Allison H. Fine

Top 5 Things That Might Keep You From Voting


Enormous efforts have been made by campaigns and public interest groups to register people to vote on November 4th. According to the Election Assistance Commission more than 2 million poll workers will be working at over 200,000 polling places this election. Unfortunately, what these new voters don't know is that just registering to vote may not ensure that they are able to vote on Election Day or that their vote will be counted. Here are the top 5 ways that voters will be disenfranchised before and on Election Day.



1. Twenty-seven states close their voter registration the first week of October; another 12 will follow shortly thereafter. Too many states continue to cut off registration just as most people are beginning to tune into the election. Election Day Registration (EDR) in nine states (Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, North Carolina) has demonstrated that it is an efficient and problem-free way for 10-12% more citizens to participate on Election Day.
2. The Social Security Administration is shutting down its database, the one needed to verify registrations for people without state-issued IDS for three days in mid-October. This "routine maintenance" putting in jeopardy the ability of forty-one, slow moving states to verify millions of new registrants in time for Election Day for voters without state-issued IDs. (Here is a letter sent by the National Association of Secretaries of State asking the SSAS to move the maintenance until after November.) Millions of people may have properly filled out their registration forms but not make it onto the roles if this maintenance continues as scheduled.
3. Voter Purge, a report released from the Brennan Center for Justice this week reveals that, "election officials across the country are routinely striking millions of voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation." Millions of names will be struck from voter registration roles in advance of the November 4th election - and your name is struck in error you won't know until you show up at the polls - and it's too late to change it.
4. As I have written before, the new machines are no better than the old machines which were much worse than hand ballots. During the primary season, municipalities were testing optical scan machines, and many failed. Others have been furiously buying new machines that won't be tested before November 4th. The new machines are no better than the old machines which were much worse than hand ballots. How many times will we hear on election night that votes have been cast and lost or just plain lost? Moreover, how many elections are we going to keep hearing this?
5. You remember those pictures form 2004 and 2006 of voters waiting for hours to cast their ballots - up to 12 hours in some cases in the rain and cold. Our voting system is a mechanical engineer's nightmare. The biggest bottleneck in the process of voting is checking in to ensure that voters are registered to vote - this is a human interaction that is slow and tedious. It's the same reason that the lines at Starbucks are so long. I spoke to a person in the registrar's office in Fairfax County, VA who told me that they had increased the number of recruited poll workers from 2,600 in 2004 to 3,100 this year, with more to come by the deadline on Monday. Monday coincides with the voter registration deadline in Virginia which has already seen an almost 6% increase in voter registration statement from January -September 15th. But here's the real problem: There is no way to know until Election Day if they will a) show up, b) been adequately trained for the job and c) are enough of them to account for the expected surge in voting in critical voting areas like Cuyahoga County, OH, Palm Beach County, FL.



So register to vote -- and then cross your fingers that you your vote will be cast and counted on Election Day -- in some states your chances aren't so good.

How Generous Is the Bill Gates Foundation?

If you gave a friend five dollars, and at the same time picked his pocket of five dollars, neither one of you would be much worse off -- but you wouldn't be much better off either. The largest foundation in the world, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is doing just that, only on a multi-billion-dollar scale, and at the expense of millions of people living in the poorest parts of the world.

The Los Angeles Times recently published a carefully researched article about the conflicts that exist within the Gates Foundation between the companies that the foundation invests in and the grants that it makes, particularly in Africa. For instance, the article explains that Gates is investing in an Italian oil company, Eni, that spews pollution, and "250 toxic chemicals in [its] fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer." This is the same part of the world where the Gates Foundation grants millions of dollars on vaccinations to immunize children against deadly diseases like polio and measles.

Given its size and visibility it is easy to criticize how the Gates Foundation works. This is, however, more than incidental criticism of a very big target. It is a morality tale, for philanthropy can operate more responsibly and morally, but only if the most powerful among us choose to think differently about how they work.

We've all heard the Hippocratic oath: Doctors should first do no harm. Foundations have the same obligation; they should aim to do no harm to their individual grantees. With the anticipated contributions from Warren Buffet, the Gates Foundation's endowment will near $70 billion in the next few years. The second largest foundation in the world is the Ford Foundation with an endowment of $12.5 billion.

To put this in further perspective, if The Gates Foundation were a country, it would rank number 56 out of 177, according to World Bank statistics from 2005, comfortably sandwiched between Kuwait and Bangladesh. Its endowment is certainly larger than the economies of almost all of the countries in which it works. Given its size, visibility and ambitions, just doing no harm to individual grantees would be nice, but it isn't enough. The Gates Foundation has to do no harm to whole communities and countries. Investing millions of dollars in companies like British Petroleum that pollutes the air and land, and Abbott Laboratories that makes AIDS vaccinations that are unaffordable for Africans is diametrically opposed to the foundation's programmatic goals of improving health outcomes of residents of these same countries.

Bill Gates built a business empire by focusing on products and profits. He has built a foundation empire by focusing on programs and profits -- but what's good for his personal finances or for Microsoft isn't necessarily good for the people of Africa. The key point is that the endowment that fuels the Foundation is no longer the Gates family's personal money. These are tax-exempt funds and through the creation of the entity of the Gates Foundation itself, their investment and use has a very public purpose that deserves better stewardship.

When the Times news story revealed that the investments of the Gates Foundation are neutralizing the positive benefits of the grants, the foundation's initial response was to agree to review their investment policies. The Foundation then quickly changed course. According to Patty Stonisfer the Foundation's CEO, in a letter to the editor of the LA Times, " It would be naive to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars."

This is disappointing and disingenuous reasoning on many levels.

Stonesifer implies that Gates is like any other individual investor. Again, some perspective on the size of the endowment of the foundation is in order. I might invest $1,000 or even $5,000 in Abbott Laboratories. The Gates Foundation invests $159 million -- which one of us has more say in how Abbott operates?

Even if the foundation is not inclined toward being an active shareholder pressing for lower drug prices by Big Pharma or less pollution by the many oil and gas companies it invests in, which is their right, by investing in these companies it is tacitly agreeing with their policies and practices. So, why does Gates invest in those companies at all? To make a profit! But there's a catch. The Gates Foundation isn't Microsoft, just in the business of making money. Foundations that are the size of Kuwait should be in the business of making the world a safer, cleaner, healthier place to live -- that's why their money has gone into the foundation's coffers and not the public's coffers at the IRS.

On its Web site, the COO of the Foundation, Cheryl Scott, writes, in essence, that the foundation has focused its grant-making on very specific issues, focusing its energy on ensuring that those good grants aren't counteracted by bad investments would be distracting, she writes. Considering specific investment criteria would be "complex" and should be left to others to do.

This is specious and cowardly. Given the Foundation's resources and ability to hire anyone from anywhere with the necessary expertise to review their investments, it is mind-boggling to believe that finding socially conscious companies to invest in -- or to at least avoid companies that are specifically and actively counteracting their grant-making efforts, would be too difficult or distracting for them. Even if the criteria aren't perfect initially, at least trying to develop some guidelines that don't cancel out the intended good works of the Foundation's grants is a process worth investing in.

Overall, this behavior by Gates is a stark illustration of the lack of accountability by foundations in general. Foundations have very few obligations but to spend 5 percent of their assets on average annually. As long as they don't give it to specific political candidates, they can give to just about any nonprofit or for profit organization, or any individual.

Currently, a foundation the size of a small country is run entirely by three people, Bills Jr. and Sr. and Melinda Gates -- soon Warren Buffet will become a director as well. Unlike public companies, private foundations are not obliged to have any outside directors to help set policy, oversee investment strategies and choose grantees. Their only constituents are grantees -- and no less powerful group of people or organizations exist than those that depend on a foundation for funds.

Out of the approximately 75,000 private foundations, only a small handful, the very largest, are run like businesses with professional staffs and the economic muscle to shape services, policies and communities. There should be an expectation that these influential entities will operate in more transparent ways. Foundations should have at least two outside people with no family or economic ties to the foundation on the board of directors. Foundations should also make their investment criteria transparent and posted on their websites. Foundations should voluntarily adopt these practices in keeping with their public trusts; they owe us and the people they serve around the world the respect that privilege conveys.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2022 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.