On September 5, the New York Green and Libertarian Parties filed this reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ballot access case. The court will consider whether to hear the case at its September 26 conference.
On September 5, the New York Green and Libertarian Parties filed this reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ballot access case. The court will consider whether to hear the case at its September 26 conference.
The sole fair and equal quota or fee for ballot access is ZERO. Just print writer-in only ballots with voter verification receipts. Using hand-held printers for the voters to make their candidate choices legible for OCR tabulation. Stop that fascist ballot censorship.
Why print ballots when in person standing count is so much better?
Exactly.
@DFR,
On Texas voting machines when you select a write-in option, a virtual keyboard pops up, and you enter your choice. The name shows up on the printed ballot as “ROBINSON” just the same as clicked on the box next to “SMITH”
Why the obsession with printed or written ballots?
@Max,
They are required under US law.
How is it done in Russia?
Same way. And besides the point. My question isn’t limited to the US or Russia or even the northern hemisphere. Lots of laws are stupid, most of them in fact.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138565
COUNTING PAPER BALLOTS BY HUMAN EYEBALLS — ESP WHEN 20 PLUS ITEMS ON BALLOTS
DFR AVAILABLE TO LOOK AT 150,000,000 PLUS PREZ BALLOTS IN 2024 ???
NOOOO MENTION — AS USUAL — OF 1954 BROWN V BD OF ED IN LP / GRN BRIEF
SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL
NO BIG SURPRISE IF LP/GRN LOSE AGAIN IN SCOTUS
PAPER BALLOTS —
RE-CYCLED ???
BURNED ???
IN LANDFILL TRASH ???
OTHER ???
PCT IN EACH GROUP ???
DFR says overseas voters already vote the way he suggests, so vote counting can be done. Of course as Max points out, in person standing count voting is much more verifiable and easier.
Brown vs Board of Education was not mentioned because nobody except AZ thinks it’s relevant. Mentioning it would be good if you wanted to be laughed out of court, like AZ got every time when he used to file pro se lawsuits half a century ago.
The court will most likely decide not to hear the case. I’ve read here they have not taken up an appeal filed by third parties since 1991. No reason to expect that to suddenly now change. If the case is rejected it’s not going to be because they “failed” to mention the irrelevant (and wrongly decided, but that’s besides the point) Brown decision.
And yes, paper ballots are among other things a waste of paper, and electronic voting is even more prone to fraud than the already fraud prone paper voting.
Legalise in person on the record voting!!!
What are the chances that this case is heard though? seems pretty minimal considering recent history.
About a snowball’s chance in a Maui wildfire.
@Max,
A roll call vote would be better. Imagine a voting center with 2000 voters. Assign each a random number. Assume that it takes 15 seconds for each voter, four per minute. In 25 minutes, 100 could vote. With a five-minute break to rotate voting clerks and voters, 200 per hour. In 10 hours, 7 A.M. to 7 A.M. with two one hour meal breaks, 2000 voters could vote.
Constables could be sent to arrest those who did not appear at the voting center. Corporal punishment might be considered cruel and unusual, but a prison sentence might be in order.
As Max explained a bunch of times before, the voters all knowing each other and voting on the record is by design. It helps keep them accountable, both to each other and to everyone not qualified to vote, and ensures miscalculation of votes, by accident or on purpose, is impossible. 2000 votes is way too many. That’s why he wants 100 on average, with the upper hundreds being really pushing it. Compelled voting to me seems against the spirit of Max’s plan, which rests heavily on the notion of a society where sense of duty and volunteering is taught from birth. He can correct me if I’m wrong but I’m reasonably sure he’s said not voting would definitely be an option for those qualified. Why do you think what you propose would be better?
Also, 7 am to 7 pm? Sounds worse than the DMV. As I understand it, voters under Max plan would have busy lives outside of politics. They’d probably be working, engaging in charitable, religious, fraternal, family, fun, and other activities from 7 am to 7 pm. The voting meeting might be from, say, 8 pm to 11 pm. That’s a very rough guesstimate.
@Pat,
A standing count is not a record count.
The reason for assigning a number to a voter is so they will know when their name will be called. In Texas, you can reserve a time at the DMV.
VOTE THE *WRONG* WAY AND GET PURGED IN THE MAXZIM UTOPIAN REGIME ???
IE DISAPPEAR AT 4 AM IN A CLOUD OF SMOKE AND BROKEN GLASS ???
How many times will AZ ask the same presumptuous and wrongly premised questions that have been answered umpteen times? It’s way past annoying.
For the benefit of other readers :
1. Pat is completely correct. Including the suppositions. People voting are thereby also volunteering as candidates. I see it as important that they be there voluntarily.
2. The process you explain isn’t what I envision. I see it as important that the assembled men see who stands with who, hear/see speeches or presentations by factions if there are any, etc. Individuals, groups, or entire corner/sections/parties may walk over and join another one until it’s time for the count.
3. Once yet again, contrary to the idiotic AZ question, there would be nothing even remotely approaching purges for voting “wrong” – politics would not be nearly so important in people’s lives to stir such passions. The reason it does now is because politics and government interferes way too much in way too many things for way too many people.
By contrast, I propose a system where politics would be a very minor part of people’s lives. Crime would be very rare, especially the kind of crime requiring peacekeepers to be involved. The vast majority of disputes would be solved without the final resort of peacekeepers.
Peacekeeping would be seen as an unpleasant but necessary duty. The best analogy I can think of is jury duty, something most people are relieved to not be selected for, although I think outright shirking would be rare, since the importance of duty would be drilled from birth into the would be voters.
I don’t see not voting or voting the wrong way resulting in anything remotely approaching violence. Social sanction would be a largely invisible force, mostly consisting of fear of disapproval from or disappointing friends and colleagues.
Rather than being some great prize of power people would knock each other out of the way grasping for, peacekeeping would be an unpleasant but necessary duty . Men would be relieved to not be selected, resigned to do their duty if chosen, and happy to hand off the hot potato after a year, or in some cases sooner.
Why are the same idiotic questions asked over and over and over by the same idiots? Well, one idiot mostly, to be fair.
And once yet again, I don’t advocate any utopia. Utopianism is dangerous and stupid. There will always be problems in human society, at least until Jesus returns. I’m merely proposing what I think will minimize them, or more accurately a set of directions to move in in order to do so. Using the north star for guidance doesn’t mean you will ever walk on its surface. Imperfect analogy to be sure, but I’m not advocating any utopia or one size fits all solutions for anything.
SORRY — THIS AIN’T THE OLDE TIME OF ADAM AND EVE WITH ONE KILLER KID – CAIN.
NOW 7 PLUS BILLION WITH LOTS OF NUTCASE MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS HAVING WMD TO KILL ALL HUMANS A ZILLION TIMES — DUE TO CAIN OFFSPRING AFTER HE WAS SENT EAST OF EDEN.
POLITICS NOW A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH FOR HUMANS.
—
P-A-T
Weapons of mass destruction are only an issue when governments are way too big. When governments are human scale, using any such weapon against a neighbor would in effect be using it against yourself as well, as the radiation or chemical cloud would drift over your own territory. In any case, military defense would have nothing to do with elections. Involving politics in military defense and military decisions is the only irrationality that might threaten wide use of weapons of mass destruction. Given no more resource scarcity soon, hopefully there will be far less incentive for aggressive use of any weapons by some people against others. I think we could incentivize an overall much more moral and peaceful society. Good fences make good neighbors.
POLITICS =
ABOUT WHAT GOVTS DO OR NOT DO — FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS.
FIRST *GOVT* — SOME GUY AND HIS BROTHERS/SONS TRYING TO CONTROL ANOTHER GUY AND HIS BROTHERS/SONS —
ESP ENSLAVE THE LOSING MEN AND TAKE OVER THEIR WOMEN ???
WHAT’S NEW AND DIFFERENT ???
FIRST *BORDER* ??? OLDEST BORDER ??? SOME MAJOR RIVER / MOUNTAIN RANGE ???
There could be a planet on which AZ rant makes sense. This isn’t it.
Plus, he needs to decide it if everything is always getting worse, or if we’re constantly seeing positive progress from the bad old days, or if nothing has changed in over 6,000 years, or if the sky is about to fall. All of these things are not simultaneously true.
@Max,
The purpose of a record vote is not for the benefit of those voting, but for the general public. I had assumed these meetings would be public. Did you see them as occurring in secret. Would the identities of the Big Men be known to the public?
If the sole function of these meetings is to appoint peacekeepers, and to update the cohort of the Big Men, why do have to define political parties?
Hi Jim, thanks for the questions and suggestions. I see the purpose of the voting to be public for both voters and nonvoters. As I’ve explained before, but not in a while, the meetings would be very public, available for contemporaneous viewing and subsequent review by anyone. In one past message, I hypothesized that one of the criteria for voting would be for the men to judge themselves and be judged by their peers as well dressed and telegenic. Perhaps less seriously, I also suggested a literal penis measuring contest, so perhaps your Big Men characterization is not entirely unwarranted.
I don’t see updating the cohort as being of primary importance, as I would want participation to not be mandatory, and the general roster would be no great mystery to anyone. However, in one sense you’re right, as recertified participation would be required, so thanks for that. If I thought of that reason for having annual elections before, I’m not currently remembering it.
Why have parties/teams/factions/groups? I can think of several reasons. First, it would allow for some elements of the system to be implemented earlier, while there are still multiple different elected offices. Having multiple votes throughout the night would make it more chaotic.
Secondly, there’s a fun social occasion aspect to it. Third, recall that I’d like to have formal written laws be short, simple, memorable, and difficult to change. Thus, there could still be ideological or factional differences in interpretation or implementation philosophies. Even if not, different teams could be judged based on track record, proven ability to work together, etc. Team competition is an incentive for better performance.
Thirdly, difficult to change does not mean impossible. There should be some way to change laws at some point. Perhaps it should take unanimous votes at several successive elections, or some other difficult criteria.
Fourth, as I mentioned, it would provide an opportunity for men to see who’s standing with whom, make speeches or presentations to convince each other, do one on one politicking, or for individuals, groups, or entire teams/parties to join other teams/parties.
Fifth, it provides a convenient occasion for the winning team to pick its peacekeepers and vacancy filling and team discipline mechanisms (and committee, if that’s the method they choose). They can do that immediately after the vote, once the winning team is solidified.
Sixth, it prevents qualified intentional nonvoters from intentionally screwing things up by creating a team and not showing up, creating a team and showing up and then immediately leaving while having the rest of their team stay away, or any similar sorts of games.
Seventh, it identifies who all to hold accountable for community members and for voters at the next election in case of any systemic malfeasance or poor performance for any reason.
It’s possible to come up with other vacancy filling methods. For example, for the military or militia, I hypothesize that there should be a single top commander, which I don’t think peacekeepers necessarily have to have, who should be chosen by the commanders from among each other, and if there are multiple ranks the lower ranks of command could be picked from above, as in existing military, business, and religious organizations. I’m trying to synthesize a system that combines the best of democracy, meritocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy/aristocracy, theocracy, and stratocracy. Internal peacekeeping strikes me as the best place to have an element of democracy. I hypothesize that none of these forms of governance are ideal by themselves, and that best results would be achieved by combining them in some fashion; I’ve made my best hypothesis as to a proposed method of synthesis.
Those are the reasons I’m remembering at the moment.
Counterarguments? Additional questions?
@Max,
There would be no minutes of these meetings? If I wanted to know how these Big Men voted, I would have to watch as they milled about and counted off? I don’t understand the opposition to a record vote.
How would the initial cohort of Big Men be chosen? If a Big Man failed to attend the meeting without an excuse, arrest him and bring him to the meeting. Require a quorum before an official action is taken.
@Max,
Governments skim money from the private economy. If there is little money, the government can not do much. In an agriculture-based economy there is little to tax, unless the government wishes to accept payment in chickens, grain, and the like.
But if a government wages existential war, then it can levy exorbitant taxes. After the threat is over, those in control will want to maintain the tax and find new “necessary” expenses.
The change in the law was rammed down the throats of legislators by corrupt former Governor Andrew Cuomo. It is unfair to parties such as the Libertarians, Greens, Independence, and Save America Movement, which qualified for four years of ballot access by clearing the 50,000 vote threshold but had that access taken from tehm two years later due to the change. This law shoudl be thrown out and the old law reinstated.
Jim, I’m for making everything that happened at the annual elections as public as possible. In addition to concurrent and archived videos of the proceedings, I’m all for written records to be maintained.
I don’t understand your questions about initial cohort. I thought it was clear that voter eligibility would be tightened up over time with additional criteria, until we arrive at what you call a hundred big men.
I also don’t understand why you keep insisting that unwilling participation should be mandatory at elections. I’m completely against that. How would unwilling participants serve as peacekeepers if chosen? Men who show up for the vote should be prepared to serve as peacekeepers.
I anticipate a post-scarcity society with 3D printing of anything at the molecular level from specifications. Little money wouldn’t be an issue. Neither would acceptance of payments in agricultural commodities.
There wouldn’t be a “government” in the sense you refer to. That is, there would be no people dependent on government employment for their income.
Peacekeepers might be called on occasionally, and receive proceeds of poll tax for their extra time, or they may be largely ceremonial, held out as a sort of weapon of mass destruction threat in less formal conflict resolution and transgression prevention and punishment. In either case, it would not be their primary means of earning a living or their primary occupation.
Military/militia would likely also be part time. Primarily, citizens would contribute through readiness and service. Supplying their needs would not be a major issue given 3D nanotechnology printing and robotics. To any extent it might be, a tax on the movement of people and goods across borders which they would collect would entirely suffice.