inquiry Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 block the vote Read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 shining beacon of democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaw Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 I wonder why I'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Only pipsqueaks and scum approve of tactics like this. Not all republicans are like those mentioned in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 i remember about 2000 election on how many votes were thrown out in Ohio and Florida for small mistakes on the ballots. This tends to happen in poorer districts.So nothing suprises me anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 It really amazes me that such practices can persist in an (otherwise) enlightened country. A "president" elected thanks to fraud was overturned in Ukraine and had to use violence to stay in power in Zimbabwe. In the US apparently it is considered normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 It really amazes me that such practices can persist in an (otherwise) enlightened country. A "president" elected thanks to fraud was overturned in Ukraine and had to use violence to stay in power in Zimbabwe. In the US apparently it is considered normal. I have always attributed this to lack of motivation, after all any voting problems haven't occured in several years whenever it's time to vote again, and there are always pressing concerns that are more current. Also whoever is in office probably has no qualms with the system that got him/her there! I think a president would be very wise to make an overhaul of the voting system a high priority though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 All part of the plan. Hard to be Machiavellian if you aren't conducting "ends justifies the means" tactics.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 I would expect the new Congress and Obama to make improvements in the voting system a very high priority. I expect first they will improve/make large changes to the way unions hold votes and then work on Nat elections such as those for President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 I would expect the new Congress and Obama to make improvements in the voting system a very high priority. I expect first they will improve/make large changes to the way unions hold votes and then work on Nat elections such as those for President. yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Pretty depressing (and infuriating), but having seen Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, it's hardly surprising. It's a good thing we vote by mail out here -- we have already cast our votes for (hopefully) President Obama already... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections secret ballot is a precaution against voter intimidation. the voting methods do, however, need to be improved, including voting receipts for the voters (especially from diebold machines). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I guess one should ask the candidates what they are going to do about election fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 yes... there's no need for unions to have secret ballots, and something along those (non-secret) lines is probably optimal for other elections secret ballot is a precaution against voter intimidation. the voting methods do, however, need to be improved, including voting receipts for the voters (especially from diebold machines). well if non-secret is good enough for unions it's good enough for me, intimidation or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Non-secret votes are idiotic. Since I am active in many charities, community organizations etc. and have served on boards in many as well I have amble experience with non-secret votes, and I hate them. If there is near-concencus, nobody dares to vote against because of fear of questions. Even voting "blank" on an issue one has no clue about can be daring. When votes are made by hands-up, most will watch the board members and just automatically vote like them. Sometimes we will even vote non-secret on issues that are about a named individual, such as whether to provide an exemption for an applicant for something. Then of course everyone is in favor because they want to make good friends. I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives. That is the key to all "proxy" type votes (Boards of directors, political representatives etc) The purpose of the secret vote is to ensure that the "will" of the "people" and not those of special interests, is expressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Non-secret votes are idiotic. Since I am active in many charities, community organizations etc. and have served on boards in many as well I have amble experience with non-secret votes, and I hate them. If there is near-concencus, nobody dares to vote against because of fear of questions. Even voting "blank" on an issue one has no clue about can be daring. When votes are made by hands-up, most will watch the board members and just automatically vote like them. Sometimes we will even vote non-secret on issues that are about a named individual, such as whether to provide an exemption for an applicant for something. Then of course everyone is in favor because they want to make good friends. I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives. Helene, perhaps the number one priority of the new Congress will be to pass non secret unionization voting. You will vote in public with a union rep standing next to you as you vote. Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), The point being to improve elections give the employee a free choice. "Organized labor's top legislative priority" http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labo...hecksecrbal.htm http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/cardcheck.cfm http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/our-view-on-lab.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I can understand that boards need to vote non-secret so that voters can see if they concur with the voting behavior of their representatives. That is the key to all "proxy" type votes (Boards of directors, political representatives etc) The purpose of the secret vote is to ensure that the "will" of the "people" and not those of special interests, is expressed. then what is the purpose of the non-secret union vote mike is talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 then what is the purpose of the non-secret union vote mike is talking about? tho give the muscle better control over the electorate. it's all about control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 The non-secret vote is pretty much the Prisoner's Dilemma in action, in many cases: You all might be better off voting union, but if you don't get the union, you'll have been better off voting no union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosene Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Canada has a similar provision re card checks and union representation - as far as I can tell all hell has not broke loose. Anyone who is familiar with union representation issues knows that employers that want to stay non-union have huge advantages in the law in terms of delay and other techniques to keep unions out between the time card checks are made and the elections. This is an effort to curtail those employer abuses. I know, as I have seen them first hand (working for the NLRB). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Canada has a similar provision re card checks and union representation - as far as I can tell all hell has not broke loose. Anyone who is familiar with union representation issues knows that employers that want to stay non-union have huge advantages in the law in terms of delay and other techniques to keep unions out between the time card checks are made and the elections. This is an effort to curtail those employer abuses. I know, as I have seen them first hand (working for the NLRB). I would hope enforcing current law against employer abuses would be a better step than passing even more laws. Passing more laws and not enforcing them will not help the workers.It would concern me if the NLRB knows of employer abuses and does not throw the employer in jail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosene Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 By abuses I mean they take advantage of a weak law that has not real teeth. For example, the general penalty for violating the NLRA is to post a notice saying that you did it. Also, if you illegaly fire an employee for engaging in union activity the consequence is to re-instate the employee and provide back pay, but there are no damages. Also, you subtract any earnings the employee made in the mean time (between the illegal firing and the re-instatement) from the back pay award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 By abuses I mean they take advantage of a weak law that has not real teeth. For example, the general penalty for violating the NLRA is to post a notice saying that you did it. Also, if you illegaly fire an employee for engaging in union activity the consequence is to re-instate the employee and provide back pay, but there are no damages. Also, you subtract any earnings the employee made in the mean time (between the illegal firing and the re-instatement) from the back pay award. Having grown up in a union household in Chicago, I am rather shocked to hear anyone say unions and the workers operate under weak laws. Given the thousands of labor laws and govt mandated labor regulations I just fail to see how one more is going to help the average worker. If there is abuse, legal abuse involving union law, I call in my federal lawyer or call the mayor! I note in the current bailout bill Congress tried to force union reps onto the BOD as many countries in Europe do. With the new Congress I think we may see this soon. It will be nice to see unions involved in discussions regarding employee pay and benefits at such a high level as well as critical capital allocation decisions. As someone mentioned even Greenspan is shocked at how poorly the shareholders are doing running the company. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said Thursday that the current financial crisis had uncovered a flaw in how the free market system works that had shocked him. Mr. Greenspan told the House Oversight Committee on Thursday that his belief that banks would be more prudent in their lending practices because of the need to protect their stockholders had proved to be wrong. Mr. Greenspan said he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks operating in their self-interest would be enough to protect their shareholders and the equity in their institutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Back to original topic: wouldn't it be quite difficult for the next federal administration to eliminate election fraud? Obviously the authorities in some states want fraud. Don't they have the autonomy to have it their way? Can the federal government decide that local authorities must assure that this mess is cleaned up? And can they enforce it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.