An Article by:

Steve Hammons

also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Results from Diebold electronic voting machines used in New Hampshire’s primary are being questioned this week as apparent anomalies in voting patterns there are examined.

According to published reports, in areas of New Hampshire where Diebold machines were used, Hillary Clinton may have received significantly more votes than Barack Obama, compared to regions where Diebold machines were not used.

Despite repeated reports by experts that these types of voting machines can be hacked and voting results altered, the devices continue to be used around the country.

Questions were raised in 2004 presidential election about the accuracy of voting results in Ohio.

Some of these concerns were also related to Diebold electronic voting machines.

After the 2000 presidential election and problems counting Florida’s punch-card ballots, federal funds were made available for local jurisdictions to purchase different voting technologies.

Many of these funds were spent on electronic machines such as the Diebold devices.

DEMOCRACY AT RISK

Vote tampering in the U.S. and elsewhere is nothing new. But, reasonable efforts have often been implemented to attempt to minimize some of the more egregious activities regarding election fraud.

Now, with questionable electronic voting devices used throughout the nation, high-tech election manipulation is clearly a possibility, probability or maybe even established fact, according to some researchers and experts who have investigated the situation.

Because election and voting procedures vary around the country, there are not uniform and consistent standards for voting devices and other elements of election processes.

Although many people have called for increased universal standards to assist in maintaining the integrity of elections, little has been done.

In addition to questionable voting machines, other irregularities have been documented, reported and investigated. These include confusing ballots, inadequate numbers of polling places, polling places strategically located to influence voting patterns, removal of qualified citizens from voting eligibility lists and other concerns.

According to some observers, these kinds of circumstances may have significantly affected national and local elections in recent years.

CORRECTIVE ACTION

What can be done to improve the integrity and accuracy of our election processes? Experts and researchers of all kinds have made many valuable suggestions, based on extensive investigations of many aspects of current election problems.

Yet, there does not seem to be an adequate consensus about what steps should be taken.

Do we implement mandatory national standards or keep elections in local hands? And, how will decisions be made about things like electronic voting technology. Unwise and corrupt decisions can just as easily be made at the federal level as at the local level, as we know all too well.

Politically neutral organizations could create groups of experts to make logical recommendations about how to proceed. In fact, many such groups already have. But the problems persist.

In the case of Ohio’s 2004 elections, other similar questionable election processes and now in the New Hampshire primary, real or perceived irregularities are damaging American democracy.

If it is true that flawed voting machine technology is inadvertently making errors or allowing outright criminal voter fraud, we have a serious problem.

If other aspects of our election processes, inadvertently or intentionally, are also wrongly disenfranchising citizens, creating phony election results and helping put people in office who were not truly elected, our democratic system is truly damaged.

Tags: congress, constitution, corporations, democracy, economics, Elections, fascism, federal government, government, information technology, politics, privatization, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, constitution, government, self-governance, Politics, Congress, Corporations
No Comments »

Workplace ‘Flexibility’: Comment from Australia Relevant to Populist Perspectives on Labor and a Fair Wage Stateside

Here some strong commentary on ‘casual workers’ and the ‘enterprise culture’ from an anonymous hospitality industry worker down under. It can speak to the predicament faced by many workers across the American Middle West. As he says: “We can fight for a fair go, for a decent share of the profits of our employers and for decent working conditions, But we must do it together.” In Australia and Middle America, the struggle is one.  This is from the site http://www.workersforum. info/   Perhaps the Midwest Alliance needs a similar forum for contingent and low-paid workers.

As labor historian Stan Phipps noted:

“the legacy of the People’s Party to the modern workers’ movement and the struggle for independent political action is substantial. They demonstrated how the plain people in society could build upon the existing democratic forms in the U.S. to generate democratic aspirations capable of mounting a serious challenge to the business-oriented opinion leaders and policy makers. Farmers and workers showed by example how marginalized people could create for themselves the psychological space necessary to organize a first rate struggle for a level of social and economic change which opposed the existing unjust status quo through the creation of an independent political movement that put the interests of farmers and workers first” (“The People’s Party: An Insurgent Party of Farmers and Workers,” Socialist Organizer, http://www.theorganizer.org/LP/USHistory/peoplesparty.html

Maintaining the myth of flexibility: The enterprise culture and Australian Workers

On the surface it would appear that the Federal Government’s employment policies provide flexibility and choice to workers, enabling people to effectively balance work, leisure, family and educational commitments. The reality is that these policies create inequality. The myth of workplace ‘flexibility’ is a weapon of control that is used by employers and the Federal Government to serve the interests of business above those of workers. In an era of reduced union membership, our rights come under attack on a daily basis. The full-time job is no longer attainable for the majority of Australian workers and many of us are forced to work for poor pay and under appalling conditions, often in more than one job, just to make ends meet. I have worked in hospitality for almost ten years and too often have I generated thousands of dollars for an understaffed business in the space of a few hours; only to be rewarded with a wage that could barely buy a large round of drinks and a slap on the wrists for not working fast enough.

The Howard Government’s workplace policies are a result of an increasing global trend towards economic rationalism. Advocates of this neo-liberal thought advocate an “enterprise culture” that promotes:

“hard work, competition, motivation, self-reliance, flexibility, boldness, daringness, innovation and success…essential components of the entrepreneurial individual” (Kenny 1999 p. 54).

Great on the surface, but what of those people that don’t possess the education, skills and mindset to become entrepreneur’s? They get left behind! We are no longer creatures of the jungle where only the strong survive; we formed civilised society so that we could work together and help those that are weaker, slower and disadvantaged. Why? Because it is in our best interests and we will achieve a lot more together than alone!

This enterprise culture has manifested itself in Australian employment policies with the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s), the promotion of contract labour, a decrease in collective bargaining and an increase in casual labour. These policies are articulated as “providing flexibility and choice to Australian workers”, “everyone can be their own boss, while promoting economic growth for the great nation that is Australia.”

However, there are a few things that stand in the way of this growth, mainly the liability that is paying workers unnecessary benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. But the one thing that provides the greatest obstacle to the implementation of these policies is a unified force of workers; together, we would never accept policies that hurt us, but alone, there is not much we can do.

We have to start making our collective voice heard, whether it be by joining a union or taking part in this forum, or dobbing in a dodgy boss [informing on a tricky boss]; We can fight for a fair go, for a decent share of the profits of our employers and for decent working conditions, But we must do it together. CASUAL WORKERS. UNITE!

Tags: australia, economics, economy, fair wage, Farmers, federal government, labor, workplace
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Labor, Farmers
2 Comments »