by Henry Lamb
November 8, 2004
Before the first vote was cast, Finnish Senator Kimmo Kiljunen, one of the international election monitors, asked Senator John Kerry to "work for uniform election rules for the entire country at the federal level."
after the election, Konrad Olszewski, another international monitor stationed in Miami, complained that Venezuela, Republic of Georgia, and Serbia, all had a better system of voting than america does.
"They have one national election law and use the paper ballots I really prefer over any other system," Olszewski told the International Herald Tribune.
Deprived of any complaints that Tuesday’s election was "stolen," Democrats must find a new strategy to wrest control from what appears to be a growing conservative majority across the nation, and particularly in the institutions of government. This strategy is likely to include a major overhaul of the electoral process.
Left-leaning talking heads on the news channels, almost in lock-step, talked about the "broken system," evidenced by long lines, provisional ballots, late-arriving absentee ballots, and disenfranchised voters. The next step will be a proposed solution to these so-called problems, that involves a federal law to standardize the process--which means federal control of the electoral process.
Nothing could be worse.
The most important principle of the electoral process is accountability--direct accountability of the electoral authority to the voters. The U.S. Constitution assigns authority for the electoral process to the states, and most states delegate the authority to local elected officials at the county level.
If voters become dissatisfied with standing in line too long, or the registration process, or with any other aspect of the voting process, they can remove the official in charge and directly influence the adoption of a new process. The electoral authority is directly accountable to the people who vote--at the local level.
If the process is ever nationalized, local voters can forget accountability. Equally important is the increased potential for vote manipulation in a centralized, nationalized system. Consider that the party in power would control the process; any vote total could be suspect. In the 2000 election in South Florida, where Democrats complained so bitterly, the process was controlled by a Democrat in 23 of the 25 counties. Despite all the confusion, several independent post-election analyses confirmed that the final vote count was accurate.
There are certainly improvements that can be made to the process; nationalization is not one of them.
Not-for-profit organizations should be precluded from participation in the electoral process altogether--except for political parties. Campaign finance reform should result in unrestricted donations to any candidate or political party, with the requirement of immediate public disclosure policed by the Federal Elections Commission.
Voting is a privilege and a responsibility of freedom. People who are unwilling to prove their citizenship and qualifications for voting before an election should not be allowed to vote. The scandalous voter registration drives by third-party contractors such as Moveon.org, and others, invite fraud and dilute the integrity of the electoral process.
These reforms, however, will not likely be championed by the defeated Democrats. Rather than recognize that the people in america do not support their accelerating movement toward international socialism, they are much more likely to focus on a new campaign strategy to manipulate the process, either through the courts, through bureaucracies, or through ballot initiatives--all of which by-pass the fundamental principle of freedom--representative government.
The international election monitors, and the international community in general, are stunned by the resounding endorsement of President George W. Bush. Their hopes that John Kerry would return the U.S. to the international policies of the Clinton era have been dashed. The world will now have to re-examine the Bush Doctrine, and come to grips with the idea that the United States is serious about retaining its freedom from international control. The Islamic world will have to come to grips with the idea that the United States is serious about planting seeds of freedom where terrorists once thrived.
The american people--including Democrats--will have to come to grips with the idea that Iraq is simply another front in the war on terror, a part of a new campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat by helping victims of terrorist tyranny discover the blessings of freedom.
Tuesday’s election reflects a courageous decision by a great nation. The international community cannot comprehend our action or our goals. Only time and success will demonstrate that freedom is truly a better alternative than tyranny, whether exercised by terrorists, or an international institution.