Democratic Voting System

Reflecting on Utah's 2010 General Election Amendment A, a few issues come to mind. Is our voting system as efficient as it could be? Was this an attempt to further eliminate voter rights on the city and county level?

The most efficient and affordable method of voting is not yet developed. When thinking of the current system, there is a lot of jargon and procedure around creating initiatives and petitions. With the invention of the computer, these issues could be addressed quickly and affordably. Polling places where a person's identification and registration can be optimized through anytime petitioning. People provide feedback to elected officials and then feedback is translated into petitions.

It would be relatively simple. Petition information is listed with "Yes" or "No" options and "Optional Feedback." After completed standard information a feedback form appears for voters to offer suggestions and concerns for future petitions. This assists in equalizing government and voters. Politicians and individuals explain purposed bills and initiatives they want to pass. They write articles and upload videos to debate issues. Provided on the internet, the "Red-Line Veto," becomes a past issue.

Even the Red-Line Veto is insufficient in maintain ultimate democracy. One person decides what is best for everyone. They may favor friends who offer defense on decisions, while others are easily written off to save money on paperclip issues which involve smaller issues often bettering one company who promises to benefit the general area.

The Amendment A is designed to prevent misuse of Card Check; however, unions are private businesses so why is this a government concern? To me, it seems as though private companies can hold whatever type of election they prefer without government interference, save the consequence of illegal dissension of union leaders or members. This is an ordeal for police who already developed procedures.

Pit Bosses are not thugs, so how is this amendment based in reality. Perhaps the government is attempting to limit election votes to provide a catalysts to remove people's right to petition and be involved in civic issues. First the government is only responsible for providing federal and state voting. Then there is a precedence to remove options for bilateral communication between government and average citizens.

This sounds paranoid, yet new laws only guarantee anonymous voting on federal and state issues. It does not limit voting in other areas and reduces government responsibility to fund voting operations. Polls and surveys do not supply equal amounts of individual power when changing policy and making a difference.

There is a lack of control over spending. Taxes are bothering people these days. While most are content with voting for someone else to handle everything, many are tiring of never having clear answers on how tax dollars are spent. Open petitioning is fast and affordable. Unions could benefit from on-line voting. Democracy should be more democratic.

Related Article
2010 General Election: Amendments and Propositions
Effective Petitions