http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

The original impetus was about income taxes, but it gets a lot broader...

The interesting part is that the director is non-partisan, and wants to see BOTH party's hold on political reigns undone.

Quote:


Primary Objectives

* Stop the polarization of America
* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
* Shut down the Federal Reserve system
* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
* Protect our borders
* Restore the environment
* Put an end to the Patriot Act
* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives

I want to hear others' thoughts on this because I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas, but they're damned provocative if nothing else.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

most of those sound good enough. but lets be honest.....we the people have no power

Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states

Computerized voting can work, but not in the BS way it's implemented. Here's how I'd do it.

You have a voting booth with a big touch screen. Guy walks in and chooses his candidate on a mindlessly simple menu.

The voting booth SENDS the choice to a central computer where votes are tallied up in real time.

A RECEIPT comes out of the machine. Just like in a bank transaction and on it is written a voting number.

This receipt is split into TWO PARTS. One part that you keep, the OTHER that you put into a ballot box on the way out. A word about this ballot is that it has the NAME and STATE AND VOTING STATION and VOTING NUMBER written on it. Easily traceable not to you but to the station. They'd also not be printed on simple paper but on special material like what they make money with. The ink likewise would be a special mix. To falsify these things you'd have to do it one by one and know all the tricks.

Oh, and every four years the tricks would change, natch.

Afterwards, the ballots are counted and audited and compared to the live feed computerized numbers. If there's too big of a discrepancy you go BACK to the voting stations (and this time it's not old grandmothers and whatall, it's profesionally impersonal auditors) who take down your receipt number and compare it to your previous ballot which of course was not lost like before. If it matches, that's a vote. If it doesn't match, you're asked to vote again and THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTS OVER AGAIN UNTIL THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES.

This isn't simple, but this is democracy at work here and we're asked to make important decisions. One shouldn't do this lightly.

---

This whole paranoia about computerized voting is ridiculous. It'd be like not trusting computerized banking. When's the last time a bank machine screwed up 500,000 transactions in one day? It's almost impossible and even if it DOES screw up you have a RECEIPT. If they can't make computerized voting work, it's because it's deliberate.

That was one thing that I figured was a little off, but if you figure, it's just as easy to stay with simple X or Check ballots, and boxes. The ballot box stuffing problem is there, but then you basically fix it this way:
- Present your Gov't issued ID
- They print you out a ballot with a unique # and tally #
- You vote in private and return the ballot to your precinct box.
- Away you go

What about the rest?\



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:That was one thing that I figured was a little off, but if you figure, it's just as easy to stay with simple X or Check ballots, and boxes. The ballot box stuffing problem is there, but then you basically fix it this way:
- Present your Gov't issued ID
- They print you out a ballot with a unique # and tally #
- You vote in private and return the ballot to your precinct box.
- Away you go

What about the rest?\

Totally agree with everything, except that I'd add life imprisonment for any governmental official who was convincted of bribery or fraud and execution to any official whose actions resulted in someone's death. That'd make em walk in a straight line!

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:That was one thing that I figured was a little off, but if you figure, it's just as easy to stay with simple X or Check ballots, and boxes. The ballot box stuffing problem is there, but then you basically fix it this way:
- Present your Gov't issued ID
- They print you out a ballot with a unique # and tally #
- You vote in private and return the ballot to your precinct box.
- Away you go

What about the rest?\

It is illegal in the US to have to show your ID to vote. That's based on a long history of using such things to foster voter discrimination.


---

And WHAT IS SO HARD about properly working voting machines? These guys at diebold need to hire a 14 yr old with basic CGI skills to make their machines. Geezus. Everyone and their momma with 2 minutes of programming experience can make a simply vote tallying program. Seriously, it's like the third excersize in Intro Programming. It's Programing 101, Lesson 1.3




---

You can't show your ID to verify that you are who you say you are?

I don't care about the history... that is grade A stupid... You don't write your name on the ballot, you show your ID, the pollsters check your ID against their voter registry, stroke out your name, and then give you the ballot to vote as you want... there's also no write ins that I know of. Seriously, how do you stop one person from voting a bunch of times? Am I missing something here?

The Vote tallying programs used in the last presidential election actually started decrementing votes once it reached the end of the data type (remember Y2K? same idea) or gave erroneous numbers. There has to be an oversight committee on elections reform. I know the idea of the electoral college, but this is horrendous.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/11/04/mcpherson-why-shouldnt-you-have-to-show-id-to-vote-in-california/:

I received a political hit-piece today from one of the candidates for California Secretary of State. It says:

“When you rent a movie at the video store you have to show ID.
Why shouldn’t you have to show ID to vote in California?

Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Bruce McPherson wants is AGAINST
to require ID at the polls. requiring ID at the polls."

In case you had any doubt before, papers please! readers now know who to vote for.

And for Mr. McPherson, a clue: We shouldn’t have to show ID to vote, because some people who have a RIGHT to vote do not have an ID. You can’t take away their right to vote, just because they decline to have an optional ID card.

Clue #2: A mandate that every citizen must obtain an ID and present it to exercise their constitutional rights is, in legalese, a “licensing scheme” for imposing “prior restraint” on those rights. The process for obtaining those IDs is going to have to meet constitutional standards for prior restraints. It doesn’t even come close, today.



----------------



Also, don't forget that democracies came to being before ID's did. This hasn't been a historically bad problem. Further, ID's can be faked, and in states that try to require an ID, almost anything can used as an ID if it has your name on it, which makes deterrence quite impossible, anyway.


---

True, but:
- In Rome, only a select few could vote.
- In Britain, you had to have papers before you could vote
- In America, you could only vote if you owned land,and later if you were a citizen...

and you weren't talking about 300 million people, and a history of ballot box stuffing mixed with a low voter turn-out.

Seriously, you'd need a bill and a piece of government issued picture ID. Here, this isn't a problem because our health-care, citizenship/immigration and driver's licensing systems require picture Identification (and fingerprint ID in the case of Refugee/Citizenship) and ALL Provincial and Federal Identification pieces are machine readable and tracked. All you're doing is proving you at least live in the district, and that you're not voting more than once. Look at it like this: Iraqis had to get their finger (right index or whatever was available) dipped in an indelible ink that could only go away after 15-30 days... they have an infant democratic process, and this was the way that you could be certain that al-qaeda didn't stuff the ballot boxes. I'd think that securing your own political system would be at least as accountable.

But then again, there's no paper trail for computerized voting machines..

Seriously, acting like it's not a problem is the first problem. The bigger problem: the fact that you have such low turn out anyhow.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think you really overestimate the problem. Going in and voting person by person, even by groups, for fraud is highly ineffecient in the first place. You have to go into the voting center and give them your name and address, and it has to be in the right precinct, to vote. So to commit fraud you'd have to preregister a bunch of people, happen to know they aren't going to show up, and know where to go to vote. And believe me, if you showed up and tried to vote for someone who's already voted, you go to jail. High risk, low payout, only affects the tightest of races if successful.

There are better ways to commit voter fraud in this day and age.


---

OK, OK wait.. You have a registry.. and to vote you must be registered right? So how do they know you're registed if you don't show ID? Why have the registry?

Sorry man, cannuck that doesn't get it.

PAX

Your name and address must match the registry, that's it.

If the registry doesn't have your name, you can get a provisional ballot and they'll count it later once they verifiy eligibility.


---

BACK to the OP...
I clicked on the link GAM provided and got this at work:

Quote:

The site www.freedomtofascism.com was blocked, it is in the Restricted Political Extreme / Hate / Discrimination category.

so... it's a must-read when I get home from work. looks very interesting GAM. my girlfriend and I were just discussing something like this.


Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

Wow... Oo

I wonder if it was just the name, or if someone took the time and effort to screen it? Either way, if this is a politically extremist site, I certainly think the Libertarian, GOP/RNC and DNC sites should be on the list as well... right along with FoxNews, BBC, CNN, MSNBC and Al-Jazeera.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

well its not illegal in the us to show id to vote. i know ohio requires an id and indiana just passed this last year to require id.

i think its a good thing personally, i couldnt beleive when i first moved to indiana that they didnt require it. and as close as some of the races have been. i know we have a few local races that came down to single digit vote diffrences. i'd honestly be surprised to have someone who doesnt even have an id who comes out to vote. hell i always assumed that you had to have some form of id as well.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

so your telling me in america you can just walk up to the voting station and vote, and not even be an American citizen?


I want to share something with you - the three sentences that will get you through life. Number one, 'cover for me', Number two, 'oh, good idea, boss', Number three, 'it was like that when I got here.'

OK, I get it. You have to be elegible to get on the list. Then when you vote you simply state your name and address (without being compelled to show ID), your name is checked against the registry, you vote, you are sticken from the registry.. Next please..

Is that about right? So the only difference is you don't show ID. Seems OK then.

Here you show ID, but I don't think it needs to be phot ID (now I can't remember), I believe (if I remember correctly) anything that can show your residency is OK here, but you will have to show something with your name and address. If I remember correctly, you can show a utility bill or just about anything that has your name and address. So same here, only with a simple form of proof. That way it does not constitute a tax or lisence fee as you must be a resident to be elegible to vote anyway.

I'm not sure how they handle the homeless. I believe they have the right to vote.. There must be a way for them as well. Perhaps a birth certificate or anything that can show they are a citizen.. Not sure on our own rules now.. Hmmm.. I guess it's just never been a problem for me.

PAX

As for the voting issue, Wasn't it in 2000 presidential elections where DEAD PEOPLE VOTED? I'm sorry, but the voters of tomorrow are not in the obituaries of today.

There are a bunch of other issues as well that I don't want to be missed.

Stop the polarization of America
Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system

I think this is the biggest impedance to real discourse in the US, and really, in the world. I do NOT think the answer is more political parties, it's no political parties. Seriously, you can't have just 2 real parties, mainly because there are more than just 2 sides to an issue, and voting on party lines just because it's party lines is f**king stupid especially when your electorate won't benefit.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

The problem with no parties is that there's nobody to hold accountable.

In Canada the Federal Liberals took a beating because of the ad scam. If they were not a party and Cretien had died or something, there'd be nobody to pay for the crime.. As an example. Also there would still have to be coalitions of some kind in order to make desisions as almost all gov acts are just too large to be implimented and executed with one or even few people behind it. The government needs to act as a unit otherwise little or nothing will ever get done. That said, like minded individuals will group regardless of party.

I do think that penalising individuals for not voting along party lines sould be made illegal. Every vote should be a free vote.

I think the elimination of political parties is really only achievable on paper. In reality "Birds of a feather flock together" anyway.

PAX

The conditions to have that probelm would never have been present in the first place though if there were no parties because:
- There would be NO Liberal Party to have convened the kick-back scam, and
- There would be NO Partie Quebecois, and no Bloc Quebecois to have begun a separation association referendum.

People voting either to accept or reject doesn't necessarily group them together for ALL things. It's putting the responsibility for one person's actions on THAT person.

Canadian politics are not analogous to US politics. Canada's political system is based around parties... US is (in and of itself) not.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

C'mon GAM. As if kick back scams would never happen if there were no parties.. Heck, in a way, I bet they'd be more likely because you wouldn't have an organisation watching you from the inside. Reduced whistle blower risk.

There are people who agree with separation, that's a fact. They would just form some other type of movement or club. You know it.

It's human nature to form groups. It goes back to our tribal roots, Survival in numbers all that jazz.

PAX

It took more than one person to organise that, and there was more than one person that benefitted.

Separation is another question, but out of the scope of this thread (which is the context that I'm trying to stay within)






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.