Why Aren’t We Voting Online Yet?

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

Now that the election is finally over and history has been made, blah, blah, blah, let’s get the voting process fixed up.

Why should we have to leave home or work early, drive out of our way and fight traffic getting to some random elementary school just to wait in line for hours to cast a vote where some near-sighted grandma with a clipboard is the last guardian protecting the so-called sanctity of our democracy?

It’s time we take voting online. Security may have been a concern in the past, but the strides we’ve made in online security and identity verification have made the possibility of voting online a much safer alternative.

Nothing is 100% secure, but I’ve been doing my taxes online for almost 10 years and I can barely clear security to view my own information. I have to change passwords every other week to log on to my computer at work. I have to type in two barely legible words compiled of random letters to buy tickets on Ticketmaster. I can access all my banking information and pay all my bills from my cell phone, but I’m still filling out a Scantron card in some dank firehouse to elect the new leader of the free world?

Can’t we get Apple to take a year off from creating a smaller iPod to create some new proprietary voting software? I can’t get any of the stuff I downloaded from iTunes to play on a non-Apple devise. They probably already have the technology to allow you to vote from a Nano iPod, so why should I have to leave my house?

There are already several companies specializing in online voting. It would probably create jobs and help stimulate the economy if the government outsourced the creation and maintenance of its online voting methods.

Any company with a fat government contract should be motivated enough to ensure the security of your vote. To be sure, you could have their systems and results audited by other contractors. Sic PricewaterhouseCoopers on them and I bet they’ll keep their affairs in check. Throw a little cash around and there will be more than enough checks and balances in place to assure an accurate election.

At this point the list of benefits far outweighs the negatives.

There would be fewer avenues for tampering or error. Your ballot can’t mysteriously end up in the trash. Some absent-minded yokel won’t be scanning your ballot upside down or incorrectly instructing hundreds of people how to fill out their ballots. Even the most competent volunteers with the best intentions can make mistakes after 10 hours of manning a polling station.

You could vote from anywhere in the world online, and participation would increase. More college students, military personnel and travelers would be voting since there would be fewer hoops to jump through. Registration would be much easier or even done away with completely. Slackers like me would have fewer excuses not to vote. Poll results would be gathered in a fraction of the time. Less traffic f’ing up my morning commute.

No more navigating through crowded municipal parking lots like it’s Christmas season at Garden State Plaza (big up Jersey), trying to find a spot and standing in miserable November weather for hours.

Around now maybe you’re thinking “What about the people who don’t have Internet access?”

1. They won’t be reading this so I don’t care.
2. Everyone at least knows one person with Internet access.
3. You can go to a café, a library, a church ― pretty much everywhere in civilization, you backwater Neanderthal, get a computer already!
4. If you’re old and all this new-fangled technology goes over your head, we’ll keep the polls open for you on Election Day or send someone to your nursing home with a laptop to walk you through it.

While we’re at it, we should move Election Day to the weekend. The whole reason we vote on Tuesday has become irrelevant. With early voting becoming more popular we’re already moving away from a single-day election. It could even go from Saturday through Tuesday if you’re really that attached to the first Tuesday tradition.

Other countries have shown that multi-day elections increase voter participation. Also, holding an election online over a period of time would not be as costly as the elections we run now. Actually, there would be more money to be made.

SNL can run specials for a week straight. The 24-hour up-to-the-minute polling results bonanza would have every anchor, reporter, politician and pundit on the edge of their seats for days. Live television coverage and YouTube videos of people submitting their votes would canvas every media outlet. Election-themed parties would happen all weekend! Drink specials would be available at bars and clubs without the burden of having to go to work the next day! Candidates would be crisscrossing the country as results came in trying to boost their numbers in various states, like a coach making in-game adjustments! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Blame It On the Lame Duck

By SARAH N. LYNCH, Correspondent

Senator John McCain can take solace in one thing when he thinks back on his recent electoral defeat: Senator Barack Obama’s win does not really say that much about John McCain. Instead, Obama’s resounding victory was a referendum on President George W. Bush.

Shortly after NBC projected Sen. Obama the winner of the evening, people from around the world poured into the streets. They were excited to be witnessing a piece of history as voters overwhelmingly elected the nation’s first black president. But more importantly, they wanted to let the current administration know their true feelings.

The people are tired of this unjust and inhuman war that was spawn on a lie. They are struggling beneath the crushing weight of the economy that has come crashing down on them thanks to the lax regulations that let Wall Street cannibalize itself. They are sick of the United States using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit.

The crowds that gathered on Election Night were a stunning sight. They cheered in Kenya, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, New York City and Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Here in Washington, a large crowd stood in front of the White House – not because it represents Obama’s future home for the next four years, but because they wanted to send Bush a message.

Yes, those crowded rejected John McCain, but it was not personal. Sure, it didn’t help that McCain ran a God-awful campaign.

He failed to vet Sarah Palin and wound up isolating independent voters and even some staunch conservatives who felt she was unqualified for higher office. He then yet again failed to vet Joe the Plumber, thrusting the man into the national spotlight for his criticism of Obama’s tax policy before he eventually discovered that Joe doesn’t even pay the taxes he owes now.

McCain resorted to petty arguments over why Obama was not fit for the presidency. He ran too many negative ads. His reaction to the collapse on Wall Street was chaotic and embarrassing to the GOP.

But none of that really mattered in the end. The truth is, no Republican had a chance of winning this election. George W. Bush’s disastrous policies have essentially left the Republicans with a large scarlet A on their chests.

Just ask John Sununu or Elizabeth Dole. They were both casualties of war. They finally lost their seats thanks to Bush, who hijacked his party eight years ago thanks to a stolen election in Florida.

John McCain should know this better than anyone. And although Palin was definitely the wrong pick, his aides should stop putting so much blame on her for their loss and instead direct their anger toward the right person: our lame-duck president.

That means that now, more than ever before, is the time for John McCain to truly be the maverick he claims to be. It means he must publicly reject the Bush legacy, call for his fellow GOP colleagues to do the same and steal his party back.

Only then can the Republicans hope to pick up the pieces and regain the confidence of the public.

Sarah N. Lynch can be reached at sarahnlynch@gmail.com.

How ’Bout a Juicy McMac?; Celebs, Ads Don’t Sway Voters

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

What have we become when a vice presidential nominee has to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live two weeks before an election and a presidential candidate has to do a makeup appearance for getting on David Letterman’s bad side?

Why does David Letterman’s or any celebrity’s opinion matter to us? He can’t even beat out Leno, but scathing remarks after being stood up by a candidate causes a dip in the polls?

Celebrities don’t care about us. There are a few who are genuinely nice and care about mankind, blah, blah, blah. But most have had to step on the faces of rivals to get where they are and the most important thing to them is staying on top.

Have you ever stopped to think that the endorsing celebrity could have concerns about taxes, education or any number of issues in direct opposition to your own?

Let’s not forget that it’s also an issue of ego as well. Liberal celebrities have had it handed to them by the Bush administration for the last eight years. Their egos have been bruised because no matter how hard they’ve campaigned for the opposition or pointed out his obvious flaws, Ol’ Dubyah has kept right on truckin’. These self-important asses want to feel like they can actually have an effect on the direction of the country as much as, if not more than, they actually care about the well-being of the country.

As I watched Palin bobbing her head to the beat I wondered if Gerald Ford ever had to yuck it up with a few talking heads on some cheesy network morning show. I don’t recall Big Bush dropping by SNL and surprising Dana Carvey.

Just as I began to feel queasy over the thought that an appearance on late-night television could be a deciding factor in an election I realized something … that really hasn’t happened yet. Despite all the pulling and prodding by the media we always seem to elect whoever we want. Advertisements and appearances just serve as supplements to keep us interested until Election Day. I can’t think of a time in history when we’ve let outside opinions change our minds about candidates. Whoever you wanted to vote for when the nominations were accepted is probably the same person you want to vote for now.

Which makes me wonder, does any amount of campaigning ever change a person’s mind? We’re only interested in the evidence that supports the decision we’ve already made. We form our opinions based on the sum of our experience and don’t usually change our minds no matter how compelling the argument. So for now I have found some peace by convincing myself that people aren’t directed by the media when they cast their ballots.

So why was Palin on SNL this week?

I prefer Coke over Pepsi. The difference between the two is negligible, but I’m always choosing Coke. In my mind no amount of advertising is ever going to change that. That’s the point. Whenever I made my cola decision advertising played a big part in it. Now that I’ve picked my side it’s up to them to remind me of what a great choice I made. I want to back a winner and be affirmed that I’m a winner for making that choice as much as possible. I even go as far as to root for Coke to have better commercials and higher sales.

Of course no one is going to decide who to vote for because of a boat, but somewhere someone felt good about seeing it and said to themselves, “I haven’t seen any Obama sailboats out today.” The candidates need to keep reminding their supporters that they’ve made a good decision.

It’s our nature. We want our candidates to be superhuman. We want them to be the most amusing when telling jokes, the most eloquent when debating and the most intelligent when discussing policies. They do whatever they can to sustain that image. Whether it is charming late-night appearances, well-scripted commercials or kissing babies in minimalls. We will always love them for doing it.

Politicians know something that we don’t. In the end they are all just people like you and I. That’s why Palin can laugh off Tina Fey’s impression of her and kick it with Lorne backstage at 30 Rock. That’s how Obama and McCain can have a heated debate one night and act like a couple of open-micers the next. Most of us have this thought stuck in our heads that Democrats and Republicans are these two competing factions in an all or nothing battle for supremacy.

In reality, they’re no more different from each other then McDonald’s is from Burger King. Either way you’re still going to go get that delicious, fatty garbage in you. All elected officials have the same goals ― try to accomplish something positive and not get booted before you’re ready to go. They respect and relate to each other the same way employees at Mickey D’s relate to their contemporaries at BK.

They know we are as influenced by the image created around a candidate as we are by their actual accomplishments. Obama’s the smart, young, contemplative diplomat we need to unite the country and turn things around. McCain is the strong-willed, experienced, maverick that will buck the system and lead us to a better tomorrow. Big Mac, Whopper.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Time for Voters to Take Responsibility

BY JASON WALKER, Columnist

I have a question for you…

What will you do if your candidate loses?

Actually, I’ve got several questions.

What will happen to all the excitement and interest in politics this “unprecedented” presidential race has supposedly generated after the election is over?

The public is fickle. It was in Rome; it was in England; it is today. Like those dynasties, we will eventually fall, and our lack of interest in our government may be the basis.

To avoid this fate, don’t the respective parties have a responsibility to help keep interest up even if they lose? Isn’t that what all the ads, celebrities, ministers and politicians are always saying? How much your vote means and how important it is to be a part of the political process. If that is true than no matter who wins isn’t it your responsibility to support the system even if you think the wrong candidate was elected? If you truly believe in the system it’s your duty to support whoever represents you.

So where has the support been the last few years? No, I’m not saying you should blindly follow your government and not acknowledge mistakes. But you should help be a part of guiding our country to a better outcome, not stall the process by constantly pointing fingers. That is what has happened.

You can blame Bush all you want, but everyone plays a part. It’s easy to be supportive when everything is going smoothly, but it is when times are the most turbulent that your representatives need your support and guidance the most. Unfortunately, during those times, they have been criticized the most and abandoned. Rarely is focus centered on the problem and not on the elected officials. This is a country full of fair-weather friends.

Who is to blame?

Politicians are cannibals. Each party expends so much effort pointing out the flaws of the other. Each candidate works so hard to discount his or her opponent. It should be expected that the public would adopt the same mind-set. Then politicians wonder why they are held under a microscope and why it is so hard to believe them when, after vigorously trashing their opponent for the last couple of years, they are “sincerely” endorsing the same person in a speech at the national convention. You can’t have it both ways. Negativity breeds negativity, and we have been on this path for so long that it may be impossible for a candidate to get elected using a different approach.

The public is not without blame either. It does not benefit the county when your interest only exists when your candidate is involved.

Presidential candidates are like teams in the Super Bowl. Your team probably isn’t playing, but for one reason or another there is one team you would rather see win. You want to see a hated rival defeated. You have money on the game. Maybe you just get caught up in the vibe at the party.

This isn’t a game. This is the presidency and it deserves to be treated with more importance. The average person can tell you more about any random athlete or actor than they can about the man who gets their vote.

Is the fate of the country better left to those who have a genuine interest in the process and not to the masses that only show interest every four years? No. The process only works if everyone can be a part of it. But there should be criteria beyond reaching a certain age and not being convicted of a serious crime to participate.

Maybe the candidates don’t need to endure more scrutiny, the people voting should. It’s more difficult to pick a cell phone and calling plan, more time consuming to join a social networking site and more costly to vote on a reality show than to vote for the leader of our country.

How valuable do you consider your right to vote? Value is determined based on what has to be endured, sacrificed or paid. There was a time when people were willing to sacrifice their lives for the privilege to vote, and it was priceless to them. Now that right is of little value to a majority of the public.

No wonder the rest of the world hates us. They see Americans taking for granted the rights they receive from birth, like an heiress squandering her family’s wealth while people work 60-hour weeks to feed their families. Most people never know how good they really have it.

There is a chance to parlay this momentum into a real interest in the political process. A chance to show those still watching after November 4 how their votes can affect their lives and get people interested in their local and state governments. A chance to motivate people by showing them the results of their contributions. The question now is, where do your loyalties lie? With your interest or with the process?