[ExI] Our Ageing World

Wed Aug 17 00:22:48 UTC 2016

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:39 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Our Ageing World

 >>…yet, inexplicably, no one seems to want to create a massive bipartisan effort to get rid of any and all voting systems dependent in any way on electronics in any form.  Oy.

>>…Hey cool, a post free of any partisan political content!  By me of all people.

spike

>…I agree with all of that, Spike, but to me the major cause of corruption in the voting process is gerrymandering in the state legislatures by the party in power…

Ja.  We can work these problems simultaneously, being as they are completely orthogonal.  The problem you describe is incumbent advantage: the party in power can stack the deck.  We are seeing this in nearly a runaway condition, with the likely upcoming question of self-pardon at the presidential level.  Nixon asked in jest if it could be invoked; witnesses report laughter at the suggestion.  Bill Clinton almost did use it in a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harassment; he sought to postpone the proceedings until after his term, which would have been circling dangerously close to a self-pardon.  That was the case that resulted in questioning of Monica Lewinsky under oath, and you know the rest.

Now we have an interesting variation on that theme: pre-emptive successor pardon.  Review what the current president has uttered regarding his presumptive successor: was not that a defacto successor pardon?  Since his presumptive successor will have the power to pardon her predecessor, is not this equivalent to an indirect self-pardon?  For instance, what if we find among the yoga routines evidence that the current president knew his presumed successor was using an unsecured server for state business?  He would need a pardon for not immediately removing her from office, and the person he pardoned would be in a position to extend a pardon back to him. 

>…I saw just a few days ago a North Carolina law was struck down that essentially inhibited blacks from voting - by a Repub legis., natch…

Indeed?  I am surprised I never heard that North Carolina had laws regarding one’s race as a condition of eligibility to vote.  How do they do it if one is mixed race, and has the DNA evidence to prove it?  May they vote if they are over half an eligible race?  What is the required percentage of DNA required to inhibit a voter in North Carolina?

>…I have no idea what to do about this problem, but it's a big one, far more pervasive than the problems you mention…

Vote the bastards out of office, and start by brutally destroying all voting machines with any electronic components.  Light the polling place with human-electric generation, with all other sources of electricity shut off.  Then repeal all laws inhibiting any particular race from voting.

>…Win at any cost is the motto….

Review the work of Saul Alinsky.

>…Cheat and even if you get sued the court might be stacked for you…

See above.

>…Mississippi does this constantly…

They studied Alinsky too.  His writings have been perhaps the single most negative and destructive influence on civilized government in the 20th century.  The curse continues into the 21st.

>…You have to go to federal court to get relatively unbiased judgments…

For now, ja.  What happens when they too become corrupt as Mississippi and North Carolina?

>…(yeah, Dems do it too)  bill w

Imagine that.  

I will be far more optimistic as soon as I see states make a move toward not just ridding themselves of all electronic voting machines but using sledge hammers and a steam roller to ensure they will never be a temptation to future power seekers.  Second, they must establish some means of ensuring that all ballots cast are correctly and accurately counted, in some verifiable manner.   Third, demonstrate a meaningful effort to ensure protection against ballot stuffing, and that every person who submits a ballot is legally entitled to do so, which means legal citizenship and (in most states) no felony criminal history.  Those steps will be a good start, ja?

Think of it BillW: America is on the verge of selecting between two candidates, both widely distrusted by the majority of Americans, yet here we sit with no way of verifying the outcome of the election.  Regardless of which wins, will be left having to take the word of the government (which over half the people do not trust) on who won.  How will we know?  Either winner might lead us into a war in which few Americans have anything to gain and much to lose, and yet… we will still have no way to know if that leader was legally elected.  This bodes ill.

Why is it that we have known for a long time about the voting machine problem, yet we seem to be making little progress?  What happens if we see plenty of evidence the Russians did rig those things?  Do we scold the Russians then let the result stand?  But the winner will have little interest in scolding the Russians for helping him or her win, ja?

Suggestions please?

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160816/f976a85f/attachment.html>