namelesstavern.net

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 727D68.DTL

Maryland is poised to become the first state to approve giving its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to the candidate chosen by state voters.


The plan, passed Monday by the state House, would take effect only if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes adopted the same change.


Some states are considering the move as a way to avoid a scenario in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000.

/applause

I wonder if you would applaud if the outcome had been reversed.

Either way, 49% of the voters for that election were incompetant douchebags.

Tacks wrote:Either way, 49% of the voters for that election were incompetant douchebags.

For this reason the electoral college was implemented.

Except that the electoral college is now merely a rubber stamp to what the individual states already voted.

Originally, there was no requirement whatsoever for electoral votes to bear any resemblance to the popular vote. Electors could vote for whoever they wished, regardless of how the people of the state voted. There was an amendment later that changed this.

Now, since the Electors are merely rubber stamping what the people already voted, I don't see there being much point whatsoever to their continued existence. Just make it a straight popular vote, that way 1 vote from California matters just as much as one from Alaska as one from DC, etc.

-Arlos

Amazing.. I agree with Arlos

The problem is that the executive branch unlike the legislative branch only has one position one person to represent the whole country. The reason our legislative branch has two parts is to have one representative of the population and one representative of states. In this way an overwhelming majority in populated areas does not completely drown out representation of sparse population. When you look at the executive branch however there is only one representative, and the electoral college allows for some representation of lower population areas, not an equal voice, but at least some voice.

Look at this population density map of the country:

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/512popdn.pdf

Now consider an election of the presidency based solely on the popular vote, how concerned is a potential or a president who wishes to be reelected going to really be with the concerns of the western half of the country.

Also consider population by city:



Again consider how much concern the executive branch or candidates will have about the concerns and interests of areas outside of the top five highest population US cities?



Carry the top 5-8 cities in a large majority and the votes and concern for the rest of the country becomes a moot issue.

Basically what would end up happening is that our president would be elected by not the country as a whole, but by the citizens of a few of the highest population US cities. For a branch of government who is supposed to represent a constituency of the entire country this sort of imbalance is unacceptable. Our founding fathers recognized this and took measure to prevent a lack of representation for smaller population areas when designing the legislative branch. That is why there are two parts to congress, on based on representation by population (house) and one base on representation by the states given equal representation (senate). The electoral college provides the same guards for the executive branch, don't be so quick to toss it aside.

moot

On the opposite side of that argument though, as of now we already have a consistent pattern of a couple of "swing" states always being the one to decide the elections. As things currently are, your vote is worth much less in Kansas or Vermont than it is in Florida or Ohio, merely due to the politics your neighbors are likely to have.

You have some good points, but personally I don't think a popular vote is any worse than the current setup is.

Straight popular votes are also MUCH less susceptible to tampering. As digital voting gets pushed on us further and further, the risk will get larger and larger. Someone cooking the books (err computers, teehee) to flip a state's 49/51 vote makes a gigantic difference in the electoral system, not very much so in popular vote.

Whatever your thoughts are on the Bush/Gore mishap, it's just common sense that having a single state (Florida) being the decider of the election while its governor happens to be a candidate's brother, and some of the vote counters happen to be a candidate's campaign workers isn't safe or ideal whatsoever.

brinstar wrote:moot

hehe thanks

Yamori wrote:Straight popular votes are also MUCH less susceptible to tampering. As digital voting gets pushed on us further and further, the risk will get larger and larger. Someone cooking the books (err computers, teehee) to flip a state's 49/51 vote makes a gigantic difference in the electoral system, not very much so in popular vote.

Whatever your thoughts are on the Bush/Gore mishap, it's just common sense that having a single state (Florida) being the decider of the election while its governor happens to be a candidate's brother, and some of the vote counters happen to be a candidate's campaign workers isn't safe or ideal whatsoever.

I hear you there, we need to find a good way to collect and tally votes that is pretty iron clad and not questionable to the point multiple recounts are needed (especially yielding different results). The fiasco in Florida never should have occurred from the recounting to the governor/state court involvement. Florida isn't the only case, this kind of stuff has went on in multiple close races around the country, I don't blame candidates for questioning results and calling for recounts, I blame the framework conditions that allow for there to even be reasonable question.

Electoral validity is an ever-growing problem, the more that we rely on electronic voting machines. Even leaving aside the conspiracy theory elements, it has been proven time and time again that the machines have glitches, and report invalid results. SOme of them have been caught, which is how we know about them. How many were not? Given that very few if any of these machines have an inviolate hardcopy paper trail element, how will we conduct recounts if results are called into question?

I mean, how many problems do people have with computers daily, and how many hardware issues and software bugs are encountered on a day-to-day basis? All these new voting machiens are is specialized computers. Why should we suddenly believe that these are bug-proof and involate, and absolutely trust their results without some independent way of verifying them?

Personally, I think all e-voting machines should be shelved until such time as every vote cast not only results in an electronic tabulation of that vote, but a individual hardcopy that can be checked by the voter before leaving to make sure it matches up with what he or she intended to vote. Blind hardcopy is better than none, but who can say if the hardcopy printed accurately unless the voter can confirm it him or herself?

Again, apart from the conspiracy theory elements, this shouldn't be at all a partisan issue; after all, the validity and integrity of our electoral process is the very heart and foundation of our form of government. If we can no longer trust it, how can we trust that the officials that got put into officer are the ones the people actually elected? And, to add a slight conspiracy element back in, how could we know that someone didn't tamper with them to produce a specific result if there's no paper trail?

-Arlos

I'm not reading all the long paragraghs with big words, because, well, I have to be up in a few hours, but I have an addiction to check the NT before I go to bed.

If we are just going to go by electoral votes anyway, someone please explain to me why then it matters if I go vote. It doesn't, my vote DOES NOT MATTER, because some guy who has a hard on for Bush voted for him even though 53% of the actual real life people who voted in my state voted for Gore.

Because of an amendment to the constitution that states that whatever party received a majority in that state gets to appoint the Electors for that state.

So, if 53% of the people in your state vote Democrat, the Democratic party gets to pick all of the electors for your state. Presumably, they will pick people that will vote for the Democratic candidate.

The reverse also applies.

-Arlos

A bigger problem than voting machines is individual voter fraud, where we see hundreds of thousands of dead people turning out to vote across the country.

It'd be nice to have actual accountability in elections so there isn't the widespread fraud going on.

Have any proof of that assertion there, chief? Everything I've read, everywhere, indicates that such things as you're claiming are basically not happening or if they are, it's a tiny fraction of a percent of the overall vote.

-Arlos

We can track and resolve voting machine issues and there are safeguards.

There were no rigged machines, just a lot of false conspiracy theories repeated over and over. There are plenty of reports of dead people and illegal registrations all over the place.

Voter fraud is tricky, because we do not have good accountability. If you do not accurately count and have measures in place to correctly ID voters, it's a fairly easy thing to defraud. Counties in Florida had over 100% turnout. What an achievement. An urban Pennsylvania area had 112% voter turnout! That's the tip of the iceberg.

The simple truth is liberal voter registration laws and easily tampered with vote-by-mail schemes have the ability to have a much, much bigger impact on elections than a voting machine that is trackable, accountable, and allows for auditing.

I'm all for ensuring voting machines are done in an open and transparent way, and that there are alternatives in place, such as the original ballots fed into machines. However, I'd also like to see the more formidable issue of nationwide voter fraud and 'counter' accountability be taken into place, so that our elections are valid and there isn't a heavy dose of fraud, or even, in some peoples mind, acceptable fraud because it isn't that much.

I don't know how the american election office runs things but is it possible that the areas with 100% or more voter turnout is due to people registering at the polls the day of the election? Using simple numbers, if the day of the vote 100 people are registered, in the end 50 of them turned out, but another 60 showed up and registered it could show up as 110% voter turnout. I have worked in a federal election at the polls and there are a lot of people who sign up the day of the vote.

I just don't get how you can have over 100%, at least in Canada when you vote your name is scratched off and you're given a ballot, this is all supervised by two people to make sure there isn't anything weird and there are no mistakes going on.

Again this is in Canada, but the electoral lists are a bit of a mess, there is no denying that. We had sent out voting cards to people who were dead, some people are registered twice in two different districts but if they're caught voting twice they go to jail.

oh, and just to add an example of the voters list being bad, we had to deal with this little old lady who was in tears because her husband was mailed a voter card, and he had died 5 years before

That's just the problem, Lyion, for most of these machiens there is NO backup, protections, or safeguards. One cluster of machines, they only caught because all of them reported the exact same vote counts, to the number, which is obviously impossible.

You will also note that I said that it's an issue APART from the conspiracy theory stuff you focused on, and that I didn't use at all in my argument. I merely stated that with machines with no hard copy audit trail that it was POSSIBLE for someone to monkey with the results, which is an absolute truth. I make no claim one way or the other as to if it WAS done, just that it is POSSIBLE.

Sure, I'm against all other kinds of voter fraud. But licenses are hardly the sovereign remedy. First, lots of people don't have them, nor can they be forced to if they don't drive, second fake licenses with whatever picture you want on them are HARDLY hard to come by. A political entity with millions of dollars to spend could easily recruit a battalion of multiple voters, and supply them each with a different ID for every voter location. Oh no, displaying licenses is hardly the panacea you make it out to be.

From what I have seen, problematic electronic voting machines were a FAR bigger issue than anythign else last election. There's a non-partisan anti-election-fraud organization that tracks such things. Go here: http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

-Arlos

Ohio votes are done on a paper ballot which is fed into an electronic voting machine. There is the original ballot there in case of a recount.

Many other states do the same thing. The touch screens used in some states have confirmation screens and are fairly accurate from what I've seen.

There are problems with voting machines and they definitely should be addressed, and I believe they are.

My problem is the lack of accountability and ever growing fraudulent votes that we see each year are not being correctly combatted, and I feel based on what I've seen it is a bigger future issue. Snero, many people do not vote, so a precinct going over 100% is a stretch in any regards.

I like what Mexico has done, and I hope we look at implementing a similar voting system that is as fair and proper as possible.

Not entirely accurate on Ohio there, Lyion. Look at the very first entry at that website, and check the link:

Dayton Daily News wrote:Machines record votes inaccurately in tests
Touch-screens failed in more than 24 of 62 devices tested in Montgomery County after voters complained.

By Lynn Hulsey

Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

DAYTON — Voting machines malfunctioned repeatedly during testing Monday as Montgomery County officials responded to complaints that the touch-screen electronic machines inaccurately recorded votes during the November election.

Officials found more than two dozen machines out of 62 tested recorded votes inaccurately; they anticipate finding more problems today when they test another 63 machines.

"I'm surprised the number that we have here," said Mark Radke, director of marketing for voting machine supplier Diebold Elections Systems.

The failures raise concerns that an undetermined number of voters may have cast ballots without noticing the mistakes, said Ellis Jacobs, senior attorney for Advocates for Basic Legal Equality Inc.

Officials believe the machines properly tally the votes recorded, said Steve Harsman, director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections. The problem is that the machines did not always accurately record the vote in the first place.

For example: In the Ohio Supreme Court race the tester touched the edge of the box for Ben Espy and the machine instead marked his opponent, Robert Cupp. In another case a "yes" vote for State Issue 1 repeatedly resulted in the machine recording a "no" vote.

-Arlos

THey are different county to county. The ones up here all use paper ballots fed to machines.

However, the system did work as the voters did notice the problem during their confirmation screens. That article also says officials believe the machines did properly tally the votes recorded.