Slashdot Log In
Slashback: Election, Election, Election
from the first-three-rules-of-democracy dept.
No, because the punchline is: New Mexico still uses dead trees. The bug was in the software that counts paper ballots.
New Mexico was given to Gore on election night by 6,800 votes because of buggy computer software. That software "failed to read" straight-party votes (oops!), and worse, it "also chose at least one candidate from another party."
If computer flaws had thrown an electronic-vote election, you'd be reading about it on the front page of every newspaper across the country, and pundits would be telling us (sometimes in ways very funny) how foolish we were to trust our votes to those nasty computers.
How many presidential elections does our 19th-century technology have to nearly destroy before the alternatives get serious consideration?
A friend in Sweden tells me that the U.S.A. is now being referred to as the B.R.A., the Banana Republic of America. Maybe by the 21st century we can have 20th-century voting machines installed at our polling places, what do you think?
(New Mexico could decide the election if Florida's votes are thrown out, Oregon goes to Bush, and one or two more improbabilities occur.)
Voting, right here in River(side) County Riverside County, California, used touch-screen voting in this last election. This is very different from internet voting since there was no network to the outside world. I think this is an important step and certainly should be done first.
ABC News's report describes Riverside's system and shows a photo. Randall Gardner points out that the local paper has a great story with an overview of the system and reactions from voters -- glitches, yes; late tally, yes; but all in all it sounded like a positive experience.
With a capital V and that rhymes with C and that stands for Canberra Dracophile points out an article from the Fairfax IT News website, which:
reports that voters in the Australian Capital Territory (in which our nation's capital, Canberra, lies) "could be the first in the nation to trial electronic voting at next year's territory election", according to the territory's Chief Minister, Gary Humphries. They're hoping to pass legislation next month to bring this about. Sounds cool, but the article goes on to quote Humphries as saying, "You might as well be doing it from your own home." Is it just me, or does this raise the possibility of voters being coerced into a particular vote where this sort of thing can't be seen? I'd prefer to see electronic voting available only from polling booths.
No grunge typefaces please User-interface wonks should enjoy this pure-and-simple design contest. Web Memes, Inc. is asking you to design a ballot, preferably one as unconfusing as possible while still using (spit) paper. You also get to make up your own candidates and issues.
(If the competition were digital, instead of paper, it would be a tough call between Amazon.com's new user interface and AmIPresidentOrNot.)
Busily coding your next election... ...is Jason Kitcat, who says "I'm working really hard on the next release and haven't given it the PR time it deserves." Allow me.
FREE is "Free Referenda & Elections Electronically," "the first open source system for conducting electronic votes." We're now jumping from mere electronic tallying of votes in polling places to actual internet voting, so please keep your hands inside the browser at all times.
Originally an academic thesis, FREE is now GPL'd, written in Java, and its design background is available in whitepapers. I haven't tried running it. Someone let us know if the project could be useful.
See also thebell.net, which comments:
...the majority of paper punching systems used in the U.S. do not produce repeatable results when ballots are tallied more than once, which means that election officials lack the means to objectively distinguish between fraud and error under these circumstances. ...we should in fact be looking to Internet voting systems in order to try to reduce those faults and thus provide for more security than what is available today -- not less security.
The seriously skeptical view Let's end on a sobering note. Scoffing at The Bell's claim to have tackled the subject a mere six months ago, Rebecca Mercuri points out (on Dave Farber's IP list) that others have been thinking about internet voting for over a decade. She writes:
Internet systems indeed DO promise FAR LESS in the way of auditability (recounts) and anonymity (privacy) than do the paper and other manual systems presently in place. To promote the belief that Internet voting, in any way provides a SAFE VOTE, is wholly erroneous.
She has an intimidating collection of links to (mostly) academic papers on the subject on her Electronic Voting page.
And in conclusion The only viable form of government is perl-based: we need a bicamel legislature with an eclectoral college. Thank you and good night!
And now for something completely the same! A note from timothy: The next piece in our continuing Hellmouth Revisited series is online. Feel free to go read it.
Re:You're wrong (Score:3)
At any rate, digital signatures, if used properly (sufficient key sizes, certification systems, etc.) would make a very provable record of peoples' votes. The problem is that its no longer a secret ballot. What you probably need is something like a one-time pad of secret keys to be used to encrypt the ballots (Thats a lot of bit-space
Get your Election FAQs Straight! (Score:4)
----------------------------
[This draft #4 was prepared by Rich Cowan (rcowan@lesley.edu) with help from Paul Rosenberg, Dan Kohn, Jonathan Prince, Marc Sobel, subscribers to the Red Rock Eater News Service and the electronic mail discussion florida-recount-discuss@egroups.com, and the Yale Law School Student Campaign for a Legal Election, 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 -- spin@pantheon.yale.edu]
1) Myth: Al Gore has a responsibility to concede the election.
Fact: A 330 vote margin out of 6 million votes cast in Florida is incredibly close! It is roughly equivalent to a 1-vote margin in a city with 40,000 people and 18,000 voters. It is extremely rare for an election this close NOT to be contested for several weeks until a manual recount can take place, with observers from both sides taking part and inspecting ballots. This kind of detailed recount has not yet taken place.
According to the US Constitution and the Laws of Florida, it is the responsibility of officials in Florida to certify the election results. November 17 is the deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to arrive. Since the election is close enough in Florida, Oregon, and New Mexico to be affected by absentee ballots, the results in those states cannot be certified before that date.
2) Myth: the number of "spoiled ballots" in Palm Beach County was typical. In a press briefing televised live on all networks on 11/9/00, Karl Rove of the Bush campaign compared the 14,872 invalidated ballots in the 1996 Presidential race to 19,120 ballots for President that were spoiled in this election.
Fact: the Bush campaign was comparing apples and oranges. There were actually 29,702 invalidated ballots this year in Palm Beach County. This is almost twice the number in 1996. "19,120" refers to only those 2000 ballots which were thrown out for voting for two Presidential candidates. The remaining 10,582 ballots had no choice recorded for President.
According to the Palm Beach County elections office (http://www.pbcelections.org [pbcelections.org]), voters this year were not confused at all by the rest of the ballot. For example, less than 1% of U.S. Senate votes were invalidated because of multiple punches, compared with over 4% in the Presidential contest.
3) Myth: The Palm Beach ballot is definitely illegal due to the presence of punch holes to the left of some of the candidates.
Fact: According to the Secretary of State's office, there is a loophole in Florida law that may allow ballots used for voting machines to deviate from the rules governing paper ballots. This view has been contested by hundreds of Florida voters. The final decision on the legality of the ballot is likely to be made in court, as long as this issue could have an effect on the election.
It is possible that the ballot could be ruled illegal on other grounds, such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act.
4) Myth: "The more often ballots are recounted, especially by hand, the more likely it is that human errors, like lost ballots and other risks, will be introduced. This frustrates the very reason why we have moved from hand counting tomachine counting." -- Former Sec. of State James Baker, speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign at a press briefing televised by all networks on 11/10/00.
Fact: In 1997, George W. Bush signed into law a bill stating that hand recounts were the preferred method in a close election in Texas. The bill, "HB 330", mandated that representatives of all parties be present to prevent fraud. Laws establishing rights and procedures for handrecounts also exist in Florida (see Title IX, Chapter 102). In fact, the Orlando Sentinel, (orlandosentinel.com [orlandosentinel.com]) reported that a partial hand count of Presidential ballots this year was ordered by Republicans in Seminole County, where Bush led Gore. This count took place on 11/9 and 11/10, widening Bush's lead by 98 votes. The Bush campaign did not complain about this hand count; nor did it complain about the hand count on 11/11/00 which put Bush slightly ahead of Gore in New Mexico.
There do exist machine voting systems which are fairly accurate, but antiquated punch card systems are notoriously inaccurate. They were outlawed in Massachusetts in 1997 by Secretary of State William Galvin after a Congressional primary that was also "too close to call". The problem is that if the punched-out pieces of cardboard are not completely removed from the punch card, they can obstruct the card reader and the votes will not be counted. A manual recount of such cards can clearly reveal the voter's intentions.
5) Myth: The process is unfair because hand recounts were held only in liberal areas of Florida, where Gore stands to pick up the most votes.
Fact: It is true that a statewide recount would be more fair, and the Bush campaign has every right to request one. According to Florida law, hand recount requests must come from the campaigns, not from the state. To fail to request what is commonly referred to as a "defensive recount" in conservative areas of Florida, they may be making a tactical blunder that will cost them the election.
It is also true that there were voting irregularities in the counties where the Gore campaign requested recounts.
6) Myth: "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3407 votes there. According to the Florida Department of State, 16,695 voters in Palm Beach County are registered to the Independent Party, the Reform Party, or the American Reform Party, an increase of 110% since the 1996 presidential election" -- Ari Fleischer of the Bush Campaign, 11/9/00. The 2,000 votes received by the Reformparty candidate for Congress indicate that party's strength in Palm Beach County (James Baker on Meet the Press, 11/12/00).
Fact: Of those 16,695 voters, only 337 (2 percent) are in the Reform Party according to Florida state records. The Reform party candidate for Congress, John McGuire, is connected to a more centrist wing of the Reform Party, predating Buchanan's involvement. An analysis of his support indicates that it came largely from reform-minded Ralph Nader voters.
Regarding Buchanan's vote total, the Washington Post reported that his vote percentage in Palm Beach county was four times as high at the polls as in absentee voting. Even Buchanan himself admitted on 11/8/00 on the Today Show that many of his votes actually "belonged to Al Gore". So did his campaign manager, Bay Buchanan.
7) Myth: If Gore (or Bush) ends up winning the popular vote, he really should win the election even if he loses Florida and other states.
Fact: This is not the way the U.S. Constitution is written. The Electoral College decision, imperfect as it may be, is the only one that matters. It may be possible to reform or eliminate the electoral college in the future, so that small states would no longer receive extra electoralvotes out of proportion to their population. But until this change is made by Constitutional amendment, the Electoral College is still the law of the land.
8) Myth: The Cook County, Illinois ballot from the home district of Gore campaign chair Richard Daleyis similar to the "butterfly" ballot used in Palm Beach County (reported by Don Evans, 11/8/00)
Fact: According to the Chicago Daily Herald on11/10/00, the ballots in Chicago which had"facing pages" were referendum questions which only had two punch holes, Yes and No.
9) Myth: The election process in Florida outside of Palm Beach County was fair.
Fact: Actually, thousands of irregularities in over a half-dozen categories have already been reported:
-Ballots ran out in certain precincts according tothe LA Times on 11/10/00.
-Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police, according to the Los Angeles Times (11/10/00). In some cases, officers demanded to see a "taxi license".
-Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa, according to the Associated Press.
-In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne. Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of ID when only one is required. (source: Associated Press)
-Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address.
-Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their names were similar to those of ex-cons, according to Mother Jones magazine.
-According to Reuters news service (11/8/00), many voters received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation of state law.
-According to the Miami Herald, many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time (11/10/00)
-According to Feed Magazine [feedmag.com], the mayoral candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee ballots for George W. Bush. (11/9/00)
-According to tompaine.com, CBS's Dan Rather reported a possible computer error in Volusia County, Florida, where James Harris, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes. He won 583 in the rest of the state. [11/9/00] County-level results for Florida are available at cnn.com.
-Many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not appear on the voting rolls, according to a hearing conducted by the NAACP and televised on C-SPAN on 11/12/00.
10) Myth: "No evidence of vote fraud, either in the original vote or in the recount, has been presented." -- James Baker, representing the Bush campaign on 11/10/00, in a Florida briefing.
Fact: The election was held just last week, so of course many instances of fraud have not yet been substantiated. Even so, authorities have already uncovered clear evidence of voter fraud involving absentee ballots.
In Pensacola, Florida, Bush supporter Todd Vinson never received the absentee ballot he requested. According to the Associated Press on 11/9/00, it was determined after an investigation that this ballot was received by a third party, filled out with a forged signature, and then sent in. Assistant State Attorney Russell Edgar, when asked if other absentee ballots might had been intercepted, said, "I agree there may well be many more than just this one".
Much media attention on the issue of voter fraud has been focused on Wisconsin where cigarettes were offered to homeless people who were casting absentee ballots, presumably for Gore. The Gore campaign claims the cigarettes were not used to "buy" votes. On Monday 10/13, the London Times reported a suspected pro-Bush vote fraud operation in Miami involving over 10,000 ballots.
11) Myth: It is highly unusual for judges to intervene after an election. Since the designer of a disputed ballot in Florida is a member of the party contesting the election, a legal challenge is impossible.
Fact: The most fundamental right of a democratic society is the the right to vote, and to have one's vote correctly counted. The legal system exists to ensure that people's rights are not violated. Whether the person committing a violation is a Democrat or a Republican does not affect how that violation should be treated.
Elections are ultimately struggles for political power so it should not be surprising that disputes are often resolved in court. Of course judges can be biased. That is why they must explain their decisions and why bad arguments can be overturned on appeal.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1998, in connection with a disputed Volusia County election, that if there is "substantial noncompliance" with election laws and a "reasonable doubt" about whether election results "expressed the will of the voters" then a judge must "void the contested election, even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing." (source: Wall St. Journal, 10/10/00). The Journal indicated that there was little legal precedent for a revote in just one area where an election occurred. It would be more likely for a court to order a new election or to overturn the result.
These issues have arisen in other states as well. In a Massachusetts Democratic primary in 1996 for the US House, the election was so close after recounts that a judge had to make the final decision after examining some of the ballots that were incompletely punched, to determine the intention of the voter. The law clearly dictated that it was the will of the voter that mattered, and the candidate who was behind, William Delahunt, went on to win the final election. Call the Capitol Switchboard if you have any doubts at 202-225-3121.
12) Myth: Richard Nixon's party in 1960 did the honorable thing in not contesting the results of the election.
Fact: According to a column in the Los Angeles Times, 11/10/00, "on Nov. 11, three days after the election, Thurston B. Morton, a Kentucky senator and the Republican Party's national chairman, launched bids for recounts or investigations in not just Illinois and Texas but also Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, NewJersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. A few days later, Robert H. Finch and Leonard W. Hall, two Nixon intimates, sent agents to conduct what they called "field checks" in eight of those 11 battlegrounds. In New Jersey, local Republicans obtained court orders for recounts; Texans brought suit in federal court. Illinois witnessed the most vigorous crusade. Nixon aide Peter Flanigan encouraged the creation of aChicago-area Nixon Recount Committee. As late as Nov. 23, Republican National Committee general counsel H. Meade Alcorn Jr. was still predicting Nixon would take Illinois." Recounts continued into December, but did not succeed in overturning the result of the election.
13) Myth: "Governor Bush is still the winner, subject only to counting the overseas ballots, which traditionally have favored the Republican candidates" -- James Baker, Press Briefing, 11/10/00
Fact: The number of yet-to-be-counted overseas military ballots is likely to be in the range of 500 to 2000, based on the 1996 election in which there were 2,300 oversees absentee ballots overall, with roughly 60% of them coming from people enlisted in the military. According to CNN [11/10/00], the military overseas ballots that arrived before the election were already counted.
The biggest difference from 1996 is that Clinton -- who avoided the draft -- was running against Dole, a decorated military veteran.
In 2000 George W. Bush -- who avoided service in Vietnam and actually lost flying privileges in the Texas Air National Guard -- is running against Al Gore, a veteran who served in Vietnam.
It is just as possible that Gore will gain a few hundred votes from veterans as the other way around. It is also possible that the Gore ticket will pick up votes from Democratic diplomatic appointees, or temporary residents and dual citizens of Israel.
PLEASE HELP DISTRIBUTE THIS FLYER! We plan to make it easy for you to obtain a paper copy for distribution at your workplace, church or campus. If you post this on the web, please let us know! HTML and printable (Word, PDF) versions will be available at: http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu
Internet references sometimes change, so they will be updated at:
http://dlis.gseis.u cla
To participate in a student discussion, please send a blank email to: can-rw-subscribe@topica.com
Tips on E-Organizing: www.organizenow.net
-------------
Jacob Everist
jeverist@fairtunes.com
http://tropus.sourceforge.net
-------------------------
Revocation of Independence (Score:5)
To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Utah, which she does not fancy). Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honorable Tony Blair, the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed".
2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys.
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby team by 2005.
7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit".
8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
Thank you for your cooperation.
[source unknown]
Electoral College Reform (Score:5)
(I know this is way down at the bottom, so not likely many will read it, but I'm still interested in people's opinions. Let me know what you think.)
My Ideas for United States General Election Reform:
The electoral college needs to stay. A president should be elected because he receives the support of the majority of the states, not the majority of the people in the nation. Small states and minorities would lose out considerably if the electoral college were completely abolished.
Alleged problems with the Electoral College:
Myth 1. The American people do not really elect the president
The American people, of course, still elect the president, but not directly. They never have. This is not a problem, and never has been. Some people like to point at elections in which the president has lost the popular vote, but won the office because of the Electoral College. A good example of this is George W. Bush in the 2000 election. If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population. If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates could campaign only in these pockets of people, and win the office of the presidency even though the majority of states supported a different candidate.
Nobody argues that in a basketball tournament, the winner should be the team who scores the most total baskets combined from every game. The baskets have to be arranged to win games, just as the votes in a General Election have to be arranged to win states. However, I suggest to:
The electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds with the number of Representatives and Senators each State has in Congress. Instead of the majority winner in a particular state receiving the entirety of that state's electoral votes, have one electoral vote per Congressional district and two for the state majority.
Myth 2. Your vote counts for more if you're from a larger state
The number of electors a state received is directly proportional to the population of the state. Assuming that a state has 100% voter turnout, every vote counts as an identical percent of an elector. In fact, it is the smaller states whose vote counts for more, because each state has the two electors corresponding to Senators regardless of size. The problem ensues when one state has a high voter turnout, while another has a very low voter turnout. In the latter case, one's vote is worth quite a bit more. Therefore I propose that the number of electors be:
Using the national census, calculate the population of the United States and divide by 435 (the number of members in the House of Representatives). This will result in the number of people per congressional district. However, instead of counting basic population, count the number of people who voted in the previous general election. Then organize the congressional districts based on this information. This way, votes from states with large populations but with very low voter turn-out don't count for more than votes from states with higher voter turn-out.
Myth 3. Faithless electors can swing votes
A much-touted problem with the Electoral College, the fact that electors can change their vote at the last minute has never been a problem. In the very few times it has happened in this nation's history, not once has it even come close to changing the results of an election. In addition, the electors are generally chosen from the prominent members of the political party for whom your vote is case. That is to say, if you vote for a Republican president, you are in actuality voting for the Republican elector who has been chosen by party leaders. If your vote is cast for a Democratic president, you are electing the elector whom the Democrat party has chosen. There is very little chance that such a person would choose to go against the wishes of his party without good reason.
A bigger problem is that a president might be elected without gaining support of the majority of the nation, especially if the votes are divided among three or four parties. A form of run-off voting, such as Instant Runoff Voting or Instant Pair Runoff Voting (Condorcet), would solve this problem.
Instant Runoff Voting allows voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth, and so on. If a candidate does not receive clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter's top choices indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. The ballots are then retabulated, with each counting as a vote for the top-ranked candidate listed on the ballot that is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate have their votes transferred to their second choice candidate--just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election. This process continues until a candidate achieves more than fifty percent of the vote. However, this still encourages people not to "vote their conscience." A more effective system is the Condorcet, or "Instant Pair Runoff Voting" method.
In the Condorcet election method, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The vote counting procedure then takes into account each preference of each voter for one candidate over another. It does so by conceptually breaking the election down into a series of separate races between each possible pairing of candidates, hence it is sometimes referred to as a "pairwise" method. If one of the candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one race, then that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and an optimal procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity. Unlike our current plurality election method, the Condorcet system gives voters little incentive to falsify their true preferences.
More detailed information about Condorcet voting can be found here: http://russp.org/ElectionMethods.org/CondorcetEx.h tm [russp.org].
Other thoughts to consider:
Thanks for your input. Please email me [mailto] with comments and suggestions.
Dlugar
Biggest problem with internet voting... (Score:4)
Etc.
Or voting at gunpoint after being hauled off to an internet cafe... you get the point. I don't know any way around that.
I would like to see electronic tallying at the polling place, though. Just dial up and submit your totals at the end of the day.
BUT... I would really still like a hard copy of each vote, right after each vote. God forbid that we wind up with an election such as the one in Florida, with nothing but bits vanished from the ether as a record of people's votes.
Is there any way to do this securely w/o a physical record of the vote?
---
Who Pays? (Score:3)
Riverside County's electronic system cost tens of thousands of dollars to implement. Apparently the county could afford to do it, but what about Los Angeles County? Or other very populous counties? What about sparsely populated, poor counties?
The reason that we punch a piece of paper is for the same reason that we still use pencils and paper. By and large, the system works, and works well. I believe that no matter what system is in place, irregularities will occur. That's just the way things go with a project of the scope of a national election. But the beauty of the system as it is now is that it's quite inexpensive and quite accurate. Bear in mind that the number of ballots in dispute are a small fraction of the total of number of ballots cast. Given the closeness of the election, any small problem ends up appearing quite large...but I still do not see a strong case for making a change, other than, perhaps, the gee-whiz factor.
-h-
Re:"Banana Republic of America"? (Score:5)
For the past week, I've been watching and reading the news with increasing trepidation as one person after another attempts to pass off their partisan opinon as the one and only correct, unbiased interpretation of the law. Campaign staffers, GOP and Dem politicians, regular voters, the digerati [somewhere.com], and even the press. I view both the Democrats and the Republicans with equal distaste, and am equally unhappy with either candidate. I think that's about as unbiased as you're gonna get. Am I the only one in America?
Ironically, the most level-headed non-partisan statement I've heard yet has come from Al Gore. And not even that was without a slant.
And as I've been watching this whole circus, I've been hollering at the TV screen and muttering to my newspaper, "stop acting like third world politicians, pretending you aren't arguing from an extreme position!" All these people, especially James Baker and Mindy Tucker, seem to have absolutely no clue as to how biased they sound when they make their public statements. They're so blinded by their partisanship they can't see how hypocritical they look to people who are only interested in a fair outcome.
Of course, what should I expect from Florida? Chicago and Louisiana may have the reputations as corrupt, but I used to live in Florida. Based on the amount of corruption, con artisanship, and good ole boy networking I endured there, I was immediately cracking jokes about how ironic it was that the outcome of the presidential election would depend on the integrity of Florida officials. It is a banana republic folks, in a lot of ways.
There are a lot of Americans who believe that we have the most honest, ethical system of government in the world. And they have good reason to believe it - it's drummed into us from day one. And it may still be true. But always remember and never forget: that doesn't mean it's completely honest and totally ethical. To say "it can never happen here" is to leave the door wide open for corruption. And I fear that's what we have done.
Look at it this way: when money can buy policy in DC [billionair...orgore.com], the way it does now, just how soon will it be until money can buy an election? And has it happened already?? We need to keep asking those questions, or else it will happen right under our noses.
Heck, that's exactly why I voted for Nader. There's too much influence in Washington by special interests with lots of money. Nobody there does anything if it's not greased by megabucks. Is that ethical? Is it good government? It disturbs me that these practices are so widely accepted. I know I'm not the only one, but it seems there aren't enough of us.
And, in closing, I have to unleash my inner conspiracy theorist or he's gonna eat a hole in my spleen: it sure smells a lot to me like the Bush boys tried to buy an election, and it blew up in their faces. But we'll probably never see any evidence to support that... then again, stranger things (cough, Monica, cough) have happened!
Re:You're wrong (Score:3)
Falsifying computer records is pretty easy. Think bribery...
Seriously! Someone in a back room can alter electronic votes. With card ballots, someone has to slip out with a stack of ballots in front of the other election workers. It can happen, but the electronic fraud is easier to get away with.
Re:"Banana Republic of America"? (Score:3)
Aren't we stretching it a bit?
I mean, the USA is relatively politically stable, but your view of the rest of the world (oh, sorry, just 90% of the rest of the world) is totally distorted.
I mean, where I live, in Israel (which is not, you must agree, the most peaceful and stable country around), the elections are almost always this close, and yet, I don't recall any rioting and looting on this issue (though for other reasons... but that's another matter), so what "90% of the rest of the world" are you talking about, exactly? Sweden, maybe?
Of course, I cannot really blame you for this superficial view of the "rest of the world" - you probably see reports on TV about such things as the latest Yugoslavian elections and the chaos that followed. You don't a lot about the latest elections in Sweden, for example, because a news report about how "the elections went peacefully, nothing interesting happened, new prime-minister was elected" are not very interesting news indeed. Thus, you deduce that the events that followed the Yugoslavian elections are the norm in the rest of the (non-American) world.
I'm sorry, but despite what you are implying, the "rest of the world" is not populated by mindless barbarians.
Re:"Banana Republic of America"? (Score:3)
A lot of people are calling for the electoral college to be disbanded. The above is one reason why I think it needs to stay. No matter how much the candidates whip their supporters into irrational frenzy, it all gets filtered through the electors. It ain't a perfect system by a long shot, and I'm not claiming electors are any better than condo-maniacs, but it beats the hell out of revoting every time the election gets close.
Re:Get your Election FAQs Straight! (Score:3)
Fact:In 1997, George w. Bush signed into law a bill stating that hand recounts were the preffered method in a close elction in Texas on the ballots where you color in the circle, not the ballots where you punch a hole!!!
Gedankenexperiment (Score:3)
Someone look in the box already!
Computer Voting vs. Internet Voting (Score:5)
It's perfectly feasible to have computers at the polling stations. It would mean an accurate count the first time, and avoids much the concern about people cracking the system. We should concentrate on getting the computer voting system up and running, and worry about the extra issues raised by connecting to the internet later on.
Not every computer needs to be on the net guys!
You're wrong (Score:5)
A coder's fix for the Elector College SYSTEM ... (Score:4)
In this situation ( a legacy system ) its always best to make as few changes as possible, since we can't accurately predict how the changes will affect the performance of the rest of the system.
The Electoral College has some flaws in it, but it has a valid use.
We live in a Federal Republic. A federation of 50 states. 50 seperate / parallel / distributed "countries," joined by a federal government.
Within this architecture, it is most appropriate for states to elect the President.
A direct ( popular ) election would clearly re-inforce the dominance of states with the largest populations, and furthermore lead to the dominance of the densest cities within those states.
Current Flaws
1) Electors that add a useless level of indirection, and are even dangerous in that they can vote in whatever manner they please; including opposing the underlying population.
2) A "winner takes all" approach to awarding electoral votes of a state to candidates.
Simple Solution
1) Electors MUST be replaced by "points." A state would have as many "Electoral Points" as it now has Electoral Votes.
When a candidate is awarded a point, it acts as the equivalent of an "automatic electoral vote."
This removes the useless and dangerous level of indirection. This also makes the election more direct, which co-opts part of the appeal of a "popular election."
2) The Electoral "Points" of a state MUST be awarded to candidates in proportion to the percentage of votes they won in that state. Only whole points would be awarded, and in the case of ties, any "odd" points would be discarded.
Example #1: Florida would have 25 electoral points. Assuming the following vote percentages ( Nader 20%; Bush 40%; Gore 40% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Nader 5; Bush 20; Gore 20.
Example #2: In the case of a tie ( Bush 50%; Gore 50% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point being discarded.
Dividing points, allows for a more accurate reflection of the public's "will." Discarding the "odd point" in the case of a tie, and rounding to the nearest whole point, should also eliminate all the problems we've seen in the case where the margin of difference is so small.
Nader 2%; Bush 49%; Gore 49% would yield an awarding of Nader 0; Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point discarded.
There would be no "hand recounts" because the percentage would not be changed enough to swing a point in any one direction. And because the points are divided ( in proportion to the popular vote within the state ), each candidate would not be so desperate for every last vote to be "counted."
Conclusion
This compromise system retains the correct granularity for the architecture of government we currently live under, yet provides a more direct and fair representation of "the will of the people."
Does anyone want to start a petition?
paper voting vs. electronic voting. (Score:4)
If there had been purely electronic voting in New Mexico the story probably wouldn't be on the front page because the software would most likely have silently dropped the votes which were straight party votes and no-one would have noticed.
Punch cards a a perfect compromise because they are easily machine tallied while being a permanent physical record that can be reffered to if mechanical error has made the automated count suspect.
-- Greg
In related news... (Score:4)
Smart judge says "a pox on both your houses" (Score:5)
Repubs:
The smartest character today is, IMHO, the judge in his ruling on today's 5pm deadline:
His ruling on the 5pm deadline is basically: "Yeah, she [the Secretary of State] can ignore late results" (Repubs happy because that's the law), "but not arbitrarily" (Dems happy because the judge has introduced ambiguity).
- That's either the work of great cowardice ("Fuck, I don't wanna touch this!")...
- ... or wisdom of Solomonic proportions ("You two idjitz can't agree on who's [baby|election] this is? Fine, gimme a sword, we'll carve the [sprog|decision] in half and you can each have custody of your half. Now get the fsck out and don't talk to me until one of you does something that shows me who the real [mother|statesman] is.")
I'm not sure which of the two it is, but I have a hunch it's the latter.Electronic voting is ok but internet voting is not (Score:3)
However I am dead set against voting from home or work. The problem is, the election committee cannot certify your home PC. It could have a virus on it or trojan program specifically designed to interfere with your vote. Electronic systems that are highly secure, closed from external mischief and under the care of the election officials is the way to go.
Voting isn't like eCommerce. The system has to verify it is you, give you the proper choices, get your result AND THEN FORGET IT WAS YOU when it records the results.
Also, since an electronic system would have the results at the close of the election I think it makes sense for the system to NOT return results until all votes have been cast. It always seems terribly unfair to the West Coast and to Alaska that the election is often decided by the time evening rolls around there.
How about haveing a computer which prints ballots. (Score:5)
Computers? Too unreliable. (Score:4)
My evidence? Witness the computerization of the GRE (Graduate Record Exam). They no longer give it on paper. You have to take it by computer. The net result of the computerization of the GRE -- my university, and many others, silently no longer enforce our requirement that applicants give us GRE scores, because the computerized system is such a disaster, many students aren't able to even take the test.
And don't get me started on other well-meaning but totally screwed up attempts to replace an "obsolete" but effective system with a "modern" computerized one that doesn't work any more.
Think voters are disenfranchised now? Wait 'til we turn an election over to a lot of bug-ridden hardware and software.
Bah. I say keep using 19th century technology until you actually need to replace it. Computers are good at many things - and interacting 100% reliably with the general public isn't one of them.