BS: US Election System

Subject: US Election System
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:50 PM

Have been reading stuff here (and elsewhere) about the problems with voting in Florida.

Struck me that I don't really understand how the system works, what primaries are etc.

Could anyone give me a brief explanation, or point me toward a site that does?

Thanks a lot

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: bdatki
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:30 AM

Heh, here is the first link that came up, its for kids but don't be offended!

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:31 AM

In a nutshell, primaries are elections that are held by a political party to determine who the candidate for that party is in the regular election. So there's a Democratic primary, a Republican primary, and so forth. One usually has to be a registered member of the party to vote for that specific primary.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: JedMarum
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:34 AM

voting laws vary in detail from voting district to voting district. They are governed by state statutes and guidelines and generally operated by volunteers. Hence the complaining about the "idiots" or one place versus the presumably "enlightened" of another ... but all that aside

Primary elections are conducted for the purpose of political parties (basically Republican and Democrat in the US) to select their single candidate for a given office - one who will run against the single candidate of another party - or in some cases parties. It is not a requirement that parties have primaries. It is simply the process by which most parties select thei candidate for a given office.

In many states voters can vote in primary elections for EITHER party - but not both. In some states you must be a registered party member to vote in the primary. In some states voting in a primary leaves a registered member of that party until you vote in another primary for another party.

Again - primaries are used to select the candidate that a political party will run for a given office. Then elections are held in which the list of final candidates is offered on a ballot - one candidate for each party, typically no more then 2 parties runs candidates - but nearly always there are more for president, and some regions have greater influence from third or fourth parties. Write in voting is also allowed - so the candidate of your choice does not have to appear on the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: bdatki
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:35 AM

Right. However, in a few states, like in Georgia where Cynthia McKinney was defeated in the Democratic primary (thank God), the primaries are open to members of any party. In this case, many Republicans voted for McKinney's rival just so that she wouldn't possibly win. (In case you didn't know, McKinney has said some things regarding the terrorist attacks, etc that has angered many Americans). Just something that has been in the news recently.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:53 AM

Bdatki: McKinney is evidently bent on getting her revenge. I heard on televison tonight that she is considering running for President on the Green Ticket.

Bobert, she probably is going to need a good campaign manager!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:24 AM

So the logical thing to do is to use the primaries as a way to make sure the candidate for the other party is an extremist and therefore less likely to win in the real election. And then of course both parties achieve that admirable goal...

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: GUEST,Katlinel
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:01 AM

One the candidates are selected via primaries, they campaign their tails off until the general election. We have a wierd system in that rather than a candidate winning by the majority of the popular vote, they win by winning the largest number of electoral college votes. Each state has a set number of electoral college votes (I think thats decided by population) and when the populace votes, the candidate who got the top number of ballots in that state wins all of that state's electoral college votes. I don't care for the system because it is possible for a candidate to have the majority of the popular vote, but lose the electoral college vote. This happened in our last Presidential election when Bush, Chief Election Thief stole the election. Gore had the majority of the popular votes, but because of shenanegans in the Florida elections (where Bush's brother was governor...coincidence? I think not)lost the electoral college vote.

I really don't care for our political system, but it is important to vote, so I make a point of voting. Actually, when it comes down to it, I don't care for politics at all, and there are VERY few politicians I trust.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:03 AM

Well all that is part of the way the system works. In reality it works like this, say you are a community activist with a bunch of years experience as a lawyer for the poor. You get your local political club's dissafected wing to help you get petitions signed to get on the ballot for the primary. When you get enough signatures you beg donations from friends and supporters, when you get enough to qualify for matching funds from the government you apply, at which time the front runner, a multi billionare running on his own funds challenges your signatures and funding in court to keep you from getting advertising money and keep you off the ballot... and you struggle to get on anyway, and then in the marginalised neighborhoods of your district the voting machines break down and the rich guy gets in. That is basicly how elections in the US work... or don't.... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:19 AM

Well, Doug, if Cynthia calls me and asks me to handle her campaign, I'd be honored. She got a bad wrap.

With that said, I would have to take her aside for a little talk on how she is gonna have to tone down her attacks on Isreal because, as you know from my past posts, I think larger than placing all the blame at the feet of either Sharon or Arafat and feel it is counterproductive to flail away at one or the other and try to stay in a position of credibility to both.

Yeah, if she'll meet me half way, I can start tomorrow.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:25 AM

Jim: has enough been said to completely confuse you yet?

Bobert: Right on! You would make a great campaign manager, IF you can manage her mouth. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:28 AM

Jim: it should be pointed out that the Electoral College only applies to the presidential election. State races are by popular vote.

The Electoral College is a good idea because it enables votes from smaller states to carry the same weight as the larger populated states. It should never be replaced unless the people are willing to a let the states with the largest populations determine who is president. I for one, am not willing to do that.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: GUEST,Hagbardr (using a school computer)
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:53 AM

One of the disadvantages of the electoral college is that under certain circumstances, a small minority can dictate policy. Case in point: The Cuban population in Florida (funny how Florida keeps coming up) votes as a strong bloc against anyone who supports resuming relations with Cuba. Because the republican/democrat balance in Florida is nearly 50/50, this group has the power to swing the state's 25 electoral votes in the other direction.

--Hagbardr

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:28 PM

Surely the really unfair bit about your electoral college system is that in most states, as I understand it the votes are treated as a bloc, so that of 50% of the votes plus one go to one candidate, all the electors for that state are given to that candidate.

With a different system the same unfair result is achieved in the UK electoral system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:28 PM

Surely the really unfair bit about your electoral college system is that in most states, as I understand it, the votes are treated as a bloc, so that if 50% of the votes plus one go to one candidate, all the electoral votes for that state are given to that candidate.

With a different system the same unfair result is achieved in the UK electoral system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:30 PM

The electorial colege is only used for presidential elections, all the others just rely on simple graft and vote tampering. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:14 PM

Most of the folks that show up for primary elections are very serious party members. A common primary strategy is for the candidates to try and out-party the other. "I'm MORE Republican and conservative (Democratic and populist, etc.) than the other candidate." After the primary both (or all) the candidates try to position themselves as moderates to gain votes from the voters who ride the fence.

I think the electoral college made sense when communications were slow and unreliable, because the delegates could then get together and bring the news from their state. It also makes sense when you have more than two parties winning electoral votes, because some delegates have to vote for another candidate, which moderates the vote.

I don't think that it makes sense in this day and age. I disagree Doug -- I think the electoral college minimizes the voice of smaller states. Presidential candidates play the system -- which is fine if you live in California or New York, but if you live in a less-populated state the candidate is unlikely to address your state's concerns when he's campaigning and it's harder to make an educated choice. If one candidate can carry both NY and CA, it's pretty hard to lose and the rest of the country can be practically ignored -- the other candidate has to have almost all the medium size states andmsot of the small states to win. I'd like to see it go away in favor of a true one-person one-vote democracy, but I think splitting the electoral votes instead of a winner-take-all system is a good compromise.

But I doubt the electoral college will go away any time soon. Modifying the Constitution is awfully hard (as it should be), and just because you call a Constitutional Convention to address one issue doesn't mean they can't make other changes while they are at it. It's a scary thing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:59 PM

So how would going to popular vote aid the less populated states, Nicole? They would have even less voice than they do now. The larger populated states would determine who wins any presidential election. Doesn't make sense to me.

Larry: Behave yourself.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:01 PM

I agree that DougR's analysis is a bit simplistic. The EC doesn't help smaller states gain a voice. In fact, the principle that "states" instead of voters are deciding who wins a presidential election is a bit odd. If 49% of the people in Vermont want one candidate, why should Vermont count as a "small state" that needs to be empowered by being allowed to cast all its electoral votes for the other candidate? Doesn't this mean that 51% of Vermonters have forced the other 49% to vote with them? Essentially, whoever is in the minority of their state's population is disenfranchised. You could end up with an election whose popular vote was split 51-49 percent, but in which one candidate got every single electoral vote! Or, as now, the majority of voters could pick one candidate and the other could still be considered the winner. This doesn't make sense.

It is, however, not necessary to amend the constitution to change the way elections run. For one thing, the nitty-gritty specifics of how voters vote and how the electoral college votes are not spelled out in the constitution, although the existence of the college is. We could tomorrow go to a system in which the electors vote proportionally, i.e. 49% of Vermont's electoral college members (or as close to that as possible) would vote for the minority candidate in the above example. This is not unconstitutional, and a few states actually do this.

In fact, electors in the college are not even legally obligated to vote for the candidate that their party instructs them to vote for. I believe the way it works is, if the Republican candidate wins the state, the Republican party picks the electors. They go off to cast their votes. The party picks hard-line party loyalists, because nobody can compel the electors to vote for the Republican. Theoretically, they could all vote Democratic, and no one could do a thing about it. But of course, they would be ostracized by all their Republican friends forever.

It is a truly arcane and bizarre system, but it generally works in that the popular choice wins the presidency 90% of the time. But the other 10% of the time, such as now, it always strikes me as hypocritical when the adminstration tries to lecture the rest of the world about democracy!

We could also, by the way, go to a system in which voters got to pick 1st choice and second choice candidates for proportional voting. This would require changes in state and local voting guidelines all over the country, which might be an administrative nightmare, but it would not be a constitutional danger. In that case, for example, Gore's margin of victory in the popular election would probably have been greater, in that many Nader supporters would have picked him second, while Buchanan's smaller force would have voted for Bush second.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:03 PM

When I first started voting in Minnesota, some 30 years ago, Minnesota had a non-partisan system for state offices. All candidates were listed together on the ballot, with no party designation. Parties were just as strong, perhaps stronger than they are now. They held conventions to determine which candidates they would endorse, but you had to rely on newspaper reports or the party's advertising to know which party endorsed which candidate--the ballot didn't tell you. For each office, the two candidates who got the most votes in a primary would appear on the ballot in the general election, regardless of whether they belonged to the same party, different parties, or no party. In other words, the primary served as a way of narrowing the field from many candidates to just two. I thought it was a good system. Independents had a better chance of being elected in those days. But then they went and changed the system to a more conventional one. It's rare now for an independent or third-party candidate to get elected, Jesse Ventura notwithstanding.

In Minnesota, at least you don't have to register as a member of a party. At primaries, you are given a ballot that lists each party in a separate column. You are instructed to vote in only one column. If you vote in more than one column, your whole ballot is invalid and won't be counted. I THINK if you misunderstand the instructions, and spoil your ballot, your ballot will be immediately rejected by the voting machine, and you will be given a chance to change it--but I have never seen this happen. In any case, no one knows which party's primary you voted in.

Yes, it is possible to cast a "sinker" ballot, but I think that practice is foolish and rarely done. It would work like this: suppose I am a loyal supporter of Party-A, but the candidate I like in Party-A is virtually certain to win the primary. I could, theoretically, vote in the Party-B column and deliberately vote for the weakest candidate, the one that I think the Party-A candidate could most easily defeat in the general election. Trouble is, by doing that, I'd give up my chance to cast a primary vote for ANY Party-A candidate in ANY office that happens to be on the ballot at the same time. It seems like a bad tradeoff to me, but others may see it differently. And I think it seems dishonest to most people, although there is nothing to stop you from doing it.

I think the main reason we often have weak or extremist candidates on the ballot is that too few voters take the trouble to either attend party caucuses or vote in primaries. Extremist or one-issue voters are simply more likely to show up. Voter turnout at primaries is very low, but attendance at party caucuses is even lower. It's a shame really.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:41 PM

Sorry if I'm butting in, but just wanted to say that your answers to my inital question have been both informative and illuminating.

Thanks, everyone

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 03:48 PM

Sorry, folks, I was a little imprecise about the way in which non "all-or-nothing" states pick their electors. It's not that 49% would vote for the minority, but that each congressional district gets an elector, and the majority in that district determines which party picks the elector. The two statewide electors are picked by statewide popular vote. So if a state has 25 congressional districts (this number is determined population), they will have 27 electoral college members--25 for their congressional districts and two for the state as a whole. If 12 of those congressional districts voted Democtratic and 13 Republican, and the statewide popular vote was Republican, the Republican Party would pick 15 electors and the Democrats 12.

The states that do this, BTW, are Maine and Nebraska.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 04:27 PM

Nicely said, Nerd. I *think* that the process of voting for the President is actually voting for the delegates to the Electoral College, which are determined by the parties ahead of time, not afterward.

By and large, the EC works most of the time since we have a de facto 2-party system -- but the 2000 election is an example of how the system can outweigh the actual democracy part. What was the other election that happened with... Cleveland?

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 05:26 PM

BTW, DougR, it's because of the all-or-nothing system of casting electoral votes that "big states" have any advantage over "small states" at all. Your claim that "The Electoral College is a good idea because it enables votes from smaller states to carry the same weight as the larger populated states" is precisely the opposite of the truth. NY and California have huge populations, so if someone wins a landslide in both those states, they are very likely to win the election whether we have an electoral college or not.

But if there were no electoral college, each vote from NY would count exactly as much as each vote from Montana, and an election that split NY and California 51%-49% would be determined by votes from other states. As it is, because electoral votes from New York and California are cast by the "all-or-nothing" method, an election that splits NY and California 51%-49% is determined by...NY and California, just as if the person had won by a landslide.

The reason why the electoral college was supposed to balance out the power between big states and small states was because each state gets two "free" electoral votes regardless of size--a small state benefits proportionally much more from these extra votes. So, if a state has enough people for 30 congressional districts it gets 32 electoral votes, but if a state has only enough people for 2 congressional districts it gets 4 electoral votes. Obviously, the electoral votes per person ratio is higher for the small state, meaning that the small state's citizens have more power per person in the election.

BUT...this advantage to the small states is more than nullified by "all or nothing" electoral voting, which turns big states into unbeatable voting blocs even when the popular votes from these states are split evenly between the candidates. So the Big States have found a way to turn this supposedly small-state friendly institution to their advantage by using all-or-nothing electoral voting, because the constitution only mandates the existence of the college, not how it works. Neat, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:02 PM

Nerd: No reason for the ol' Bobert to grind up much gray matter here, You're doing a fine job.

Doug just don't like no change at all. Except now if you're talking runnin' the Bill of Rights thru the shreader, he's your man. (jus funnin' Dougie, ya gotta loosen up...).

No, I'd like to see either poular vote for national elections or prorated electors. Winner take aal is somehow not too democratic.

But above all else, not that I like Al Gore, I'd like to see him and the folks who elected him compensated for the absolute theivery by the Bush family of Gore's victory.

I wouldn't get nuhtin 'cause I don't vote for repubocrats in the national elections, unless there;s no one else to vote fir...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: leprechaun
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:32 AM

You've convinced me. This is such a horrible country. I feel so oppressed. Maybe we should all move to Saudi Arabia. Nah. We'd probably have to get on a plane. I know! Let's all move to Mexico! Larry, I'll meet you in Brownsville next Tuesday and we can sneak across.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:25 AM

I may be getting the wrong end of the stick over here, but it seems as if the system for electing a President works something like this: It appears that first of all, people have to register. That seems to mean all of the white folks and some of the others. Then they vote - meaning of course all the white folks and some of the others. Then the votes get counted - that's right - all of the white folks and some of the others. Then the person who has a million less votes is declared Mr.President! Maybe they have a different system in states other than Florida... but that's all the sense I could make of the news reports...

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM

Yep. Alanabit, you got it figured just about right. But what gets to me is the complete puffed-out-chest type of arrogance that Junior displyas as if he actually won anything, which we all know he didn't. Well, a few folks don't know it but then again there are a few folks who think that Kennedy wasn't killed either, that it was all staged by the CIA who had him abducted by aliens and taken off to another solar system...

Thing about Junior, is that he's been *given* everything in his life by his daddy and his daddy's friends. Oil companies. Baseball teams. Whatever the kid wants, daddy will figure out a way to get it for him. Heck, daddy got him an oil company which he ran into the ground, but not before taking $800,000 out of the piggy bank just months before it crashed. Hmmmmmmm?

Yeah, we could use some good old fashion *Made In the USA* honesty in not only the way we fund elections but also how votes are cast and counted. But, I'll be perfectly truthful, I don't see it happening. Too much dough going to too many repubocrats and they have got control of the government.

But I am hoping that the Green Party will run someone with a little more charisma than Nader next time and gets the required 5% ti not only get some funding in '08 but also into the debates. Hey, a two party system is a start. Even if one of the two only has 5%. It's a start.

Yeah, that would be a silver lining if Junior continues on his path of overlappin wars as he spends a big chunck of America's future going after one axis of evil country after another. Folks then could really think of abandoning the Democrats, if they felt that the Dems had no change of winning the White House because historically, voters don't change Presidents in the middle of a war unless they can't or won't run anymore.

But we do need to clean up this mess...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:24 PM

Mudcatters are so damned erudite. Seriously. You folks are very knowledgeable of this subject. (Well---most of yez:)Professionally, I am a 25-year Elections Officer for the State of Connecticut; and I am impressed. Wish our typical voters---Hell, our typical *candidates*---were as well-informed as youse guys.

Here are three informational, nonpartisan links; plus a 4th one thrown in so you can see nice pictures of my boss & my oul' office building :).

Federal Elections Commission -- lots of good info.

Brief History of Electoral College -- within the above FEC site. Very good essay, from a pro-Electoral-College viewpoint (which I share -- see further below).

Home Page of the Electoral College! More good stuff.

CT Secretary of the State Most important fact: 2nd floor, 2nd window from corner: Meee. :) Click "Elections Services Division" or "2002 Election Information" for CT election data.

Re Primaries: they are indeed often polarizing. The leftward/rightward drift of the Dems & Repubs respectively has coincided with the increasing frequency of primaries in recent decades. Primary voters --- regardless of eligibility provisions which vary state-by-state as noted above, and concerning which *party rules* can sometimes supersede state laws per a 1986 CT case in the U.S. Supreme Court (we lost, y'see)---primary voters, as I say, tend to be hardcore party activists & loyalists: the "Base". (No I don't mean al Qaeda.)(Well. Not yet anyway.) The recent Georgia Congressional primaries cited above contradicted this trend; but that was because of the unusually-high level of crossover voting. // In CT we have an ongoing Fedreral court battle (which we're also gonna lose) over *candidate* eligibility for primaries, i.e., how challengers qualify. We're rather restrictive, you see. (Mwaa-ha-haaa...) It's quite complicated; but if anybody's interested in more on that (???), post or PM me. (But fair warning: you'll get me going....this post is brief, for me...)

Re Electoral College: an Electoral College "inversion"---the popular-vote loser being elected President---has happened 3 times, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Almost all of the time, the Electoral vote *magnifies* the popular winner's popular percentage margin. 1876 was questionable: Reconstruction-related local shenanigans, party-line vote on the special commission appointed to decide which competing slates to certify, etc. 1888 was pure: it just happened. 2000: sorry folks, but what happened in Florida could have happened anywhere. Florida was just ill-fated. The margin of victory there was less than the margin for error, which exists everywhere and always will, regardless of the voting system, training, ballot design, computerization, etc. (*Internet* voting: fuggedabout it.)Bulletin: *no final official tally, of a large quantity of votes, is ever **exactly, precisely correct**, anywhere, anytime.* If you "peel the skin" off any large-scale election, you will find, essentially: Florida. The 2000 problem was this: it was just *too close*.

Which is why I feel the Electoral College saved the Republic in 2000. I am no Dubya-ite, believe me. I'm a good Dimmycrat. But we have to have a President declared elected within *some* kind of a reasonable time-frame. Now, (1) Bush didn't steal Florida. Massive detailed news-media & other studies have shown that by almost any statewide recounting methodology, Bush won the state. The Gore-wins scenarios are a big stretch. (Yes, if the Palm Beach County 3% butterfly-ballot screwups had effectuated their intent, then Al would have triumphed; but you just can't judge voter intent based on past voting patterns and probabilities when the ballot itself is clear.)(2) If that election had been decided by national popular vote, *we could still be recounting today*. Every single precinct in the country would have become Miami/Dade, folks. Over 100 million ballots being held up to that overhead light, figuratively speaking of course. Nightmare.

Take this comfort: it's not gonna be that close again for a long time. The Electoral College will revert to its usual exaggeration of the popular winner's margin. Maybe the Big Asteroid will hit before the next Inversion, rendering the matter Moot. (Of course here in CT we won't shut down the polls fer nothin'! Nosirree.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:28 PM

Thanks Nerd, for setting me straight. I was wrong.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:43 PM

Holy Moly, DougR!! Nicely said!! I am saving that one on my hard drive in case I ever have to use it (not likely, but hten ya never know...). Says so much in three words!

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 08:02 PM

Let it not be said that DougR is anything less than a true gentleman--even if we don't agree politically :-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:28 PM

I am always amazed that Mudcatters can manage to disagree so completely about practically anything, and yet hardly anyone flames or resorts to name-calling.

Well, unless you call using the term "liberal" as name-calling. Some conservatives like to think of it as an insult :)

You're right, Pooka, it's not bad, bad Florida. But we learned a couple of important things in 2000. When push comes to shove, we really don't have a solid, consistent plan for dealing with election difficulties -- mostly because we rarely have them. There WAS a plan in Florida, sort of, and it wasn't followed. There was a national plan, sort of, and that REALLY wasn't followed. And we got the real proof that had been lacking up 'til then that certain groups ARE being systematically disenfranchised by the process.

The 2000 election made me angry, but I think too much focus has been put on whether or not TweedleDee or TweedleDum was the legitimate winner, when we've got stuff to fix with the election system. It's great that it works most of the time, but shouldn't we be trying to reduce that margin of error and fix the process so that it works even more of the time?

I know the elections folks try and fix stuff, but they can't do it alone. Practically the whole nation was experts for a few weeks in what can go wrong -- and with the exception of a few places that have been updating equipment and so forth, not a whole heck of a lot has been done to prevent it from happening again. There's a reason why no one keeps important data on punch cards anymore, for heaven's sake!

Hey, *I* know how to improve voter turnout and accuracy. Make the voting machines look like ATMs and stick 'em outside banks. :-D (As long as it's not the new BofA ones that play you a commercial before they'll give you your money!)

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: GUEST,Katlinel
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:10 PM

This has been a really interesting thread, and has firmed up some of the squishy areas of my own understanding of our electoral system.

Thank you everyone...

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: toadfrog
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:40 PM

One further comment on primaries. Up to a certain point - 1968 if I recall correctly - only a few states actually held primaries. In most states, nominees were chosen by conventions, which is to say by professional politicians. In 1968, the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey, whom the Left Wing of the party hated (for reasons which in retrospect were not particularly sound). So there was a great deal of pressure for more primaries and more popular control, and today most (but not all) states use the primary system.

This has had unanticipated results. Candidates nominated in primaries tend to be the most handsome and personable, not the most competent. And as someone already pointed out, the system enables the extreme factions in both parties to control. So does the widespread practice of Gerrymandering, which favors incumbents by allowing them to carve out safe, i.e. partisan districts, so they do not have to please middle-of-the-road voters. In other words, the Left Wing crazies in the Democratic Party assured the triumph of the Right Wing crazies in the Republican Party, and brought us to our present sorry condition.

Federalism, the fact that separate states have separate institutions, is what makes the system so difficult to comprehend. I'm a lawyer; I have to deal with the fact that each state has its own legislation, its own court system, and its own common law. For this reason, I think, American law has very little influence in Commonwealth nations. It's just too hard to grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:44 PM

NicoleCastle: "...but shouldn't we be trying to reduce that margin of error and fix the process so that it works even more of the time?" Yes, exactly; absolutely precisely right. And, we are.

"...to prevent it from happening again." No, not "prevent": deter. Render even more unlikely. If the First Amendment were repealed---God forbid---the first words I would ban from speech are, "We must make sure that this [meaning, whatever] *can never happen again*." That's what I mean by Gnosticism. *Anything* can Happen Again; and to acknowledge this human imperfection is *NOT* to endorse complacency.

"There was a national plan, sort of, and that REALLY wasn't followed." No, it wasn't; and a good thing, too. The national Constitutional plan is that when the Electoral College fails to select a President by absolute-majority vote by a certain deadline, the US House of Representatives shall do so: with **each state having one vote**. How that one vote is determined, it doesn't say. Chaos. You want malapportionment? I got yer malapportionment right heeeah! California one vote; South Dakota one vote. / The 50-50 Senate would select the VP btw. Whether CT's Saint Joe Lieberman could have voted, it doesn't say. :) Yes, the Supreme Court decision was questionable, at best: but better than that National Plan, sez I. (You gotta understand: legally, the United States of America has *no such thing* as a "National Election". It is 51 (D.C., remember) separate state elections. Yell & scream all you want: that *is* what it is. You wanna change it, amend the Constitution. That *only* takes approval by three-quarters of the states. HA!)

"Make the voting machines look like ATMs and stick 'em outside banks." NC, they weren't outside banks; but the "new" touch-screen machines, in FLA and elsewhere, *are* like ATMs, essentially. (They aren't actually new, they've been kicking around for years; but nevermind about that now.) BTW, ever find a mistake on your ATM receipt? No? Some have, I believe. / I'll accept banks as polling places, if you like. But some 'Catters will then start hollering about Bush's Enron or some such damn thing, aah guarr-onn-*tee*.

"....certain groups ARE being systematically disenfranchised by the process." Yes; and that too is being addressed. See CT Senator Chris Dodd's federal legislative proposals. BUT also (again - and please forgive this cold "P.-inC." truth): certain groups need to pay more attention to their own individual members' responsibility to do things like notifying registration offcials when they move; responding to periodic official voter-canvass mailings; meeting registration deadlines; re-registering when felony penalties have been satisfied; etc. Not everything can be taken care of automatically. (Actually, *nothing* can be taken care of "automatically". Think about it.)

Yours for elections which asymptotically approach perfection,

--Pook

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:12 AM

toadfrog: Spot On re primaries. Which suggests there may have been something to be said for nomination by "professional politicans". / But: don't many, if not most, Commonwealth nations have parliamentary systems, hence "short ballots" in "national" elections? Vote for the MP, and that's about it? Compatible with paper ballots & hand counts, if desired. / Not like that in the U.S., *believe* me. We have *lonnnnggg* ballots, in most places. I'm all for the old reliable paper ballot/hand count---provided Americans, with our world-renowned cultural patience & our placid news media, are willing to *wait* for the official results. HA!

btw I believe Gerrymandering is not unique to the US, though the term was coined from the name of a politician from Rhode Island. What *is* a Rotten Borough, anyway? :) In Britain, e.g., it is also possible---and I believe it has occurred, right?---to get a PM whose party, collectively, ran second in the "national popular vote". We're not the only place whose chief executive is chosen indirectly.

Me, I kinda like Eire's multi-member-constituency single-transferable-vote system for electing the Dail. Now *that's* complicated! Full Employment for us Election Bureaucrats, sez I! Up the Eighth Count & Hurrah fer the Transfer Votes! Wot's the word from Dublin Central? Hey, we can wait. Ain'tcha never hoid of Irish Time? :)

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:48 AM

Well, danged. The fact that Florida, under the direction of Jeb and Kate, wiped over 57,000 folks from the voter rolls al of a sudden isn't of interest. Did any other state do that, Heck no. Hmmmmm?

And the fact that most of these were black voters doesn't stink of the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow? Hmmmmmm?

And the fact that these folks were identified by race rather than by Social Security Numbers doesn't smell of more Jim Crow? Hmmmmmmm?

And now folks are gonna say, "Well, it's over and you'all shake hands. And the rest of you go home..." Is that fir real. Hey, if this had been any other state with maybe the exception of Texas, I'd say, "What the heck." but it isn't any other state. It's a state where Junior's brother promised to "deliver" and he *did*.

You all can deny the stuff that happened down there until the cows come home, but you'll never ever convince this ol' hillbilly that that particular election was as rigged as it could be. Between the purging of mostly black voters, the crappy machines in the more predominantly black voting districts, the paid GOONS that were brought in by the Bush team and the massave dough that Bush spent on lawyers, this election will not go quietly into the night.

Hey, like I've said. I don't even like Al Gore. Especially since he was not willing to fight against the screwing he got, but it sure showed that he was no more Presidental material than Bush.

The system is flawed...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:50 AM

Ol' Hillbilly Bobert: (1) Yes, the system is flawed. (2) All systems are flawed. (3) Voter identification by race (in suspect states) is required by federal civil-rights laws. (4) Voter identification by Social Security number is banned by federal privacy laws. (5) Yes, most other states purge people, in large numbers, from voter rolls. This is to prevent fraud, e.g. impersonation & graveyard voting, which when it does occur must also be organized by the Republicans, I'm shure. (6) Yes, urban African-Americans and some other minorities, in all states, are disproportionately impacted by voter-registry purges. This is *largely* (not entirely) because, as a collective group, for complex socioeconomic reasons, they are disproportionately more mobile, domicile-wise; and disproportionately disinclined to reply to official residence canvasses; and disproportionately more subject to disfranchising felony convictions; and so forth. Yes, there is Jim Crow discrimination. But No, it is not the whole story, by any means. (7) Yes, crappy voting equipment is disproportionately located in minority precincts in many states. Municipal economics are involved here; but still this IS discrimination & must be corrected. (8) I believe Uncle Al sent down one or two barristers & spent a couple bucks hisself, too. Hey, quite a bit was at stake, y'know? (9) Notwithstanding that he inherited (from the Mater's side, perhaps) a lot more brains than his brudder Dumbya (which, granted, ain't sayin' all that much), young Jeb ain't *nearly* smart enough to have figured out how to fix that election. Too easy an answer, Bobe. It just happened. Rare confluence of events. Sorry. (10) I don't ever-ever expect to convince ya. Yer a True Believer & Gawd bless yez sir. But actually, yer right: it *was* just "as rigged as it could be." Dang thing is: it *couldn't* be. Too complicated.

Yers fer O'Lieberman in '04,

--Pookert

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: leprechaun
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 09:55 PM

Pooka has a good point. If George and Jeb are so stupid, how did they get to be clever and organized, enough to rig that election with such precision? They apparently knew exactly which voters to intentionally disenfranchise and when. And another damn good idea to get Ralph Nader to siphon off the left-wing kookball vote. And that Supreme Court thing, how clever. By golly, all those judges must have been selected by George Bush and Ronald Reagan. Just think of the timing!

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:20 PM

Sorry, Pooka, I don't think not following the Constitutional guidelines was a good thing. I seem to recall a lot of whining coming from the Bush camp about how Gore was trying to change the election rules, all the while he was trying to wiggle around the system himself. Since the Supreme Court is appointed, not elected, dumping the decision in their laps is REALLY malapportioned.

As you so clearly stated, the SC defied the Constitution, got involved in a state election matter, and these are the folks who are supposed to make sure we uphold the Constitution.

Hindsight, yada yada yada. All that nonsense about recounting this precinct but not that one or this group or suing so that one of 'em can't get recounted was downright shameful. The Florida legislature could have stuck their neck out (it being more their jurisdiction than anyone else's) and take action, but they didn't. The only comic relief was Castro's offer to send election observers :)

I was kidding about the ATMs and the banks. I haven't gotten to use one yet, just pokin' holes in my little yellow card. But seriously, precinct locations are generally lousy, difficult to find and difficult to arrange around work hours. (Oh yeah, I know all about the law with your employer "having" to give you the time off to vote. Hogwash!)

I know that we'll probably never perfect the election process, but we have the technology and resources to have the kind of election accuracy that the founding fathers wouldn't have believed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 12:06 AM

Nicole - very good points. / How a House vote (one-state-one-vote) would have gone, given the rules, is anybody's guess; but yer right, it IS the fallback. / Be very glad the Supreme Court *isn't* elective, though. If it were, it would be 9 Antonin Scaliae. Think about it. Think about what the campaign issues would be. Brrrrr! Direct democracy has its limits.

"I was kidding about the ATMs and the banks. I haven't gotten to use one yet, just pokin' holes in my little yellow card." Given the banning of ol' Hanging Chad, that presumably would be the Optical Scan ballot. It's not bad. Decent compromise. We've field-tested 'em here in CT. Voters & officials like them. Voter-friendly; usable as mail-in absentees; fairly fast count; *acceptably* accurate (nuffin's poifect); and *you can hand-recount them* if ya gotta. Drawbacks: unlike computers & our old mechanical machines, they can't mechanistically prohibit certain voter errors (overvote for the office) nor effectively flag unintentional "undervotes" before it's too late; and tally-wise, their counting devices aren't as readily "linkable" as the fancier computers (touchscreen). But, they're good.

"... precinct locations are generally lousy, difficult to find and difficult to arrange around work hours." Polling-place locations are always great for those who live or work near them, & lousy for those who don't. And, they must change from time to time, especially after redistricting which is constitutionally mandated every decade. What can I tell ya? If your employer is breaking the law, report 'em, dammit. That's un-American. File as a Whistleblower. Tip the newspaper anonymously. 3,000 people were murdered last Sept. 11 by the enemies of democracy. Your bosses can goddamn well let you go & vote, or publicly explain why the Hell not. / 'Scuse me; that pisses me off.

I agree with you about our resources & technology. We're getting there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:12 AM

Nicole - on second look, I'm confused about your "little yellow card" with the holes poked in it. Opticalscan ballot got no holes; that's the point. (So to speak.) You talking about the old punchcards, after all??

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:13 AM

There was an interesting comment (by way of a wry question) on NPR's Weekend Edition:Saturday, "If we can bring free elections to Afganistan why can't we bring them to Florida?"

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:39 AM

Yeppers. Punch cards. In Silicon Valley, no less. Had the same ones when I lived in LA.

Supposedly we'll have updated technology by 2004.

I think that optical scanners are good, but better if the voter can then have the machine scan the ballot so they can check it for errors, or just make sure it's legible.

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 10:56 AM

All systems are flawed (Pooka). Perhaps not all, in a purely technical sense, but those that aren't are flawed in another sense. My point is that a truly fair system can have disadvantages that can make a more or less unfair system being preferable.

You'd have a hard time to find any voting system in Europe that is not unfair (under some circumstances). There is a good reason for that: The unfair systems lead to more stability.

The first German republic (1918-1933) had a completely fair voting system. That led to dozens of small parties in the parliament and to a quick succession of governmental crises. Political commentators have seen this system as one reason for the end of the Weimar republic. And you may remember what came after that republic.

After the war Germany therefore decided (with a glance to Britain) for a system that is not completely fair but has a good chance to lead to stable governments. Chancellor Brandt's Ostpolitik for instance was not supported by the majority of voters but only by a majority in the parliament.

Postwar Italy had a completely fair voting system and had a succession of crises and governments with more different governments than one per year. They looked with envy to the German (and other) voting systems.

Unfairness has not only disadvantages as I could read in some posts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:53 PM

Nicole, punchcards in Silicon Valley: *Hahaha*!. Pretty good. / Then again, maybe you/they know something we don't. Seriously. The big rush to really-computerized voting is ignoring BIGtime potential for HARD-to-detect high-tech fraud. Proprietary source codes, etc. I'll try to post some links re this. Sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease. / But, I gather that CA has a pretty good election system overall. (They sure got a good Sec'y/State website...puts ours in CT to shame...)Hey, but you're a whole huge Nation out there. Of course things take some time :).

Wolfgang: " 'All systems are flawed' (Pooka). Perhaps not all, in a purely technical sense, but those that aren't are flawed in another sense." >Well then, I believe I can rest my case. / Very good points, sir. The "Fair" does not necessarily produce the "Good". (Whew. Bumping up against my Philosophical Ceiling, here...)

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: The Pooka
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 12:17 AM

Here ya go, brother&sister election-freaks: re the other, almost-unheard, side of the Electronic Voting question. (Didn't know it *was* a Question, did yez?:) The first clickie is a summary article; the second one is a whole website by the leading expert computer-nerd opponent of this stuff---who, I was told today, has just been called down to Florida by Janet Reno. Seriously.

Nighmare scenario

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri

Subject: RE: BS: US Election System
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:04 AM

Not many people seem to realise that the UK also has an electoral college system. It's called the House of Commons. The stooge that you vote for or against in your own constituency is really only there to vote for the party leader who is nominated for Prime Minister when the new parliament is convened. Once that process is over, he/she is just lobby fodder whos presence in Parliament is only required when there is a vote on parliamentary motions decided by the party leader, and they really might as well just go away for four years.

A representative of MORI polls came out with a magnificent Freudian slip the other morning on BBC TV news: "President Blair and Tony Bush". The interviewer either didn't notice it or was remarkably self-controlled.

The system which we have in Ireland is broadly similar, but at least the multi-seat proportional representation system gives us the illusion of choice (i.e. which stooge gets to vote for the party's candidate for Prime Minister).