How Should We Treat Terror Suspects?

Dick Cheney and Republicans have been quite critical of the Obama Administration and its treatment of terrorists since the attempted Christmas Day bombing (1). Their criticism focuses on the president's "soft" treatment of terror suspects, which considers them basically common criminals instead of unlawful enemy combatants, the path the Bush Administration chose to follow in this regard.

Which path is the right path? The Obama Administration's proposals are definitely in line with the rules created by the Third Geneva Convention — which defines detained enemy combatants as prisoners of war, guaranteed certain rights in their treatment as detainees, if they follow certain guidelines for their conduct in war — and the Fourth Geneva Convention — which defines detained civilians and their rights as detainees.

Additionally, the Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention says:

"every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." (2-last ¶)

But, it does not seem that the type of person detained after trying to blow himself up on Christmas falls into either category provided by the Conventions. The Commentary attempts to close the gap created by the Conventions, but it does so in a rather obtuse, overbroad fashion — labeling all detainees as either/or. It is clearly outdated, given the new challenges governments face in protecting their homelands against a terrorist menace.

While it might seem that the result of following the Commentary's suggestion — that is, doling out constitutional liberties to terrorists — is reasonable because it supposedly errs on the side of "human rights," is it really? Is it really reasonable to afford constitutional protections to non-citizens who are clearly perpetrating (or attempting to perpetrate) acts of war on innocent Americans?

I think the Obama Administration unnecessarily gives constitutional protections to people who have not played by the rules in international warfare. If the Geneva Convention was designed to guarantee the rights of U.S. citizens to those who intend to destroy our free, democratic republic, then that intention is completely unclear in its construction. If that is the case, though, then perhaps U.S. lawmakers should reconsider our commitment to a document that would therefore be more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the lives of law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans. Is that really a "humanitarian" approach to international law?

References: (1) Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

(2) Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention

(3) Third Geneva Convention (see Article IV(2))

Climate Change Fanatics in: "Fear and Loathing of Truth and Reason"

This post, although brief, is aimed at all of you out there who support cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax, carbon offsets, or whatever else you want to call it — the name is irrelevant — along with any other plans floating out there to reduce carbon emissions by whatever percentage you think is necessary to save the world. (Surprisingly) Lately, news stories have broken around the world that have reported a hacking of multiple e-mails sent among the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K.

It's probably shocking to many, but they've been fudging their data! This, of course, is the same data that the theory of anthropogenic (man-caused) global climate change/warming/cooling is based on, including the infamous (and hopefully by now discredited) hockey stick graph showing how evil man has brought the world to the brink of its existence. When asked to show their data, the Climate Research Unit claimed to have lost some of it. Perhaps this unfortunate loss is most similar to the ol' trick I used to dream of being able to successfully pull off in the 3rd grade, in regard to my homework: "My dog ate it." (NOTE: I always did my homework; this is merely a literary device intended to be humorous and mocking).

So now, from what I gather, the man-caused climate change pushers have tried to just sweetly persuade the masses that even though they have no proof of the accuracy of their models and multiple e-mails exist that show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the data they used was manipulated (I wonder why — GOVERNMENT GRANTS? No, maybe it was their honest effort to save the world from a monster that only exists in their flawed graphs and lack of understanding of the meaning of "causation." Or maybe (and perhaps most plausibly) their goddess, Mother Earth, told them to.), their theories still ring true, and the globe is still heating up because of CO2-spewing corporate entities (people breathing).

But no warming currently exists, and CO2 levels continue to rise. CRU climate dude Kevin Trenberth said it best in his now-famous e-mail: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Perhaps John Stuart Mill can reply more appropriately to this than I can:

"There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right."

Lesson: don't proceed on your crackpot theories based on faulty data (and reasoning) when the only sure results of your cruel experiment will be the further impoverishment of people all across the world. It's just not cool, man.

Open Thread for Health Care Reform and Other Rantings

Enjoy. I will censor comments that I consider to be outrageous or intolerable. Additionally, any beliefs or opinions asserted on this blog in any form, not posted purposefully by me, do not represent my beliefs or opinions. Finally, you post anything on this blog at your own risk. By posting on this blog in any form, you agree to these conditions.

The Problem with Sarah

In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove asserted that Sarah Palin has significantly hurt her chances to run for president in 2012 as the potential Republican nominee. One thing that Rove said in the interview that particularly caught my attention was that she would have been able to "educate herself about the issues" if she had stayed governor of Alaska.

In interviews with Katie Couric during the 2008 presidential campaign, she gave us a glimpse into what Rove means:

- Concerning the decision of Roe v. Wade, Palin asserted that states should have the right to determine policy on abortion but upheld the view of the majority decision, that there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. I think those ideas are at least somewhat conflicting.

- Concerning the economic situation and the debate over government bailouts, she offered this response, somehow reconciling an implementation of bailout funds leading to job creation with the need for tax cuts and cuts in spending, all in one breath. I guess she was trying to stress the need for limited government, but I'm confused by the link between limited government and job creation through the administration of bailout funds.

- Concerning foreign policy, she offered a somewhat convoluted response to the question of how her proximity to Russia (living in Alaska) qualified as 'foreign policy experience.'

I think that Sarah Palin has proven to be a very supportive mother for her children and strong pro-life advocate in this nation. In those regards, I fully support her positions respecting life and her desire to create a pro-life culture in America. I desire the same thing. However, if Mr. Rove is right, and Mrs. Palin needs to "educate herself on the issues," then perhaps it is a good thing that her chances to run as the Republican nominee in 2012 have been diminished, both for her and for the Republican Party.

The Agenda

I was able to check out a couple posts from the Daily Kos today, and I have to say that I was especially surprised by one particular video clip (after I tore my eyes away from an advertisement that implied that the United States was a terrorist financier and the War on Drugs is oppressive), which was an exuberant celebration of Al Franken's victory over Norm Coleman for the disputed U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota.

Around the 3 minute mark of the clip, Bill Press (former chair of the California Democratic Party) happily and forcefully gave his version of the Democrats' political agenda, now that the Dems' 60-vote super-majority is in place:

1. Climate Change Bill

2. Employee Free Choice Act

3. Don't Ask, Don't Tell military policy for homosexuals: get rid of it

4. Defense of Marriage: throw it away

5. Health Care Reform with the Public Plan option with no taxing of benefits

So, the overarching agenda that the Democrats should pass through Congress, now that they have a mandate from the people, is a string of bills that would hurt big business, small business, allow openly gay people into the military, defy American sentiment on the definition of marriage, and increase domestic government spending? And the agenda should be passed now, in the middle of a recession and facing inflationary pressure due to existing massive increases in government spending?

I'm not sure what I think about the gays in the military, but I do think that the other 4 are an absolute disaster waiting to happen. They amount to more government restrictions on business (and not the 'regulate the financial market' kind), a defiance of public opinion on gay marriage in the face of a CALIFORNIA amendment to ban it, and health care reform that will likely need tax increases from all sources to make it work, likely won't improve health care, and will likely lead to rationing and long wait times for important, life-saving procedures, based on what we know of other nations' government health plans.

This super-majority may be very short-lived.

Bring Back Bork

This post will be rather pithy, considering the length of my previous (and long, long ago--sorry) posts. A friend of mine recommended this article to me, and I think everyone should read it:

The View from 1987

It's an interview of previously nominated Judge Robert Bork. I find it to be very interesting. I also pose this question: can you provide me an example that would show Bork's philosophy concerning how one should interpret law to be unconstitutional, or even wrong?

And the Shoulds Have It

Selena Roberts has struck again.  In her new book, A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez, Roberts has reported that Rodriguez may have taken steroids as far back as high school.  She may be reporting accurately, for all I know.  However, after her horrific reporting on the Duke Lacrosse case and subsequent refusal to offer an apology for, as Jason Whitlock aptly describes it, “the public lynching of Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans,” it’s really hard to believe anything she writes, even though much of it may be true.  KC Johnson writes a solid assessment of Roberts’ coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and her most recent attempt at journalism in his blog.

I leave it to you to follow the links and see what has been written.  

Unfortunately, the most sinister aspect of Roberts’ reporting is not even the inaccuracies she has put forth, damaging as they may be.  Rather, what bothers me most about her work are the assumptions upon which she operates and the way she handled the aftermath of the case.  Concerning the outcome of the Duke Lacrosse case, Roberts wrote: “No one would want an innocent Duke player wronged or ruined by false charges -- and that may have occurred on Nifong's watch -- but the alleged crime and the culture are mutually exclusive.”

Mutually exclusive?  That is to mean that the alleged crime did not arise from the culture, but the culture is still criminal in nature?  If so, what is the cause of the crime?  And more importantly, what then should be done about the culture?  What kinds of changes would you make, Ms. Roberts?  And for you reading, if you agree with Ms. Roberts, what would you do?  Would you institute a “Diversity 101” class in US universities that indoctrinates students to a specific ideology?  How far would you reach into the lives of students to fix this apparently evil culture?

And instead of remorse for her wild and accusatory reporting, we get the following:  “Don't mess with Duke, though. To shine a light on its integrity has been treated by the irrational mighty as a threat to white privilege.”  Certainly the “mighty”--those falsely accused of trumped-up charges of the insidious crime of rape--are therefore irrational for attempting to clear their names.  This is a symptom of a major problem today.  Instead of owning up to mistakes, people--like Roberts and the Gang of 88 (the Duke professors who unabashedly presumed the guilt of the lacrosse players)--don’t take any responsibility for their actions.  Instead, they refuse to defend themselves!  They hold on to a wavering modicum of apparent consensus they might have with the fringe groups they associate themselves with, and act as if that gives them the ‘categorical imperative’ to change the world.

Take Al Gore as another example of this type of reckless behavior.  Mr. Gore has yet to be disproved in his allegations that we are destroying our globe by creating “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever he calls it nowadays, but a major reason that that is the case today is that he refuses to defend himself as well!  Now, he may be right--I absolutely give him the benefit of the doubt here, and challenge him to prove himself to be so--but to simply disregard the qualms of his theory’s detractors and instead say that he represents “proven” science is absurd, and nonscientific.  As John Stuart Mill once wrote: “Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”  Mill is right here, but Gore doesn’t seem to care; he has his money and his soapbox.  

The saddest thing about the actions of those like the reckless Roberts and the grandstanding Gore is that there are so many out there who grab hold of their arguments without subjecting them to scrutiny, and simply believe their ideas.  It’s a sad reflection on a culture that seems to want to operate on what should be true (to them), rather than what is.  When the truth surfaces, the reply by the perpetrators of such alarmist, inaccurate ideas is not, "we were wrong, and we apologize for the lives we ruined/economic disaster we caused."  Not at all.  Instead of an apology or retraction, all we see are promotions for the Gang of 88, royalties for Selena Roberts, and a Nobel Prize for Al Gore.  And the shoulds have the day.

And This Is Why...

I don't want government "bailing out" our financial sector any more than is absolutely necessary: the government may decide to turn TARP loans into equity shares, according to the New York Times. The Obama administration's claim is that such a move would "stretch out" bailout money, but critics, like myself, see the move as a potential "back door to nationalization."

The move would make the government the biggest shareholder in several banks. If the Obama administration is able to pull off this artifice, it could turn out to be quite the scandal. It's one thing to use taxpayer dollars in the attempt to revive the economy; it's entirely another to use the same money to acquire a potentially controlling share in the financial sector. Plus, this comes in the face of requests from some major banks, like JP Morgan, to begin repayment of bailout funds, a sign that solvency is returning to some U.S. banks.

It seems that the TARP program and additional bailout funds procured by the White House are comparable to an extreme action taken by a president when the country is in a state of war. When martial law is declared in wartime, certain rules, like habeas corpus, are suspended. Likewise, former President Bush and Obama have gone beyond tradition and taken extreme measures to revive our economy.

However, if our federal government does use TARP money to buy common stock in banks, my fears will have begun to be realized. How can I not see this move as a move towards nationalization? The bailout funds are not to become anything more permanent, especially when banks have already indicated that they think they're too permanent as-is! If President Obama goes ahead with this proposal, it will have become clear that his agenda extends well beyond rescuing the economy from disaster.

A Bit Late for April Fool's

Then again, that day may be observed in perpetuity in this nation henceforth, if I am to believe the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll, which indicated that only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism.  Additionally, 20% say socialism is better, and 27% aren't sure which is better.

It only gets better (well, actually worse): among adults under 30, the survey found that people are almost evenly divided: 37% for capitalism, 33% for socialism, 30% are unsure.  Of course, those who are under 30 years old make less money than their seniors, who have been in the workforce for years and understand what it means to pay real taxes.  I chalk up a good portion of that disparity to differences in salary and thus tax burden.

However, what is most disturbing to me is that we aren't talking left and right here--no, we are talking about systemic differences here.  Socialism is a method of economic distribution in which Big Government controls the means of production.  Capitalism is a method of economic distribution in which the people control the means of production (business).  The United States, a representative democracy, is a nation ruled by the people and established on principles of limited government.  In fact, we originally rebelled against those nasty redcoats for having to pay taxes without being represented properly in British Parliament.

Perhaps by now you can see why I shudder at this statistic: it indicates to me that we, as a nation, are losing faith in our bedrock of market-based capitalism because of a relatively short period of economic downturn.  I do worry that because of our current president's policies, even if the markets rebound, the citizenry will still see merits in socialistic policy.  The populace will ignore that we were driven into this situation mostly through government intervention into the banking industry, since its collective memory is so amazingly short.

Perhaps the solution is, after all, to re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba.  Let Americans travel back to the "socialist paradise," so they can be re-acquainted with what socialism really means: food lines and all things compulsory.  It will be a truly "shock and 'oh, crap!'" campaign.

The President Earns His Lapel Pin?

Barack Obama did not start consistently wearing an American flag lapel pin until its absence was pointed out during his Democratic primary campaign.  Certainly I don't think that a flair piece you can find in any Friday's makes you a patriot, but the little things we do usually indicate to some degree what is important to us individually.  Oh, the vagaries of weather, public opinion, and Barack Obama's belief system (his only belief not blown about by the wind seems to be the desire to re-create the New Deal or the Jimmy Carter presidency--take your pick)! 

However, Obama has really gone on the warpath to earning his American flag lapel pin now, and I have to give him a kudos for his efforts.  Obama said on April 3 that "in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that can be casual but can also be insidious."  I tip my hat to President Obama for being somewhat forthcoming in that assertion, especially to his chosen people in Europe--it's a step forward (progress!).

However, he then makes reference to the changing face of America and the need for Europe to change as well.  The problem, as I see it, is that if America continues to 'change' in the way it is changing now, Europe won't have to make many alterations in order to interact perfectly harmoniously with Americans and their politics.  Furthermore, since the United States has almost always been a force for good, especially for Europeans, Obama should unequivocally say that all such anti-Americanism is evil.  We have acted in ways that don't fit in with the principles of God or our Founding Fathers.  In those cases we have been undoubtedly wrong. 

But demonstrations against a nation that almost always behaves properly and has been the cornerstone of Europe's prosperity and freedom are categorically wrong, and they've been on display near Strasbourg, France.  Feeding the insidious actions of those who have violently demonstrated against the United States are the seemingly innocuous displays of 'casual anti-Americanism' that Obama, in his typical relativist tone, has virtually pardoned.  When all is permissible, it is because there is no absolute right or good.  I will tell you this: the absolutely good is done when the state guarantees the rights given to us by God for all mankind, and all President Obama must do in order to legitimately make the case I have made is to follow those principles.

Speak up, Mr. President.  Don't let your lapel pin be a mirror.

Socialist? Are You Serious?

Yes, President Obama, it is a serious question. The Washington Times reports that when asked, "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" by none other than the New York Times, "It was hard for [President Obama] to believe that [the New York Times reporter was] entirely serious about that socialist question," and thus he did not offer a simple "yes" or "no."

He became worried that he may have not answered clearly, so President Obama called the New York Times back and offered a baffling explanation which I can only explain through the theory of cognitive dissonance. In his erudite and lawyerly justification, he used the fearsome and sophisticated "it was like that already" defense, claiming:

1. That President Bush laid the groundwork for the current trajectory of the economic recovery effort;
2. That "we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles";
3. That "the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people [is that] if [sic] coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it."

My response is as follows:

1. President Bush's economic performance as president was far from truly "conservative," as I would define it. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" (populist), passed a huge entitlement bill (as Obama observes), and ended his term by spending a massive amount of taxpayer money probably in vain. To continue doing so would mean further spending--not enough to label one a socialist per se, but not helping to clear one's name of the charge. Also, President Obama ran a campaign that constantly labeled Senator John McCain as a third Bush term. Justifying one's actions by claiming that they are simply a continuation of the former president's policies does not seem to be "change we can believe in."

2. To say that market principles are in use here is an entirely ludicrous argument. It's laughable, really, and flat out wrong. It's like yelling at the top of your lungs, "THE SKY IS BRIGHT PINK!" Saying it louder doesn't make it true. This administration has virtually nationalized banks, wants to nationalize health care, eventually intends to raise taxes to investment-stifling levels, and would love nothing more than to legalize the bullying of all workers in this country into union labor. Mr. President, if you were really following market principles, do you think the market would be behaving with such a stunning lack of confidence?

3. What a crock. An abject lie. How can one make such a statement after running for office on the opposite principle? President Obama campaigned on a promise of "change." He proposed a toned-down national healthcare system, promised to hike tax rates for the rich (to expand government), and promised to buy votes Richard Daley-style with tax credits, probably more than anything else to increase Democratic ranks (already accomplished by registering Tony Romo and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas through ACORN). Before the stock market began crashing, Obama had proposed (through various speeches) $1 TRILLION in new spending over 4 years--seems like a dream now, but was outlandish at the time.

A "socialist" is one who believes that the government should drive markets and control means of production as the means to a more egalitarian (redistributive) end. President Obama's answer (or lack thereof) to the New York Times does absolutely nothing to convince me that he is not just that. The bottom line is, when you have to call the New York Times back to make clear that you're no Karl Marx, something's gone very wrong.

An Interesting Compromise Idea

I just saw a piece on FOX News discussing the possibility of negotiating with Russia to help stop Iran from becoming nuclear.  Apparently, President Obama sent a secret letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last month that made the case that if Russia were to help the U.S. eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, the United States would have no need for an Eastern European missile defense system, and therefore would abandon it.  Russia has apparently balked at President Obama's proposal.

It's an interesting idea: perhaps with Russian support, we could actually achieve our goal of eliminating Iran's nukes without action by only the U.S. and Israel.  However, is it a good idea to abandon a program that can protect us from not only Iran, but also threats from other relatively unstable or belligerent nations in the region?

Maybe President Obama thought that by offering this deal--which he probably thought (I guess) would not be accepted--that he could convince the world community (and at least some Russian politicians) that our only intent for the missile defense program is to protect ourselves from Russia.  But, 1) I don't think it's our only intent, and 2) I don't think President Obama is that shrewd or gutsy.  Regardless, it's an interesting compromise idea.

All or Nothing

According to a Financial Times article, several Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are going so far as to consider a "nationalization" of American banks.  President Obama has expressed some preference for the so-called "Swedish model" (not Elin Nordegren, to the relief of Tiger Woods). 

Sen. Graham even said, "You should not get caught up on a word [nationalization]."  Not get caught up on a word???  I'll not get caught up on a word or concept when its meaning is wholly unimportant to me.  For example, "Nebraska."  On the contrary, nationalization of almost anything is anathema to my personal political beliefs (although I've written in favor--albeit hesitantly--of the original TARP plan), so I think I'll take my sweet time to consider what the word implies--especially a word that entails a big step backwards in the present and apparently future deterioration of the capitalist system.  But thanks for making a solid effort to disguise your treachery.

Sen. Graham does make the valid point that what we're doing now--pouring so much money into banks that the banks themselves are worth less than the amount we've invested--is abject stupidity.  Thus, I propose three potential courses of action: continue doing what we're doing now (abject stupidity), follow the "Swedish model" (even Tim Geithner thinks that "governments are terrible managers of bad assets"), or get a grip on reality and stop funding massive bailout plans for banks and companies that don't seem to know how to invest or even maintain day-to-day operations without hemorrhaging cash.  

Yes, there will be pain at first, but our economy will readjust and resurge.  We have organizations like the FDIC and processes like bankruptcy that guarantee the people's money (to a large extent) and will help soften the economic blow of a crash and speed reorganization.    The backbone of our country is not fancy investments, but the drive and ingenuity of our people.

Of course, there's no way we'll ever reduce or eliminate already-appropriated government money, so you can be sure that my proposal won't win the day.  As Reagan said, "the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."  Until next time, Välkommen till Sverige!

My SWEET Plan (Simple Way to Ensure Elections Thrive)

I. Introduction

As we begin 2009, mere days away from another presidential inauguration, it seems a fitting time to review the system by which we select the president. Each of the last few elections, as far as I can remember, has been marred by some sort of inconsistency. Whether it was hanging chads in Florida or questionable voting machines in Ohio, questions and concerns have affected the legitimacy of each of these elections. At the very least, these inconsistencies have lessened public confidence in our democratic election process. But I have the solution. The following is my plan for what I think is a relatively simple, cost-effective, secure and safe way to conduct our national elections.

As an introductory note, I generally believe in the power of the states to conduct their own business. However, national elections fall into the small group of powers for which the national government should try to create uniformity throughout the states, as the election of a president requires the participation of the citizens of each state, and the president will, undoubtedly, exercise power over each of these citizens. My election plan is basically a national plan, that will be foisted upon the states through the exercise of Congress’s spending power, the way that Congress makes the states do things like have 21+ drinking ages: by making federal funding conditional upon the acceptance of the federal program. It is a perfectly legitimate way to make the states comply with important national interests, and will ensure the legitimacy of my plan.

II. The Voting System

(1) Getting people to the polls

Elections should be treated like jury service, as both are part of the bedrock of the American system. Without citizen service on juries, we could not have either our civil or criminal justice systems. Likewise, without the voices of the citizenry being made heard through elections, our democracy would be but a sham. As such, election days should be treated just like jury service days. Employees should receive compensated time off from work for as long as it takes to complete their civic duty. While jurors may not receive pay for the entire duration of their trials, voting presents an easier case, because at most, it will take a couple of hours for someone to vote. Election Day need not be made a national holiday, although doing so would truly showcase our devotion to the democratic process, but possibly making it a half-day of work should allow everyone enough time to ensure that they can get to the polls and do their duty. At the very least, we can make sure people have the time to get to the polls.

If you don’t want to vote, you don’t have to. But I am of the school that you don’t get to complain about things you don’t make an effort to help change. So anyone that you complain to about politics can ask if you voted, and if you didn’t, they get to kick you in the shin for each complaint. If you don’t want to vote, or don’t understand how, we aren’t going to force you, but we aren’t going to hold your hand any further than I outline below regarding the ballots. This is still America. Grow up and take some personal responsibility.

(2) Making sure votes count

It is a fundamental tenet of our democratic republic that everyone (who is not legally deemed ineligible to do so, i.e., felons) has the right to one vote in every election. It is implied that these votes should all carry the same weight, that is, each person’s vote counts the same as every other person’s vote. In order for votes to count, they have to be counted, and this seems like the largest problem facing our system today. Election officials seem to be unable to count ballots, or unable to determine which ones should count, or even how to count them. Think again back to hanging chads and you will know what I mean.

My system eliminates these problems. First, upon entering the polling place, voters will be given a piece of paper with all of the candidates’ names and parties and whatnot listed, with a carbon copy of the ballot underneath. On the top page of the ballot will be an instruction sheet, explaining how the ballot works in very simple terms (as it is a very simple ballot). Voters then mark a big X in the box next to the candidate that they want to vote for. This will be clearly laid out in the instructions, which will have a big picture of an X in a box with a check-mark and a smiley face under it, and pictures of other markings in the box, with smaller x’s and frowny faces under them, to indicate the correct and incorrect ways to mark the ballot.

Voters finish filling out all the boxes that they want, ensure that the carbon copy is also marked, and then put the top copy in one box (clearly marked) and the carbon copy in another box (also clearly marked) in the voting booth. The voter will then go home, back to work, or wherever it is they care to go; their job is done.

The election officials’ job, however, continues. When the polls close, the election officials take the contents of all of the first types of boxes and put them together and deliver them to a specially hired, completely transparently-run counting company for counting. The other box will be delivered to a different, specially hired, completely transparently-run counting company for secondary counting.

All ballots that are not properly marked (e.g., not with a big X as indicated), filed by the appropriate date, or otherwise wrongly submitted will be thrown out. End of discussion. If you can’t follow these simple directions, then you don’t deserve to have your vote counted in this election. Seems like a lot of confusion can be avoided in this simple way, but it requires making the ballot instructions painfully simple to understand, which is also provided for by this plan.

Importantly, the newsmedia will not be alerted to any potential results or anything apart from their own exit polling research. This is to encourage people to vote throughout the day as well as to maintain the neutrality of the counting companies doing their job. The newsmedia will be fully alerted of all election results as soon as they are completed, certified by the companies and election officials to ensure that both ballot counts match and whatever else the states want to do to ensure accuracy and completeness (e.g. waiting for absentee ballots).

III. Advantages

This system should clear up any problems we have with vote inaccuracies, exceedingly low turnout rates, recounts and all the other slop that we have been subjected to since 2000 (and I am sure prior to that too). It ensures that virtually everybody who registers to vote can get to the polls and will understand how to cast their ballot, while also making sure that those who are not in the least intelligent enough to understand this very simple ballot will be excluded, as their participation is honestly not wanted or necessary.

The dual counting mechanism ensures that we have accuracy, as any recounts will be conducted by the companies exchanging ballots and re-counting the other’s work, and because there are basically two sets of ballots to be counted and to corroborate each other’s totals. The companies will be specially selected for their impartiality, and will be fully staffed by people who know how to count to very high numbers, or at least can make a tally on a chalkboard (which has apparently been a difficult part to find in the previous years).

The paper ballot, while not the epitome of technology, will eradicate any potential bias from very expensive and breakage-prone electronic machines, confusing butterfly ballots, or out-of-date lever systems. In addition, it allows people to vote the way that they vote at almost any non-raise-of-the-hand-voting style meetings anywhere else: by paper ballot. It is certainly more expensive to repair or haul in a Diebold from Ohio (with all associated connotations of questionable reputation) than to print out some paper ballots. Side note, for you tree huggers already crying about this plan, shut up, there are lots of trees.

It may seem like a simplistic and rudimentary way to vote, but I cannot think of a better way to ensure that votes are able to be cast, counted and reported more effectively. And in any case, we really only need to do it every four years.