Iowa State Senator Jeff Taylor (R-Sioux Center) has introduced SB 70, to ease the definition of a qualified party. Existing law says a party must poll 2% for the office at the top of the ticket every two years (President in presidential years, Governor in midterm years). The bill would change that to a group that had polled 2% for any statewide office at either of the last two elections, or which has at least 2,000 registered voters.
The voter when casting (publishing) their ballot must have the sole authority to judge who is qualified to receive their vote and who is not. Any intervention to prevent their choice is censorship in violation of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and is also a right reserved to the individual voter under the Tenth Amendment.
Ballot censorship is election rigging to keep incumbent parties and their candidates in power regardless of voters’ actual preferences.
Censorship is fascism.
Ballots are the problem. Standing Count is the solution.
I.O.W.A. = idiots out walking around
@Stan,
In our last discussion you said voters would gather at a precinct convention. I’m trying to understand how this would work. In November 2024, 1793 of 2653 registered voters in my precinct voted (87% before election day).
When would your precinct convention occur? Where would it occur. How large of a meeting place would be needed?
What would happen at this convention?
fixed time to vote ???
or x hours to vote – stand up only 1 time ???
can’t stand – no vote ???
secret vote down the toilet >>> vote *wrong* way — get firing squad or mere slavery ???
Voting precincts would ideally be on the order of about 100 voters, although I’ve seen standing counts done with no problems in rolls of about 1,000. There would be one standing countoff per election.
Although ideally the voting criteria would include physical aptitude requirements similar to law enforcement and military, until it unless they do, standing counts can accommodate those not able to physically stand. They had no problems doing so at times when I saw them used.
There should absolutely not be secret votes for reasons discussed many times in the past,and violence or slavery related to voting would of course be illegal. However, there could be social sanctions such as loss of friends or potential dating partners. That’s a good thing, since voting is political power, and unaccountable power is never a good thing.
@Stan,
So your idea is impracticable for election precincts of a few 1000 voters? Texas limits precincts to 5000 voters.
It’s probably practicable for 5,000. With a thousand people, the count may have been about 15 minutes. I’d break those larger precincts up though.
@Stan,
How large of meeting hall is needed for 5000 persons? Would voters be checked? By whom?
There are meeting halls which can hold 5000 people and security systems with facial and fingerprint recognition if necessary, but those precincts should be broken up and voting criteria tightened.
@SCS,
“can hold 5000 people” is vague. Is there such a meeting hall in the precinct with 5000 voters. Are there meeting halls in precincts with 100 voters?
Who will set up these facial and fingerprint recognition systems? Who will operate them? How long will it take to check in 5000 voters.
What specifically do you mean by tightening voting criteria?
I’d recommend moving discussions to front page. I won’t check back endlessly. Meeting halls don’t necessarily have to be physically in the precinct, one could be built, or the precincts broken up. Yes, precincts have meeting places for 100 people.
Facial and fingerprint systems exist at secure government and some nongovernmental facilities. Who sets those up?
In any case that’s not even necessary. Law enforcement or election judges can check credentials prior to the meeting or boy scouts can check them.
As for criteria, I don’t know the optimal ending point, but at a bare minimum the voting restrictions of the 18th century are a good place to start – male property owners over 21.
@SCS,
If you would write up your idea for standing count and get a state legislator to introduce it, I’m sure Richard Winger would post it as an item on BAN and we could discuss it.
I estimate it would take one minute to process one voter, and the clerks would need breaks, so 50 voters per clerk. For 5000 voters, that is 100 clerk-hours. Let’s say 10 clerks, so 10 hours. When would these precinct conventions be held? On a Saturday? Start at noon, so begin lining up at 2 AM.
Your proposal for constricting the franchise is unlikely to be enacted. Is it a necessary condition for enacting standing count?
One last reply on this thread. If you want another one, move it to the front page.
I’m not going to write any legislation. It wouldn’t pass, and would probably be federally illegal, in addition to not being a thing I do. When the time comes, there are other people who will write it up as legislation or otherwise implement different versions of it in whatever legal context they will operate in at that time.
I don’t think it would take a minute to process a voter. In fact the technology probably already exists to make it seamless to where there would be no delay at all, if it’s automated. You could just walk right in with the machines scanning you on the way in.
If humans checks are performed there is no reason they should have to be more time consuming than voter check ins currently are. Why would it be more time consuming than the current system?
Further, even without any other changes that could be made to make cheating even less likely
1. Everyone there would have the opportunity to spot if someone who is not eligible is there during the course of the presentations or person to person politicking prior to the vote
2. Everyone who’s not there would also be able to since it would be broadcast
3. If someone isn’t caught during the vote, the video would be preserved and online and they could be caught by anyone at any time thereafter
4. Heavy legal penalties, including even the death penalty, could be attached to anyone voting illegally
IF any problems persist with meeting checkins taking too long, break up the precincts.
I disagree with you about limiting the franchise being unlikely. It’s unlikely at this time, but things might start changing a lot faster than you anticipate, and the speed might increase. See the punctuated equilibrium theory of change, dark enlightenment discussions, and who all has given them positive mentions – folks like JD Vance and Elon Musk have commented positively on the ideas of Curtis Yarvin, etc .
You are determined to invent problems where they don’t exist. I will not address a further reply in this thread even if I see it, and I can’t have any confidence you’ll see this one on what is now page 10 or 11 or more by the time you see this, if you do.