You're Viewing the Archives
Return to IVN's Frontpage

Is The Right To A Fraud-Free Counted Vote a GREATER Idea?

by Jonathan Denn, published

We live in a 236 year old democratic republic. Yet, we still have regular headlines on voter disenfranchisement, sloppily run polling stations, allegations of voter fraud, and many ballots going uncounted.

This is NOT acceptable behavior. The one thing that should be of paramount importance is the VOTE: the Right to a Fraud-Free Counted Vote. It’s no less than a mandate for all State governments to make voting registration frictionless, have safeguards in place to detect and prevent fraud, and that the votes are counted.

If a jurisdiction doesn’t have the funds to implement the systems then the Federal Government must provide those funds.

No matter what your economic politics are, Hayekian, Keynesian, or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the cost of free, open, and fair elections is priceless. How can we NOT “afford it” when we have a free-floating sovereign fiat currency with no debt denominated in foreign funds? The US has a monopoly issuing its own currency. We don’t even HAVE to “borrow” the money if we so choose. And, even if we did borrow the funds, a few electronic ballot readers and software integrations aren’t going to cause hyperinflation or devalue the currency.

Let’s get real, almost every person eligible to vote at some point does business with their local, state, or federal government. It’s merely a technical matter to use these records to automatically issue voter registration cards. And in the event someone does not register this way, then a frictionless fraud-less system must be provided for voter registration.

On aGREATER.US where independents’ opinions are given an equal weight with conservatives’ and liberals’ ratings “The Right To a Fraud-Free Counted Vote” has an amazing 89% positive approval rating: almost nine out of ten raters! Is this reflective of society at large? Since this is an original idea to aGREATER.US there is no other polling data available.

Here is the text from aGREATER.US as submitted by Jameson Quinn who will be going to Harvard for a PhD in statistics, focusing on voting theory, in September 2013.

“While voting is a key part of our republic, it is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution; the closest it comes is ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.’ In Luther v Borden, an 1840 case in which reformers in Rhode Island were arrested for trying to organize a state constitutional convention [!], this clause was held to be outside the purview of the courts — which puts it directly under the purview of the legislative branch. This interpretation was upheld during Reconstruction and after. Congress should therefore pass a law saying... 

’Each citizen has a right to vote, to have that vote counted, to have the voting process be free of fraud; and that the public has a right to verify these rights are upheld. Voting rules which circumscribe one of these rights are acceptable only if they proportionally increase another of them.’
 So where the rubber actually meets the road on this, is that it gives citizens whose voting rights are abridged, and ‘the public’ when its verification rights are abridged, standing to take their state governments to court.”

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “You can’t fight city hall.” Well, when it comes to The Right to a Fraud-Free Counted Vote, I’m suggesting, “You can’t fight the voters.”

The time has come for a fundamental shift in power, and this is the necessary first step in We, the People, taking back our electoral system. I will be writing about a broad range of Clean Elections and Clean Government reforms in the weeks to come.

The purpose of this column, “a GREATER Platform” is to find the sliver of overlap between independents, conservatives, and liberals where greater (>) policy work can be done. If just one group agrees with independents but not the other we are still looking at just partisan politics. If just liberals and conservatives agree it is likely to be a false equivalence. E.g. Cabbage is great. Chocolate is great. Chocolate covered cabbage would not do well on a restaurant’s menu.

But when we have a vast super-majority of Americans agreeing on an issue, perhaps “The Right to a Fraud-Free Counted Vote”, why oh why, doesn’t government listen? There is a difference between participative- and epistemic-democracy. Just because something is popular does not mean it won’t be the “tyranny of the majority.” But when prevailing “knowledge” is added to “popular” opinion we get > governance.

Photo Credit: Zerbor /

About the Author