Election Methodologies Discussion WARNING: HERE BE DRAGONS!!!

[Redrobes]

<snip>

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.

[torstan]

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.

[CC_JAR]

I would honestly like to see congress open up and have open votes online where any american legal to vote, could vote on issues that congress goes through.

that way, the ordinary people have even more of a say in what they feel is important, they can vote their opinion on whichever topics they feel influenced by.

[jfrazierjr]

I would honestly like to see congress open up and have open votes online where any american legal to vote, could vote on issues that congress goes through.

that way, the ordinary people have even more of a say in what they feel is important, they can vote their opinion on whichever topics they feel influenced by.

Errrr, I believe that to be a good idea in concept, but a horrible idea in implementation. The problem is that bills are not just as simple as "Raise taxes on the rich", "cut taxes for everyone", etc. Pretty much every bill comes up with like: "cut taxes on everyone, but every forth person gets a tax increase, and every 9th person gets shot". Likewise, how many people would vote no to the financial bailout package because they percieve it as a way to save "rich" bankers. Granted, I did not support the bailout package, but it had no basis in either political affiliation, nor with class hatred against millionaires. Frankly, I want the government to have less hand in my pockets and life, not more.

Political adds a such a crock... "my opponent voted no for bill xyz", however, no one explains that the person voted no to the bill that would save the endangered doodo bird from extinction because it would cost 20000 people their jobs. It's kind of like asking someone if they would be willing to be shot in the foot for $1000. Very few people would willingly let themselves be shot, but many would for money.

On the same note, the ignorance of many people to vote one way or another based nothing more than liking how a candidate looks or who their parents voted for or what they say they want to do without looking at exactly what they have done in the past is frightening. To be honest, in my adult life, I have never voted FOR any one particular person for President, I have always had to vote against another. For me, it has always been the lesser of two evils, I have held my nose as I marked tbe ballot.

I find it disheartning to see things like the Tonight Show's Jaywalking where Leno walks around asking various people questions and just how ignorant the people are. It's just sad that people who have no idea about history, economics, taxation, etc could in good conciense vote.

Please note, none of what I say should be taken in an inflamitory way. I truely am sad to see people vote for a particular candidate without knowing and understanding what the candidate stands for regardless of political affiliation. I would much rather those people, Republican and Democrats just stay home. Or better yet, look beyond the hype and your parents preferences and investigate the issues, ALL the issues and make an informed vote on things that will help your town, county, state, country, and not just as those that you percieve will help yourself. To understand what I mean by that, let's go back to my gun arguement. How many people would take $10000 if it meant someone ELSE, whom you do not know, had to be shot in the foot? Suddenly, when it's not you, people tend to become a lot more willing to let someone else get the shaft.

[CC_JAR]

Errrr, I believe that to be a good idea in concept, but a horrible idea in implementation. The problem is that bills are not just as simple as "Raise taxes on the rich", "cut taxes for everyone", etc. Pretty much every bill comes up with like: "cut taxes on everyone, but every forth person gets a tax increase, and every 9th person gets shot". Likewise, how many people would vote no to the financial bailout package because they percieve it as a way to save "rich" bankers. Granted, I did not support the bailout package, but it had no basis in either political affiliation, nor with class hatred against millionaires. Frankly, I want the government to have less hand in my pockets and life, not more.

Political adds a such a crock... "my opponent voted no for bill xyz", however, no one explains that the person voted no to the bill that would save the endangered doodo bird from extinction because it would cost 20000 people their jobs. It's kind of like asking someone if they would be willing to be shot in the foot for $1000. Very few people would willingly let themselves be shot, but many would for money.

On the same note, the ignorance of many people to vote one way or another based nothing more than liking how a candidate looks or who their parents voted for or what they say they want to do without looking at exactly what they have done in the past is frightening. To be honest, in my adult life, I have never voted FOR any one particular person for President, I have always had to vote against another. For me, it has always been the lesser of two evils, I have held my nose as I marked tbe ballot.

I find it disheartning to see things like the Tonight Show's Jaywalking where Leno walks around asking various people questions and just how ignorant the people are. It's just sad that people who have no idea about history, economics, taxation, etc could in good conciense vote.

Please note, none of what I say should be taken in an inflamitory way. I truely am sad to see people vote for a particular candidate without knowing and understanding what the candidate stands for regardless of political affiliation. I would much rather those people, Republican and Democrats just stay home. Or better yet, look beyond the hype and your parents preferences and investigate the issues, ALL the issues and make an informed vote on things that will help your town, county, state, country, and not just as those that you percieve will help yourself. To understand what I mean by that, let's go back to my gun arguement. How many people would take $10000 if it meant someone ELSE, whom you do not know, had to be shot in the foot? Suddenly, when it's not you, people tend to become a lot more willing to let someone else get the shaft.

I'm not sure, but you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Now true, I believe most people should research anyone/thing they are voting for, or not vote if they have no idea (and are just going on preference).
But what I was trying to say was that anyone that felt the urge to vote on bills that pass through congress, could have their say about it, rather than just calling/writing our senators like it is now.

And when it comes to media.. my views on that may be a little extreme (heh, yeah little) But I would like it, if the media would either shut down for the 3-4 months before elections, or just keep their opinions out of it.
There is too much 'telling us what we do/n't want to hear, and too little telling us where they stand, and what they'll really do in office'.

[Karro]

I'm not sure, but you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Now true, I believe most people should research anyone/thing they are voting for, or not vote if they have no idea (and are just going on preference).
But what I was trying to say was that anyone that felt the urge to vote on bills that pass through congress, could have their say about it, rather than just calling/writing our senators like it is now.

And when it comes to media.. my views on that may be a little extreme (heh, yeah little) But I would like it, if the media would either shut down for the 3-4 months before elections, or just keep their opinions out of it.
There is too much 'telling us what we do/n't want to hear, and too little telling us where they stand, and what they'll really do in office'.

If the Media shut down during the 3-4 months before elections, how would we research anyone/thing before voting on it? The media is the means by which information is disseminated. (Opinion masquerading as Media Journalism is a different problem, and one that is probably intractable.)

Furthermore, if the Media shut down during the 3-4 months of an election, how would we be able to tell when those who are running for office are lying to us? The fact-checking alone is an invaluable service.

The democratic process breaks down completely with a free and independent news source.

Instead, I think, at least in America, Americans should seek out a variety of news sources, to ensure that they are getting at the facts, and not just reading Opinion Masquerading as Journalism.

[Edit] In your last sentence, it sounds like your problem is the depth and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Candidates' campaigns, statements, and campaign promises. Again, this has little to do with the Media. Ideally, an independent news media only reports what the Candidates are saying. Without a national news media, a candidate can go to one place and make one fatuous promise or statement, and then to another and make a completely different, even contradictory statement, allowing him/her to be elected on a fractured foundation built on lies and/or intentional deceit. We wouldn't hear a word of what they'd "really do in office" if we didn't have a national news media that had the ability to fact check the candidates and call them out when they are being deceitful. (I believe this is largely what brought down McCain's campaign--as you say too little talking about policies and specific plans, and too much... well... I'll let you decide what there was too much of.)

Generally, that's why we have the Debates (which are disseminated via the Media)... it's a forum that forces the candidates to talk about the issues and debate specific policies.

[CC_JAR]

If the Media shut down during the 3-4 months before elections, how would we research anyone/thing before voting on it? The media is the means by which information is disseminated. (Opinion masquerading as Media Journalism is a different problem, and one that is probably intractable.)

Furthermore, if the Media shut down during the 3-4 months of an election, how would we be able to tell when those who are running for office are lying to us? The fact-checking alone is an invaluable service.

The democratic process breaks down completely with a free and independent news source.

Instead, I think, at least in America, Americans should seek out a variety of news sources, to ensure that they are getting at the facts, and not just reading Opinion Masquerading as Journalism.

[Edit] In your last sentence, it sounds like your problem is the depth and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Candidates' campaigns, statements, and campaign promises. Again, this has little to do with the Media. Ideally, an independent news media only reports what the Candidates are saying. Without a national news media, a candidate can go to one place and make one fatuous promise or statement, and then to another and make a completely different, even contradictory statement, allowing him/her to be elected on a fractured foundation built on lies and/or intentional deceit. We wouldn't hear a word of what they'd "really do in office" if we didn't have a national news media that had the ability to fact check the candidates and call them out when they are being deceitful. (I believe this is largely what brought down McCain's campaign--as you say too little talking about policies and specific plans, and too much... well... I'll let you decide what there was too much of.)

Generally, that's why we have the Debates (which are disseminated via the Media)... it's a forum that forces the candidates to talk about the issues and debate specific policies.

Ok, I was being a little over-exaggerative there.. more truthfully of what I'ld like/ what I meant is,

The media's affiliations should have nothing to do with how they cover the candidates and the topics they cover.

If you noticed in this election, everytime they talked to/about Obama, they held him up on a pedestal (oh god, it's so historic, the first black prresident! ...or possibly female vp..) and everytime they talked to/about McCain they would grill him on all the tough questions!

Where were those tough questions for Obama!? I watched the debates, neither candidate ever gave a clear answer to any question asked!

[jfrazierjr]

Karro, as a follow up to your post 17, I have always been in favor of the 17th Amendment being kicked to the curb. Being more of a states rights person myself, I would have no problem with a system whereby the Senators were appointed to protect the rights of each individual state rather than by the people's popular vote. This method worked fine for 130+ years. Ah well.. I can keep dreaming...

[Korrigan]

If I can allow me to put the focus back to the primary subject (which was, I think, electoral system)...

I'd like to give you a hint of how things are done in my small country...

In Belgium, voting is not a right, it's a duty. Every person over 18 y.o. has to go voting, not to vote being a crime. Each voter gets a summoning around 1 month before the election day telling you where you have to vote. On the D-Day (which is ALWAYS a sunday, so that fewer people are working) you go to the voting place (primary schools - always), give your ID to the official (BTW what's that about picture ID and non-picture ID - we all have the same ID, here) who marks your name in the list, then you receive your ballot paper - which is free from all personal marks - and vote.

Any ballot paper bearing personal marks such as name, adress,... is disqualified and counts as a blank vote (you have to go voting but can decide to vote for no one, here).

Political system here is fully representative (there is no "winner takes all", representation is proportional). We have 4 major parties (socialist -means left wing but not communist-, liberal -means right wing, not progressist-, ecologist and catholic -called humanist now, cause they want to free from religious references) and a lot of others who don't get more than 2% of the votes. Parties must then negociate and form coalitions to have a majority.

I'll pass on language-related issues, our country having three official languages (french, dutch and german), but the northern part (dutch speaking) and the southern part (french and german-speaking) have different parties - 4 to the south and 5 to the north (they have a major extreme-right party there).

The system is far from perfect, but it kinda works...

We are coming back from electronic voting. We bought it cause politicians told us it was safer, cheaper and faster than paper votes. It comes now that there are more frauds and errors, it is 4 times more expensive and we only gain two hours for the results. I prefer the good old paper ballot, seems more democratic to me (there are a chosen number of independent citizens and parties witnesses to do the counting, and democratic control is purely impossible with the computer assisted method).

Well, I think it is almost all. I thought it could be interesting to have the point of view from a European citizen on how things work here. It's fairly different because of two major differences : 1 We have a much much much smaller country, with as many inhabitants as in NY. 2 We don't have the same political culture.

I hope it interested you (anyway you didn't have to read it if it didn't ;-) ) and it was understandable (my english isn't as good as I would want it to be - especially for such technical matters)...

If you have any question don't hesitate - I love talking about politics...

[Karro]

If I can allow me to put the focus back to the primary subject (which was, I think, electoral system)...

I'd like to give you a hint of how things are done in my small country...

In Belgium, voting is not a right, it's a duty. Every person over 18 y.o. has to go voting, not to vote being a crime. Each voter gets a summoning around 1 month before the election day telling you where you have to vote. On the D-Day (which is ALWAYS a sunday, so that fewer people are working) you go to the voting place (primary schools - always), give your ID to the official (BTW what's that about picture ID and non-picture ID - we all have the same ID, here) who marks your name in the list, then you receive your ballot paper - which is free from all personal marks - and vote.

Any ballot paper bearing personal marks such as name, adress,... is disqualified and counts as a blank vote (you have to go voting but can decide to vote for no one, here).

Political system here is fully representative (there is no "winner takes all", representation is proportional). We have 4 major parties (socialist -means left wing but not communist-, liberal -means right wing, not progressist-, ecologist and catholic -called humanist now, cause they want to free from religious references) and a lot of others who don't get more than 2% of the votes. Parties must then negociate and form coalitions to have a majority.

I'll pass on language-related issues, our country having three official languages (french, dutch and german), but the northern part (dutch speaking) and the southern part (french and german-speaking) have different parties - 4 to the south and 5 to the north (they have a major extreme-right party there).

The system is far from perfect, but it kinda works...

We are coming back from electronic voting. We bought it cause politicians told us it was safer, cheaper and faster than paper votes. It comes now that there are more frauds and errors, it is 4 times more expensive and we only gain two hours for the results. I prefer the good old paper ballot, seems more democratic to me (there are a chosen number of independent citizens and parties witnesses to do the counting, and democratic control is purely impossible with the computer assisted method).

Well, I think it is almost all. I thought it could be interesting to have the point of view from a European citizen on how things work here. It's fairly different because of two major differences : 1 We have a much much much smaller country, with as many inhabitants as in NY. 2 We don't have the same political culture.

I hope it interested you (anyway you didn't have to read it if it didn't ;-) ) and it was understandable (my english isn't as good as I would want it to be - especially for such technical matters)...

If you have any question don't hesitate - I love talking about politics...

Making it illegal not to vote would never fly here in the U.S. Regardless of whether you had to choose a specific candidate or not, requiring people to vote would be considered as much of a strike against civil liberties as refusing a legitimate voter the opportunity to vote--maybe even more so (vis-a-vis the attempts by one party or another to try to suppress the get-out-the-vote efforts of the other party or to challenge new registrations, etc.)

It is interesting to learn about how other countries do it.