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

Florida voting issues raise fears of 2000-like debacle

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ing/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:

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!

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

U.S. Constitution FTW:D

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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:

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

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.

Amen to the one person, one vote:up:

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

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-regi...llege/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.