Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Listing “Other” Votes in Election Returns

If elected Governor of Oregon, one of the electoral reforms I would seek would be the naming and listing of number of votes of any write-in candidate receiving five or more votes in the official election results. Currently, only the total number of “other” votes is recorded, not who received them or how many. I would also seek to require disclosure of the total number of people receiving less than five votes. If the five vote threshold proved cumbersome due to large numbers of write-in candidates, then the threshold could be raised as high as twelve, the number of members of a jury. paul 19

This measure is clearly in the Public Interest as part of the electorate’s Right to know the results of its democratic elections. Obviously, this is a transparency issue, but it has never been raised by the Democrats or Republicans, both of whom claim they are for that same transparency in government. But a Libertarian is the one who is finally getting around to proposing it.

Obviously, if one candidate on the ballot gets 10,000 votes, his rival gets 8,000, and “other” gets 500 votes, it is important for those who voted for an “other” candidate to know how many votes their candidate got. But no one complains about this violation of the Right to Know, which is why I’m bringing it up. Did Joe Writein, whom I voted for, get 499 of those 500 votes, or did 25 candidates get 20 votes each? It is important to know, and doubly important for those in minor parties, or who support Independent write-in candidates, for that is the only way they can gauge the efficacy of their campaigning. And for that reason, we can clearly see why the two wings of the major Fascist party don’t want the people to know those results. This lack of democracy doesn’t seem to bother the Democrats, who are always braying about their love of Democracy and the little guy. I wonder why they don’t bray about this affront to democratic elections?

No, let’s smash this Fascist curtain of obfuscation, and bring the election results into the light of day.

Let’s list complete election results to insure democratic elections.

Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Listing “Other” Votes in Election Returns

  1. Paul, thanks for your efforts to defend my freedom. After contacting our hundreds of federal candidates, I am corresponding with our thousand or so other candidates—hoping some will move to fill our national ranks. We have told our politicians that they cannot take our books, guns nor liquors . . . now we just need an amendment saying they cannot take our money.

    1. How can a government operate without taxation?

    Before people unite to form something, such as a marriage or corporation, they usually create an image of what their relationship will be like. If this image differs greatly from what they experience, they usually separate.

    Problems may arise if any property was created during their union, such as a house or factory. Whatever caused their separation also may cause disagreements in dividing their united property. Ingeniously, many people solve this problem by writing a contract before they get together, stating how any property should be divided.

    Problems may still exist if people do not honor their contracts. To solve this, governments step in and divide any disputed property. If governments would charge for this valuable service, they could make the money to operate—without taxation.

    When people draw up a contract, they could purchase a contract insurance policy from their government. This would insure that all the partners would get what they deserve from their relationship. If someone did not follow the terms of the agreement, the government would have permission to distribute any common property according to the contract.

    Of course, no one would have to buy this insurance. People should be free to resolve any disagreements by talking with their partners. But if partners began taking from each other, this would be robbery, and the government should stop them. All uninsured partners would lose the use of their common property if they could not agree with each other.

    Today, most people buy fire and medical insurance to protect them against a major loss. Most people would buy contract insurance for the same reason. With all the contracts that are signed each day, our government could earn the money to maintain the best court, military, police and prison system in the world. This would protect all the people in our nation—without robbing us to do it.

    With this system, for the first time in history, people could live in peace. Our government would continue to defend each person’s home and business against criminals. The big improvement would be that the no-tax restriction added to our constitution would defend each person’s property against our government.

    With the elimination of robbery in our nation, we would find that we could satisfy all our other needs with much less effort. When people can keep what they earn, it does not take long for them to trade with each other and acquire what they need to live well. Peace and prosperity are possible for those who are willing to think about how to achieve them. http://www.LP4.org

    1. Dear Mr. Hollist – Thank you for replying. I was trying to think of your name the other day when I put forth your “charging for contract insurance” in a post. I think it’s a great idea, and I have used it as an alternative argument to taxation when someone says that we “must” have taxation. I envision two contracting parties as having the choice of 1) no insurance (if they both deeply trusted each other), 2) buying from the government (say for 0.1% of the contracts value, so that a $100k contract could be insured for $100), 3) buying from a private mercantile association that would have its own courts, or 4) buying insurance from a religious institution (i.e. two Muslim businessmen sign a contract and lodge it with the local Islamic Court). These religious or secular-humanist courts could also be used for marriage contracts which traditionally have been religious contracts and should not be part of government, if we believe, as I do, in strict separation of church and state.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s