[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by chucker In practice, the larger the party, the more diverse views of individual candidates inside it differ. Both the Democrats and Republicans have a very wide range of different and in some aspect incompatible views. There's a reason for those "DINO" and "RINO" terms…

Well, that's why I specified for "voting issues." Obviously no party (and no candidate) will have the exact same view as you on every single issue. While I agree with both parties on some things, and disagree with both parties on some other things, not all of those things are equally important.

And there's also the matter, especially in this election, of control of Congress. While you might disagree with a particular candidate on almost every issue, his membership in the Congress might make the difference when you look at party control, and that's another thing to consider, if that party is mostly aligned with your views on the issues you care about the most.

As an example: there is a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Montana who has strong gun-rights convictions. So should someone who supports more gun restrictions vote for him? Maybe, if it makes it more likely that the Democrats would take control of the Senate and have the opportunity to put more gun restrictions in place. For someone who is a party-line Democrat because gun-control is their most important voting issue, it still might make sense to vote party-line even when the candidate doesn't agree with your stance.

I'm not saying people should vote blindly, or that it works for all issues. But I think party-line voting isn't as mindless as people make it out to be.

[Majost]

Hell, at least they're voting.

[Yonzie]

I just watched Hacking Democracy (thank you google and bittorrent (HBO being quite unreachable here)). Wow. Not that I didn't know it already, but still. It's unfortunate that something like this has to come out on pay-channels. Huge props to Beverly Harris from BlackBoxVoting.

What I don't get is the entire machine thing. In my part of the world we have a piece of paper and a pencil, and we put it in a box. Why do the Americans *need* to use computers to count votes? Even the Optical scan machines... Just look at Windows for crying out loud, people should realize that computers are prone to failure.

With computers, they can break down in all sorts of ways. What's the worst way that a paper-based voting system can break down? The pencils running out of lead (ignoring force majeure like fire and such).

[alcimedes]

The idea behind electronic voting is that it's quickly counted, and you have the original paper sheets to validate the electronic votes. To me this is the best system, but you really need to have the electronic version tied down.

The theory is that exit polling will tell you if the electronic counts are off or not, and in Ohio they were off. Then you're supposed to take a small percentage of sample votes from the paper ballots and check those against the digital total.

In Ohio, there's some questions as to whether or not the "random %" was actually random or not, but then you're getting to election official corruption, which can screw any voting system.

[Yonzie]

Originally Posted by alcimedes The theory is that exit polling will tell you if the electronic counts are off or not, and in Ohio they were off.

And instead of the media blowing the whistle, they just said "Hey, whaddayaknow? Our exit polls, that have been accurate for decades, ain't workin' no more, we might as well stop conducting them..."

[alcimedes]

Yep.

That 2nd amendment is looking better and better after each election cycle.

[Matsu]

I'm confused as to why American jurisdictions would choose a system that is at once more expensive and more vulnerable than good old paper? And all the preceding junk with machines and chads. You all seem to be on a mission to take something that's so damned easy to do well, and fvck it all up.

You don't need anything more than pencils and paper ballots. It works perfectly well all over Canada. Any riding may have 200-300 polls. Each poll is staffed by at least one DRO (deputy returning officer), and a supervisor for every poll location (4-8) polls. Every candidate is free to have a scrutineer present at each poll. The DRO supervises their conduct, and makes sure no partisan materials are present or that any campaigning is going on in that area.

When polls close, the results are counted at each poll. Party or candidate scrutineers watch and may challenge the count if warranted. DRO and supervisor sign the official count. Scrutineers witness. The results are called in to the cheif returning officer, and the ballots bagged, sealed and delivered for follow-up. Within an hour of polls closing we know who's won. Recounts are automatic in close ridings, but rarely required.

Yes, all these people have to be paid, but it's a minor expense (relatively). If cost were really an issue, you could always make it a legal obligation through an act of congress, like jury duty* Then you could get it all done for the cost beer and tobacco money...

*Not really sure what the appropriate legislative body would be in America, but you get my meaning.
In order to defraud such a system you would need thousands of people on the ground in a general election, and dozens if not a hundred or more in any one riding.

This electronic scheme has a certain Wizard of Oz quality I don't quite trust... Not because it is more vulnerable to a concentrated attack -- which it might be -- or because it seems to concentrate scruitineering and authenticating power into fewer hands, which it does. No, but rather because it makes the whole activity more complex than it needs to be, and more costly, in response to a problem itself originating from a more costly and complex than need be method.

Paper, pencils, and people are all you need.

[torifile]

I'm confused as to why American jurisdictions would choose a system that is at once more expensive and more vulnerable than good old paper?

Because you're trying to come up with logical, honest reasons. Move away from the assumption that election officials actually want fair elections and a whole world of possibilities open up. I don't like being this cynical because it is antithetical to my worldview, but I can come to no other conclusion.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by torifile Because you're trying to come up with logical, honest reasons. Move away from the assumption that election officials actually want fair elections and a whole world of possibilities open up. I don't like being this cynical because it is antithetical to my worldview, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I'm talking out of my ass right now, but I'd bet it has more to do with the media. A hundred years ago, it didn't matter if it took 4 weeks to count all the ballots, because that four weeks wouldn't be filled with 4 weeks worth of 24-hour cable-news cycles. Now we're used to finding out who the winner is half an hour after the polls close. Electronic machines could have that down to 30 seconds...

[Matsu]

I've been a part of a few elections. It scarcely takes an hour to count all polls and return the results when using pencil marked paper ballots, and one DRO per poll. Any media lag has more to do with time zones: Eastern polls close earlier than Western polls (3 hours difference from coast to coast).

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by Matsu I'm confused as to why American jurisdictions would choose a system that is at once more expensive and more vulnerable than good old paper? And all the preceding junk with machines and chads. You all seem to be on a mission to take something that's so damned easy to do well, and fvck it all up.

After the FL problems in 00, the country wanted a massive upgrade of its voting system. "Upgrade" = computers, in many american's mind. A federal law passed along millions or billions of dollars to the localities to work on the problem, and many opted for electronic machines. The marketing from the e-vote vendors were very persuasive, and lied about their safety.

Many americans do not believe that the electronic voting machines are more vulnerable than the old system. I will ask for a paper ballot when I go tomorrow, bc I think my district is using Diebold.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by thuh Freak Many americans do not believe that the electronic voting machines are more vulnerable than the old system.

Boy, I sure hope that's not really the case. Maybe I'm just hanging around smarter-than-average Americans.

[Yonzie]

I've known smart americans. Or... maybe not smart per se, more like "wise and cautious". And then I've known americans - grown adults - that thought that Polar bears' favourite food is Penguins...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Yonzie And then I've known americans - grown adults - that thought that Polar bears' favourite food is Penguins...

Really? Down here in Texas everyone knows that polar bears like to hide in potted plants so that they can eat unsuspecting children.

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Boy, I sure hope that's not really the case. Maybe I'm just hanging around smarter-than-average Americans.

Over at AI's PO I've had difficulty convincing some of the members. Near all my flesh-life friends are in the know. But, many americans are ignorant of the concerns. I've written any number of letters to local papers, but I haven't seen that much e-vote press.

[Naderfan]

Well, we'll find out tomorrow! I live in Ohio and found out today that they apparently didn't get my registration. The person I talked to at the county Board of Elections was really nice and told me where to go vote. She said they have an old address for us (or something) but I can try my luck at the polls. I might have to fill out a provisional ballot, but that's probably more reliable than the Diebold machines. Yay for living in Ohio.

Overall, I have severe and deep mistrusts about electronic voting. It just seems so much easier to tamper with an election. Not to mention, what if there are "techincal difficulties" on election day? That would be bad too.

The worst though? All these annoying phone calls I've been getting over the past week! Apparently every candidate running for any position needs me to vote for them. Plus, people supporting every issue on the ballot are calling. And finally, I got a nice little message from First Lady Bush herself. I feel so special.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Yonzie I've known smart americans. Or... maybe not smart per se, more like "wise and cautious". And then I've known americans - grown adults - that thought that Polar bears' favourite food is Penguins...

</rimshot></comedygold>

Polarbears on a Plane!

Hmmm... google reveals an interesting inflatable version.



edit: oh yeah... the voting... paper good. black box without backup bad. Too easy/susceptible to hacks.

[Ghost2]

Voting? Forget that, I think that they should make me the first king of America. I would be a great a terrible ruler. Everyone would adore me and despair.

P.S. Nice Polar bear

[BlueRabbit]

But everyone knows that all bears are Godless killing machines; it would make perfect sense for some of them to swim all the way down to Antarctica to thin out the penguin population.

Oh, and about voting - I'm very thankful for absentee ballots. This entire electronic voting debacle could easily be avoided if everyone just filled out their ballots at home then mailed them in by Election Day. In fact, Oregon started doing this a few years back, and as a side effect voter turnout also increased.