200+ years and we still can't run an election

[Platapus]

Florida voting issues raise fears of 2000-like debacle

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/king.florida.voting/index.html

"For 2004, the county switched to touch-screen machines. There were no major issues here. But some local Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler, demanded changes because they said the touch-screen system might be vulnerable to fraud and did not, in their view, provide a reliable audit trail.

So the county switched again, to its third system in eight years, this time a paper ballot that is scanned by an optical reading device. The paper is then retained in case of recounts or other irregularities.

Local officials say the system works and promise a smooth Election Day.

But Dinerstein says the recount in the judicial race proves the folly of switching.

"We could have had nice, reliable computers counting and giving all of us an honest count," he said in an interview.

The 2000 recount drama led to major changes -- more than 40 states made changes or adjustments to the way they conducted and administered elections.

"We have had more change in our election process since 2000 than we have seen since the Voting Rights Act of 1965," said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a recent past president of the national association of top state elections officials. Indiana alone spent some $67 million on new equipment, including a statewide voter file, and also requires a color photo ID on Election Day."

You would think that after 200+ years of elections we could get it right. It is a travesty that so many different states have different voting mechanisms.

We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out an idiot-proof way of casting a vote? :nope:

Sad. Very very sad. :damn:

[Happy Times]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

[Platapus]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

Are you sure it is understandable by Americans? Remember the people in Florida :nope:

[Happy Times]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

Are you sure it is understandable by Americans? Remember the people in Florida :nope:

You have a list, you have a paper, you have a pen, you write a number from the list,
you count the papers, you enter the count on computer, you send the count forward.
Voilà!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

Why don't we just copy our own system? It's not that hard either.

U.S. Constitution FTW:D

[August]

We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out an idiot-proof way of casting a vote? :nope:

We used to have just that. You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box. I don't see why we had to change in the first place.

[Platapus]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

Are you sure it is understandable by Americans? Remember the people in Florida :nope:

You have a list, you have a paper, you have a pen, you write a number from the list,
you count the papers, you enter the count on computer, you send the count forward.
Voilà!

Too complicated. You would lose most of the American citizens at "you write a number from the list". :doh:

[Platapus]

You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. :up:

[Happy Times]

You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. :up:

Easier if you only have to write a number, offcourse either one shouldnt be a problem.:roll: Ive sometimes tought that there should be a test, that you would have to take before getting the right to vote, make sure that people know how the system works.
For exsample, our President has only powers in foreign relations but people still think the election is about internal issues.:damn:
I dont see this going against democracy, people should appreciate value of the right to vote.

[Happy Times]

Come here and copy our system, its not that hard.

Are you sure it is understandable by Americans? Remember the people in Florida :nope:

You have a list, you have a paper, you have a pen, you write a number from the list,
you count the papers, you enter the count on computer, you send the count forward.
Voilà!

Too complicated. You would lose most of the American citizens at "you write a number from the list". :doh:

Anyone that stupid needs a guardian, somehow i doubt Subsim has all the Americans with normal IQ.

[Platapus]

Just remember that despite all the money we spend on education in the United States, almost half of our population is still below average. :know:

[Foxtrot]

You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box.

People may confuse Obama with Osama or McCain with McClane. Sometimes they even don't know how to spell the name of candidates.

We should simply print the photos of candidates on ballet papers, and tick mark box infront of them. Of course, planners may write "SELECT ONE CHOICE ONLY" in big bold letters at the top of ballet papers. :D

[Hylander_1314]

You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box.

People may confuse Obama with Osama or McCain with McClane. Sometimes they even don't know how to spell the name of candidates.

We should simply print the photos of candidates on ballet papers, and tick mark box infront of them. Of course, planners may write "SELECT ONE CHOICE ONLY" in big bold letters at the top of ballet papers. :D

Better yet, since we haven't got much to choose from, why not a picture of the candidates, and a dart to every registered voter.

Honestly. You have their names on a pice of card or paper with with little checkboxes by the names for people to choose from. But then again, you have to know how to friggin' read. Well, with the way education has been going for the last 20+ years, we have have a generation or two of adult illitereates.

[Sailor Steve]

We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out an idiot-proof way of casting a vote? :nope:

We used to have just that. You wrote the name of the guy you were voting for on a piece of paper and stuffed that in the ballot box. I don't see why we had to change in the first place.
When did we have that? At first we didn't vote at all - electors were selected by state legislatures. I'm not sure how they did it when different states started experimenting with letting the people choose the electors. It would be interesting to see some of those old ballots.

I still have no problem with checking a box beside the guy's name, or writing in a choice.

[August]

Here they print identical papers with the name of each candidate. You pick one of each, you stuff one in an enveloppe and the rest in your pockets, you put the enveloppe in the voting box, sign the paper, and that's it. If you write something on the paper the vote doesn't count.

That would definitely work but I'd bet the greens would be all up in arms about the poor trees wasted.

[NealT]

I have a great idea. Just flip a coin. Mark heads or tails. When the tallies are counted, then go to the candidates. Flip a coin. The winner gets to choose either heads or tails. Once they choose, then you reveal the number of votes for each and the one with the most votes wins.

Probably a lot cheaper and just as effective as some elections...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[VipertheSniper]

Flipping coins? I don't know... I'd say roll a dice and let the candidates choose a number, whichever number was rolled more often, that candidate wins... :p

[Stealth Hunter]

They've made a complex game out of what should be one of the simplest things for a democracy to pull off in the first place.:nope: One person, one vote. Down with electoral voting.

[Digital_Trucker]

Amen to the one person, one vote:up:

One question though, does the person have to be living?:rotfl:

[Platapus]

There have been more proposed amendments to the Constitution concerning the Electoral College than for another issue. Over 700 proposals.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

The consensus seems to be that the Electoral system is crap but probably the best crappy system we can find. As with many issues with the United States, it is a delicate balance between citizen rights (democracy) and State rights (Representative).

Since this country is slowly but firmly moving away from being the United States of America toward being the United Federation of America the issue of State rights is becoming mooter (I just made that up :up: )

Technically there is no reason not to have the President and Vice President elected by direct citizen vote. Politically though there are issues. The smaller states will feel more left out of the political game when the candidates concentrate solely on the highest population centers of the country. Why would any candidate spend the money and more importantly the time to campaign in Alaska for instance. Whether this is a valid point or not can be debated.

The bottom line seems to be that while a lot of people recognize the problems with the Electoral College, the system does work and the current political machines are geared for operating within an Electoral system. Since Congress is one of only two bodies that can change the system, and the political machines that run congressional elections like the Electoral system, fat chance of any changes.

That leaves the states being the only other body that can make this change. Smaller states sure aint goin to give up the Electoral system so it would be doubtful to get the necessary 2/3rds of the states (33 states) to propose the amendment nor get the necessary 3/4ths of the states (38 states) to ratify the amendment.

So we seem to be stuck with the Electoral system. The Electoral system was brought into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised.

I would not count on either Congress nor the States changing it any time soon.

[bookworm_020]

The system here in Australia is pretty simple. Just number the boxes, and the directions are on the ballot paper and printed on the inside of the voter screens. Some people do make mistakes, but it's still pretty low overall and everyone knows how it is done!:yep:

The same system is used for local, state and federal elections in all areas of the country, it keeps it simple and as there is no difference between locations, if you move, you don't have to figure out how to vote again.

I ran a polling both for the recent local elctions, we had 1000 votes to count with three people doing the counting. All results were in withing 1 1/2 hours of close of voting (6 PM) and we had packed up and left the place by 8 PM (only one paper to count!:D) I can work all three differnet elections and there is very little difference between them. It makes training alot easier!:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Good summary, Platapus. The Constitution specifies that electors are to be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", and that has never changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a popular vote, and it is only because the people of the states have influenced their respective legislatures to do it that way that we vote for the president at all. We don't actually even vote for the presidential candidate, we vote for the local elector who will vote for him.

[Hylander_1314]

Actually, according to the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and Common Sense, democracy is incorrect. The nation was founded as a republic, hence representatives, with a Constitution to chain down men from mischief (Jefferson). But since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the use of the word democracy as our form of government, has been mis-taught to every citizen. And FDR kicked it into high gear, and it hasn't stopped, nor has it slowed.

To qualify it, read Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and upon application of the legislature , or the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
This is not to be misconstrued with the Republican Party, as it is anything but. It is more accurate to be called Republicrat.

Democracy is a direct translation from the old Greek government by the people, or the people to rule.

Republic comes from the old Latin and means literally, the public affairs, or the law. The party does not subscribe to this. So it is in name only.

The Founding Fathers took the Republic a few steps further and provided a list of rules and regulations that gave the Federal and State governments the authority to perform certain tasks and duties. But I seriously doubt they would approve of what they dig their fingers into today.

Citizens Rights come from their Creator, as viewed by the founders. The Constitution and Bill of Rights(?). The former alone has 286 safeguards built into it to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, but as todays lawyers would have you believe, it's a living breathing document open to interpretation, and you can then interpret those safeguards out of existance, and do as you will with the citizens, including enslaving them and making them subjects at the will of those they elect. A far cry from what the founders had envisioned. The Bill of Rights should have been called What the Governmant Shall Not Do.

To say they could not have forseen this, or that is pure bunk. The founders were lightyears ahead of their time, and lightyears ahead of most in our modern times. But as time marches forward and the United States of America involves itself more and more in global affairs, it becomes more and more like what Rome became, an Imperium.

To quote Hamilton: "Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy"

James Madison from the Federalist Papers #10: ".....democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatable with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Hamilton on June 21, 1788: " It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Bejamin Franklin to a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, "......well Dr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic? Madame, you have a republic, if you can keep it."

[Platapus]

The term democracy has been misused for a long time but remains a catchy phrase.

Fighting for democracy sounds so noble. It is a shame that there aint no democracies around these parts (Switzerland being close to an exception.)

In trying to bridge between the fantasy of democracy and the reality of representative government, variations of the word democracy crop up

Indirect democracy
Representative democracy
Republican democracy

All of which obfuscate the fact that the population is separated from the decision making process by intermediaries who are elected.

And this is a good thing. Can you imagine a nation like the United States being governed by a direct democracy? :nope:

[Etienne]

Just remember that despite all the money we spend on education in the United States, almost half of our population is still below average. :know:

The funniest thing about this post is that most people won't get the joke :-D

[SteamWake]

Vote Early... Vote often

[bookworm_020]

Vote Early... Vote often

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Little chance of that ever happening here in Australia!:doh: You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to vote more than once! As for voting early, I had three people knock on the door after closing time this election, but within 15 minutes of the poll closing (they still didn't get in, I don't care how long or how loud they knock!)

Best ever late turn up was 1 1/2 hours after close!:roll:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good summary, Platapus. The Constitution specifies that electors are to be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", and that has never changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a popular vote, and it is only because the people of the states have influenced their respective legislatures to do it that way that we vote for the president at all. We don't actually even vote for the presidential candidate, we vote for the local elector who will vote for him.

You'll get an "F" in Mrs. Larson's 12th-grade Government class if your essay says something like that. America is a democracy . It says so in the text.

She suggests that you take more time learning the "Key Concepts" in each chapter and less time coming up with ridiculous theories that just nitpick semantics. :p


I hate that b1^$%:x

[Tchocky]

:p Just remember that despite all the money we spend on education in the United States, almost half of our population is still below average. :know:

The funniest thing about this post is that most people won't get the joke :-D
Well, maybe half :p

[Foxtrot]

Since even the easiest solution is not going to work as long as general public has to move its ass, so I got a perfect solution.
How about bringing election procedure to home?

We can put McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden in an isolated house, and rig that house with cameras. Yes, exactly. BIG BROTHER "THE PRESIDENT". If a candidate is going to do better in house stuff then he will get votes from viewers.

People just need to sit infront of TV, watch their favorite candidates 24/7, and vote. Easy, isn't it?

[Platapus]

Just remember that despite all the money we spend on education in the United States, almost half of our population is still below average. :know:

The funniest thing about this post is that most people won't get the joke :-D

I have been telling that same lame joke for over 25 years and you would be amazed at how few people get the joke. :nope:

This is an instance where the enjoyment does not come from the joke, but the reaction of the audience. :yep:

[Digital_Trucker]

This is an instance where the enjoyment does not come from the joke, but the reaction of the audience. :yep:
Or lack of reaction since the audience has heard the same lame joke for over 25 years;)

[Platapus]

This is an instance where the enjoyment does not come from the joke, but the reaction of the audience. :yep:
Or lack of reaction since the audience has heard the same lame joke for over 25 years;)


Well yeah, I get a lot of that too. :oops:

[Hylander_1314]

Good summary, Platapus. The Constitution specifies that electors are to be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", and that has never changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a popular vote, and it is only because the people of the states have influenced their respective legislatures to do it that way that we vote for the president at all. We don't actually even vote for the presidential candidate, we vote for the local elector who will vote for him.

You'll get an "F" in Mrs. Larson's 12th-grade Government class if your essay says something like that. America is a democracy . It says so in the text.

She suggests that you take more time learning the "Key Concepts" in each chapter and less time coming up with ridiculous theories that just nitpick semantics. :p


I hate that b1^$%:x

Sounds like Mrs. Larson needs to read, or re-read what the Founding Fathers debated during the Constitutional Convention of 1791. Might be a bit of a shocker to her. Even if the text says so, doesn't mean it's it's right. I think it was in the book 1984, (it's been a while, so if I'm at err) it says 2+2=5 and you best agree or else.

[Hylander_1314]

The term democracy has been misused for a long time but remains a catchy phrase.

Fighting for democracy sounds so noble. It is a shame that there aint no democracies around these parts (Switzerland being close to an exception.)

In trying to bridge between the fantasy of democracy and the reality of representative government, variations of the word democracy crop up

Indirect democracy
Representative democracy
Republican democracy

All of which obfuscate the fact that the population is separated from the decision making process by intermediaries who are elected.

And this is a good thing. Can you imagine a nation like the United States being governed by a direct democracy? :nope:

Yes the term democracy has been misused for quite some time. All one need do is recite the Pledge of Alliegence. It says nothing about democracy, in any form.

Yes to say one is fighting for it sounds noble, but it still leads to corruption and abuse on a grand scale. Now if we could get these exceptionally intellegent people who have side stepped the Constitution in favor of deception, abuse of power, and corruption on a grand scale, for you can't be an idiot to achieve it. But if we could get them to actually follow the charter that created the Fed, we would, and could be in a better position globally than we are. They would be following the laws, and regulations, not by-passing them to do as they will. And don't be fooled by little things like Hiliray stated when she said she planned on doing the will of the people. That's so far from what she has, or had intended. But any who choose to go to Washington with a few exceptions, do not have the good of the nation or the people in their plans.
This started back in the mid '30s, during FDR's time in office. The Fed was put in a position of being more powerful than the states (five year plans and new deals) communism.
The Constituion was by-passed bigtime there. As according to the Constitution the Fed has jurisdiction in Washington D.C., any Federal lands, used for military bases, or storage, and any U.S. Territories. Which would be places like the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. The states themselves have by law, jurisdiction inside their own borders. Since the states in the union are not U.S. Territories as one would be led to believe, the Fed by law, has very little say in the affairs of the individual states.

As Madison stated, and warned in the The Federalist #47
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny".

And in the The Federalist # 14 Madison again explained:
"The general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. It's jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the seperate provisions of any".

[Platapus]

That's why the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution are sometimes called the forgotten amendments.

[Hylander_1314]

Yep, and the 10th Ammendment should have just stated without any flare, if we left anything out, you can't do that either. Leave the peolpe alone and they will prosper.

I just had a discussion with my best friend's Mrs this evening. Oh man, is she suckered by the system. She tried giving me all the pad answers about the modern view of the Constitution, and I had to explain and quote, and recite from it, which I followed with, what is there to interpret here? But she's so into her law class that she's already doing the lawyer bit, by skirting the issue, and I had to stop her and ask her to directly answer my question directly, and she would reotort with, that's what I'm doing, but you won't let me explain. I had to ask again, this time, I said ,now listen to what I'm saying / reciting, and tell me, in a direct answer, what is there to interpret.

This went on for 2 hours on 3 points. My bro finally told his wife to give me a direct answer to my quaris. When she did, she saw what I was talking about to her.

But when you have the President, George Bush refer to it as nothing but a "GD" piece of paper, well there isn't much to wonder about.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes the term democracy has been misused for quite some time. All one need do is recite the Pledge of Alliegence. It says nothing about democracy, in any form.
We agree on the whole, but I take exception to you using "The Pledge" as an example. It is not an official part of any governmental document; it's just a loyalty oath written long after the fact, and it's been rewritten several times to suit each generation's perceptions of what it should mean. While some argue about the late-addition 'Under God' phrase, I find the whole thing offensive.

As for the use of the term 'Democracy', again I agree that precise usage goes against it, but that argument is used over and over again by the far right to dismiss and disregard the Democratic Party, as if their use of the term in their name implies that they have a desire for mob rule. Underhanded politics at its worst. As a matter of fact, modern books try to call Jefferson's party the 'Democratic-Republicans' to avoid confusion with the modern Republican party, when in fact 'Republican' is the only term they used at the time, to express opposition to the later Federalists. 'Democrat' is what the Federalists called them, to imply that Jefferson and friends believed in mob rule.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good summary, Platapus. The Constitution specifies that electors are to be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", and that has never changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a popular vote, and it is only because the people of the states have influenced their respective legislatures to do it that way that we vote for the president at all. We don't actually even vote for the presidential candidate, we vote for the local elector who will vote for him.

You'll get an "F" in Mrs. Larson's 12th-grade Government class if your essay says something like that. America is a democracy . It says so in the text.

She suggests that you take more time learning the "Key Concepts" in each chapter and less time coming up with ridiculous theories that just nitpick semantics. :p


I hate that b1^$%:x

Sounds like Mrs. Larson needs to read, or re-read what the Founding Fathers debated during the Constitutional Convention of 1791. Might be a bit of a shocker to her. Even if the text says so, doesn't mean it's it's right. I think it was in the book 1984, (it's been a while, so if I'm at err) it says 2+2=5 and you best agree or else.

Oh, I tried many similar tactics, and all they did was earn me a trip to the principal's office (again:roll: ) for "disrupting the learning process".

So I plead my case to the principal. Longstoryshort, I was given in-school suspension for 3 days after I called "the learning process" the "social re-education process" and signed my detention slip, "John Hancock", in very large cursive:D

So much fun in those days, God I miss high school.