Of course, the answer to the question posited above is a resounding “no.” The representative democracy established by the United States Constitution has successfully turned over the federal government many dozens of times over the course of over 200 years now. The system — at its most macro level — works, and works well.
The devil, though, is in the details. I look at the mess still underway in determining the winner of Minnesota’s senate race — a contest which occurred over four months ago — and see a system that is outright denying its citizens a voice in their government while it continues to blather on and fails to sort the mess out. The problem, of course, had a lot to do with lawyers, interpreting the “intent” of the average voter, and overcoming instances of fraud that allegedly may or may not have taken place, depending on whom you ask. Like the case of Bush v. Gore in 2000 — which had much further reaching implications, obviously — the time has come to ask: is the United States so litigious and antagonistic towards its own citizens that a new way is needed to ensure that elections are determined swiftly, justly, and decisively?
What I would not want, of course, is a rigid, inflexible system of federal guidelines dictated to from on high. However, wouldn’t it be really cool and interesting if representatives of the Several States got together once every two or four years (on the “off-year”) and determined best practices and recommendations for juridictions to implement? That way, voters would not potentially wind up confused by some states having decades-old pull-lever systems (such as that of New York) versus others having complex, hackable online mechanisms or confusing butterfly ballots.
Security and the sanctity of the individual vote could even be held up as the ultimate goal. It would never happen, but in the Fascist States of TSL I’d love to see a system where voting occurs on one day, a federal holiday, and where eligibility is determined at the point of polling via proper identification and verification of citizenship (state identification or driver’s license). A witnessed. signed affidavit confirming your status and intent to cast a ballot fairly and once only would also be required, and then some irrefutable proof after the fact would be implemented to prevent further fraud (think of the famous and iconic Iraqi stained fingers).
Everything would be computerized and monitored by the best audit firms in the land. The tallies would be available within five minutes after polls closed, and would be certified by a blue-ribbon panel of volunteers in each district, who would also count then and there the absentee ballots and add them to the total (absentee ballots would have to be received via certified mail by the day of the election). And that would be it. No worries over fraud, no disputes over voter “intent,” just democracy in action.
Pipe dream, right?
Recent Comments