Yes On 14 Open Primary

The government of the United States of America is founded upon the Constitution, written by our forefathers to create a working democracy incapable of transforming into a monarchy. Basic human rights were established, and power, although little, was given to each individual. The power given to the people can also be referred to as a voice, and in the election system we use, we call this voice a vote. This country fought for and gained its independence from injustices placed upon our ancestors’ lives. Our leaders made sure that these injustices would not occur again, and that by speaking out, by voting, the people could be appeased in the best way possible. Why is it that so many young adults between the ages of 18 and 29, those who apparently have so much to complain about, aren’t using their voices? As a whole, only about half of the population eligible to vote does so. In the election of our forty-third president, fifty one percent of those eligible voted. The young adult age group, 18-29, makes up the smallest part of that group. Seventeen percent of eligible voters between this age group voted (Lewis). In the latest presidential election, 30 million 18-30 year olds did not vote (Anthony, Skaags). Only a small percentage of voters came out of this age group-the smallest; however, it is not uncommon to see members of the group participating in protests or other complaint oriented activities with the intent of making change. Change is able to come easier than most people think. We have a say in everything we do. That “say” does not always come from our lips; it comes from the ballot. This is important because the government plays an integral role in everything we do. It may not seem like it, and directly, it really isn’t that important to the little everyday things we do, but indirectly, we encounter it all the time. That extra weekend spending money: tax returns. The helpful financial boost that allowed you to open your own small business: government loans. The money needed for important schooling or research: grants. The government also gives back to us by attempting to improve the economy, creating more jobs for the unemployed, and creating programs for general interest. For students ages 18-25 and up, there is a profound tie with the government. Many high school graduates choose to either enter an establishment of higher education or join a branch of the armed forces. The United States government reserves a certain amount of money within its budget each year to spend on education, our education. This can be considered the fuel that will fire the futures of millions, and more importantly, put food on the table one day. So why is there such a low turnout at the polls for this generation? Many youth believe that their votes don’t count. In national elections (considering the electoral college) this may prove to be true. But, if you don’t even show up, then the vote really doesn’t count, or have a chance to. The popular vote has everything to do with elections. A president may be elected without having the majority of the popular vote, so wouldn’t that make him an unpopular president? The silent majority usually refers to the content group of constituents who do not speak out, protest, or in any way oppose their elected officials, because they are happy. In the case of young adults today, our silent majority is roughly eighty percent of us who are most certainly not fully content with the way things are. So why be silent to the people to whom it really matters? Young people talk a lot about the government, a lot more than most people give us credit for, but that’s it. We only talk to each other. We don’t get out in the streets and protest, we don’t address senators, governors, presidents, or anyone by email, fax, letters, etc. Again, many may think that their actual voices, aside from their voting voices, don’t count. Not all letters are read by politicians; not all messages from the public are gotten across. But what if that one letter made it? That one letter from a disgruntled 20 something business major with concerns about policies that makes it to an official’s desk. These concerns and ideas may have never crossed the minds of our officials, and they may very well love them. Those in power are quite ready to embrace the views and concerns of the younger generation, but there is a general attitude that we are disliked because we are younger, because we are “stupid.” Everyone was at one time, and attitudes between generations won’t change much. The elderly will reject change, the middle aged will boast extreme knowledge and control over the times, and the youth will sneer with claims of oppression and neglect. Stop complaining, start campaigning, not literally. But it is a positive thing for one to put down all of his concerns, ideas, anything that needs to be conveyed to higher officials on paper or saved on a computer. These ideas may be just that, but we are all part of this nation, and it is our freedom to have her run the way we want. Democracy: a government for the people, by the people. “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any on account of age.” (Constitution) Many college age students have their educations paid for by supportive parents. Many college age students lack this resource, and must take out student loans and work part time jobs while enrolled in their places of learning. Some of these students are no longer considered dependants of their parents, and must pay their own federal income taxes. For a young person, juggling college, work, having to pay for college, and on top of that having to pay the government, can sometimes be too much. This is a perfect example of a person who should become politically aware of officials’ policies and vote for who he thinks will benefit him the most. Have you ever felt that criminal punishments are too harsh or unjust? Have you ever felt that there is a dire need for change, but don’t do a thing about it? Voting is a direct link to those who can change the things that people feel need to be. I remember my first and only time voting. I had recently turned eighteen, and was very excited about casting my ballot. The election was for local officials, city and state, and also two referendums on state funding: one for state parks, and one for state university funds. Being a senior in high school on my way to college in my home state, I did myself a huge favor by voting in favor of increased spending on education. I was first compelled to vote because my father is a lawyer, and also very concerned with government affairs. I am lucky to have him for guidance, because he has encouraged me to vote since I was young, and still does. My father is by far the most influential and direct source of my vigilance on the topic. He taught me that what I think matters, and that by voting, I can put weight on the side of the scale that I feel needs it, to get what I want. He has caused me to think that not voting is stupid, because even if I am completely content with the way local and national governments are running things, if I vote to keep everything the way it is, it is a bit more likely that it will happen. It was a liberating experience, especially when I was asked to present my identification and voter registration. The poll workers found my name on a sheet with others’ names who are registered, verified my name on the sheet with my name on my identification and my name on the voter registration card. Then, my name was crossed out when I went to cast my ballot, my voice, to benefit my future. It took maybe five minutes when I was at the polls, but it was five minutes for me. Those five minutes I spent helped pass the higher spending for education referendum, which, to me, a first year student at a Virginia State University, is going to be worth much more than five seemingly worthless minutes. They are only worthless if you don’t use them, and I did. I spoke with a friend one night about voting, he is 22 years of age. I asked him if he voted, he replied, “Hell no, I’m too lazy for that.” It may seem a bit humorous to some on the surface, but is actually quite depressing. He pays his taxes, just like the rest of us. He is held accountable for obeying the laws, just as all of us are. If he is so controlled by this system, why won’t he do what he can to design it to how he wants it to be. Why won’t he look for a candidate who he agrees with on most topics, someone who speaks to him, who he feels will represent him in the brutal field of politics? When building a house, a future homeowner will usually find an architect who will design the house exactly how he, the homeowner, wants it to be. He would not hire an architect who designs the house in a way that displeases him. And if someone wanted a house built a certain way, is it wise for him to hire no architect at all? If one wants the government to be a certain way, he should most certainly vote for a candidate who he feels will make changes to make the government a government he is comfortable with. He should not vote for a candidate who he feels will make the government one which he despises. And if he wants the government to be a certain way, the best way to punish himself would be to not vote at all, because then he makes himself a hypocrite. In every election votes are lost or miscounted because of voting errors, machine errors, voting devices stop working, the voting machines calculate a wrong number for a specific candidate, and poll workers misplace cartridges that have tallied up the numbers from the voting machines. We the people hold the right to vote, but with today’s voting system; America does not always get the actual winner in office due to flaws in the system. In our country The United States of America, the people have the power of deciding who is voted into office. When making these decisions, the people carefully listen to all testimonies that the person running has to offer. After making a final decision as to whom they will vote for, they wait for Election Day and chose the candidate that best represents what they believe in. The Voting System In the United States we have a voting system that consists of a specific day of the year which always is the first Tuesday flowing after the first Monday in November, between the second and the eighth day. On this particular day (Election day) there are specific places usually ones open to the public ( Schools, city hall, churches, fire stations, and post offices) that hold specific times in which they are allowed to vote. When voting they will use anything from electronic voting machines, paper ballots, optical scan, punch cards, mechanical lever and direct recording electronic device known as the DRE. After everyone has voted poll workers count the votes. Places that use paper ballots each ballot has to be manually read and tallied up. With the mechanical lever, poll workers check each machine and read out the number of votes cast for each candidate. For the computerized systems such as the optical scan, the DRE, and punch card the number are read from disks. After everything is tallied up the votes are reported to a central counting place like the court house or state office. In a presidential election, after the peoples vote is reported, the Electoral College then places their vote. How the Electoral College works is that when the people place their vote they are voting for electors who have promised to vote for a certain Presidential candidate. The electors vote, and more than half of them must vote for a specific person for that person to become president. Because of the Electoral College it is possible for the people’s popular vote to be voided and another person is elected President. Usually the people popular vote goes along with the popular vote of the Electoral College. Flaws that have Occurred in Our System The flaws in our system have happened in our country probably since the beginning of voting history, but have gone unnoticed or unannounced. The very first time that a mistake was mentioned and documented in voting history was when President John F. Kennedy was elected into office. In this election it was mentioned that there was a vote miscount, and that the numbers were in favor of J.F.K. The supposed miscount was said to be on purpose, but the government never reported if this accusation was true, or it was just a rumor. The most recent Voting flaws include the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. There were many rumors and accusations that were brought to America’s attention after both of these elections. It has been reported that during the 2000 election, the electronic voting machines had an increased number of 5% added to these machines. This has not been verified as the truth but is one of the many loop holes that is said to have occurred in that election. In the 2000 election, there was such an outrage that there could have been a possibility that machines had been tampered with that the U.S. Supreme court had ruled to re-count the ballots, but the Supreme Court then ruled to stop going with the re-count and to go by what the numbers already said. After the 2000 election the government spent 650 million dollars of the tax payer’s money to fix these machines and the supposed problems and loop holes. This was to ensure that the machines would not be able to be tampered with, or that the machines would not have the flaws that occurred in the last election. After spending this money the machines were inspected by a group of inspectors and the machines failed the inspection. But, instead of not allowing these machines to be able to be used in the next election the government allowed them and the same flaws still occurred. When voting with the electronic devices in the 2004 election, people have reported many errors that occurred along with not enough experienced or knowledgeable poll workers to help fix the problems that occurred. What seemed to happen a lot is when some of these glitches occurred with these machines a person would go and get help and another machine would have a problem, and so on and it seemed there just were not enough workers to help fix the machines and so the problems were not getting addressed like they should have. Some people said that when they would go to vote for a specific person the machines would pop up and say that he or she had chose someone else. So was that vote counted even though it was not an actual vote? With any piece of electronics they are taking a risk. Electronics were created by man, which a man can make mistakes. With an electronic device they usually program it to do certain things or create a program that enables it to do certain things. With anything else this can have loop holes and not be flaw free. The machines can have electrical problems, program overload or just not work correctly. Even with typing on the computer and trying to get a document to look a certain way, sometimes their computer can already have defaults or just be acting funny. People can overlook things when building or just not see what someone else might point out. So the real question for the government if they want to keep using these electronic devices is how can they make an electronic flaw free? In the 2004 election there were many voting irregularities that occurred. These voting irregularities are said to have something to do with the Republican Party paying poll workers off or altering machines. In Florida people were not allowed to vote in the 2004 presidential election if they were black voters that had been convicted of a felony or black voters that were mistakenly put on the list for being a convicted felon. But the laws were not banning Latino felons. In Ohio the state was allowing few voting machines in Democratic voting areas and not allowing people to vote out of their precincts, so people would be standing in line all day and the voting place would close and people did not have the chance to vote. “A group of Ohio African American residents have also given sworn testimony that during the 2004 election they were harassed, intimidated, deprived of voting machines, given faulty ballots, confronted with malfunctioning machines and hit a staggering range of other problems that deprived them of votes that were destined for John Kerry, votes that may have tipped the Ohio outcome”. The Free Press (16 June. 2005). This made John Kerry lose thousands of votes and indicated massive fraud. Illinois reported that voting machines were picking the correct candidate but then when they were being tallied up the machines were automatically saying that George W. Bush had more votes, when the workers manually counted they found that John Kerry had a higher number of votes. North Carolina reported a larger number of voters voted for John Kerry, but when the results came back it was determined that North Carolina had favored George W. Bush. So then they did a recount, and it turned out that John Kerry was in favor. The Republican Party denies any of these claims and says that the miscounts and voting irregularities happened to anyone being republican or democratic. They sate that the voting irregularities had nothing to do with the Republican Party fixing the machines or paying poll workers to fix the machines or the outcome a certain way. They also say that this could be a case of inexperienced workers and faulty voting equipment that they have nothing to do with. The state hires or gets volunteers for this specific day, and the government provides the machines. After all these allegations there should have been another election. Having another election after the one on the traditional day would have been the first in America’s history and certainly would have been non-traditional, but that should have taken place to ensure that we had a fair election. We the people are not even sure if the votes ended up giving us the president that the popular vote had won. The final results of the 2004 presidential election determined that George W. Bush would be the President for four more years. This was significantly off from the gallop polls and the exit polls. These polls showed that John Kerry had won the election by a good percentage. So how could the final polls results determine that George W. Bush was the winner? The only answer to that question is that the voting flaws in our system made a large enough impact on the final results in the election. These results may have put the wrong person in office and ultimately we the people have had someone other than who was suppose to be in office, making decision that potentially could have resulted in something bad for our country. The government needs to create a certain form of voting and stick to it, instead of creating new machines that are not flaw free. If we could create a flaw free system then we could ensure that we have the correct person in office. By having the correct person in office, the one that won the popular vote it would make people feel more secure about voting. Maybe more people would be interested in voting. This would turn into something that everyone took part in without feeling that his or hers vote didn’t count. It’s Time for Online Voting On Election Night November 7, 2000, I viewed first hand the election process over the various news broadcasts. To my surprise, events unfolded like none other in recent history. Elections were called prematurely by competing news stations, concessions were given and then revoked, celebration bottles were chilled on the left and right, but corks never flew. These events caused us to question the reliability of our current system of paper ballot voting. Realizing our current system is outdated and vulnerable to multiple problems we should assume futuristic issues of online voting as a responsible and logical innovation. In correlation to most Americans, we remained transfixed by the sequence of events unfolding before our very eyes long after our children gave way to slumberland dreams upon the living room carpet. Subsequently, indecisive decisions as to who made the presidency lasted over a week eventually succumbing not only to Florida’s various court systems but also the United States Supreme Court. Suddenly the floor dropped out of our tried and challenged arrangements of elections. Never before did we doubt our system to this extent. Vast opinions ran quick to judgment, primarily suggesting amendments are imperative to reform our constitution in order to counter the effects of its apparent weaknesses. Contrary to this approach, I must say, I believe this a rush to judgment and inept. On this account, it’s the paper ballot system that’s unreliable due to our population increase and sophistication. Additionally it’s a wonder that such innovations have yet to be introduced as the norm. Author Kate Kelly, writer of The Publicity Manual ironically predicted in her 1991 novel Election Day, Soon to be refined and brought into the voting system is almost assuredly a system where voters would ballot on a computer terminal, which can tabulate results quickly and also offer appropriate warnings, such as “Error. You may vote for only one candidate” (250), assuring us the idea of using computers to ballot is a long awaited and logical progression of election methods. Due to this proposed innovation, we will realize increase voter turnout, create timely and decisive outcomes along with limited fraud and increased security measures unlike any other ballot system provided for in our past history. In particular, the number of registered voters compared to those that actually made their way to the poll-site, in the 2000 election, is lower than expectations of the past. To summarize the article Voter Turnout Up Modestly From 1996 written by Will Dunham of Voter.Com, indicates that the current race for presidency increased little since the 1996 low that previously met the lowest of all marks in 1924. In view of the depression of the twenties, brought on the feelings of inadequacies that one person could not affect the greater outcome of the presidency, it’s not a leap of judgment to relate the consequences of that election in regards to voter turnout. Dunham quotes Curtis Gans, of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, as saying, “50.7 percent of the 205.8 million voting age Americans cast ballots on Thursday pitting Republican George W. Bush against Democrat Al Gore.” He proceeds with accounting that, Voter turnout in the quadrennial presidential elections has been falling steadily since 1960, when 62.8 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the race between Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon. U.S. voter participation also lags significantly behind other democracies around the world. In conclusion Dunham goes into possible reasons why some states do better than others in the voter’s participation arena. Two of these states are Washington and Oregon, both of which have extensive mail-in ballot programs. Oregon is an exclusively mail in ballot state and continually tops others in voter turnout with their easy voting method. Implicating by example, the need for greater accessibility to voters. For obvious reasons our procedures for counting the ballots and certifying results comes under scrutiny for increased accountability and efficiency. From dangling chads to military ballots without postmarks, along with the obvious differences in counting procedures of individual canvassing board’s, has demanded the importance for immediate improvements. As we know, the last state to certify their election results, 19 days after the election and with much controversy, was Florida. Realizing the unusual circumstances surrounding the hand-counts, we have to recognize the initial reasons for the circumstances stemming from the quirky ballot system on the start. Mainly, the paper ballots themselves are identified as the culprits. Not only were they confusing to some, the tabulation machines themselves misread tens of thousands of ballots nation wide. Yet another issue of major concern is voter fraud. To point out a source for this information, SeattleTimes.com’s article in Election Notebook indicates, “Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann said his office is investigating the accusations and reports that a Democratic Party volunteer traded homeless people cigarettes in exchange for votes” (“voter fraud”). Likewise in the same city, 174 college students boasted that they voted more than twice even though it is a federal offence. These incidents urgently illuminate the need for accountability with our paper ballot system. Without doubt, one of the reasons our current system of voting shows its decline, this time around, is due to the closeness of the current race. After all, the latest count in Florida is 545 votes in favor of George W. Bush and, as we are all aware, the electoral vote of Florida will determine the presidency of this nation on December 12th. This however, is not the closest race in history. According to the Guide to U.S. Elections, the race for presidency of 1960, our not so distant past, between candidate Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat nominee John F. Kennedy Jr., experienced yet another election that produced a very close win for John F. Kennedy Jr. yielding a popular vote, of 114,673 over Nixon (360). On reflection of the election procedures, this race could have been easily challenged after the discovery of wide spread voter fraud linking Mafia influence to the Democrats in the voting precincts of Chicago. Mr. Nixon might have won this election over Kennedy, in spite of this; he did achieve Presidency eight years later. Overall, we willingly admit the system is not perfect, now we must face the challenges and demands of seeking out the best long-term fix of an inept system. However, opportunities and innovation are not only bountiful but also expected in our day and age. One such company, leading an online voting system named appropriately as VoteHere.net, heads this venture. They boast several online trials with both private and public companies for tasks such as electing private officials to employee committees of major companies to support their individual interest. They have in fact, even conducted experimental voluntary site trials in the 2000 election. For instance, an insight into the mission of VoteHere.net is articulated in the following statement, “Strong technical background and industry innovation combined with a proven track record of successful, secure elections, both private and public, allowed VoteHere.net to emerge as a pioneer in changing the way the world votes (homepage).” Which indicates their lead in the newborn industry of secure online ballot casting and the insurance of such a company with a proven history of accuracy. Multiple questions arise however, on the approach of online voting procedures. One of the initial concerns is alleviated in this statement from VoteHere.net elaborating on the idea of online voting, The first thing people think of when they hear the term “Internet voting” is that we are talking about voting from home. Internet voting can actually take on two different forms: poll-site and remote. The widespread adoption of online voting is dependent on state-certification, legislation, and voter demand (voting basics). Understandably our nation will utilize both remote and poll-site methods when they implement such a system to encourage an increased number of voters to participate in our voting system. However, remote voting, from your home computer, will take substantially longer to implement than poll-site voting due to the need to certify the equipment which will take legislation time to pass such a measure. Nonetheless, we’re obligated to repeat tests of proven accuracy and public acceptance before we implement any new voting system. VoteHere.net indicates, “Voters in three counties in California and Arizona were given the opportunity to cast non-binding online ballots for the November 7th presidential election in a public trial of online voting,” to prove their ingenuity and capabilities. The results of these pilot poll-site trials proved successful in many areas resulting in exit poll results from the voters themselves indicating, · 100% found the online system easy or very easy to use · 8 out of 10 would prefer to vote online · 85% believe VoteHere.net’s system is secure Based on this information, we can count on computerized poll-site systems to be implemented sometime in our foreseeable future. The first concerns about the system arise in security, cost, reliability and timeliness. Undoubtedly, the security issues are at the forefront with any online method. ‘If there is a will there is a way,’ attitude comes to mind considering the mentality of hackers and criminal activity beseeched to alter voting outcomes. With respect to the issue of the security of ballot tampering, VoteHere.net explains, The greatest threat to an election is compromise by an insider who has been bought. Election compromise must be protected in two areas. First, individual ballots must be protected from tampering; ballots cannot be added, deleted, or changed. Second, the system must be based on distributed trust, where even the vendor cannot act as a trusted authority. The VoteHere Election System utilizes a multi-authority tabulation system, which supports distributed trust. This is analogous to how elections are protected today by election officials, party observers, and poll watchers. No individual can access the election results, including VoteHere.net personnel. In a comprehensive report by Kimberley M. Wyman, the Election Manager of Thurston County, Washington, conducting extensive trials utilizing VoteHere.net’s technology both remotely and poll-site during the presidential primary elections of 2000, concludes, with regards to one major concern of cost, in Internet Voting Trial Comprehensive Review as, A final challenge for Internet voting companies is how to provide a cost-effective product for governmental agencies to conduct Internet elections. The most significant costs in traditional elections are printing and personnel. The advantage of an Internet election is that the need for these supplies and people is greatly reduced or eliminated altogether. Although the final outcome will greatly reduce costs with paper and personnel, one easily resolves that the transition to the computerized ballot system would be costly in the onset, however, upon full implementation of the system, cost savings would be realized. As for the timeliness of results, VoteHere.net says that it’s only a matter of minutes for the certified canvassing board member to submit the private access code in order to procure the results; greatly reducing the time and inconsistencies we now identify with elections in addition to reducing the likely chance of recounts in close elections. Never before have the events of such an outstanding event precipitated the need for services VoteHere.net offers. Fortunately they currently are “actively pursuing certification in several states and expects approval of the system this year. VoteHere.net is closely involved with state government efforts in Washington, California and (coincidentally) Florida to define certification requirements for Internet voting,” generating the very hopefulness our country strives for in improvements to our nation’s dilemma. In the foreseeable future, Joe citizen will make his way to his assigned poll-voting site through rain, sleet or snow in anticipation of choosing his candidates or cause. He will regard the poll conservator with identification and enter his screened voting chamber as before. Joe will then circumvent the bygone days of paper ballot voting and follow the simple concise directions only a computer system can provide. He will choose his candidates with a decisive press of a button, and when he makes a mistake, he’ll be notified immediately. If Joe turns out to be Joe Criminal, attempting to cast more than one ballot, he’ll run into security measures beyond manmade gullibility and will be halted knowing his intentions by actions. Joe’s vote will be tabulated along with his fellow citizens of his precinct in a matter of minutes, thus contributing to a competent system in efficiency of voting in our republic. There may be a day in the foreseeable future, from this point on, that will require improvements in the voting system proposed here. When that day arrives, again our demand for improvements will inspire innovation. To continually improve upon a system that can never be without fault is no crime of pride or ingenuity. Remote Electronic Voting: A Simple, Safe, and Accurate Voting System Does it not seem obvious that the United States should be voting over the Internet by now? Considering all the vitally important monetary and information-related transactions that occur over the Internet every day, one would think this could and would have happened already. However, Remote Electronic Voting, especially on a national scale, presents us with some possibly troubling implications and problems. These implications and problems, especially those concerning security, have prevented the U.S. from employing such Internet voting in a national election so far. Is such a system in our future? Many experts believe so. But as of yet, the risks seem to outweigh the rewards. Before going any farther, it is important to clarify the difference between Internet voting and Remote Electronic Voting. Internet voting already occurs in many places. It refers merely to voting from a computer that is under the control of election officials, usually in a specific precinct’s polling place. On the other hand, Remote Electronic Voting is the new prospect of voting over the Internet from a remote, unsupervised location (Alvarez 4, Rubin). This new prospect has sure advantages but many likely drawbacks as well. The greatest advantage that Remote Electronic Voting could provide would be ease of voting. The weather, waiting in line, and being confused about where one’s polling place is would no longer be issues. Also, Remote Electronic Voting would practically eliminate the need for absentee ballots, which often are not counted. In fact, in the 2000 and 1996 presidential elections, it is estimated that about 40% of overseas ballots were rejected (Alvarez 1). Also, it would help disabled people vote without the struggle of getting to a polling place. In 2000, about 80% of voting precincts had “some barrier that prevented citizens in a wheelchair from accessing the poll site” (Alvarez 5). These problems would be solved if disabled citizens and voters overseas could vote from home via the Internet. Remote Electronic Voting could also increase the quality of the pool of votes in a national election. It would probably increase participation by the 18-25 year-old age group, which historically has had the lowest participation in national elections, because young people usually are more comfortable using the Internet. And the quality of each vote could also be increased, considering the possibility that one could have open on his screen the window to cast the vote and a few other windows informing him about the candidates and their stances on the important issues (Alvarez 6). It seems that Remote Electronic Voting would not only increase overall participation, but might also increase the quality of each vote and of overall representation of the nation’s eligible voters. However, there are extremely important technical considerations about Remote Electronic Voting. The greatest consideration is security. Obviously, lone hackers and programmers have been able to disrupt Internet traffic in the past with viruses. However, even more threatening than a virus is the possibility of “Denial of Service” attacks. In such cases, the attackers flood servers with fake messages and overload them to the point that they must shut down. These attacks are still largely not defensible. In February 2000, massive Denial of Service attacks temporarily shut down Amazon.com, Buy.com, CNN.com, eBay, and Yahoo.com (Alvarez 7). And if such established Internet sites could be shut down, then probably so too could any national voting server, which would already be filled with millions of votes. Another security consideration is that of stealth programs. One example is Backorifice2000 or BOK2. This program allows an attacker to control the use of someone else’s computer without the user knowing it. Hence, an attacker could cast someone else’s vote over the Internet, and that person would still think he or she had cast it (Rubin). All these problems, in addition to the problem of fraudulent online voter registration, have played the largest role in preventing the United States from employing Remote Electronic Voting in any previous national election. In fact, in February 2004, the Department of Defense gathered a 10-member panel to research the issue for the 2004 presidential election. The panel concluded that, as panel-member Aviel Rubin stated, “Today’s PCs are grossly inadequate to the task.” Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the final call to abandon any projects for Remote Electronic Voting in the 2004 presidential election (Hardy). Still, one can hypothetically assume that computer scientists will eventually solve all the security problems surrounding Remote Electronic Voting. In fact, Michigan conducted its 2004 Democratic Caucus via Remote Electronic Voting, and none of the 46,000 voters complained of fraud or error (Hardy). If advancements were made to the point that such a feat could be accomplished on a national scale, what then would be the considerations? The greatest possible drawback to even a completely secure Remote Electronic Voting system would be what is commonly referred to as “The Digital Divide.” The issue is basically this: the whiter, richer, and more Republican a person is, the better Internet access and knowledge he or she normally has. Would Remote Electronic Voting favor white-collar workers who have Internet access both at home and at work over blue-collar workers who may not have access at either location? Also, one must consider the “social engineering” of a voting system, or how user-friendly the interface is (Rubin). If only those with knowledge of the Internet can figure out how to electronically vote, then those without knowledge of the Internet would be effectively disenfranchised. Couple this with the fact that those with better Internet access are already in the demographic groups that commonly vote at the highest rates (Alvarez 8), and it seems that Remote Electronic Voting would actually exacerbate the gap between groups that commonly vote and those that do not, and would in fact make the national vote less representative of the eligible electorate. This “Digital Divide” issue would probably be the biggest drawback to a national Remote Electronic Voting system. There are, however, other non-security issues to consider as well. For example, would it not be easier to sell one’s vote when no election official is there to supervise (Rubin)? One can easily imagine a door-to-door political activist coming to a voter’s door and saying, “I’ll give you x amount of money if you will log me on to your voting site and allow me to cast your vote for you.” Such a scenario is prevented under the current system. And in the same vein, it would be easier to coerce or threaten voters if they voted outside a protected polling place (Rubin). Finally, some fear the further disintegration of “civic life” in the United States. A current study by Robert Putnam showed a visible decline in political group activities since 1950, and Remote Electronic Voting would most likely continue the trend of “voting alone” (Alvarez 9). Remote Electronic Voting over the Internet may happen some time in the near future. For many, it is not a question of if, but rather of when. For them, the issue is making a Remote Electronic Voting system secure from attacks and fraud; when that is accomplished, it’s all systems go. And nobody can deny the advantages of not having to leave home, spend hours in transit or in line, or verify and count absentee ballots. However, even if such a system is achieved, the United States should still consider the fairness of the system. It is probably just as crucial that issues concerning the “Digital Divide” and coercion be resolved as issues concerning security. The last thing the U.S. should want is a simple, safe, accurate, and grossly unfair voting system. Politicians’ Attempt to Stay in Office: Taxing People Outside Their Voting District The United States is one of the most democratic nations in the world. However, for our elected representatives, government is also a business, and these officials want to do anything they can to stay employed, or get re-elected. There are several ways they can do this, but one way has been used repeatedly since the American Revolution. It has been used in many examples, including the trade wars between the states of the 1780’s, the taxation of the federal bank by Maryland until 1819, the speed trap in Macks Creek, MO in the 1990’s, West Virginia’s current tax on river traffic, increased taxes for hotels and rental cars, and finally in the states’ dependency on federal grant money. All of these are examples in which the politicians are taxing people outside of their voting district, in hopes of staying in office. The idea behind all of these schemes is that the people paying the taxes and fines are not the people that vote for the local or state politicians creating these laws. Therefore, the people in the politician’s district receive the benefits of this increased revenue, but don’t have any of the cost, causing the elected official to look more favorable. Furthermore, the visitors to the area rarely have an easy way to fight these taxes or fines. They can’t vote the officials out of office, and they usually can’t avoid the situation. The only choice they have is to comply with the fine or tax, or spend a lot of time and money to fight it in court. The following examples were all devised by politicians who wanted nothing more than to stay in office, and they were created under the same line of thinking – take advantage of people who have no way of protesting. These examples all have this common theme, only the implementation and the legality of them differ. This process of taxing others began before the Constitution was even written. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had no control of commerce between the states. Because of this, the states taxed each other’s goods, creating trade wars. Although they were hurting commerce in the process, the politicians knew they were gaining revenue without alienating their own voters. This practice was resolved by the ratification of the Constitution, which states in Article 1, Section 8, “No tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State” (U.S. Constitution). Another example of politicians using this means of staying in office was the taxation of the federal bank by Maryland. Although this had some other issues involved, such as Congress’s power to start a bank and the struggle of power between the federal government and the states, this is still an example of elected officials gaining revenue by a means other than taxing their own constituents. This law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1819. In the ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the states don’t have the power by any means, to retard laws enacted by Congress (McCulloch v. Maryland). So in this case, the tax was declared unconstitutional because it taxed the federal government, not because it taxed someone other than the voters in Maryland. A more recent example took place in Macks Creek, MO in the 1990′s. This example really was highway robbery, as the mayor set up a police force of five in a town of 272 to enforce a speed trap on US highway 54 that runs through the town. The police force raised about $165,000 a year, more than three-fourths of the town’s revenue simply by writing speeding tickets (Town Goes Broke). However, the mayor’s grand scheme was flawed, because he had to spend the majority of the money just to keep the police force running. Therefore, although the voters were not taxed, they did not see any benefits and did not fully support his practices. Missouri legislature stopped Macks Creek’s scheme by enacting a law that stated that only 45 percent of a town’s revenue could come from traffic violations. This law was proposed by a legislator who had been stopped in Macks Creek (Town Goes Broke). In this case, it took years before someone who had the authority to do something about the practice, to finally get it stopped. Another recent example is a tax West Virginia imposes on the river traffic that passes by, on the Ohio River. In this case the revenue collected is used for West Virginia’s highway fund. Although this law has been upheld in West Virginia’s courts, reporter George Will feels that it should be challenged in the Supreme Court, as he says this interferes with the mobility of commerce (Wills). However, until this law is contested, the politicians will continue to bring in money for doing virtually nothing. Most importantly they are not increasing taxes for the West Virginians who have the ability to vote them out of office, and people who are paying the tax would have to face a lengthy court battle to do something about it. Another example is the exuberant hotel and auto rental taxes that almost all cities have. What these extra taxes are used for vary from city to city. Some cities reasonable use the taxes for keeping up any tourist attractions. However some cities allow for the revenue to be used for almost anything. For example, SEMO wanted to use a hotel tax to help fund its River Campus. Another example is found the Texan cities of San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, where under House Bill 92, communities are authorized to levy hotel and car rental taxes to finance construction of sports arenas (Weiss). In both of these cases, the politicians are finding ways to finance projects which are good for their town, but which many voters do not support enough to help finance themselves through their own taxes. A final example, although somewhat different, is the state’s dependence on grant money from the federal government. To the elected officials this is really getting something for nothing. Of course, they could decline this grant money and simply increase state taxes to cover the difference, but there is not a politician, who wants to remain in office, who would propose such a law. The typical politician knows that the state needs that money, but he also knows that his re-election prospects stand a much better chance if the federal government takes a larger portion of people’s income than the state does. In conclusion, elected officials in a democratic country will do a lot of things to stay in office, including sucking money out of anyone who can’t vote them out of office. This practice of politicians is older than the Constitution itself. It has been implemented in many different ways, including state officials in the 1780′s taxing other state’s goods, Maryland taxing the federal bank, a small town in Missouri ridiculously enforcing a speed trap, West Virginia taxing river traffic, high hotel and car rental taxes found all over the country, and finally in the states’ dependence on federal grant money. Although all of these examples used a different way of getting the money, the idea was the same. The politicians who enacted these practices all wanted to do as much as they could for their voters, without putting the cost on them, in hopes of staying in office. These Truths, Self-Evident Yesterday… Election Day… Like many virtuous and civic-minded citizens I cast my ballot—our quirky little tradition, overthrowing the government every two years—yet despite my best efforts the Republican Party swept the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I want to use a rude word right now. I don’t understand Republicans, and I don’t understand their policies; this isn’t to say that I don’t understand their aims and objectives—I do. However, I cannot stomach what they stand for. I cannot stomach those who would deny women control over their bodies, deny homosexuals the right to legally recognized love. I cannot fathom those who would cut taxes on the superrich, creating Jazz Age class divisions that separate citizens with insurmountable walls of money. But despite my disgust for most things conservatives stand for, I cannot bring myself to dismiss them. President Bush currently holds a 63 percent approval rating from the American public, and I do not choose to believe 63 percent of the citizens of my country are stupid. And despite the way I complain, I really sit down here to rant. My problem stems from the fact that everything these religious zealots hold sacred radically conflicts with every belief I hold sacred and dear. Salman Rushdie knows a little something of religious zealotry. After the publication of his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, the Indian novelist got a bit more than the usual outcry from the extreme religious right. Objecting to the negative portrayal of the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and the Koran, Islam’s holy book, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran called on all righteous Muslims to execute the writer as well as the publisher of the book. For more than ten years, Rushdie hid from publicity and assassination, all on account of his slander of so-called “sacred” texts. It is reasonable to surmise that Rushdie has a pretty strong opinion of that which is declared sacrosanct. In 1990, the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London invited the Booker Prize-winning novelist to deliver the prestigious Herbert Reed Memorial Lecture; those protecting him decided that he should not go in person. Perhaps not being “able to re-enter [his] old life, not even for such a moment” (Rushdie 340), fueled Rushdie’s rhetoric; for whatever the cause, the occasion birthed a lecture of rage: “Is Nothing Sacred?” In this discourse, Rushdie discusses his views on the vitality and importance of literature, and whether it is, supposedly like religion, inherently sacred. He argues that to set something apart as holy, to sacralize, lends credence and authority to one particular point of view, one particular way of thinking that professes to have answers and access to higher Truth. It does not allow anyone else to be right, nor does it allow anyone else to question what is “right.” The idea of sacred is inherently conservative and reactionary because it ardently opposes this questioning and debate; as Rushdie puts it, “It seeks to turn other ideas—Uncertainty, Progress, Change—into crimes” (338). While the sacred provides answers, asserts some profound Truth to those who believe, literature, Rushdie argues, provides no answers. It only seeks them. Literature supercedes religion, because it speaks with more than one voice, discusses more than one point of view. Religion, a cornerstone of Republican dogma, uses one voice to exact its will on the American people. Too many of our draconian laws are based on the Bible, a document written two thousand years ago at times when theRoman Empire still cut peoples’ heads off for sport. Invocations to God, the father, fueled arguments opposed to women’s suffrage. President Grover Cleveland went so far to state, “Those who seek to protect the older order of things as they relate to woman reverently appeal to the division of Divine purpose,” patronizingly implying the home and hearth as every woman’s God-ordained place (qtd. in Herz). Separate but equal flourished because many believed African-Americans inferior. After all, the Bible tells us the descendents of Ham (Africans) are cursed (Josh 9:23), right? Opposition to gay rights stems from the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verse 22, which claims that he who lies with a man is unclean and an abomination. Leviticus, by the way, also recommends stoning children who disobey their parents (Lev. 20:9) and burning those who wear synthetic cloth (Lev. 19:19). The prolific essayist Gore Vidal, in his 1992 essay “Monotheism and its Discontents,” boldly stated, “The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism” (1049). If religion and that which is sacred can speak in only one voice, then ultimately totalitarianism and fascism are the only politics that can serve religion’s higher Truth. Rushdie tells us the quest for truth is more important than truth itself. Does this mean that truth is inconsequential? No, of course not; truth occupies the highest echelons of human thought—art seeks truth and its nature. It is not a mere by-product or afterthought. The man or woman who seeks truth, seeks it alone; thus, the truth he or she discovers is his or hers alone. Truth, therefore, is private, not public. What one man considers lies, his neighbor might consider the sweetest reality. I see things differently from the way you see them. That is not to say that I see different things than you do; we both see the visible, see the same dance of light as it pirouettes and rebounds off an apple, for instance. Yet, as soon as our eyes perceive the fruit, our minds begin extraordinary and highly individualized chemical processes, bathing both our brains in showers of meaning. So where I see a delicious and highly nutritious nosh, your stomach might churn at the memory of a particularly revolting slice of pie. My perception resonates with me, as does yours with you. Your truth is not truer than mine, but might surely be different. The Republicans are not right, and the Democrats, not wrong. Unfortunately, it also works the other way around. This is the gift literature brings—ideas meant to challenge accepted belief, meant to spark new debate, meant to lead us one step closer to our own truths. This is why Rushdie’s sacralization of literature is a notion as bizarre as it is irrelevant. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag, a former book burner converted to literature’s cause with the fervent passion of the Christian right, feels confused when his mentor, Faber, dismisses the sacralization of books. The books, Faber claims, are not important. It is the ideas contained therein that are vital and important (Bradbury 87). Art provides these great ideas, sometimes provides many of these great ideas, which challenge those who read them to think different and look closer. Even abstraction, which eschews meaning in favor of aesthetics, invites the viewer to ponder the elevation of aesthetics over meaning. In her essay “Individualism: Art for Art’s Sake or Art for Society’s Sake,” critic Suzi Gablik claims that, while abstraction in art aspires to be “devoid of communication” (266), the movement began as an “unconscious protest against materialism” (264). Abstraction’s roots lay in questioning, debate, and the seeking of higher truth; if it responds to formalist art, then abstraction indeed has a message, even if that message reads, “There is no message at all.” Art, good art, provides ideas whether intended or not. The ideas art provides are not uniform either—as I said, you and I see things differently. Wendell Phillips said truth is filtered through the mood, the blood, the disposition of the spectator. This filtration keeps us vital. Stagnation. Noun. The process of doing nothing. Of seeing and feeling nothing new. Of reliving and reviving the old and tired, the tried and true. Stagnation is conservative, and conservatism leads to death. It is, after all, in death that time freezes and the status quo remains constant. To stop is to die. To live, we must move. Progress. Change. We must live in Darwin’s moment, adapt or die. Stagnation is evil and ennui is death—to continue to live we must constantly exist in a state of permanent revolution. Great men assert the fundamental right of truth—to live is to quest for it. To answer is to stagnate. To answer is irrelevant. To question keeps us alive. Yet… If a man or woman constantly confronts new ideas, if the quest for truth never ceases, then surely truth never ceases either. Truth is not a star in the firmament, not permanent at all—Truth is not a marble bust on a cool, white pedestal. If the question supercedes the answer, if to answer is to stagnate… …then Truth is both personal… …and brief. Does this mean we shall never have the Truth, but will instead have only some pale, weak, runt of truth, a quest after questions? No. But the only truth we will find is truth that resonates with us individually—even if only for a moment. As Kahlil Gibran advises in The Prophet, “Say not, ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth.’” Thus, the truth art leads to constantly shifts; it never remains. It is never permanent. Not that surprising since art is never permanent itself. Playwright Samuel Beckett said no art is finished; it is only abandoned. Rushdie supports this point: “Nothing so inexact, so easily and frequently misconceived, deserves the protection of being declared sacrosanct.” Thus Rushdie pounds the final nail into the coffin of his argument, places the final brick in Fortunato’s tomb. Since the sacred presumes eternal, unchangeable truth, permanence is sacred; that which is permanent is sacred. So the answer to Rushdie’s question—“Is Nothing Sacred?”—is simple. No. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is sacred because nothing can be sacred; our permanent revolution has always existed without our notice, since, as the saying goes, the only thing permanent is change. Empires crumble, libraries of knowledge lie forgotten, art shatters, history fades to legend, fades to myth, fades to nothing. No matter how fervent, belief fades. No one currently worships Dionysus, yet thousands of years ago his cult raped and pillaged out of the sheer power and fervor of their belief. It faded. If art supports and sparks debate, then it is art that should be held most dear to a democracy; debate, questions, these form the foundation of democracy. The right to question, the right to choose—these are the things democracies and art celebrate and symbolize. Religion and sacralization stand in disgusting opposition to that noble cause, for they don’t understand democracy and art’s underlying meaning, that truth is both personal and brief. That is why the founders did not write the Constitution as a permanent (i.e. sacred) document; they realized that truth is brief, so the Constitution can change. They realized truth is personal, so the very first thing tacked on to that Supreme Rag was a note reminding everyone that religion has no place in the government, and, oh, by the way, we don’t have to speak in one voice—we can say whatever we want. Art and democracy are one and the same because their goals are one and the same: each seeks to prevent stagnation and raise the level of culture and debate. Thus democracy needs art to flourish, and art shall flourish under democracy. Under this symbiosis, democracy dies like a phoenix in flames, and rises again—no longer a simple republic, but a civilization. It is no accident the age of Athenian democracy was also the age of Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, and Thespis, that the republic of Rome fostered the speeches of Cicero and the poetry of Virgil—under a culture of questions, a culture of debate, art grows, solidifying into a pillar of society. So as much as I complain about the Republicans I thank the bottomless core of my being for their existence because partisan politics ensures continual debate and protection of minority opinion. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., theorized that politics revolves in a cycle: every twenty years or so, liberal becomes conservative and back again—truth is both personal and brief. So, in essence, my politics now do not matter, nor my beef with Republicans, nor what I hold sacred or not, for tomorrow I could fervently transmogrify into a terrifying conservative, filled with nothing but reactionary loathing for my former liberal self. If truth is both personal and brief, it is with a sardonic grin that the Bard can uniquely summarize American politics—“it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” If tinges of doubt still exist in the corners of my mind, one man puts them at ease. Vaclav Havel engineered the Czech revolution, organizing millions and overthrowing the Soviet-supported Communist government running his country; he helped build the CzechRepublic. Vaclav Havel is a playwright. His revolution started in the plays he wrote which lampooned Soviet policy and practices. The Czech Revolution began in Prague playhouses, spread outward like streams of water, and culminated in Havel’s election as the first president of the Czech Republic. Art and democracy have the same goal, and those who don’t believe so are fooling themselves. Clifford Odets’ play Waiting for Lefty inspired taxi strikes in New York which culminated in living wage increases. Tony Kushner’s Angels in America brought national attention to the plight and inherent humanity of a group many wanted to overlook. Al Gore’s advisors forced him to watch Saturday Night Live’s satire of his first debate with George W. Bush, sparking changes in debate strategy. And yet the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, the agency that supports American art and artists, is only $117 million, $45 million less than seven years ago, and only .03 percent of the defense budget. If truth is both personal and brief then what I say here means something only to me, and probably not for very long. If we, as a country, continue to speak in one voice we are headed down the road to stagnation. Art is primal to a democracy, and at the risk of confusing myself further one thing more must be said— Vote.