Thread: Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

Originally Posted by Redrobes

BTW - is election going well. I have another question about that. In our elections we get a election card which we take to the polls. The clerk takes that and finds you on the list then from a thick pad rips off a vote slip / ballot paper and notes down the number of it (from the pad stubs) next to your name on the roster - but the number is also printed on the back of the ballot paper. The vote slip is then punched with a set of holes which somehow authenticate it (or presumably tie it to that polling station and that pad stub) and you vote. Now name and vote slip are tied together so our vote is not anonymous. I read on 'El Reg' today about the US voter clerk who implied that the US one was anonymous. Can you ask whether that is the case or do they have numbered ballot papers like we do ? I always though it sucked that ours wasn't.

It is anonymous... Unfortunately, it is so anonymous that voter fraud is fairly easy to accomplish. In many places, you can show a phone bill (even a cell phone) and register. When you go to the polling location, no one asks for any ID, you tell them your name, the find your name in a book of stickers and ask you to verify your address. However, the address is plainly visible, so there is nothing stopping me from voting as my next door neighbor(s). At least that's how it is in my state(states have a lot of control over how the voting laws are configured.)

Ill quote this from that article - its from a guy who operates the booths at the voter stations.

I have a little speech I give sometimes when people ask why we don't ask voters for identification. I tell them that historically, stringent ID checks and literacy tests have been used to disenfranchise the poor and minorities, we don't do that in Iowa, that's the law.

So I can see both sides of the fence here. But you say that even though you don't have much ID proof, the ballot paper is clean of serial numbers etc. It would seem best to me to have stringent proof that you could get one (and only one of course !) but once that's passed you get a blank slip - not some ID tagged one.

I had the feeling it was just Britain (and other nut job control states) that do this sort of shenanigans.

I'm a UK person in the US so I'm just a fascinated observer. I'll let the actual Americans answer the US electoral questions

Interesting question about the gravity gradients. I'd be surprised if you get much in the way of serious tidal forces outside of the central black hole's immediate vicinity. There are a lot of stars, and so gravity will be much stronger - but in freefall - ie when you are out in space - its only the difference in gravity between two points that makes a difference rather than the absolute value of gravity at a point. It needs to be changing pretty fast for that to have a significant effect and I'd guess that only something as exotic as a black hole will have those sorts of gradients in its vicinity. I know that's awfully hand wavy. If I get a chance I'll have a look at getting you something more precise.

Originally Posted by Redrobes

Ill quote this from that article - its from a guy who operates the booths at the voter stations.



So I can see both sides of the fence here. But you say that even though you don't have much ID proof, the ballot paper is clean of serial numbers etc. It would seem best to me to have stringent proof that you could get one (and only one of course !) but once that's passed you get a blank slip - not some ID tagged one.

I had the feeling it was just Britain (and other nut job control states) that do this sort of shenanigans.

I have no problem with your proposed method, stringent verification of right to vote, followed by anonymous balloting. For example, image you live next to someone who is an invalid, and you know that they cannot get out to vote and failed to fill in an absentee ballot. There is nothing stopping you from going in at 6AM and voting for yourself, and the 7PM going in to vote as your neighbor. Given the long hours of the poll being open, the chance of anyone noticing the same person voting twice is minuscule. And with pretty much non existent ID verification, it would be fairly easy to get away with. Likewise, there is nothing stopping criminals from getting a "free" vote (as Felonies not longer have the right to vote) by doing such as I mention above.

As for poor and minorities being disenfranchised by ID and/or literacy tests, there are many arguments for that. For example, in order for a foreign born national to have the right to vote, they must take a written citizenship test(and pass of course). Is it any more restrictive to hold natural born citizens to the same standard? As for poor, I would ask how the poor are able to function in society without some form of picture ID? At least in my experience, almost every place I have been requires a picture ID in order to write or cash checks, so I assume anyone who has a job would be paid via check and thus would have a picture ID. Even those who are on some form of welfare and have no job would receive said money in the form of a check and thus back to needing some form of ID. Perhaps I am just naive and and vastly misunderstand how many people don't work (for example, those that may be married to someone who does work), but I just can't see the number being that great. AND if there were such a hardship, I would have no problem with the state picking up the tab for the $10 or so it would take to issue such an ID to someone who could not afford it if the result would reduce the chance of voter fraud.

Sorry... I dont want to turn this into a political thread since the goal is to see your super sweet map entry, so perhaps if you want to know more, you can PM me or perhaps open a thread on the general discussion forum.

The system is fundamentally flawed, though better than most of the world. It is my understanding that the electoral college is not obligated to follow the popular vote, though they usually do.

Thats great info - I dont want to get political and its not about policies or candidates but about the gov process on this day. Y'see I tell people all the time that the ballot here is not anonymous and they go "well it was when I did it" etc so eventually I did a walk out, got my voting slip and never voted. This was in a local election which is not so important. So I have the proof and so on this day there is the opportunity to turn the ballot paper over and see because most people take it to the booth put the mark on it and fold it and post it. There's no time to examine it in any detail - unless your looking for something.

Well - lets leave it there for the ballot papers unless anyone thinks differently or can tell me that there is a number on it. I would think in the land of the free that you would get a free vote. We all know full well that were not free over here

I think that I will ask the official who is jotting the number down next time and see what excuse he gives.

Originally Posted by Steel General

The system is fundamentally flawed, though better than most of the world. It is my understanding that the electoral college is not obligated to follow the popular vote, though they usually do.

Yes, but that is fully by design. Let's just say for example that in New York City, LA, Miami, Seattle, and Philadelphia (I just picked a few cities) there are a combined 110,000 registered voters. Now, say that there is a total of 200,000 registered voters combined. With straight popular vote, if the voters in those cites when 100% for a single candidate for President and everyone else voted for the other candidate, 99% of the landmass of the country is totally unrepresented.

From my understanding, the Electoral college is apportioned almost exactly as the congressional seats are so that a State has an equal number of EC votes as they have Congressional representatives. Each state then has laws as to how they will appropriation those votes. Many states simply award the entire portion to whoever won that states popular vote, which gives some of the same effect as you mention. A few states can apportion votes split, ie part of their votes for one candidate and part to another based on the popular vote percentage. In my state, the ruling party recently changed from the first method (popular vote in the state winner gets all) to have the US popular vote winner getting all. Basically, this was a change since most of the presidential elections have gone opposite of their our state ruling parties favor for years. Not really fair, but hey, we elect these bozos. Hell, I would be fine if we could get a stalemate in the House and Senate and keep the whole damn lot from interfering in our lives, regardless of side....

Hmmm... I thought it was based on population as Florida and California have gained some where some of the states in the North East have lost them, but you may be right.

Originally Posted by Steel General

Hmmm... I thought it was based on population as Florida and California have gained some where some of the states in the North East have lost them, but you may be right.

It is based on population. Both Congressional seats and electoral college seats are based on per X people within the state. I cant say for sure that they are the exactly the same, but they are generally very close in number if not identical. As populations move around, states gain or loose both electoral college and congressional seats.