$250,000 Reward For Information About Election Fraud In The November Election

October 18, 2006 6:11 PM

$250,000 Reward For Information About Election Fraud In The November Election VelvetRevolution is offering a $250,000 reward for information about election fraud and manipulation in the November 7th mid-term elections. That’s a quarter million dollars to the persons or persons who provide us with definitive and conclusive proof that a United States House or Senate election has been rigged by illegal means. Meanwhile, Drudge runs this forthcoming piece NYT: BE PREPARED FOR CHAOS ON ELECTION DAY; NEW MACHINES, LINES, CONFUSION Wed Oct 18 2006 19:12:07 ET With an unusually large number of tight races and dozens of states shifting to new electronic voting systems, election officials across the country are bracing for long lines and heightened confusion at the polls on Election Day, Nov. 7, the NEW YORK TIMES will front on Thursday. "North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Mississippi and Missouri are among the states considered most likely to experience difficulties, according to voting experts who have been tracking the new technology and other election changes. Developing...
posted by Postroad (60 comments total)

Can I just say one more time: Reform your corrupt electoral systems!

It's an utter joke that you can have such a mish-mash collection of crap systems, and call yourself an advanced democracy.

basically, do what Australia does, have a totally and scrupulously independent electoral commission that does everything from voter registration through conduct of the election to setting of electoral boundaries. Otherwise, whenever one of your politicians start criticising elections in other parts of the world, most thinking people start sniggering or burst out laughing.
posted by wilful at 6:35 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

I Like! I will donate some money to the reward if they will let me.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:55 PM on October 18, 2006

F**k yeah. I would personally pony up my share to help make that reward a cool million. We know they do it. They know we know they do it. We need proof. The easiest way to do it is to use the same technique they use to catch "terrorists" (which they are) . . . a nice fat RE-ward for a turncoat snitch.

But . . . they're going to have to fudge a landslide, not a close vote, this time around. Good luck, motherf*ckers. Kevin Mitnick himself couldn't save your vote-rigging, machine-hacking asses.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:57 PM on October 18, 2006

I'm not sure I get this... is there not enough incentive already to blow the whistle on a rigged election?

If so, is it not already too late?
posted by pompomtom at 6:58 PM on October 18, 2006

is there not enough incentive already to blow the whistle on a rigged election?

Apparently not. I have already contacted them and suggested they set up an escrow account to hold the donations in.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:03 PM on October 18, 2006

willful, don't tell us. we know. we know. it's our current leadership. and every day that passes, the farther we get from being able to force them to take care of the electoral system, rigged in their favor. if we can get a strong democratic majority in the house, we'll have a strong chance of getting major reforms passed and instituted by the 2008 elections. if not, we'll be in serious trouble.
posted by Embryo at 7:05 PM on October 18, 2006

Developing...?

What is this, the drudge report?
posted by delmoi at 7:11 PM on October 18, 2006

delmoi, I suspect the Democrat party is about as interested as the Republicans in the idea of independently set electorate boundaries. Hey, you gave the world the term gerrymander.

The first time I learnt this about US politics, I was flabbergasted. I just couldn't believe that any country would let their own politicians set their own electoral boundaries. It just seems so scandalously wrong. And I suspect it's why US politics is particularly full of vapid fools (not that I want to imply we don't have a surfeit).
posted by wilful at 7:20 PM on October 18, 2006

Silly americans, continuing to think your vote matters.
How cute.
posted by nightchrome at 7:22 PM on October 18, 2006

erm, embryo, not delmoi.
posted by wilful at 7:23 PM on October 18, 2006

Thanks for turning me on to Velvet Revolution!

Mr_Zero, would the escrow account be a way to make sure donations went to increasing the reward?
posted by owhydididoit at 7:24 PM on October 18, 2006

I wonder who pays better?
posted by hex1848 at 7:33 PM on October 18, 2006

In the U.S., voting today is absolutely cracked.
With gerrymandering and other election-day tricks.
There's fools and idiots designing these new systems
It's depressing, and it's senseless, and that's why...


I like Chinese.
posted by psmith at 7:45 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Y'all need to realize that the Democrat party is the new Republican party, and a New Democrat party needs to take the place of the old Democrats?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:47 PM on October 18, 2006

we know. we know. it's our current leadership.

Mmm yeah right, and if the Democrats grab back some control, you really think they'll;

(1) Scrap computer voting, or at least make a paper trail compulsory.
(2) Institute a standardized, national, independently run voting process and electoral roll.
(3) Implement preferential and/or proportional voting.
(4) Reform the electoral college system.
(5) Take the drawing of electoral boundaries out of the control of politicians.

Dude, you're living in fantasy land of talking bunnies and singing lollypops. If the Democrats win, they'll just figure the election system favours them and will oppose any move to change it.
posted by Jimbob at 7:49 PM on October 18, 2006

willful, you're of course right on the history. But the operative variable when it comes to partisan politics is where a party is at, not where some if its members have been. And where the Democrats are at right now is pissed, thoughtful, and supported by a very determined segment of its base that knows exactly what it wants -- accountability, government reform and sane policy. In the end, though, from a pragmatic analysis, it makes great sense for the current national Democratic party to prioritize electoral reform:

* a huge part of the base is asleep and adrift because of disillusionment, either from their party's past scandals, its previous apparent lack of spine, or the current government's blatant electoral fraud. giving these people reason to hope -- to be confident in the electoral process -- would be huge in turning out democratic votes.

* compounding that fact is the fact that electoral fraud by and large denies the vote to poor folks and folks of color, constituencies valued by Democrats and not by Republicans -- both in principle/policy and (resultingly) for their votes. Re-enfranchising the disempowered would do wonders not just for the United States, but for the Democratic party.

* in the realm of electronic voting machines, control is wielded by corporations owned by the super-rich, a crucial republican base, and in fact the specific relevant corporations are entirely tied into republican partisan politics. Any fraud carried out on a mass scale by these corporations would most certainly benefit Republican candidates, especially at the top of the ticket.

So you see, Democrats can't help but be the party of accountability, of democracy, of equal voice. The reality that they don't all quite understand that fact, and that some of them spend a lot of energy trying to run from it, doesn't make it any less true. Fortunately the component of the party that -does- understand those things is growing in number, influence, and boldness. There is a lot of reason to have hope, as dim as things may seem at times.
posted by Embryo at 7:53 PM on October 18, 2006

five fresh, i totally agree, but don't get too caught up in names. we are emerging from the inside...
posted by Embryo at 7:54 PM on October 18, 2006

you gave the world the term gerrymander

I agree that the notion that, if elected, the Democrats would somehow "reform" the US's rigged, ancien regime-style 18th century vintage electoral system to something approximating those used in every other advanced democracy for the past century quite laughable. Particularly because the Dems worked so hard with their pals the GOP to snuff out electoral reform in the US during the first half of the 20th century. Several US states have even made it against their constitutions to use anything like approval or ranked voting for politicians.

However, transferrable, ranked votes and multi-seat districts are not a complete solution to corrupt politicians. Ireland gave the world the Tullymander, although in its initial deployment it was less than optimal.
posted by meehawl at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2006

Jimbob, at least some of those things will happen. Yes. I understand your frustration, but things are more complex than that. We extrapolate the future from the darkest parts of the present at our own peril; we run the risk of missing opportunities to push things in the right direction. These opportunities are looming large right now, and I've decided to give voice to the hope that they can result in change rather than the cynicism that can only result in missed chances.
posted by Embryo at 7:57 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Lets not forget that after this election, a huge number of democrats are going to be totally new to national politics. It's not like we're just going to put back the same people who were ousted in 1994.
posted by delmoi at 7:58 PM on October 18, 2006

Well, you're closest to the action, Embryo. But from where wilful and I sit, thinks look awfully corrupt and unshakable. Just explain to us, for instance, what you think would happen if the Democrats stood up and said "Right, we're going to have an independent, national body set up to manage all elections, and all voting in the country in one standard, unified, best-practice way. No more county-by-county or state-by-state hacked paper-trailless computers and hanging chads. There will be one national electrol roll. This independent department will now run the show."

They'd be crucified. People would scream and shout about states rights, wouldn't they? They'd be accused of being commies for trying to let the federal government run "local" processes. I get the impression they'd be laughed off stage, no matter how vital and important the reform would be.
posted by Jimbob at 7:59 PM on October 18, 2006

meehawl -- the first half of the 20th century was how long ago again? At the time the Democratic party was completely different, as was the Republican party. Again, history taken alone is a terrible guide for the present. Let's stay tuned.
posted by Embryo at 8:00 PM on October 18, 2006

What? You people vote on election day? Pfffft! I vote early.

Since 2000, more people in Clark County have voted before election day than on election day, through a combination of early voting (the main source) and mail ballot voting.

That plus a real paper trail makes me feel more confident about my vote.
posted by SirOmega at 8:03 PM on October 18, 2006

Jimbob: I suspect that this is the concern which has caused Democrats to take a backseat with this issue in the past. But I suspect you're also aware, and bothered by, the other stereotypes that Democrats have allowed themselves to be tarred with over the past decade -- tax and spend, cut and run, flip flop, etc. So, let's start from this: we can, and must, break obsolete frames.

Truth is that Democrats have established themselves, and will continue to establish themselves, as a great ally to civil libertarians in the context of this current Republican party, which everyone knows has imperialistic, authoritarian tendencies; which everyone has watched tax and spend; which everyone is realizing is about to be forced to cut and run. People's ideas about each party have never been in such flux; up seems down -- Democrats currently lead issue polls based on their strength in the war on Terror. Everything is in flux.

So, yes. I think that will be an issue. But no, I don't think they will be unable to place electoral reform in the correct context: "In 2000 and 2004, outdated electoral procedures delayed, confused, and muddied the results of several key elections, led to many, many documented and legally proven cases of vote fraud and illegal disenfranchisement, and forced millions of Americans to deal with 5+ hour lines, ballot confusion, misvotes and general frustration at the polls. In order to alleviate these problems and ensure that we can all be confident in our democracy, Federal elections (for President/veep and Congress) will be held using [insert system with a paper trail and administration by an independant, non-partisan commission. Local and state elections may be run using the same equipment, courtesy of the Federal government, or they can be run using a separate set of equipment and procedures -- it's up to you."

No one likes partisanship, no one likes a recount, everyone likes a clear winner. This, I believe, is one of many effective ways to frame electoral reform inside the current (evolving) political conversation -- after Democrats regain control of one or more houses of Congress in November.
posted by Embryo at 8:09 PM on October 18, 2006

No one likes partisanship, no one likes a recount, everyone likes a clear winner.

The thing is, achieving these things require more than cosmetic adjustments. They require serious reform of how Americans vote. I've long held, for instance, that the preferential voting system we have in Australia goes a long way in satisfying the "everyone likes a clear winner" criteria. As does proportional representation - well, proportional representation isn't about giving "clear winners" as much as it is about more accurately reflecting the will of the people. They're both the antithesis of the "winner takes all" mentality that dominates US politics.

In any case, there's one big, big problem with preferential and proportional voting in the US. Suddenly, minor parties matter! People can vote Green or Libertarian, and be much more certain that their vote won't be "wasted". Do you feel confidant the Democratic Party would be willing to implement reforms that could see the elevation of minor parties?
posted by Jimbob at 8:19 PM on October 18, 2006

Jim, I completely agree with you that the "winner take all" model (and, I'd say, the mentality that feeds into the model which feeds into the mentality) is a huge issue. And that that aspect of our elections, there's not much reason for either major party to support reform of, save for a possible huge upswell of popular demand.

But as much as I value the idea of preferential voting, which I'd vote for and support in an instant, that's secondary to more basic things like race-based and class-based disenfranchisement and the widespread manipulation of the voting system by the rich and uber-powerful elite of one of the two major parties. Whatever system we -have-, electorally, it's got to work as advertised for the US to even hobble along much longer with any semblance of Democracy. Once at least we're all back in sync with the rules and we can trust each other again, then I'd say that preferential voting would be the next most important thing.

It's funny how different "electoral reform" looks to me right now, for example, than it did in 2000. We've taken huge strides backwards.
posted by Embryo at 8:25 PM on October 18, 2006

Fair enough. I get the impression that race-based and class-based disenfranchisement is made easier from having such a diffuse enrollment system. I mean, I can't quite get my head around how it works, but when I hear that you have volunteers from one party running around registering people, while someone else is cross-checking the roll against list of criminals to strike people from the roll, something is seriously wrong.

Centralize! Fuck the "big brother" fearing privacy types and establish a single, central electoral roll.

Be inclusive! Why can't people in jail vote? Has anyone even questioned that? I mean shit, they're still citizens. They still have rights under the law. Who decided that when you commit a crime, you lose your right to vote? Solve that problem, and you solve a fair part of the race/class based unfairness.

Be proactive! Once again, here in Australia, whenever I move house, by some administrative magic two electrol enrollment forms arrive in my letterbox within a couple of weeks, telling me to re-enroll in my new area within a month. They're ready to go, with postage-paid return envelopes. Does anything like this happen in the US? Once again, from the tizz people get themselves into registering voters, I can only assume it doesn't.
posted by Jimbob at 8:36 PM on October 18, 2006

This probably belongs in AskMe, but :
Why does the US hold elections on a workday during the week? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it on the weekend, to avoid the inevitable before work / lunchtime / after work crush (& subsequent "ah, fuggedit, it'll take too long" voter apathy)?
posted by Pinback at 8:44 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Be inclusive! Why can't people in jail vote? Has anyone even questioned that? I mean shit, they're still citizens. They still have rights under the law. Who decided that when you commit a crime, you lose your right to vote? Solve that problem, and you solve a fair part of the race/class based unfairness.

The disfranchisement of criminals is a feature of American populist authoritarianism (not to use the F-word).

No politicians would stand up and argue that prisoners should be registered and allowed to vote, because their opponents would shout, "They want murderers and drug dealers to vote!"
posted by bad grammar at 8:51 PM on October 18, 2006

I still can't believe that the same people who are responsible for certifying the vote tally for any given state can (and most often do) hold high-level positions in a campaign going on in that same state. Obviously that's the way it's always happened in the US, but that seems like a blindingly obvious conflict of interest, no less than having, say, a casino owner be the head of a state's gambling commission.
posted by clevershark at 8:53 PM on October 18, 2006

Jimbob writes "here in Australia, whenever I move house, by some administrative magic two electrol enrollment forms arrive in my letterbox within a couple of weeks, telling me to re-enroll in my new area within a month."

In Canada you get registered automatically in your new district when you do your change of address.
posted by clevershark at 8:54 PM on October 18, 2006

clevershark: yeah, partisan electoral officials boggles the mind. I don't believe that's how it works in every state, though.

bad grammar, Jimbob -- yeah, you're totally right, and I can't believe I forgot to mention that. Something like a third of African American males are disenfranchised because they're convicted felons. totally messed up.

And as far as framing would go for undoing that -- it's not unheard of; at times it has been part of the discussion. It's not outside the realm of possibility. The best way I can see, though, would be to deal with it as a part of reforming the justice system, not so much the electoral system, as it's possibly more accurately viewed as one of the punishments for being convicted of a crime (a felony) anyway. The justice system/laws of this country are racist, and that's what this has to do with. The built-in disenfranchisement is just one aspect of that.
posted by Embryo at 9:04 PM on October 18, 2006

history taken alone is a terrible guide for the present

But it is a guide. What do you suggest, a year zero approach? A century for me does not seem like such a long time. Given the predictibility of human nature faced with similar problems and environment, much politics displays convergent evolution. More recently, Tony Blair and the UK's Labour Party reneged on a manifesto to enable voter referendums for single transferrable vote in Westminster elections. While out in the wilderness for so long, Labour felt it prudent to make comforting noises to the UK's minor political parties on the off-chance that a coalition could dislodge the Tories. However, given a swing of a few percentage points that delivered Blair a huge majority way out of proportion to actual votes cast, Labour suddenly discovered a new fondness for first-past-the-post pocket districts. As a result, the British have probably one of the more diverse voting systems, with various forms of PR and STV for the regional parliaments for the UK's constituent nations, a US-style vote for Westminster, and a strict PR for the Euro parliament.

The notion that a political party, having gained power through a rigged system, will seek to dismantle that system without being forced is naive. Even if excluded from power for a few election cycles, within a duopoly each party knows that if it waits long enough it will probably regain political power. In a democracy with a modern voting system and many parties, that certainty is reduced.

The US's rigid enforcement of a binary political system just seems odd given its size and diversity. To hand over control of the country to a collectivist duopoly of the two largest minority parties for so long that has effectively excluded the political majority from power is, I think, a baffling historical conundrum that will seem as incomprehensible to future readers as, say, the late Roman political Blue/Green system and the Nika riots seem to us today.
posted by meehawl at 9:05 PM on October 18, 2006

Jimbob: wouldn't your system allow the federal government to just do all the things the state governments currently do? How do you pick people for your "independent" panel?

No matter what system you set up, it can eventually be gamed if someone is in charge long enough.

That said, I think that while Diebold machines are quite easily cracked, that they are designed to be crackable on purpose.
posted by delmoi at 9:29 PM on October 18, 2006

No politicians would stand up and argue that prisoners should be registered and allowed to vote, because their opponents would shout, "They want murderers and drug dealers to vote!"

That's exactly what the governor of Iowa did. Felons can vote here.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 PM on October 18, 2006

meehawl: "taken alone" is a key part of my statement. about history. of course it's important.

but let go of it for a moment and look at the modern context of this conversation. the democrats, if they win this time, will have barely eked out a victory they should have had in two previous major national elections. the notion that the democrats, in this situation, would seek to change such a system given the opportunity is not at all naive. they are not shortsighted enough to take a victory in november as any sort of guarantee that they won't get fucked again by this messed-up system in the future.
posted by Embryo at 9:35 PM on October 18, 2006

Apparantly the Washington state absentee ballot requires almost 70 cents in postage, which is, according to local news, not clearly marked on the ballot itself.
posted by braksandwich at 9:49 PM on October 18, 2006

embryo, I'm glad you're still an optimist. The world needs optimists.
posted by wilful at 9:56 PM on October 18, 2006

delmoi: wouldn't your system allow the federal government to just do all the things the state governments currently do? How do you pick people for your "independent" panel?

All good questions, and something I'll have to look into. This from the Australian Electoral Commission website:

The AEC is headed by a Chairperson (a Judge or a retired Judge of the Federal Court), the Electoral Commissioner, and a non-judicial member (usually the Australian Statistician). The Electoral Commissioner has the powers of a Secretary of a Department under the Public Service Act and the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The Chairperson and the third, non-judicial member both hold their offices on a part-time basis. These positions are currently held by:

* The Hon. James Burchett QC (Chairperson)
* Mr Ian Campbell (Electoral Commissioner)
* Mr Dennis Trewin (part-time non-judicial member)

(Here's what the AEC does by the way.)

The short answer is, of course the system could be gamed. In theory, the "retired Judge of the Federal Court" could be politically biased. But if they were, the public would most probably know about it. They wouldn't just be some mysterious party-political ring in. They would be someone who is already a public figure, whose beliefs and allegiances are well known. It may just be that our government aren't so blatant about appointing obviously political appointees, the way the Bush administration appears to be. Although if you look at recent appointments to the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, one has to wonder... Anyway, I digress. The people running the show are well known, respected public figures, who answer to the parliament and the public. And you only have to deal with one system on a national level, instead of worrying about who the latest appointee in Florida is, or what funky brand of voting machine they've decided to use in Bumfuck, Arizona.
posted by Jimbob at 10:27 PM on October 18, 2006

Y'all need to realize that the Democrat party is the new Republican party, and a New Democrat party needs to take the place of the old Democrats?

There is no more a "democrat" party in america then there is a "Republic" party. The name of the party is the "the democratic party"
posted by delmoi at 11:07 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Jimbob, no one cares about Australia.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 PM on October 18, 2006

bad grammar, Jimbob -- yeah, you're totally right, and I can't believe I forgot to mention that. Something like a third of African American males are disenfranchised because they're convicted felons. totally messed up.

What? that can't be right, if it was there would be one black male felon for every single less-then-middle-class black man.
posted by delmoi at 11:11 PM on October 18, 2006

Actually jimbob, the states have their own electoral commissions, eg the VEC.
posted by wilful at 11:34 PM on October 18, 2006

I'm totally game for whatever rigged system which can prolong iraq and send good ol white boys back in caskets to sway the vote towards the 'stay the course' line. I'm invested to the gills in the insurgency. And I've always voted G.O.P.

Its the only profitable vote for me.

Loved or feared? I choose wealthy.
posted by isopraxis at 11:39 PM on October 18, 2006

After four minutes and five attempts the page won't load so I haven't read it.

Do they pay even if it the evidence is of Democrat-favoring misconduct?
posted by obfusciatrist at 12:01 AM on October 19, 2006

Pfffft! I vote early.

Hint: Stealing votes via abstentee voters is trivial. It's only in the 21st century that stealing from the ballot box became more trivial (mainly, by replacing the ballot box with a counter in a coumpter.)

There is no more a "democrat" party in america then there is a "Republic" party.

I call them the Democrat party for one reason: Because both are wrong. ¹

Can I just say one more time: Reform your corrupt electoral systems!

Why? The owners of this country are quite happy with it. By letting what's left of the opposition pretend that voting matters, they keep real change in check.

When you can reduce your opposition to "donate to foo", "vote for foo", and "protest at the inauguration of bar", you've won everything.

Today's Leftists are mad because the Bush Administration has made it illegal for millions of workers to strike. Their answer? Vote for Democrats.

The former answer -- strike anyway, and be ready for a real fight -- with clubs, bricks and guns -- from the strike breakers. Now? Whine about how evil the GOP is, and work harder on winning a vote -- that Diebold will count.

You wonder why they lost? I certainly don't. You wonder why we even still pretend to have a fair vote? I certainly don't -- nothing makes it easier on the thugs than to get the opposition all pissy on Daily Kos, only to watch how crestfallen they'd become after they lose. Again.

The whole point of the US Vote system since HAVA² (the 2000 election was a bit of luck and a bit of fast moving by the GOP) is to keep the GOP in power. The fact that they get to crush Democrat hopes repeatedly is a bonus.

The fact that the Democrats stand there and take it is an even bigger bonus. The right answer to 2004 in Ohio wasn't a protest, it was a riot leading to a revolution. Instead, Kerry folds, the Dems folded right along with them, and that, as they say, was that.

1] Yes, this was originally "I call the X Windows system "X" because they're both wrong."

2] Note the law is the "Help Americans Vote Act." What we needed was "Help Americans Count The Vote Correctly Act."
posted by eriko at 4:49 AM on October 19, 2006 [1 favorite]

the fact that Democrats did absolutely nothing after 2004 Ohio just proves to me that history will repeat again in 2006. How can it not? The Republicans have even more to lose this time around. How does anyone see what they saw on television about the lines in Ohio and not raise holy hell about it just boggles my mind. Makes me think that the Dems are either cowed beyond belief or somehow complicit in this subjugation of Democracy. How did we come to this point in our republic when someone can scoff off allegations of election fraud as just tinfoil hat ramblings? If any segment of the population is concerned about the credibility of the electoral process then it has to be reformed or a revolution is necessary. End of story.
posted by any major dude at 5:34 AM on October 19, 2006

So you see, Democrats can't help but be the party of accountability, of democracy, of equal voice. The reality that they don't all quite understand that fact, and that some of them spend a lot of energy trying to run from it,
posted by Embryo at 7:53 PM PST

That would be because the elected officials serve corporations long before they serve the citizens. If such was not the case, then you'd have a chance...
posted by rough ashlar at 6:08 AM on October 19, 2006

Why can't people in jail vote? Has anyone even questioned that? I mean shit, they're still citizens. They still have rights under the law

And you have to keep paying taxes. "No taxation without representation".....
posted by rough ashlar at 6:10 AM on October 19, 2006

Call me a cynic, but I predict that, despite opinion poll numbers which show the opposite, the GOP will retain a razor-thin control of both houses, due to an amazing last-minute surge of support, particularly in areas where electronic voting machines are used. I mean, why is this man smiling?.
posted by dinsdale at 6:18 AM on October 19, 2006

they won't get fucked again by this messed-up system in the future.

I concur with the "optimist" statement earlier.

The system is working exactly as it is supposed to work, as it has been designed to work. It is keeping power and governance restricted to the GOP and the Dems. The only spoiler is that the GOP, over the last few cycles, has been unusually reluctant to temporarily relinquish control of even one of the organs of state. Given their differentiated constituencies, the Democrats have potentially more to lose from representative voting.

Finally, proportional representation was introduced into urban areas of the United States during the early part of the 20th century mainly as an attempt to break up Democratic Party machines. The Republicans were less entrenched in heterogeneous communities and that pattern still seems evident today. Using the fear of "undesirables" being elected (code for blacks and asians), both the Dems and the GOP campaigned against PR, introducing referendum after referendum repeatedly through several election cycles, until they managed to virtually abolish it from use and, in fact, from the consciousness of most USians. I find the lack of awareness that there are potentially better voting systems than a simple, single approval almost complete in that country. Given that Canada seems to be progressively introducing some version of mixed member province by province, this ignorance may slightly abate.
posted by meehawl at 7:22 AM on October 19, 2006

Mr_Zero, would the escrow account be a way to make sure donations went to increasing the reward?

It is just a common place to hold the money, so everyone involved feels comfortable. The money can not be taken out until X happens. I have used them for some large online transactions before and thought it would be appropriate for this one.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:26 AM on October 19, 2006

Ok, here's the plan: I get myself a job with a local electoral office and make sure to document my sabotage. Then we split the $250k. Agreed?
posted by dreamsign at 8:09 AM on October 19, 2006

I kid, but do you think any evidence of tampering would go higher than a couple of local goons who will claim that they are acting out of patriotism?
posted by dreamsign at 8:10 AM on October 19, 2006

eriko's comment is fairly on, as far as it goes, but there are things that it really overlooks. It's not just that the Democrats are a pliant "loyal opposition" in a day and age where a militant opposition is necessary; the Democrats are not an opposition party. In the proper sense of the word, they are just the softer-talking wing of the single party of corporate capitalism. Even if we reform the electoral process, which we need to, the two main parties will remain absolutely opposed to any kind of fundamental change, and the Democrats -- even more than the Republicans -- will invest millions of dollars and fight like hell to prevent any more progressive alternative from arising. Electoral reform, yes; but a hell of a lot more, too.
posted by graymouser at 8:27 AM on October 19, 2006

I think it is just plain incorrect to say that Democrats are as much a part of the corporatism of our modern democracy as Republicans are. Yes, campaign expenses lead to a lot of corporate pandering from Democrats, but Republicans don't pander to corporations, they -are- the corporations. The Democrats, unlike Republicans, can break free of that shackle, and to be honest it pisses me off when people choose to cynically ignore that operative difference.
posted by Embryo at 1:16 PM on October 19, 2006

I think it is just plain incorrect to say that Democrats are as much a part of the corporatism of our modern democracy as Republicans are.

I'm somewhat disagreeing with you. Many Democrats are just as bad. See Holy Joe and HRC for two fast examples.

The problem is a supreme court ruling that says money is free speech. So, now, to get elected, you have to spend money. Your opponent will be spending like a fish, if you don't, you're at a real disadvantage.

Who has the money? The corporations. So, if you aren't willing to play footsie with the corps, it becomes very hard for you to mount a credible campaign. It's bad if you're running for the house, it's worse if you're running for the Senate, and if you're going for the big brass ring, if you can't bring a $50 million warchest into the election year, you're basically not a contender. (Why do you think Hillary is sitting on over $22 million? Because that's only an *adequate* start to fundraising for 2008.)

We can't fix this without a constitutional amendment -- SCOTUS will strike down anything that's seriously reduces the effect of money.

A third party isn't a fix -- if they want to play, they'll need cash. If they want cash, they either play the way the corporations with the cash want them to play, or they don't play.

If voters wouldn't be swayed by TV, phone calls and direct marketing, money might be less important. But they truly do work, and money is how you get TV, phone and mail time, so that's the way the game is played.
posted by eriko at 1:25 PM on October 19, 2006

WRT: an independent electoral commission type thing

They'd be crucified. People would scream and shout about states rights, wouldn't they?

There are ways around this. Create the standards and give those states that meet them a bright shiny logo. Let the citizens without that shiny logo start to clamour for it. You don't have to demand it, nanny-state style, when you can let people's own sense of grass-color dictate their actions.
posted by Sparx at 1:26 PM on October 19, 2006

The problem is a supreme court ruling that says money is free speech.

I agree. The fact that corporations have been allowed to enjoy "personhood" enables them to take advantage of this free speech concept. It's more "pay speech", but anyway. A corporations is obviously not a person in any real sense of the word: it combines the resources of thousands or hundreds of people yet is controlled by a small cabal or a single person, it has a potentially infinite lifespan, and it is capable of action at many different places at once.

That is why I am continually struck by a close analogy between the current political state of the U.S. and France's ancien régime political structure.

Both regimes are characterised by massive incumbency advantages. Theoretically, within the old régime and within the current U.S. system, there are separate Estates with varying degrees of representation that "stand in" for the people and advise the monarch. However, in the U.S. houses, as in the French États généraux, representatives hold office in a baronial fashion, keeping captive the "votes" of vast swathes of countryside with no other way of voicing opposition. In practice, the French monarch paid closest attention to those Dukes and nobles with greatest incomes from Church and agricultural levies.

In the U.S. today, the corporations effectively play the same role as the Catholic Church in early-modern France. It's post-modern manorialism.

Curtailing the "free speech" and putting hard limits on the spending by corporations or political action committees, perhaps through state-funded election campaigns as in some democracies, is a modern equivalent of the disestablishment of the French Catholic Church and the constraint of its influence.

Finally, a drift towards an entirely separate state can be seen in the increasing number of tax-exempt religious organisations and tax-savvy corporations. Removing themselves from any repsonsibility for the upkeep of the commonwealth of the state, pushing the burden towards the masses, while also using their funds to influence political discourse was also a trend evidenced in the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France. That didn't end well.
posted by meehawl at 3:53 PM on October 19, 2006 [1 favorite]

Eriko: you're totally right -- it's the expense of running modern campaigns that drives all politicians towards the money well that is corporations.

But that's why the netroots/grassroots movement is changing the Democratic party so quickly and to greater and greater effect. There are many extremely noble-minded politicians who are corrupted by the money in the system, because they have to make a choice: either abandon their ambition to govern or play the money/power games. But a mechanism by which millions of Americans can contribute a little bit to campaigns and thereby match the corporate contributions of a few very rich folks -- or, better yet, have a broadly unstructured dialogue that money cannot influence -- hits directly at this corporate dependance. I have to say that my optimism has more to do with this structural change, which I believe is the biggest step forward American democracy has taken in quite a while, than anything else.
posted by Embryo at 7:00 PM on October 19, 2006