, H/A discuss all the faults of paper based voting systems. The US has about 200 years of experience with paper ballots. Most of the criticisms of Internet voting are also proven problems of paper, such as denial of service, fraud, spoofing, buying/selling, invasions of privacy, vote changing, intimidation, etc. (cf 87)
CONLUSION
Don't let scary stories and fear drive your opinions. Look at the facts.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Anti-Internet Voting Scams
Here's a quick tip on how to spot anti-Internet voting scams.
They always involve telling a series of scary stories to make people feel doubtful and nervous about Internet voting. Like "any kid can hack the system," or "a hacker from Iran could control a US election." Scary stuff that nobody would want to risk.
Notice that they never mention how these terrible events can be protected against, or how likely to occur such events really are. They never present any science in favor of their wild claims.
But once they have everyone nervous and doubtful about all forms of e-voting, including Internet voting, they helpfully provide us with a security blanket. They assure their listeners that a piece of paper will provide all the security and integrity every voter longs for.
To sound technologically sophisticated they use the term Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail.
What's the truth? In fact, adding a piece of paper to e-voting brings up all the insecurities and follies of paper ballots in the past. It adds time to the voting process, and can double that time at peak hours in the polling places, causing long lines and delay. Printers can jam or break down, the paper can be hard to read under the glass that keeps the voter from touching it, and there is still no guarantee that the vote on the piece of paper will be counted as cast!
Independent thinking folks will apply a little of the scientific method, and look to the facts of experience so as to check the claims of fear-mongering propagandists.
Internet voting doesn't need paper, just as e-commerce doesn't need paper. Plus, Internet voting, properly organized, can free the US election process from the grip of Big Money.
Lets talk about how...
They always involve telling a series of scary stories to make people feel doubtful and nervous about Internet voting. Like "any kid can hack the system," or "a hacker from Iran could control a US election." Scary stuff that nobody would want to risk.
Notice that they never mention how these terrible events can be protected against, or how likely to occur such events really are. They never present any science in favor of their wild claims.
But once they have everyone nervous and doubtful about all forms of e-voting, including Internet voting, they helpfully provide us with a security blanket. They assure their listeners that a piece of paper will provide all the security and integrity every voter longs for.
To sound technologically sophisticated they use the term Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail.
What's the truth? In fact, adding a piece of paper to e-voting brings up all the insecurities and follies of paper ballots in the past. It adds time to the voting process, and can double that time at peak hours in the polling places, causing long lines and delay. Printers can jam or break down, the paper can be hard to read under the glass that keeps the voter from touching it, and there is still no guarantee that the vote on the piece of paper will be counted as cast!
Independent thinking folks will apply a little of the scientific method, and look to the facts of experience so as to check the claims of fear-mongering propagandists.
Internet voting doesn't need paper, just as e-commerce doesn't need paper. Plus, Internet voting, properly organized, can free the US election process from the grip of Big Money.
Lets talk about how...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Internet Voting and the US Social Forum
Internet Voting and the US Social Forum
(First published in OpEdNews June 22, 2010
By William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://tinyurl.com/IntVUSSF)
The US Social Forum is taking place during the last week of this June in Detroit. It is a gathering of Progressives with the full spectrum of interests. One aim of the program is to discuss why our political efforts have produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq, and their numbers in Afghanistan are multiplying, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.
The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.
That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.
The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.
Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.
Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in the campaign financing process. For this reason, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.
Our election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.
Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.
Internet voting presents a Great Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power.
Don't be fooled by the Great Security Scare, which is not based on science. The security technology refined by superrich banks and other corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections.
Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.
At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.
In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.
Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their pernicious efforts.
TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.
Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.
The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!
The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.
Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?
Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.
Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!
Let us use this week's US Forum in Detroit, and the July Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas, to figure out how to focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.
For more information on Internet voting as a Progressive reform of our election process, watch the interviews of me on Blip TV, at
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 - the special on Internet voting security at
http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/ - and an update at http://blip.tv/etopia-news-now/william-j-kelleher-updates-the-internet-voting-story-5708665
Also see me speaking on You Tube
For an excellent short introduction as to how Internet voting would work in practice, see the Young Republican interview of me at
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-dr-william-kelleher.html (It's only a five minute read. The first question is, "How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?")
Follow me on Twitter: wjkno1
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
(First published in OpEdNews June 22, 2010
By William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://tinyurl.com/IntVUSSF)
The US Social Forum is taking place during the last week of this June in Detroit. It is a gathering of Progressives with the full spectrum of interests. One aim of the program is to discuss why our political efforts have produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq, and their numbers in Afghanistan are multiplying, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.
The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.
That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.
The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.
Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.
Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in the campaign financing process. For this reason, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.
Our election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.
Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.
Internet voting presents a Great Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power.
Don't be fooled by the Great Security Scare, which is not based on science. The security technology refined by superrich banks and other corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections.
Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.
At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.
In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.
Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their pernicious efforts.
TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.
Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.
The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!
The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.
Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?
Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.
Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!
Let us use this week's US Forum in Detroit, and the July Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas, to figure out how to focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.
For more information on Internet voting as a Progressive reform of our election process, watch the interviews of me on Blip TV, at
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 - the special on Internet voting security at
http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/ - and an update at http://blip.tv/etopia-news-now/william-j-kelleher-updates-the-internet-voting-story-5708665
Also see me speaking on You Tube
For an excellent short introduction as to how Internet voting would work in practice, see the Young Republican interview of me at
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-dr-william-kelleher.html (It's only a five minute read. The first question is, "How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?")
Follow me on Twitter: wjkno1
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Young Republicans Debate Internet Voting
OPENING CONTACT
Hey Young Republicans!
I would like you to know about the book I am working on. It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
The first draft is finished. Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections." Those guys detested parties. I think we Americans should get our country more in-line with their vision.
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them.
The superrich, and everyone else, will be free to spend as much money as they want to, but with the system I propose big spending cannot influence the voter's choice.
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
You and your readers are welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
FIRST REPLY
Hello good Sir,
I came across your comment on the Young Republicans blog, and you're suggesting that voting be through the Internet only? If you could further detail your plan, I'd be interested. Though, I'm sure I'll be opposed. Thanks, and have a good day.
YR
RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interest. Right now our election system is dominated by a small group of Big Money campaign contributors. They control both parties. This really cuts out the average citizen who can't compete with them for policy making.
With secure Internet voting, this situation can be changed.
Imagine you are watching a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate you go to your state's voting website. After your registration is checked, you vote.
Money spent on campaign propaganda can't influence your choice. The only thing your vote will be based on is your own reasoning processes.
Read more (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
DrWJK
SECOND REPLY
Dear DrWJK:
I still don't get it. Wouldn't this method allow for more fraud and those who are still rich, would still be launching advertisements, which have become a great fabric in our electoral system. I disagree with your ultimate premise: Money does not win elections, nor does it govern. If Obama's fundraising abilities won the election, than theoretically he should've won with over 55% of the vote...
Thoughts?
Imagine if there was never a "Willie Horton" advertisement during the 1988 or a "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisement during the 2004 Presidential elections, vital information that could've been known to the voters beforehand.
YR
SECOND RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interesting and probing questions. Let me know if I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.
Less Fraud, Not More
With encryption and biometric voter registration, in each state, voting fraud would be practically nil. There would be but one vote per person, and this would be more private than a banking transaction. Computers can record who voted, and how they voted, separately. Banking transactions must keep the name and the amounts together.
Check out my two chapters on security. “The Great Security Scare,” and “The Reasonable Person …” At: http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
How Money Picks Winners
Don’t be fooled by the truism that “money does not always win elections.” Sure, 1 out of 10 times the biggest spender does not prevail. But 9 out of 10 times he does. The person with ability, who doesn’t have rich connections or his own dough, gets left out of the game. Then we all lose.
Far more importantly, big money selects who will be in the race. Obama beat Clinton because the big contributors started to favor him over her. Indeed, her campaign ended with debts over $10 M. The rich settled that issue months before the average citizen had any say in who would be president. With Internet voting, properly organized, only the voters will select who will be in the race. Candidates will be eliminated by a series of debates, each decided by online voting. Spending will be allowed, but it simply will not be relevant.
More 1st Amendment Freedom with Internet Voting
Advertising is one effective way to reach large numbers of people with a political message. The ads you mention show that. With Internet voting, such advertising would continue. Indeed, current FEC regulations restricting the ways money can be spent would be unnecessary. The Supreme Court was right in Citizens United, restrictions on political speech violate the 1st Amendment.
None of those laws would be needed to protect the integrity of the election process with Internet voting. Reason: all candidates would be directly dependent upon the voter, and money would simply not give any significant advantages. There would be no political debts.
As I show in one of my chapters, the Framers of the Constitution originally intended that voting for the president be conducted in a solemn manner, conducive to rational deliberation. They hated factions, because factions manipilated unreasoning emotion. They saw the use of reason as best for making policy in the national interest. Internet voting would restore that original intention in the US.
Bill Kelleher
THIRD REPLY
Hello again,
The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced, in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced. As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings, "dead people" voting or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats). It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides from that - money does not choose who wins.
Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is: For example the 1994 and 2006 congressional elections, scandal driven opposition, etc. etc.
YR
THIRD RESPONSE
My point by point replies:
TK: The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced …
DrWJK: Yes, since the 2004 presidential election there has been a lot of attention given to the suspicions and accusations about the integrity of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines). But I see two major problems with your statement.
First, lets not confuse apples and oranges. Internet voting is an entirely different process than going to a polling place and voting on a DRE.
Secondly, accusations and proof are also two different matters. For a critique of the unprofessional journalism that spreads “the great security scare,” see Farhad Manjoo’s essay at Salon.com. He writes, “In his new book, Mark Crispin Miller tries to prove that Republicans rigged the 2004 election, but his evidence is thinner than a butterfly ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html
(Full title of the book: Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).)
All the fears and suspicions have been scrutinized in the courts, where bombast is quickly crushed. Most recently, and most comprehensively, a New Jersey court took it all on in a five year long case. Everything you can imagine, from a conspiracy of vendors to the six types of seals used to secure each machine, was examined by a slew of experts. One of the experts, a computer science professor, has a video on You Tube, “demonstrating” how he could hack a DRE in less than seven minutes. Its next to the Barnie Simpson video showing how his vote got flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Some people may believe that if you can see it done on You Tube, it must be true. But not the judge in this New Jersey case. After looking at every angle, she concluded that the New Jersey DREs are trustworthy.
See the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/NJEVoteOK
===
YR: in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced.
DrWJK: The key word there is “some.” Currently, in the US, over 90% of voters vote on electronic devices. Around 60% vote on machines that produce a paper to be read by a scantron machine, or directly mark a scrantron paper ballot. Just over 30% vote on paperless DREs, including all of New Jersey. Out of several thousand voting jurisdictions in the US, only a tiny number use paper ballots that are then counted by hand, and these are rural districts.
Electronic voting is here to stay. And Internet voting is coming to the USA.
===
YR: As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings…
DrWJK: Hacking is one of the great security scare myths that I write about in two chapters of my book. The NJ court looked at every form of hacking that the anti-e-voting side could come up with, including insider hacking and remote hacking. It was all dismissed as science fiction. As long as appropriate security protocols are followed, the chances of a hacker influencing an election create an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. Only an extremist perfectionist would want to stop e-voting because of the tiny chance of a hacking.
===
YR: "dead people" voting…
DrWJK: This is a problem of secure registration. Once all voters are registered with biometric identification, dead people will not be able to vote. Each state has a Registrar’s office for voting records, a DMV, and vital statistics offices. The interface of these departments will keep all records up to date.
===
YR: or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
DrWJK: Internet voting can be conducted securely via PC or cell phone or in a kiosk (a station with a secure network computer). In the Michigan Democratic primary in 2004 volunteers took lap tops to house-bound folks, and churches and union halls had kiosks.
The problem of “the digital divide” was worrisome in the first couple of years of this century, but now every voter, even if technologically challenged, blind, deaf, bed-ridden, etc, can vote via the Internet.
BTW Republicans in Alaska had internet voting for their 2000 caucuses, and Arizona Dems that year, too. No hacking happened (ask Sarah).
===
YR: How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision ...
DrWJK: In every voter’s life there comes the irreversible Moment of Decision; that is, the instant when the vote is actually cast. Today, ads can badger voters over the car radio all the way up to the polling place parking lot. Then, the last ad ringing in a voter’s head could be the decisive cause of his or her vote. In this sense, ads can control the voter’s reasoning process. But with properly organized Internet voting, the last thing the voter sees is the debate online or on TV. The voter then goes to the state’s online official web site to vote. No ads can intervene in these moments, so the voter’s decision is based purely on his or her own reasoning processes – just as the Founders originally intended.
===
YR: (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats).
DrWJK: Among political scientists, the mistake in this statement is called “the reification of categories.” That is, individual humans are treated as if party labels were an actual part of their biology. In fact, the media herds individuals into corrals by giving them loaded questions. Public opinion then appears to be divided in three ways (you forgot about “independents,” roughly 1/3).
Internet voting would take control of the US election process away from the two-party system puppets of the superrich, and empower all Americans to vote as equals. The result will be a multiplicity of opinion groupings, instead of the two parties and one throwaway category.
===
YR: It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides that - money does not choose who wins. Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is …
DrWJK: Re-read what I said about candidate “selection.” Two years before the presidential election vote, well over 500 people in the US begin to consider running for president. The first thing they do is check their list of potential donors. Nearly all of them can raise the $5000 required by the FEC to make them eligible to register their intent to become a candidate. Around 500 registered for the 2008 election. Only about three dozen of these dreamers will raise enough dough to attract any media attention. These are the people with at least some rich connections. By the beginning of the primary season, less than a dozen in each party will have any chance at all. By the end of the second round of voting, usually Super Tuesday, each party will have one, two, or three hopefuls left. The superrich do the picking by granting or denying contributions. This isn’t a “voter’s choice,” because by the end of March, in the presidential election year, only a few thousand Americans have actually voted, while nearly two million are eligible to vote. That is oligarchy, not democracy.
Take a little time to read my chapter drafts, and lets talk about that.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Hey Young Republicans!
I would like you to know about the book I am working on. It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
The first draft is finished. Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections." Those guys detested parties. I think we Americans should get our country more in-line with their vision.
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them.
The superrich, and everyone else, will be free to spend as much money as they want to, but with the system I propose big spending cannot influence the voter's choice.
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
You and your readers are welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
FIRST REPLY
Hello good Sir,
I came across your comment on the Young Republicans blog, and you're suggesting that voting be through the Internet only? If you could further detail your plan, I'd be interested. Though, I'm sure I'll be opposed. Thanks, and have a good day.
YR
RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interest. Right now our election system is dominated by a small group of Big Money campaign contributors. They control both parties. This really cuts out the average citizen who can't compete with them for policy making.
With secure Internet voting, this situation can be changed.
Imagine you are watching a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate you go to your state's voting website. After your registration is checked, you vote.
Money spent on campaign propaganda can't influence your choice. The only thing your vote will be based on is your own reasoning processes.
Read more (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
DrWJK
SECOND REPLY
Dear DrWJK:
I still don't get it. Wouldn't this method allow for more fraud and those who are still rich, would still be launching advertisements, which have become a great fabric in our electoral system. I disagree with your ultimate premise: Money does not win elections, nor does it govern. If Obama's fundraising abilities won the election, than theoretically he should've won with over 55% of the vote...
Thoughts?
Imagine if there was never a "Willie Horton" advertisement during the 1988 or a "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisement during the 2004 Presidential elections, vital information that could've been known to the voters beforehand.
YR
SECOND RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interesting and probing questions. Let me know if I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.
Less Fraud, Not More
With encryption and biometric voter registration, in each state, voting fraud would be practically nil. There would be but one vote per person, and this would be more private than a banking transaction. Computers can record who voted, and how they voted, separately. Banking transactions must keep the name and the amounts together.
Check out my two chapters on security. “The Great Security Scare,” and “The Reasonable Person …” At: http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
How Money Picks Winners
Don’t be fooled by the truism that “money does not always win elections.” Sure, 1 out of 10 times the biggest spender does not prevail. But 9 out of 10 times he does. The person with ability, who doesn’t have rich connections or his own dough, gets left out of the game. Then we all lose.
Far more importantly, big money selects who will be in the race. Obama beat Clinton because the big contributors started to favor him over her. Indeed, her campaign ended with debts over $10 M. The rich settled that issue months before the average citizen had any say in who would be president. With Internet voting, properly organized, only the voters will select who will be in the race. Candidates will be eliminated by a series of debates, each decided by online voting. Spending will be allowed, but it simply will not be relevant.
More 1st Amendment Freedom with Internet Voting
Advertising is one effective way to reach large numbers of people with a political message. The ads you mention show that. With Internet voting, such advertising would continue. Indeed, current FEC regulations restricting the ways money can be spent would be unnecessary. The Supreme Court was right in Citizens United, restrictions on political speech violate the 1st Amendment.
None of those laws would be needed to protect the integrity of the election process with Internet voting. Reason: all candidates would be directly dependent upon the voter, and money would simply not give any significant advantages. There would be no political debts.
As I show in one of my chapters, the Framers of the Constitution originally intended that voting for the president be conducted in a solemn manner, conducive to rational deliberation. They hated factions, because factions manipilated unreasoning emotion. They saw the use of reason as best for making policy in the national interest. Internet voting would restore that original intention in the US.
Bill Kelleher
THIRD REPLY
Hello again,
The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced, in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced. As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings, "dead people" voting or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats). It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides from that - money does not choose who wins.
Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is: For example the 1994 and 2006 congressional elections, scandal driven opposition, etc. etc.
YR
THIRD RESPONSE
My point by point replies:
TK: The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced …
DrWJK: Yes, since the 2004 presidential election there has been a lot of attention given to the suspicions and accusations about the integrity of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines). But I see two major problems with your statement.
First, lets not confuse apples and oranges. Internet voting is an entirely different process than going to a polling place and voting on a DRE.
Secondly, accusations and proof are also two different matters. For a critique of the unprofessional journalism that spreads “the great security scare,” see Farhad Manjoo’s essay at Salon.com. He writes, “In his new book, Mark Crispin Miller tries to prove that Republicans rigged the 2004 election, but his evidence is thinner than a butterfly ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html
(Full title of the book: Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).)
All the fears and suspicions have been scrutinized in the courts, where bombast is quickly crushed. Most recently, and most comprehensively, a New Jersey court took it all on in a five year long case. Everything you can imagine, from a conspiracy of vendors to the six types of seals used to secure each machine, was examined by a slew of experts. One of the experts, a computer science professor, has a video on You Tube, “demonstrating” how he could hack a DRE in less than seven minutes. Its next to the Barnie Simpson video showing how his vote got flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Some people may believe that if you can see it done on You Tube, it must be true. But not the judge in this New Jersey case. After looking at every angle, she concluded that the New Jersey DREs are trustworthy.
See the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/NJEVoteOK
===
YR: in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced.
DrWJK: The key word there is “some.” Currently, in the US, over 90% of voters vote on electronic devices. Around 60% vote on machines that produce a paper to be read by a scantron machine, or directly mark a scrantron paper ballot. Just over 30% vote on paperless DREs, including all of New Jersey. Out of several thousand voting jurisdictions in the US, only a tiny number use paper ballots that are then counted by hand, and these are rural districts.
Electronic voting is here to stay. And Internet voting is coming to the USA.
===
YR: As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings…
DrWJK: Hacking is one of the great security scare myths that I write about in two chapters of my book. The NJ court looked at every form of hacking that the anti-e-voting side could come up with, including insider hacking and remote hacking. It was all dismissed as science fiction. As long as appropriate security protocols are followed, the chances of a hacker influencing an election create an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. Only an extremist perfectionist would want to stop e-voting because of the tiny chance of a hacking.
===
YR: "dead people" voting…
DrWJK: This is a problem of secure registration. Once all voters are registered with biometric identification, dead people will not be able to vote. Each state has a Registrar’s office for voting records, a DMV, and vital statistics offices. The interface of these departments will keep all records up to date.
===
YR: or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
DrWJK: Internet voting can be conducted securely via PC or cell phone or in a kiosk (a station with a secure network computer). In the Michigan Democratic primary in 2004 volunteers took lap tops to house-bound folks, and churches and union halls had kiosks.
The problem of “the digital divide” was worrisome in the first couple of years of this century, but now every voter, even if technologically challenged, blind, deaf, bed-ridden, etc, can vote via the Internet.
BTW Republicans in Alaska had internet voting for their 2000 caucuses, and Arizona Dems that year, too. No hacking happened (ask Sarah).
===
YR: How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision ...
DrWJK: In every voter’s life there comes the irreversible Moment of Decision; that is, the instant when the vote is actually cast. Today, ads can badger voters over the car radio all the way up to the polling place parking lot. Then, the last ad ringing in a voter’s head could be the decisive cause of his or her vote. In this sense, ads can control the voter’s reasoning process. But with properly organized Internet voting, the last thing the voter sees is the debate online or on TV. The voter then goes to the state’s online official web site to vote. No ads can intervene in these moments, so the voter’s decision is based purely on his or her own reasoning processes – just as the Founders originally intended.
===
YR: (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats).
DrWJK: Among political scientists, the mistake in this statement is called “the reification of categories.” That is, individual humans are treated as if party labels were an actual part of their biology. In fact, the media herds individuals into corrals by giving them loaded questions. Public opinion then appears to be divided in three ways (you forgot about “independents,” roughly 1/3).
Internet voting would take control of the US election process away from the two-party system puppets of the superrich, and empower all Americans to vote as equals. The result will be a multiplicity of opinion groupings, instead of the two parties and one throwaway category.
===
YR: It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides that - money does not choose who wins. Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is …
DrWJK: Re-read what I said about candidate “selection.” Two years before the presidential election vote, well over 500 people in the US begin to consider running for president. The first thing they do is check their list of potential donors. Nearly all of them can raise the $5000 required by the FEC to make them eligible to register their intent to become a candidate. Around 500 registered for the 2008 election. Only about three dozen of these dreamers will raise enough dough to attract any media attention. These are the people with at least some rich connections. By the beginning of the primary season, less than a dozen in each party will have any chance at all. By the end of the second round of voting, usually Super Tuesday, each party will have one, two, or three hopefuls left. The superrich do the picking by granting or denying contributions. This isn’t a “voter’s choice,” because by the end of March, in the presidential election year, only a few thousand Americans have actually voted, while nearly two million are eligible to vote. That is oligarchy, not democracy.
Take a little time to read my chapter drafts, and lets talk about that.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Monday, April 12, 2010
INTERNET VOTING
INTERNET VOTING
The first draft of the book I am working on is finished! It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections."
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them. Here is a cure for both Citizens United, and a government that ignores the people!
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Everyone is welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
The first draft of the book I am working on is finished! It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections."
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them. Here is a cure for both Citizens United, and a government that ignores the people!
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Everyone is welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)