Poll: Voting in the coming election

[InjaYew]

1. America was robbed of a good president in 2000. I remain sorry about that.

2. Talk about your vote not counting, imagine being a Democrat in Alabama. I think the only reason I keep voting, other than it's prolly genetic, is cuz I iz pugnacious!

3. It is my opinion that the American electoral college has added to voter apathy. It really does make one feel like individual votes don't count. I would love to see the college demolished and popular vote election reinstated.

4. Don't be so fatalistic about Bush's so-called re-election. There are over 500 dead Americans who died because the Bush administration insisted on what amounts to an illegal war. Unless this election gets rigged too, then it's highly possible America will have a Bush-free future. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: , and I do hope this time around we have improved our election proceedures nationwide. It was simply an unfortunate circumstance to be in for the nation that tries to be the "police" at elections world-wide.

Looks like things are getting worse!

Perhaps the best thing would be to ask the UN to monitor the vote.


Last Updated: Sunday, 15 February, 2004, 11:04 GMT

Concerns over US computer voting
Richard Black
BBC Science correspondent

Two leading American experts on computer voting have warned that the forthcoming US presidential election could be more chaotic than the last.

They told a Seattle conference that the new systems may be less reliable than those used four years ago.

The issue of voting systems came to the fore during the controversy over ballot papers in the crucial state of Florida.

The question of what really counts as a vote - a clear hole in a ballot paper, or a bulge? - was hotly debated.

About 25% of the US electorate is expected to vote electronically in this year's November presidential election. This is up from around 15% in 2000.

Following the fiasco in Florida, the Bush administration passed a bill called the Help America Vote Act, aimed in part at persuading states to switch to electronic voting.

But Professor David Dill from Stanford University told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the switch may actually make things worse.

"The problem with electronic voting is your votes disappear into the electronic machine and there is no independent way to check that those results are valid," said Professor Dill.

"I know that I am not going to have a lot of confidence in the vote totals reported by those machines unless there is some independent polling or whatever that is consistent with that."

In recent years there has been a spate of disputes over local election results across the US involving voting machines.

There are many different models, and some provide the voter with no record of how he or she has voted - no evidence that the machine recorded the vote correctly.

The Brazil example

Professor Ted Selker, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the meeting that the machines are not sufficiently secure.

He said there could and should be safeguards to prevent anyone tampering with their computer code before and after voting.

Data should be extracted from the machines after voting by someone other than the company which makes them, he continued.

Other countries, notably Brazil, he said, had introduced e-voting with appropriate safeguards and shown that it could work well.

"In the early 90s, they set up a system whereby three different organisations worked together - but they were separate.

"One came up with the requirements, one to make a reference software platform and finally the election commission to evaluate those. And through several elections they came up with better and better voting machines, which regained confidence in the government.

"I believe in our country we should have experts that are separate from the voting companies who are available to improve the equipment and the process of testing them."

[Donut]

BTW - please accept my apologies for using The Brazilian Example whilst discussing Bush! It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[ryaldin]

Originally posted by John D Harris: In the USA there are 50 seperate elections, in each election the popular vote only counts in that election the winner gets the electorial college vote of that state. In early January following the general election of November the electorial college votes, and the President is chosen by that vote!

AFAIK there are many states that don't require the electoral college to conform to the votes of the popular vote of the state. And I'm pretty sure that all of the voting is done on election day, (not counting absentee votes from military personnel who aren't in the country at the time) and the inauguration is done in January.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I strongly dislike the Electoral College. Every time I feel it's time to do away with it, I remember that it was put in place to protect people from their own stupidity while they go through the motions of voting without directly doing so. And I think, "Ah, never mind..."

Seriously, though, I don't see any real reason why we still need such a thing.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by ryaldin: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: In the USA there are 50 seperate elections, in each election the popular vote only counts in that election the winner gets the electorial college vote of that state. In early January following the general election of November the electorial college votes, and the President is chosen by that vote!

AFAIK there are many states that don't require the electoral college to conform to the votes of the popular vote of the state. And I'm pretty sure that all of the voting is done on election day, (not counting absentee votes from military personnel who aren't in the country at the time) and the inauguration is done in January. [/QUOTE]The President is ingagurated 20 January after the election, the electorial college vote is not taken until the House of Reps. comes back in session in early January, see US Constitution. Some States, as per US Constitution: State legislatures decide, have 10 days to count votes and cerifty, some have 2 weeks some have up to a month. Each State decides what the laws are concerning the electorial college vote, if the electorial college voters can change or cross over. As per the US Constitution popular vote doesn't mean squat it's the electorial college that counts.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I strongly dislike the Electoral College. Every time I feel it's time to do away with it, I remember that it was put in place to protect people from their own stupidity while they go through the motions of voting without directly doing so. And I think, "Ah, never mind..." Seriously, though, I don't see any real reason why we still need such a thing.

The US Constitution provides for a way to change it, the only other way to change it is a revolution.

[John D Harris]

[quote]Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:

Every time they recounted, Al Gore 'acquired' more votes. And they halted the recounting. WHY?! Something did not compute in my mind, and it seemed to me that some of the judges were not exactly impartial. And I'm not just saying that because a few were appointed by Daddy Bush... Give me a few days.. I need to look for my information.

Interesting, I couldn't help but notice the words "AL Gore picked up enough votes to pass George W. Bush" are missing from your post. SO I'LL REPEAT no major creditable news orginization that went down to Florida and did their own independant count of vote came to the conclusion that Al Gore won. Period end of story. Al Gore has not and did not take the oath of office of the President of the Unitied States of America George w. Bush did. People can conplain, piss'n moun, scream to the mountain tops for all I care, personally I'm glad many libs are still living in the past, it just means they are not looking to the future. What's the old saying about putting your hand to the plow then looking back

Edit: while you're looking at the impartialaliy of the Judges don't forget to look at the ones appointed by the Clinton/Gore administration. Unless of course impartialiy only works in one direction.

[ 02-17-2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: , and I do hope this time around we have improved our election proceedures nationwide. It was simply an unfortunate circumstance to be in for the nation that tries to be the "police" at elections world-wide.

Looks like things are getting worse!

Perhaps the best thing would be to ask the UN to monitor the vote.


Last Updated: Sunday, 15 February, 2004, 11:04 GMT

Concerns over US computer voting
Richard Black
BBC Science correspondent

Two leading American experts on computer voting have warned that the forthcoming US presidential election could be more chaotic than the last.

They told a Seattle conference that the new systems may be less reliable than those used four years ago.

The issue of voting systems came to the fore during the controversy over ballot papers in the crucial state of Florida.

The question of what really counts as a vote - a clear hole in a ballot paper, or a bulge? - was hotly debated.

About 25% of the US electorate is expected to vote electronically in this year's November presidential election. This is up from around 15% in 2000.

Following the fiasco in Florida, the Bush administration passed a bill called the Help America Vote Act, aimed in part at persuading states to switch to electronic voting.

But Professor David Dill from Stanford University told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the switch may actually make things worse.

"The problem with electronic voting is your votes disappear into the electronic machine and there is no independent way to check that those results are valid," said Professor Dill.

"I know that I am not going to have a lot of confidence in the vote totals reported by those machines unless there is some independent polling or whatever that is consistent with that."

In recent years there has been a spate of disputes over local election results across the US involving voting machines.

There are many different models, and some provide the voter with no record of how he or she has voted - no evidence that the machine recorded the vote correctly.

The Brazil example

Professor Ted Selker, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the meeting that the machines are not sufficiently secure.

He said there could and should be safeguards to prevent anyone tampering with their computer code before and after voting.

Data should be extracted from the machines after voting by someone other than the company which makes them, he continued.

Other countries, notably Brazil, he said, had introduced e-voting with appropriate safeguards and shown that it could work well.

"In the early 90s, they set up a system whereby three different organisations worked together - but they were separate.

"One came up with the requirements, one to make a reference software platform and finally the election commission to evaluate those. And through several elections they came up with better and better voting machines, which regained confidence in the government.

"I believe in our country we should have experts that are separate from the voting companies who are available to improve the equipment and the process of testing them." [/QUOTE]Don't hold your breath that the UN will get to monitor any US elections

[Timber Loftis]

For those of you who are against the electoral college, try to remember that it is a result of the Great Compromise. This compromise between and among the states resolve the issue of small states vs. big states. The small population states didn't want a system based solely on population, where the large populations states could have too much power. The large states didn't want their many people being dominated by a much smaller amount of people in the small states.

The result was a system where 2 legislative branch houses were created to balance each other -- one in which each state had equal representation, and one where states were represented based on population. This compromise was absolutely essential in getting the states to form a union and is therefore a central concern in our system of government.

This type of compromise later carried over into other aspects of the system, including the electoral college. We cannot do away with the electoral college. The states simply will not allow it. Opine on it all you want, but in the end you've got to accept the things you cannot change.