Memory Lane: A letter I wrote on 11-December-2000

[TahitiNut]

While messing around in my 'puter's attic, I found an old 'love' letter. It seems as relevant today as over 2.5 years ago.

---

Subject: It Depends On What The Meaning of "We" Is?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:51:34 -0800

I am concerned that the governmental body entrusted with the interpretation of the very intent embodied in our Constitution have lost sight of the very first words: "We the People". The Supreme Court of the United States appears to assert their own supremacy in lieu of the supremacy of the People.

When we commit ourselves, as we have for more than two centuries, to a principle of governance that is entirely subject to the will and consent of the governed, we recognize the fundamental Truth that the governed ("We the People") are the sole rightful inheritors of the fruits of our own decisions, whether those fruits are sweet or sour.

Through division of the People, an eradication of the unity of "We", there are some who would pretend to protect "others" from the sour fruits. By what means? By the delusion of parental or custodial authority over those whose rights they'd subvert. In so doing, some seemingly argue that it depends on what the definition of "We" is ... as in "We the People".

What does this have to do with the furor centering on voting systems and election processes? To understand this, we must keep in mind some model of a democratic ideal, whether embedded within our republican system or not.

Fortunately, we have contemporary representations of this ideal wherever there is a participative democracy -- in New England Town Meetings wherein the citizens vote and in the very voting procedures of every legislative and judicial body in our country. The US Supreme Court voted. The Florida Supreme Court voted. The legislature of a State voted.

In every single instance, extraordinary efforts are made to perfectly harvest the intent of every legitimate participant. Even in those instances where technology is employed, manual methods of verification are overwhelmingly evident. Those legislative bodies employing technologies for tabulation have abundant and extensive real-time feedback mechanisms for human observation, interpretation, and correction.

Some of us would leap from the frying pan of chads into the fire of "higher" technologies. This is merely a reprise of our seduction by the technology of the times when we placed voting machines in our polling places as these 'magic' machines became possible in the 1890's. It's taken more than a century to overcome some (not all) of the ways these machines are manipulated to defraud the People and hijack our vote.

Even still, we have no clear and convincing assurance that the will and consent of the People has been fairly and honestly heard. The major problem? The voter isn't dealing with the same "ballot" that's actually counted. There is no way that the voter's actual physical ballot (the clearest possible expression of our intent) can be examined. There is no original recording. For anti-humanists, it may seem wonderful to get rid of that messy human factor and insert some (manipulative) technological intermediary.

That's not what a free society is all about. That's virtually identical to the "Metropolis" vision (government fiat through soulless technology) of the authoritarian ultra right who repeatedly postulate, in many ways, that the "People" are unworthy of being entrusted with their own rights.

Whenever and wherever we interpose technology (machines) in a manner that, in any way, encumbers the expression of a legitimate participant's INTENT, we have a moral and ethical obligation to employ the most diligent and respectful methods possible to harvest the truest understanding of that expression of will. Anything less erodes the very foundation of our Republic.

Arguments that "We the People" must subject (some of) ourselves to the irrevocable tyranny of recalcitrant chads, disenfranchisement by fiat of tabulation equipment, or any other mechanical or technological impediment to the expression of our electoral will is an ethically bankrupt and morally reprehensible rationalization of a corruption of the very meaning of "We the People".

On these matters, we must forever agree lest we lose our very right to express disagreement at all.

[TahitiNut]

1. I guess not.

:shrug: