Voting: A constitutionally-related activity

Voting Things mentioned in the constitution should be a government priority.

This means making sure there is a plan to meet this requirement.

One "plan" is called a "budget." People estimate how much things will cost to do. Then they make a proposal. And the budget gets approved by the legislature and executive.

Sounds simple.

Small problem.

We've been "at it" for over 200 years, and don't seem to get it right.

Here we are in 2004, 4 years after the debacle in Florida in 2000, and the country is acting like "this is new."

Election-Voting Management What happened to the budgeting process? Who was the "person in charge" who was supposed to fix this mess? What was their plan? Why are we getting upset at third world countries when we can't do this ourselves? What cost estimates were used to identify the manning requirements to address the issues? What were the specific issues identified in 2000; and what was the get well plan to ensure that things would work smoothly? What was the plan to ensure the solutions worked well before the need-date? What consideration, in re finances, was giving to the costs to litigate; what expectation was there that actual litigation-settlement costs would not be disclosed; what was the basis to assess that it would be cheaper to litigate in hindsight [after 2004] rather than fix the problem going forward [from 2000]? What happened to the investigations from 2000? How were they resolved? Yet, why are the results so wanting, despite 200 years? We have the voting rights act; yet why do we continue to hear reports of voters being intimidated; are the consequences for this misconduct not high enough, or is the society merely giving lip service to provisions of the constitution? How many more disasters do we require to provide "the evidence" and "the data" to justify credible plans, leadership, and solution?

We have a leadership problem. Those "getting paid alot of money" to get this right are falling down.

It's been 200 years. It's not that tough. Yet, many choose mediocrity as success. Brilliant, that was the same excuse the British Monarchy used to do nothing about the concerns raised prior to the Declaration of Independence.

The best we can hope from local officials is that they'll make more excuses to do nothing; justify inaction; create the illusion of progress.

Let's make sure they're accountable. Notice what doesn't go right.

The following attitude is unacceptable:

Make sure they fix the problem. If not, we'll have 2008 to be another year to show how badly things can go.

It is disturbing to me that we require lawyers and the courts to fix this problem. The costs are going to be high.

Indeed, we have "enough money" to do it wrong, but never enough money to fix the problem and do it right.

Sure, it's disappointing. But why expect any more. The country spends vast sums of money educating leadership with MBAs, creating program managers, but when it comes to a "simple activity" like voting, suddenly the "lessons learned of the ages" go out the window.

It's not that tough.

It's called leadership. Someone sitting down and saying, "What do we need to be doing," and then fixing the problems:

Simple instructions; forms that logically flow with examples not just in words, but graphics, and simple designs.

Clear provisions in the voter registration forms of what is required.

Back-up plans when the primary solution fails.

Practice to iron out the kinks.

Credible assistance when voters are given non-sense to "justify" not being able to vote.

It's not that tough.

Action: What you can do Find people in states where Bush is leading and encourage people to vote. Tell people why you are voting for Kerry. Call them up at work. Tell elected officials and government employees why you are voting. Leave messages. Send this e-mail to encourage anyone you know to vote. Hang posters in your workplace, in public areas, and in places where government officials work. Tell your friends how they can monitor the electoral college results.