Where Government is Tiny and Everything is Privatized! SCENE ONE: “Hello? Pay-As-You-Go Ambulance Service? “Yes, sir, how can I help you?” “This is an emergency: My son just hit his head and passed out; he’s bleeding and we can’t revive him – we need medical assistance right away!” “Yes, sir. Can I have your PAYGA account number?” “Uh, I don’t have it on me – can’t you send someone while I find the number?” “Sorry, sir, I can’t dispatch emergency medical assistance until I have your account number.” “But he’s laying on the floor, his head’s bleeding – this is an emergency!” “I understand that, sir, but I must have your account number first.” “Oh, jeez, I can’t find the card in my wallet – Mary, look in the desk drawer for the PAYGA card.” “I already looked, it’s not in the desk!” “Sir, we’re very busy with other clients. Why don’t you call me back when you’ve located your account number.” “But my son is bleeding –“ “I understand that, sir, but I can’t send emergency medical assistance until I have your account number. Please call back when you’ve found your number.” “But, he’s unconscious and –“ “Thank you for your call, and have a nice day!” (Click.) SCENE TWO: “Hello, Blackwater Home Security?” “Yes, ma’am.” “There’s someone breaking into my house – I just heard them break a window downstairs. Please send someone right away.” “Yes, ma’am. I’ll need your six-digit security number and verification password.” “God, I think they’re coming up the stairs. I’m here by myself and –“ “The quicker I have that information the sooner I’ll be able to send officers to help you.” “Uh, oh, it’s 911911 and the password – on, no, someone’s in the hallway –“ “We’re almost done, ma’am. Your password, please.” “Uh, password, uh, let me think – it’s ‘Ronald Reagan.’” “Very good. Wait just a moment while I process your request.” “But, can’t you send someone – “ “Just a moment, ma’am.” (Five minutes later.) “Ah, I have your account up now, ma’am. We were experiencing some computer problems here, ha, ha.” “I hear someone ransacking the bedroom! I’m hiding in the bathtub! Please send someone immediately!” “That’s unfortunate, ma’am, as it seems you haven’t paid last month’s bill yet and your account has been temporarily discontinued.” “But I sent a check three weeks ago!” “Not according to our records. When you bring your bill up to date and pay all late charges, I’ll be glad to send some officers out to help you.” “But, I’m being robbed! My life may be in danger –“ “Sorry, ma’am, but you should have thought of that last month when you let this bill go unpaid. If you have any complaints or questions, call our customer service department any time between 9:00am and 5:00pm on Monday.” “Monday – are you insane?! This is Saturday and the guy is in my bedr...“ “Goodbye, and thanks for calling Blackwater Home Security!” (Click.) SCENE THREE: “Hello, is this Sure-Fire Fast Response Firefighting Company?” “Yes, sir. How may I help you?” “My house is on fire. I live at –“ “Just a minute. I have to verify your account information before we go any further. What’s your Sure-Fire PIN number?” “Uh, oh, it’s 666451.” “Thank you, sir. According to our records, your account has been cancelled.” “Cancelled? When was it cancelled?” “Just yesterday when our liability review panel decided you had filed too many claims this year. You should receive the cancellation notice within five business days.” “What? There was just that garage fire about ten months ago, and that happened because my neighbor’s house burned down and some of the embers set my garage on fire. That wasn’t my fault.” “Be that as it may, we had to come out and extinguish the fire in your garage because your neighbor has a different fire responder service and they refused to put out the fire in your garage since you weren’t one of their customers.” “But his insurance company was supposed to reimburse you for that call.” “We have that payment recorded, but read your Sure-Fire contract: any customer claiming more than one fire in a 12-month period will be reviewed by the liability panel and possible discontinuation may result. Sorry, sir.” “But, it’s an emergency -- my damn house is burning down!” “Well, I hope you have good home insurance.” “But, but –“ “Thanks for calling Sure-Fire – compared to the rest, we’re the best!” (Click.)

Greetings from the Dark Side! I was worshipping at the Limbaugh alter this morning and He Who Is Never Wrong (except concerning Hillary) indicated something I think is worth reflecting on. His Most Wonderfulness (whose second-hand cigar smoke I’m not worthy to breathe) wondered: was it Hillary tears welling up that caused her win in NH, or was it dishonest voting? Think about this – the pollsters and pundits got it right concerning McCain but were way, way off concerning Mrs. Clinton. Why? Obama should have won and didn’t. Why? Was it tears or cheating? We desperately need election reform. There’s no reason it can’t be done. We have the technology, and only need the will. I’ve been pushing for this, as you may know, with articles such as the two below: Concerning Election Reform It’s very exciting to me that with our technology, even the confused little old lady in Florida can’t screw up the voting system. Instead of her being able to carefully hang a chad, or vote for both Gore and Bush, she must now press a frail, uncertain finger against a touch screen that won’t tolerate anything other than a single choice. But now, as the election reform issue turns to other topics, there is a growing mindset that is willing to sacrifice secrecy for accurate vote count. This bothers me because I don’t want man or machine to know how we vote. The question, then, is how do we obtain both a very high degree of voting privacy and accuracy? This is how: (1) Require photo identification (such as a driver’s license) against the up-to-date list of names of registered voters. We should enter the voting precinct and show picture I.D. to the poll worker, who then finds us on the list. Then we sign on the line next to our name, and go vote. (2) Use a computer touch screen which both issues a paper ballot to the voter, and records the vote electronically. (3) The paper ballot is then inspected by the voter and put into the ballot box. After the polls close, the paper ballots are carefully counted, the count is matched against the number of people who showed i.d., and signed the list, and against the computer disk record. All three must match: paper ballot, number of people who signed to vote, and computer disk count. So if 2000 people showed I.D.., 2000 must have voted electronically and there must be 2000 paper ballots. If they don’t match, work it out amongst all parties to satisfaction. (4) Randomly pre-assign the ballot with a number, issued to the voter. For example, the number 4XXX2170 might be your ballot number. This number is on your paper ballot and you either write it down or tear a little tab with the number on it before putting the paper ballot in the ballot box. Then all the numbers are displayed on the internet. No one else has any idea who 4XXX2170 is, but you. This helps verify that your vote was recorded and counted. This also gives the total number of voters, again. If not there, voter reports discrepancy. (5) Provide appropriate punishment for those who cheat, so it’s not worth it to do so. For example, in Chicago (was it Chicago?) more people voted for Al Gore in 2000 than there were registered voters. Cheating like this should be investigated and prosecuted vigorously. One thing I really dread is a federal takeover of our election process. States are reforming their ballot process just fine, thank you very much, and should receive neither federal mandates nor federal money, in spite of what Jimmy Carter wants. The state run election is one of the more subtle yet powerful checks and balances in our system of government and besides, the govt is already too large, powerful and wasteful to be taking on more responsibility. Incidentally, people should not be overly encouraged to vote. I’m very willing to study the issues and candidates and vote for those who don’t feel like it. Being able to register and vote the same day is a bad idea because it disrupts the carefully maintained list of registered voters needed for accurate elections (see point #1). It’s an embarrassing fact that one of the components of our Judeo/Christian heritage, honesty, is now so lacking in our culture that the foregoing is necessary. As a result, our voting system, in order to be accurate, must contain redundancy and therefore be expensive to administer. But I’m certainly willing to pay the price for secret, thoroughly accurate elections, and suggest the preceding as a way to achieve much needed election reform. Even Dead People Voted in Miami NewsMax.com Monday, Dec. 25, 2000 A report in Sunday’s editions of the Miami Herald reveals that scores of dead people and non-registered individuals were allowed to vote in November’s presidential election. In a survey of just 138 of Miami-Dade's 617 precincts, the paper found that 144 persons voted illegally. The Herald study indicates that if this number is extrapolated, more than 600 votes were illegally cast in the heavily Democratic county. Vote fraud is no stranger to the city of vice. Just three years ago, the Democratic mayor of Miami was forced from office after massive election fraud was uncovered. Use this link: Even Dead People Voted in Miami Grimgold

from breadwithcircus.com First, let me say that I have no horse in the US Presidential race. I don't care if the winner is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or Al Gore for that matter. I will be happy with which ever Democrat wins, provided that they restore Habeas Corpus and shut down the Guantanamo Bay Gulag. All of that said, it looks as if the results of last night's New Hampshire Primary are fraudulent.

Machine-Counted vs Hand-Counted Ballot Results

There is a distinct difference between the results in places where ballots were hand-counted compared to the results in places where machines counted the vote. Diebold machines counted about 80% of the total vote. They gave Clinton a victory over Obama, 39% to 36%. However, in places where votes were counted by hand, the score is Obama 38%, Hillary 34%. Isn't that curious? Mitt Romney also appears to have benefited from the voting machines. Paper ballots gave him 25% of the vote while the machines gave him 33%. There are also reports that votes for Ron Paul were not counted. One claim involves a small town called Sutton. The offical results said that Paul had received zero votes in Sutton. However, three members of one Sutton family claim that they had all voted for Paul. Clearly, their votes were not counted. Is this just a coincidence? There were also other places where Paul received zero votes. Were Paul voters similarly disenfranchised there? It looks very much like the vote was rigged last night. A recount is in order, or would be if the machines had a paper trail. I urge everyone to make an issue out of this, and to pass this story along. American democracy is in grave danger. Elections have been stolen in the past. We can all work to stop it from happening again.

John Chuckman, The Smirking Chimp, January 9, 2008 “Americans are the only people I know who believe their own propaganda.”                                                         -- Deborah Eisenberg, American writer I think relatively few observers appreciate the severe limits of America’s 18th-century Constitution, the document shaping offices which so many now scramble to fill. Change does not come easily, no matter how eloquent the speeches, how worthy the promises, or how great the need. It would be easier to raise the Titanic intact than to make one authentic change of consequence in America. The only exception is war, a form of destructive change which occurs with about the same frequency as elections in America. Most members of both parties unfailingly vote for it, support it with additional votes, make no apologies, and utter drivel about fighting for freedom. To do otherwise is regarded as unpatriotic and, in many parts of America, as downright dangerous. America stopped declaring war after 1941 because it was too inefficient. War was put on an assembly-line basis. Now, senators and others briefly huddle before the Pentagon is ordered to bomb the shit out of some unfortunate people. In the process, the president is elevated temporarily to Caesar, never to be seriously questioned before the corpses are all counted. It is an unfortunate matter of style in Bush’s case that Caesar more closely resembles Garfield Goose than Augustus, so treating Bush with imperial reverence always has a certain absurdity about it, but absurdity is never allowed to get in the way of some serious destruction. Barack Obama is said to be about change, and I think that he is, but the change he represents is in his thoughtfulness, tone of voice, and eloquent selection of words, important enough after seven years of Bush’s visceral stupidity and consistent appeal to the lowest human instincts. Obama is a decent, thoughtful politician, something not seen in the White House for a long time, and there is no more powerful argument for the importance of intelligence and reflection in high office than the grim reality of Bush. Read More Here

James Kirchick, The New Republic, January 8, 2007 If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped." Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul. Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter. Read More Here

Maureen Dowd, New York Times, January 9, 2008 When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes. A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?" Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships." Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message. She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters. Read More Here

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 7, 2008 The unemployment report on Friday was brutally bad. Unemployment rose in December, while job creation was minimal — and its highly likely, for technical reasons, that the job number will be revised down, showing an actual decline in employment. It's the latest piece of bad news about an economy in which the employment situation has actually been deteriorating for the past year. It's no longer possible to hope that the effects of the housing slump will remain "contained," as one of 2007's buzzwords had it. The levees have been breached, and the repercussions of the housing crisis are spreading across the economy as a whole. It's not certain, even now, that we'll have a formal recession, although given the news on Friday you have to say that the odds are that we will. But what is clear is that 2008 will be a troubled year for the U.S. economy — and that as a result, the overall economic record of the Bush years will have been dreary at best: two and a half years of slumping employment, three and a half years of good but not great growth, and two more years of renewed economic distress. The November election will take place against that background of economic distress, which ought to be good news for candidates running on a platform of change. But the opponents of change, those who want to keep the Bush legacy intact, are not without resources. In fact, they've already made their standard pivot when things turn bad — the pivot from hype to fear. And in case you haven't noticed, they're very, very good at the fear thing. Read More Here

George W. Bush, soon to be former president of the United States, said to today that Iran is a “threat to world peace.” Moron, moron, moron. There is no world leader right now who is more dangerous to world peace than George W. Bush.

Bush was making his statement in response to the little skirmish the US Navy had with small Iranian boats in the Straits of Hormuz. Three high speed Iranian boats apparently played chicken with US warships. What their intentions were is unknown but apparently these types of skirmishes have happened periodically since the US illegally invaded Iraq, Iran's neighbor in the Straits.

It is a little suspect that Bush (R-Liar) is making a huge deal of this particular incident as he arrives in the middle east and as the presidential primaries are taking off. Bush needs something in the middle east to save his sorry ass of an imageand GOP needs to keep up the fear. Bush's legacy is apparently all Bush he gives a shit about. He already has stolen enough money so he doesn't need that.  The idiot only has to end the Iraq war and begin peace talks in earnest with Israel and the Palestinians to change the minds of the middle eastern countries, who now will not support his saber rattling at Iran.

But, the son who should have never run, ain't that smart. So Bush rattles, the Iranians bluster, our soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israelis and Palestinians continue to die, and nothing changes. Bush doesn't get it and neither do any of his helpers. Bush's legacy in the middle east will be nothing but buckets of American, Iraqi and Afghani blood spent for gallons of oil.

I’ll stick my neck out and call this before the networks.After almost a week of insufferable Obama coverage, he’s the nominee, next president, etc.  God I am relieved Hillary won tonight.  This morning the polls were absolutely depressing, Obama by 10%.  Thank God they were wrong.  Perhaps that skirmish over the weekend in the strait of Hormuz helped Hillary, I don’t know.  But I am thrilled this race will go on and it will be decided on Super Tuesday when I think about half of the US would have voted.I am not a Hillary man. I think this strong desire for change is actually not Hillary’s fault.  It stems from  the weakness of the House and Senate Majority Leaders.  They have not performed as expected and Hillary is viewed very much as part of that club.  I am not sure people are really looking for change as much as getting results from the person they vote for.  In that category Hillary has it all over Obama.  Don’t get me wrong, I very much doubt Hillary would be as tough as I want her to be and stick to her guns, and I love Obama.  But anybody can speak in platitudes and niceties.  I have no reason whatsoever to believe Obama would stick to his guns in the face of strong opposition.  If anything I see him more as a willow.  I still support Edwards and hope he wins, but if not Edwards, Hillary before Obama.One other thing, I now live in Florida, the Republicans here, the majority, voted to move our primaries to January 29 to help Rudy. I really don’t understand how that helps him but in any case that is what happened.  So what did the DNC do in response?  They took away our delegates, in essence our vote won’t count.  This was something Democrats in the state had nothing to do with, but we will suffer the consequences.  Smart huh?   One thing is for sure our electoral system is in need of major alterations.Go Hillary!

The Clintons in CrisisDon't let the "Comeback Gal" spin fool you. Despite the unexpectedly close finish in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton's campaign remains in a tailspin. And the Clintons' pre-Granite State primary finger-pointing has left an indelible mark. It's the media's fault. It's sexism's fault. It's the vast right-wing conspiracy's fault.Oh, and it's all your fault that you laugh out loud when she tries to steal the mantle of "change" from Barack Obama by surrounding herself on stage with moldy political fogies like Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark and James Carville. Watching the Clinton "crackup" before the vote was less like watching glass shatter upon sudden impact and more like watching wax melt under slow, steady heat.It took a lifetime of lies, deception, hypocrisy and hardball power grabs before Hillary and Bill's political facades disintegrated. But now, finally, the empty dummy molds underneath have been laid bare completely.Many will point to Hillary's watery-eyed performance at a Portsmouth rally on Monday as a watershed moment. Down in the polls and facing imminent defeat, the erstwhile anti-Tammy Wynette turned on the spigot and played damsel in distress: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward, you know?"The steely voice - infamous for uttering profanities at staffers, state troopers and her Secret Service detail, bellowing at the Bush administration and Rush Limbaugh, and imitating a fiery Southern drawl - turned drippy: "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political; it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it." Insert heartfelt pauses and choke-ups as directed.So long, feminist hero. Hello, weeping willow. Anyone who believes Hillary spontaneously teared up and got emotional on the campaign trail has been in a coma the last three decades.Bill Clinton's diarrhea of the mouth didn't help. He flailed at reporters for putting his poor, poor wife at a "breathtaking disadvantage" (never mind the countless regal magazine covers of his wife and softball coverage over the years); lamented that he can't turn her into something "younger, taller, male," and whined that "the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us" (never mind their $100 million war chest).In an odd bit of damning with faint praise, Bill told Dartmouth students that "I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth. I told her, 'You have more talent for public service than anybody in my generation that I have met... I shouldn't stand in your way.' She looked at me and said, 'Oh, Bill, I'll never run for office.'"See, she's lied to him all along.A few weeks after 9/11, in another moment of crisis in the Clintons' life, I noted Hillary's flabbergasting demeanor during President Bush's address to Congress. Americans around the country also noted her cold behavior.James Gale of Silver Spring, Md., wrote to The Washington Post: "She at times seemed bored and uninterested, clapping perfunctorily, and at other times she was talking during the speech. I thought her actions were unbecoming a senator at this difficult time."Teacher Kathie Larkin of Atlanta wrote to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "This is behavior I would not accept from my sixth-graders listening to a speaker, and I expected better of an adult from a state ripped apart by terrorist violence. Hillary needs to grow up."I noted at the time that adversity magnifies deep character flaws. That hasn't changed. And neither has Hillary.You can't fake a core. You can't fake charm. And you can't fake humility. Mannequin Hillary tried during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire over the weekend when questioned about her likeability. "Well, that hurts my feelings," she coyly purred in attempted mock self-effacement.One problem: The Clintons are too steeped in the politics of self-entitlement to pull off credible self-effacement. Seated next to a rival who has stolen her liberal thunder and who might make history as the nation's first black president, Hillary couldn't help declaring: "I am an agent of change, I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change."She can't tolerate someone else out-politically-correct-ing her. This was supposed to be her year. Her triumph. Her her-story.Maybe a few of those tears welling up in her eyes were real after all.Expect more as this contested race - a race she thought would be a cakewalk - continues.(Townhall.com::The Clintons in Crisis::By Michelle Malkin )

CONCORD, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night in a startling upset, defeating Sen. Barack Obama and resurrecting her bid for the White House...........Her victory capped a revival from last week's third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. It also raised the possibility of a long battle for the party nomination between the most viable black candidate in history and the former first lady, who is seeking to become the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. 

Game on.....

Greetings from the Dark Side!I was worshipping at the Limbaugh alter this morning and He Who Is Never Wrong (except concerning Hillary) indicated something I think is worth reflecting on.His Most Wonderfulness (whose second-hand cigar smoke I’m not worthy to breathe) wondered: was it Hillary tears welling up that caused her win in NH, or was it dishonest voting?Think about this – the pollsters and pundits got it right concerning McCain but were way, way off concerning Mrs. Clinton.Why? Obama should have won and didn’t.Why?Was it tears or cheating?We desperately need election reform. There’s no reason it can’t be done. We have the technology, and only need the will.I’ve been pushing for this, as you may know, with articles such as the two below:Concerning Election ReformIt’s very exciting to me that with our technology, even the confused little old lady in Florida can’t screw up the voting system. Instead of her being able to carefully hang a chad, or vote for both Gore and Bush, she must now press a frail, uncertain finger against a touch screen that won’t tolerate anything other than a single choice.But now, as the election reform issue turns to other topics, there is a growing mindset that is willing to sacrifice secrecy for accurate vote count. This bothers me because I don’t want man or machine to know how we vote.The question, then, is how do we obtain both a very high degree of voting privacy and accuracy?This is how:(1) Require photo identification (such as a driver’s license) against the up-to-date list of names of registered voters.We should enter the voting precinct and show pictureI.D. to the poll worker, who then finds us on the list.Then we sign on the line next to our name, and go vote.(2) Use a computer touch screen which both issues a paper ballot to the voter, and records the vote electronically.(3) The paper ballot is then inspected by the voter and put into the ballot box.After the polls close, the paper ballots are carefullycounted, the count is matched against the number ofpeople who showed i.d., and signed the list, and againstthe computer disk record. All three must match: paperballot, number of people who signed to vote, andcomputer disk count.So if 2000 people showed I.D.., 2000 must have votedelectronically and there must be 2000 paper ballots. Ifthey don’t match, work it out amongst all parties tosatisfaction.(4) Randomly pre-assign the ballot with a number, issued to the voter. For example, the number 4XXX2170 might be your ballot number. This number is on your paper ballot and you either write it down or tear a little tab with the number on it before putting the paper ballot in the ballot box. Then all the numbers are displayed on the internet. No one else has any idea who 4XXX2170 is, but you. This helps verify that your vote was recorded and counted. This also gives the total number of voters, again. If not there, voter reports discrepancy.(5) Provide appropriate punishment for those who cheat, so it’s not worth it to do so.For example, in Chicago (was it Chicago?) more peoplevoted for Al Gore in 2000 than there were registeredvoters.Cheating like this should be investigated and prosecutedvigorously.One thing I really dread is a federal takeover of our election process. States are reforming their ballot process just fine, thank you very much, and should receive neither federal mandates nor federal money, in spite of what Jimmy Carter wants.The state run election is one of the more subtle yet powerful checks and balances in our system of government and besides, the govt is already too large, powerful and wasteful to be taking on more responsibility.Incidentally, people should not be overly encouraged to vote. I’m very willing to study the issues and candidates and vote for those who don’t feel like it.Being able to register and vote the same day is a bad idea because it disrupts the carefully maintained list of registered voters needed for accurate elections (see point #1).It’s an embarrassing fact that one of the components of our Judeo/Christian heritage, honesty, is now so lacking in our culture that the foregoing is necessary. As a result, our voting system, in order to be accurate, must contain redundancy and therefore be expensive to administer. But I’m certainly willing to pay the price for secret, thoroughly accurate elections, and suggest the preceding as a way to achieve much needed election reform.Even Dead People Voted in MiamiNewsMax.comMonday, Dec. 25, 2000A report in Sunday’s editions of the Miami Herald reveals that scores of dead people and non-registered individuals were allowed to vote in November’s presidential election.In a survey of just 138 of Miami-Dade's 617 precincts, the paper found that 144 persons voted illegally.The Herald study indicates that if this number is extrapolated, more than 600 votes were illegally cast in the heavily Democratic county.Vote fraud is no stranger to the city of vice. Just three years ago, the Democratic mayor of Miami was forced from office after massive election fraud was uncovered.Use this link:Even Dead People Voted in MiamiGrimgold