"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:17:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

There's a solution to this, but it won't happen as long as
people insist on the "secret ballot" nonsense. Voting fraud will only end
when people are willing to take responsibility for making sure their votes
were accurately recorded, regardless of the consequences.

We could even send a policeman into the booth with each voter, just to be
sure there's no funny business, and to be sure each person votes right.

Which is the mindset which will forever resist change. The "secret ballot"
system has always been, and will always be, rife with fraud -- precisely
because it is "secret." No one can challenge the outcome because no one can
prove their vote was tampered with; either by changing it, or by casting
phantom votes to cancel it out.

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose. But
in the end, if people aren't willing to take responsibility for their vote,
they deserve whatever system they get.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:39:35 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose.

I understand that what you're proposing is that every individual's vote be
made public in a manner that will allow the authorities to determine how
that individual voted. Am I misunderstanding?

No, I am proposing that each individual's vote be made public in a manner
that will allow that voter to determine how their vote was recorded. A
significant level of privacy would exist, as the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an election.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career post
in
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming administration,
but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said the recent disclosure
of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election played no part in the rejection
of Mr. Schmidt for the position."

I fail to see a problem worth getting worked-up about. Sufficient penalties
could be imposed upon those who leak voter-ID -- penalties with teeth -- as
to be an actual deterrent. But let's look at the concept further:

The Declaration of Independence was not signed "Anonymous."
We know exactly how each and every Senator, Representative and President
votes on each and every Bill that passes before them and either does, or
does not, become law.

The actual practice of Democracy requires individuals willing to take
responsibility for how they vote, regardless of the consequences.

Dave wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago
Illinois voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career
post in Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming
administration, but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said
the recent disclosure of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election
played no part in the rejection of Mr. Schmidt for the position."


Mr Schmidt's IRS audit is scheduled for Thursday at 10AM.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?


Using words like never and always tend to deflate your arguments, as they
are not intellectually honest.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com