Nixon, 1968, l’élection…. et des urnes pleines en vente sur Ebay !

“Ce qui est arrivé en 2000 n’a fait que révéler une réalité qui imprègne depuis longtemps le système électoral américain. Pendant près de cent ans, alors que la Constitution de 1787 donne aux Etats fédérés pleine compétence sur l’encadrement des élections, ce sont les partis politiques qui ont organisé les élections, fabriqué les bulletins de vote, s’assurant du taux de participation. Avec, en arrière-plan, des suspicions de corruption, de votes frauduleux, de disparition de bulletins.” extrait de : Les fractures électorales de la démocratie américaine, publié sur Visions Carto, le blog du Monde diplo.
Avec, en prime, une découverte faite sur ebay, en août 2008….

Ballot box with ballots from 1968 Nixon elections

Item number: 120286449505
Seller of this item? Sign in for your status
Bidding has ended for this item

Buyer or seller of this item? Sign in for your status.
Additional options:
   Sell an item like this one.
Previous Picture Stop Play Next Picture
1 of 3
Previous Picture Stop Play Next Picture
1 of 3
View larger picture
Starting bid: US $3,500.00 
No payments until 2009 – new eBay MasterCard

Ended: Aug-01-08 10:59:01 PDT
Shipping costs:
US $50.00
UPS Ground
Service to United States
Ships to: United States
Item location: phoenix, AZ, United States
History: 0 bids

You can also: Email to a friend 
Listing and payment details:  ShowShow
Meet the seller
Seller: mgrout1230 ) 
Member: since Feb-22-04 in United States
See detailed feedback
Add to Favorite Sellers
View seller’s other items
Buy safely
1.   Check the seller’s reputation
No feedback reviews at this time
2.   Check how you’re protected
Up to $200 in buyer protection.  See eligibility
Returns: Seller accepts returns.
7 Days Money Back
This ballot box is filled with ballots from the Nov. 15 1968 general election in Washington County, Colorado, Precinct 10. The ballots alone are worth the price and would indicate that they may not have been counted. Ballots are still folded with a rubber bands holding them in folded as they were originally, with some 150 to 200 ballots. Detailed photos of the ballot and ballot box can be sent for interest parties only. The ballot box was manufactured by National Ballot Box mfn by Amos Pettie One from Chicago, Ill. The patents on the ballot box are register on June 17 1884. The top still has the glue for a covering placed over the slot to deposit ballots showing the system used in Washington County Co. Presidential Electors on this ballot are; Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey and Edmund S. Muckie, Republican Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew. This is very collectible item with great political importance. The box has been in the family for well over almost 25 years and was discovered in Washington County Co. by my Father. There were only 3 of these ballot boxes when discovered.
Select a picture




Shipping and handling
Ships to
United States
Shipping and Handling To Service Insurance
US $50.00 United States UPS Ground

1 to 6 business days*
Loss/Damage protection included up to $100
*Sellers are not responsible for service transit time. This information is provided by the carrier and excludes weekends and holidays. Note that transit times may vary, particularly during peak periods.

De premiers bulletins… des premiers problèmes.

C’est Rick Hasen, l’auteur des Voting Wars qui avait signalé le problème: une firme d’Arizona avait imprimé des bulletins de vote par anticipation en omettant une entête (voir ci-dessous, après la rubrique Tax Collector). Le problème est mineur en apparence. On comprend le bulletin, et le fait que l’on change de rubrique (le fait que les juges nommés restent ou non en poste).

50 000 bulletins ont été postés avant que l’erreur ne soit corrigée. Mais le problème est en fait substantiel : l’inclusion de l’entête manquant décale le reste du bulletin, et les machines de vote ne sont pas capables de les lire valablement. Ce qui suppose de traiter manuellement les bulletins de vote.

The state of the democracy….Some things don’t change

This paper was first published in a french newspaper and translated by the website Truthout… 8 years ago. And most of the stuff I wrote at the time is *unfortunately* still relevant. The democracy still suffers from the lack of transparency, of uniformity of the electoral system. Thus the legitimacy of most elections, and particularly at the federal level, is weaken, while conspiracy theories, alleged frauds fuel the judiciarisation of the electoral process.

Elisabeth Vallet | A Real Democratic Deficit

    A Real Democratic Deficit

Monday 18 October 2004

The American people are getting ready to go to the polls November 2 to designate their Electors, and, by so doing, their president… But also to elect officials, judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, and to respond to a number of referendums or local questions.

Colorado voters must also decide on the type of election that will apply to the designation of the state’s Electors. In fact, while the vast majority of American states apply the principle of winner-takes-all to this election, the amendment submitted to referendum this November 2 would allow Colorado to designate its Electors proportionally. And this modification would apply to the election underway. According to present polls, that would have the effect of distributing the nine electoral votes between Bush and Kerry. Which, in view of the results of the 2000 elections, could change the course of history…

The American political system responds to its founders’ two goals: one the one hand, to establish an accomplished democracy contrasting with the tyrannies they left behind in Europe (hence the great number of elected officials and the widely practiced procedure of popularly instigated referenda); on the other, to preserve the federal logic which brought the “united states” into being.

By analogy, the democratic deficit imputable to the American electoral system largely parallels the logic inferred from the new European Constitution: the designation of the future EU president by the European Council broadly corresponds to this federal philosophy. The United States of America were constituted in this same spirit, with each state accepting transfers of its sovereignty, without, all the same, consenting to abandon its sovereignty. In this respect, even today, there are as many similarities between the Texan and the New Hampshire judicial systems as between the English legal order and the Greek system. This diversity is always obscured by the fact that the United States speak with one voice: that of their president… But isn’t that the desired objective of the European member states?

The multiplicity of normative systems in the United States constitutes the heart of the 2004 election problem and is undoubtedly the basis for our incomprehension. But that’s the reality: there are as many electoral systems as there are states and just as many political and legal cultures. Now, since the organization of the election devolves on the federated states, and, because of the cost of elections and the high abstention rate, the states tend to concentrate several elections on the same day, hence the complexity of the lists and the 2000 election imbroglio.

The replacement of the outmoded voting machines in the highly contentious county of Palm Beach does not resolve the problem. On the one hand, because the new touch screen voting machines are subject to warrant. On the other, because the question of the 2000 elections in fact goes well beyond Florida: the cities of New York and Chicago alone saw more ballots unduly invalidated than the whole state of Florida. Several reports (like that of the League of Women Voters) inventory abusive purges of voter rolls and cases of intimidation. Is American democracy in danger? Or, to repeat Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne, “Is this a way to run a democratic election?”

This much-asked question deserves a nuanced answer. American democracy is certainly surprising. Partisan alignment and the convergence of electoral platforms sometimes mask other political dividing lines. Accordingly, the Electoral College is the object of recurrent controversy. Some flog a centuries’ old, outmoded institution, disconnected from social realities. They emphasize that, contrary to the myth, all the Electors do not have an required mandate, since, once again, the nature of the electors’ mandate is determined at the federated level (only 27 states impose voting in conformity with their initial allegiance on the 270 Electors).

Others raise the Electoral College’s lack of constitutionality. In fact, the term does not figure in American founding law: the Electors represent their state first, meet state by state to elect the president, and transmit their results to Congress, which scrutinizes them. Consequently, this universal suffrage aggregated state by state, according real space for small, less populous states, would represent the essence of American democracy, founded on moderation, consensus, and bipartisanship.

The debate persists. And this method of designating the chief executive will be put to the test again during the upcoming election in November, which is forecast to be very tight. If the American electoral system effects a compromise between democratic logic and federal logic, the fact remains that it is the source of a real democratic deficit. Has the American federal model outlasted its term? Europe is constructing a similar system… In certain European states, minorities have problems attaining the vote, voters vote in constituencies where they no longer live, and sometimes even the dead cast a vote… What’s the difference? We don’t elect a European president… At least, not yet, and with infinitely lesser power!

Elisabeth Vallet is a Doctor of law, researcher for the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and International Studies at Quebec University in Montreal. She has just published as coauthor Les lections pr sidentielles am ricaines [The American Presidential Elections] with Quebec University Press.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.