Founding Fathers and the Vote

Founding Fathers and the Vote
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

But how would Americans "consent" to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, framers of the Constitution left the vote question to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations... .

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/election/voters.html
______________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that in order to achieve a truly FAIR voting system, CONGRESS needs to seriously address the whole issue, anew..

they HAVE the constitutional RIGHT,...and actually it's an OBLIGATION. Anyone who has survived recent elections must surely agree that the patchwork quilt we have in place now is hopelessly tattered and coming apart at the very seams..

While it makes sense to keep a national governing body OUT of local and state affairs, there IS a vested interest at stake when it comes to the NATIONALLY HELD OFFICES of each individual state.. The time has COME to separate the state issues from the FEDERAL issues. The ONLY way to do this effectively is to get people USED to voting. Voting separately could get them to start paying attention to issues and candidates, and might empower them to learn more. People who show up every 4 years to choose who has the cutest hair, just isn't cutting it anymore.

We don't need diamond-studded, high-falutin' electronic devices to vote.. we NEVER DID. People who "run" the elections would have us believe that elections are the hardest thing to do in the universe.. They are NOT. 3rd graders have elections, Brownie Scout troops have elections, bowling leagues have elections, Boards of Directors have elections. Elections are EASY. Counting is easy too. It just takes having ENOUGH people; people of ALL political persuasions participating in the verification.

Many would have us believe that MOST people would cheat during an election, but I think very FEW people cheat ...or even think about it. People who are citizens HAVE a right to vote, and should NEVER be refused. (felons being the exception, unless they have been reinstated as voters.) The whole idea of registration, automatically eliminates lots of people from voting. Registration should not be an impediment to voting. There are millions of people who really have little interest in local affairs, but DO want to vote in national elections...that's why the presidential election years have significantly higher turnouts. I think the whole registration process is more about identifying people who CAN be excluded, and for mailiing lists for political literature, than it is about ensuring voting rights.

I know there are many people who loathe the idea of a "national ID card", but it appears we are going to have one anyway, so why not just make THAT card a "voter ID" as well.. We are assured that it will be 'tamper-proof', so why not just make it a double-duty card that one never has to be "re-registered". To vote in local-state elections, the states would be in charge of whatever requirements had to be met, but for NATIONAL OFFICE elections, that card should suffice, as identification AND a simple slide through a card reader should preclude more than one vote per person.
If you slide your card at and ATM and your money supply is "used up", they don't dispense cash...same for voting..one vote per customer..when it's "used up", you're done for that election cycle... easy-peasy.. I'm sure that once the ID is mandatory, it will be used to identify you for any number of things....an avenue to your credit history, for identification when applying for schools, social services, etc., so why not make it our voter ID as well?

I know there are many here who hate the idea of it, but that has never stopped the congress before, and it won;t this time. The US is apparently lurching to join the rest of the modern world, where they already HAVE national ID cards. We admire those same countries for their national health care services and for their school systems, so maybe we should not trash them when it comes to their identification systems which just MAY make those other services POSSIBLE.

But...back to elections..

State/local elections should be just that..STATE and LOCAL. Right now they piggyback on the national elections to get a high turnout, but perhaps the issues, propositions and other things voted on are so uninspiring and unnecessary that a low turnout is the "voice of the people". Maybe their legislatures need to be doing a better job to GET a decent turnout.

The sheer SIZE of lots of ballots turns people off and may prevent them from voting, especially if the local/state issues have to compete for space and attention, with national ad campaigns for senate/congress/president. perhaps those issues deserve their own time and attention. Large complicated, multi-page ballots are also a convenient excuse for the NEED of complicated computerized ballots. The powers-that-be have conveniently couched the explanation for these machines as a "handicapped issue", but I really think that handicapped people would prefer FAIR and ACCURATE over "ease". I have known handicapped people all my life and NEVER has one of them complained to me about voting. Their problems tend to be more along the lines of ACCESS to bathrooms, jobs, buildings, and health care. No one I have ever met complained about voting.

Smaller ballots for national office would mean smaller lines, and more participation. If you only had THREE (the most at any given election) choices to make, you could easily slip in, slide your card, make your 2 or 3 choices, and deposit your PAPER ballot into the locked collection box.

State/local elections should be during ODD years and National elections in EVEN years. Most states already have special elections in off-years, so why not just switch completely, and devote the proper attention needed to their state-local issues?..

There would be NO need for "machines" for nationally-held office elections. An easily counted/re-counted CARD could accommodate an election with a maximum of 3 choices.

Our constitution GIVES congress the opportunity/duty to address election issues, and they have seriously screwed the whole process up. Taking control of the nationally held office procedures and unifying them would NOT interfere with state's rights since the states would still administer the elections, count the ballots and maintain records, BUT there would be in place a unified PROCEDURE, and that would make things a whole lot easier to everyone.

The actual ballots could even be scanned into computers, if storage space was an issue.

We have plenty of people able and willing to count ballots, we have phones to phone in the tallies, we have camcorders/cameras to record every polling place and we have ways to store the records for recounts if necessary.

Any person showing up with the valid voter ID card (with a photo) and a bill proving their address (for state/local) should never be turned away. Each card should be "loaded" with ONE state/local election, and ONE National election. if 7-11's can master the art of "slide the card please", surely our highly paid elections officials can as well,.

not too hard to remember.....

:)

hoping it would catch on.. It is that easy and that should be the slogan for voting reform....

really wants things to change.. If they "lose", they really win, because then they just become a lobbyist and make 5-times the money they made..and rthen they just run again..the revolving door aspect to our office holders is dangerous to democracy.. They create their own oligarcy.