Interfering with Others’ Elections for Me, but not for Thee
This is Former CIA Director James Woolsey and Laura Ingraham having a good laugh about how the United Stated has interfered with the elections of other countries. And continues to do so.
Media rigging elections
This Huffpo article illustrates how the "news media" determines what candidates are acceptable before the People ever have a chance to vote for them. FOX has decided that it is time to pull Mitt Romney down and to prop up Newt Gingrich. FOX is but one media voice, but it is an especially strong one for many people who will be voting republican. Last election cycle, for example, FOX worked hard to make sure that Ron Paul didn't get the nomination--it was my sense that had FOX gotten behind him, he might have become the nominee. It is my belief that the cumulative effect of these sorts of media positions almost completely decide who the nominees of both parties will be. I suspect that if FOX wanted Romney to soar in the polls, they have enough influence to make that happen, but they don't want that to happen, so they will peck away to make Romney look "plastic," or whatever needs to be said to steer the audience away from him. The net result of this media input is that the media has influence--too much influence--over who will be the nominees of both parties. The media decides who are the "serious" candidates. Eventually, the people get to vote on one of only two viable candidates, one a Democrat and other a Republican. That's one choice greater than countries (like the old Soviet Union) whose political systems are entirely corrupt.
Why we need public funding for our elections
Members of Congress are supposed to assert independence regarding their deliberations and actions, but it has long been clear that campaign cash corrupts this entire process. In the video below, Lawrence Lessig succinctly makes the case that corporate contributions have made a farce out of Congress. Truly, how can Senator Scott Brown (featured in the video) take a position opposing a bill when he doesn't even know why? Rather than considering the merits of the financial reform legislation with an open mind, Scott Brown is giving the terms of the bill no consideration. Instead of understanding the bill, then weighing the pros and cons, he is merely granting the wishes of his biggest contributors, who happen to be big corporations. This is political malpractice, and We the People deserve far better than this. This is the equivalent of turning on your kitchen faucet and hoping for clear water, but seeing only raw sewage come out. The "Congress" we have is not a functioning Congress. Because it is devoid of the critical deliberative function that should serve as it's heart and soul, it is a charade and it should be the highest priority of this country to Fix Congress. The solution Lawrence Lessig proposes is to enact a law called the Fair Elections Now Act, which will allow publicly-funded elections. One such bill is currently pending in Congress: the Fair Elections Now Act. You can read the full text of the Senate version of the bill here. If you click on the "Take Action" page, you can encourage additional sponsors for this desperately needed legislation. There are many co-sponsors to both the Senate and House versions of the bill, but there is a long way to go. It would only take you five or ten minutes to review the bill, and make a few calls to voice your support to your representatives.
Problems with heavily monied judge elections
At Raw Story, Adam Skaggs warns that bigger money than ever will be pouring into judicial elections in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United. He also offers some good suggestions:
[S]tates should adopt public financing systems for judicial elections (something West Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Wisconsin have already done). Public financing gets judges out of the unseemly business of dialing for dollars to make sure they win. States also need to adopt stricter disclosure rules, so the public knows which individuals and groups are spending in judicial campaigns. And states should institute new disqualification regulations to ensure that, if a judge is assigned to hear the case of a major campaign supporter, he or she must step aside and let a wholly impartial judge preside.
More questions on the reliability of voting machines
Sequoia voting machines has been troubled by allegations of vote irregularities before. (see here, here and here for typical examples). Now Slashdot is reporting that a new analysis of the computer code used by these machines indicates there is probably some truth to the allegations.
The existence of such code appears to violate Federal voting law: "Sequoia blew it on a public records response. ... They appear... to have just vandalized the data as valid databases by stripping the MS-SQL header data off, assuming that would stop us cold. They were wrong. The Linux 'strings' command was able to peel it apart. Nedit was able to digest 800-MB text files. What was revealed was thousands of lines of MS-SQL source code that appears to control or at least influence the logical flow of the election, in violation of a bunch of clauses in the FEC voting system rulebook banning interpreted code, machine modified code and mandating hash checks of voting system code."
Of course, this barely rises to the level of news in the formerly democratic USA.