Actually, we pretty much agree on all this. I am completely in favor of a voter/citizen registry that is as good as technology can provide and actual voting that is accurate and techonologically fool proof (until, of course, technology delivers a better fool)

It will never happen because the GOP has a lot of nutjobs that think the government is going to put tracking devices in the fillings in their teeth and the Democrats have a lot of nutjobs who are afraid that if you somehow filter out felons, illegal aliens and people who are too drunk, lazy or stupid to get their act together to vote you will seriously eat into their base vote.


>>>>Sheesh, you should see how it's done in some less sophisticated countries.
>>
>>And of course those less sophisticated countries have over 300 million people with a federal system involving different voting regulations for 50 different states?
>
>India.
>
>But look - even within the same state the system isn't uniform. Florida alone had about three, right? The pencil, Diebold and chad, IIRC. The system isn't uniform even across a state. Can't call that a system.
>
>>I would, however, agree that controlling voting is another area where places like Cuba have it all over us. <s>
>
>Guess what, the voting mechanism hasn't changed much since Tito's times - just became a bit more efficient, and the control mechanisms are actually applied (now that each party has its members at every polling station, and they all report the tallies to the next level (city or municipality) and to their party HQ, and they all publish the _tally on their websites within minutes (I think they all have the website refreshed from their dbo.master.votes every ten minutes or so), and it all has to match. It only takes a few runs under Sloba to learn all the tricks and the way to prevent them.
>
>Of course, with only two parties there's no reason to distrust... you can always sleep well, knowing that if they reached an agreement, there's no third parties who'd disturb the populus by shouting about it. Silent night...
>
>>Citizens registry? Yeah, I'd be all for that but doing something that would require proof of being a citizen in order to vote would be considered "voter suppression" by the National Democratic Committee.
>
>I thought it would be chided by the GOP for being wasteful and smacking of Big Government... except that this time it would work to their advantage - the more it looks like bureaucratic mess, the more of those who wouldn't vote for them may be turned away. It amuses me that these pseudo anti-government types actually find more governmental order compatible with their sympathizers :).
>
>So it all still means that you guys don't get invitations when you need to vote? And aren't registered automatically when you qualify by age?