Mediaboss Marketing

Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters

Nestled among a raft of Ukip-esque anti-immigration policies in the Tory manifesto is a plan to force people to show identification when they vote. No passport, no driving licence? No vote. The Tories say this would stop electoral fraud, but statistics suggest theyre interested in making it harder for people to vote.

According to data from the governments own report of the 51.4m votes cast in all elections in 2015, there were a mere 130 allegations of voting fraud in 2015. That amounts to 0.00025% of votes. Now, these figures cant be taken as exact; some of the allegations might be untrue, some go unnoticed. And as the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) pointed out, the report largely relies on anecdotes and self-professed claims to have witnessed (or even just heard about) electoral fraud. But even when taking all of this into account, youd be hard pressed to make the case that voter fraud is in any way a significant problem in the UK.

What this means is the Conservatives have decided that if they win on 8 June, theyll enshrine voter ID in law to deal with a problem thats far from widespread. Whats more, the ERS says that voter ID wouldnt stop vote-buying or coercion, even if it were a major problem. What it will do is make it more difficult for everyone else to vote. In fact, the Electoral Commission estimated that 3.5 million voters (7.5% of the electorate) would have no acceptable piece of photo ID never mind the people who forget their ID or lose it just before an election.

Why, then, have the Tories inked this policy into their manifesto? There are two explanations, neither of which looks particularly good for the Conservatives. One is that they simply dont care about making our democracy more democratic; the other that theyre cynically finding ways to actively undermine the Labour vote.

Its likely that this change would mean that lower-income voters would find it more difficult to vote. As the New Statesmans Stephen Bush observed, theres concrete evidence for this within the UK: Northern Ireland already requires voter ID, and when the process was trialled there, it was found that poorer people were less likely to have the necessary identification, so free voter ID cards were introduced. The Tories have no plans to do the same in the rest of the UK. Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible.

In the US 31 states now enforce voter ID laws, and these have had a disproportionate impact on marginalised groups. The American Civil Liberties Union found even if free voter ID were offered, hidden costs would act as obstacles for people on low incomes. Similarly, a 2014 report by the US Government Accountability Office showed a disproportionate impact on black and younger voters. In the UK we already have a democratic deficit among these groups people who tend to be (but are not exclusively) Labour voters.

People of colour who are on the electoral roll are as likely to vote as their white counterparts. But according to the 2010 Ethnic Minority British Election Study study, 78% of minority ethnic people, and only 59% of Black Africans, were registered to vote in comparison to 90% of white people. For young people, the picture is even worse, youth turnout dropped between 1992 and 2005. Its now about 40%.

This should be set against a broader picture of a concerted effort by the Conservatives to reduce the number of traditional Labour voters on the electoral register. In 2014 they ended the system where the head of a household could register all eligible voters; this meant, for example, students would no longer be automatically registered at their home address.

The Tories have also slashed short money, used to help fund opposition parties, and introduced the Lobbying Act that gagged NGOs, charities and trade unions, but left the Tories corporate supporters largely untouched.

The Tories will say that voter ID is about making democracy more robust. This couldnt be further from the truth. Its hard to see how this is anything but an attempt to further reduce turnout, and to undermine Labour.

Read this article:
No passport, no vote: why this cynical Tory plan will suffocate ... - The Guardian

It's easy to chastise governments for broken promises and voters these days are used to a few of them emerging after every election.

For many voters across Canada, a promise to change our voting system figured prominently during the 2015 federal election, with the prime minister infamously declaring that the first-past-the-post system was dead.

Now, two years into his mandate, electoral reform seems to be abandoned at the roadside.

Is the promise of a more equitable, fairer and more proportional method of electing our government truly dead? Does the chance to change our politics for the better disappear with an announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons?

You might be surprised to learn that in less than a month, our MPs will vote to decide whether to move forward on electoral reform, or leave it in the dust.

Acting on this cornerstone campaign promise, Trudeau established a House of Commons special committee on electoral reform (ERRE) composed of MPs from all five parties tasked with assessing the options for reform.

While the new mandate letter given to Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould in February falsely states otherwise, the report actually found an appetite amongst Canadians for a change to our electoral system.

Last December, the committee released a 333-pagereport, titled Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform,which illustrates clear consensus among experts that our system should be more proportional, consensus among Canadians on the need for more government co-operation across party lines, and consensus among parties on a process for changing the system.

NDP Democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen has been holding town-hall meetings in Liberal ridings across the country in an effort to resurrect electoral reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

On May 31, the ERRE all-party committee's report on democratic reform will be brought to a vote in the House of Commons, to determine whether the issue will be carried forward or abandoned as Trudeau has indicated is his preference.

As the prime minister is fond of saying, it is the responsibility of our MPs to "be the voice of our communities in Ottawa." With over 80 per centof the Liberal caucus consisting of newly elected MPs, one would hope that they will take the time to engage their communities ahead of this pivotal vote.

While Trudeau was able to pull a 180 on the promise to change our electoral system, that doesn't mean that we should allow our MPs to do the same. Many Liberal MPs adopted and were elected on this promise as well. And MPs across party lines are feeling the pressure to carry through on this monumental promise in the upcoming vote.

Individual MPs have made their stance on democratic reform clear, from Skeena NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who is holding consultations and town halls across the country on the topic, toWinnipeg Centre Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette, who sent out a newsletter to constituents promoting electoral reform the same week in February as Trudeau's announcement.

Another Liberal MP wrote an article publiclyapologizing to his constituents for the broken promise. It is clear that interest in the topic is not dying as the government moves to advance its agenda.

Defying the voting patterns of cabinet is often seen as an act of defiance, but has been increasingly common under theTrudeaugovernment as MPs have felt the confidence to express their views and those of their communities. We've seen this precedent in other matters, such as the recent vote on legislation aimed at preventing discrimination with genetic testing, when Liberal backbenchers defied cabinet's instructions and passed the bill with no substantive changes.

Many voters chose the Liberals because of their support for electoral reform, recognizing that their vote could better reflect their beliefs down the line. Some even voted strategically to remove Conservative MPs with the hopes that a new government would introduce a new electoral system that would eliminate the need for strategic voting next time around.

All Canadians deserve the opportunity to vote for the policies and visions that appeal to them with the expectation that their choice will be represented on the floor of the House.The vote to reopen the electoral reform debate at the end of May can bring us one step closer to a better form of representative democracy. All of our MPs, particularly Liberals who adopted this promise, need to listen to the wishes of their constituents and remember that acting on electoral reform is part of their mandate.

That's why Leadnow is reaching out to people across the country ahead of this crucial vote on May 31. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change our system for the better. The next two weeks present a critical window of opportunity for all of us to remind our MPs that they were elected to fulfiltheir election promises, even if their leader chooses not to stand by those commitments.

Drop by your MP's office or give them a call, write a letter and tell a friend to do the same. But most of all, remind them that when the 2019 election comes around, you'll remember how they voted in the House of Commonson May 31, 2017.

About the authors

Joseph Wasylycia-Leis is a long-time community organizer passionate about public engagement and social change. He currently works as the campus sustainability co-ordinator at the University of Winnipeg and has been a community organizer with the independent advocacy organization Leadnow since the 2015 federal election. He has previously worked with the Manitoba NDP.

Laura Cameron is a graduate student in the master's of Indigenous governance program at the University of Winnipeg. Heracademic work looks at Indigenous governancein the context of climate change impactand adaptation across the Prairies. Her volunteer work includesbeing an organizerwith Leadnow on a national campaign for electoral reform.

Original post:
Electoral reform: Window of opportunity opens to revive our democracy - CBC.ca

Heres the legacy of Venezuelas experiment with socialism: daily riots and protests that have resulted in at least 40 deaths in recent weeks at the hands of government security forces. Inflation estimated at 720 percent. Shortages of basic foods and medicines. An average weight loss among Venezuelans of 19 pounds, which had nothing to do with the South Beach diet. Newborn babies deposited in dresser drawers because hospitals have no beds. Zoo animals hunted down and butchered for food by the ravenous population.

Finally, this week, and only at the urging of the United States, the United Nations is considering the desperate situation in what was once South Americas most prosperous country, before socialism sank its fangs in, sucking the economy dry.

President Nicholas Maduro, a political stooge who assumed power after the death of the charismatic but egomaniacal Hugo Chavez, was forced earlier this year to ask the U.N. for emergency aid, an admission of his inability to keep his people fed and secure. And to show what a powerful institution it is, the U.N. took away Venezuelas vote in the General Assembly because it could not pay its dues. Maduro must have been quaking with fear. When the Organization of American States criticized Maduros response to the unrest, he took decisive action he pulled Venezuela out of the OAS.

Maduros response has been like that of the Emperor with no clothes. He blames his opponents for inciting violence. This from the man who for now anyway control the armed forces. The demonstrators have taken to hurling glass jars filled with feces, coined poopatov cocktails, at the troops. Not exactly a strategic balance of force.

A human rights monitoring group, Foro Penal, alleges that, perhaps in retaliation, political detainees in the western part of the country are forced to eat spaghetti with a sauce made of human waste.

The near-daily riots have turned deadly in recent weeks, as Maduros forces, propped up by Cuban security, resort to live ammunition against their fellow citizens. As my colleague at the Wall Street Journal Anatoly Kurmanaev reported this week from Caracas, the police are weary of killing their neighbors. Their support for Maduro the only reason he is still in power diminishes with each deadly demonstration.

A lot of Venezuelans have become radicalized because theyre desperate, Kurmanaev told me. Theres no going back to how things were two months ago. Something is going to change. This is the final chapter of Venezuelan history, one way or another. Either Maduro will cement his rule by dictatorship, or therell be some kind of transitional government. It cant continue like this.

For many aggrieved Venezuelans, that choice is an easy one.

John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

Read this article:
Venezuela: The incredible legacy of an experiment with socialism - Fox News

By Randy Harrison

Socialism is appealing because it seems compassionate. It seems altruistic and geared to the better part of our humanity. Its the political equivalent to the Robin Hood myth. Capitalism seems self serving and laced with greed. So, why wouldnt anyone chose socialism?

Heres why. It fails every time. Meanwhile, capitalism keeps winning.

It is incomprehensible that anyone today would defend socialism as an economic and political system. The results are utterly predictable, and Venezuela is now the latest example.

Venezuela is a major economy. It has the largest proven oil reserves in the world more than the U.S. It is capable of growing enough food to feed itself and export even more. Ford and General Motors have a long history of manufacturing there. The population is well-educated, and the major cities are bright and shiny.

Not anymore. The country has now collapsed. Shelves are empty, and people are starving. The money is in hyperinflation. Oil is barely flowing. Ford and General Motors are gone. Why? Because Venezuela embraced socialism communism, really in 1999. Now, people riot daily and the Associated Press reports that more than 1,000 have died by government action.

Things are likely to become worse before better, and they are bad now. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are hardly in a place to shake our heads. For 50 years, we have slowly slid toward socialism. The trend is inexplicable in light of historical examples. In the past decade, that slide has become an avalanche. Obamacare is only the most obvious example.

Socialism seeks to centralize power for the sake of control, but centralized control is fundamentally un-American. The U.S. Constitution is designed to limit our central government. America is a federal system by design, meaning that power is purposely decentralized. Yet, more and more power goes to Washington, along with our money a socialist tendency. Why our state governments acquiesce to this is a mystery.

Federalism should be one of those ideas that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. It is what makes us American, but it seems to be forgotten by both now. We dont even use the word.

With ample historical examples of the failure of socialism and the clear success of American federalism, does the current path of our politics make any sense? No, and, while the average Joe on the street may not be able to articulate the wrong-headedness, he feels it at a gut level. It is intuitive, and at some point, no amount of flim-flam will convince him otherwise. That point was reached in 2016.

It is this intuitive sense of wrong-headedness in our political leaders that gave rise to the tea party and to Donald Trump. Ive read 20 articles at least speculating about why Hillary lost and Trump won.

To me, the answer is that on a gut level people just know we need to change our direction in America. Really change it. Trump was the choice for change as Obama was in 2008.

It is likewise my opinion that a growing population of black people understand this trend and will result in a realignment of the black vote. Black people no longer constitute a single voting block. At some point, they will align with the political party that reduces their taxes and provides greater economic and educational opportunity for their families. This is exactly the same choice that any ethnic group faces.

Which party wins those votes is up for grabs. That is the lesson to take from the most recent election and the political party that applies the lesson will win. We do not want to be Venezuela.

Randy Harrison is a retired pastor who lives in Fortville; he can be reached at federalistno57@aol.com. Send comments to dr-editiorial@greenfieldreporter.com.

Follow this link:
Socialism failing, while capitalism is winning - Greenfield Daily Reporter

While Americans are subjected to a political circus in our nations capital, riots, shortages, and repression are rocking the streets of Venezuela as their citizenry is finally fed up with Socialist President Nicolas Maduros rule.

Thousands have been arrested as inflation spirals into Weimar territory and Venezuelans are even losing large amounts of weight en masse from food shortages in one of the worlds most oil-rich nations. The Socialist experiment has neared the end of its natural and inevitable course in Venezuela.

When Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez died in 2013, there briefly was a glimmer of hope that the socialist state apparatus he had built over the prior decade would start on the road towards reform and freedom. However Nicolas Maduro has continued many of Chavezs socialist policies, both economically and politically.

Almost two decades of strongman socialist rule in Venezuela has led not to more prosperity for the people, but, according to the Economist, to 82% of households living in poverty compared to 48% prior to Chavez. Amid rhetoric championing redistribution and struggle against wealthy elites, Venezuelans now have neither liberty nor prosperity and must watch as their nation collapses around them.

Venezuelas socialist system is the same rehashed model of left-wing redistribution and repression that has existed in many other nations over the course of the 20th century. In many such nations, people give their rights to soothsayers who promise to solve all their problems. After securing its power, the states ruling class reigns supreme, enriching themselves at the expense of the citizenry and with all liberties and human rights existing only in accordance with their desires.

Skip several thousand miles to the United States and we come to a nation where almost half of millennials have a favorable opinion of socialism, according to a recent Harvard University survey, and a Democratic Socialist nearly won the nomination for one of our countrys major political parties.

Countries like North Korea are so distant and twisted that it may be difficult for Americans to draw lessons from their situation. Cuba is right off our shore, but lacks immediate events that thrust it into our public consciousness. Venezuela thus ought to serve as a timely and relevant reminder for us to avoid a similar and too often-repeated cycle.

Venezuela was not always a repressive socialist state, but rather was once an emerging democracy and a developing economy. While wrangling with the challenges inevitably such modern liberal democracies face as they grow, it nonetheless had the foundation for a free press, free markets, and a constitutional system of representation and rights.

However in such a system, even without a revolution or military conflict, a mass vote by enough people can wipe it all away. And thats precisely what happened in Venezuela, where strongmen like Chavez played to the passions of the poor, enraged them against the wealthy private sector businesspeople and elites, used the name of America as an ethereal scapegoat, and sold them a system that bled their supposed enemies a little but resulted in a smaller pie for everyone.

Here in America we face a similar challenge. Many Americans are reeling from some of the unique economic challenges the 21st century is presenting us with. In response, already many are singing a sirens song that threatens to repeat Venezuelas situation here, inciting hatred against elites supposedly at fault and advocating for socialist redistribution as the solution to our new woes.

These redistributionists do this all while ignoring that their proposals will leave the people they purport to be helping more poor and deprived than ever before. Furthermore, proper policy responses to these new developments in technology and our economy have the potential to bring us incredible levels of prosperity and an even faster rising tide for everyone.

The people of Venezuela have found themselves in a situation that is difficult to escape. Their struggle to restore their republic and liberty will be a long one, and hopefully will succeed.

In the meantime, we Americans ought to look closely at what has transpired in Venezuela and ensure it is not repeated in our country. We must always be vigilant in standing for free markets and God-given constitutional liberties, which have led to and will continue to lead to more prosperity and liberty than any other ideas throughout history.

Go here to see the original:
Venezuela's Disaster Demonstrates Socialism's Failure - The Daily Caller