|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 68 of 216:
| 
Nov 10 12:56 UTC 2000 |
what is the normal level of voter error in an election?
What is legally acceptable voter error?
only 8 counties in florida had no change in the recount, and they were
counties with low voter turnout of only 4000 to 6000.
Most had minimal errors of 1 to ten vote changes, some had 50+
The three big changes were
Orange County 1/2% variance
Palm Beach 2% variance
Pinellas 1% variance
if you add in the 19,000 ruined ballots in palm beach it comes out to
something like 4% error rate. Not a great percentage, but enough to see there
are problems here. But this is a local problem that the local people have
to fix. They should vote out those responsible and vote in someone who can
fix the problems.
Even so, 95% of the people in the county were able to figure out how to use
the system and are not concerned with their votes. Should they be held to
the whim of 5% of the people who were to stupid or too ;azy to take the time
to do it right?
What about Imus in New York? He apparently said he made a mistake on his
ballot by voting for two people where he needed to vote for one. Should he
get the chance to recast his vote in New York? How many others in NY made
similar mistakes. How many across the country?
|
gull
|
|
response 69 of 216:
|
Nov 10 15:30 UTC 2000 |
Re #62:
> Why are paper ballots even used anymore these days? It never occurred
> to these people to use computer terminals in the booths, where you can
> just go in and point and click your votes?
--> Think about it. If you punch a paper ballot, there's a physical record
of how you voted. That record can't be changed, because you've physically
made a hole in the ballot. If there's any question, you just re-count the
paper ballots.
If you use a computer, there's no real proof that (a) your vote was
logged correctly, and (b) that it wasn't changed by someone after the fact.
Computerized records are trivial to alter in ways that aren't very easily
detectable.
|
polygon
|
|
response 70 of 216:
|
Nov 10 15:42 UTC 2000 |
Re 64. Literally speaking, the answer is YES. In every partisan primary
in Michigan, in every precinct that uses punch cards, five to ten percent
of the ballots are invalid due to the voter punching holes in more than
one party section. In Detroit, that was a huge number of ballots, much
more than 19,000, and it is part of the reason Detroit doesn't use punch
cards any more.
|
richard
|
|
response 71 of 216:
|
Nov 10 15:47 UTC 2000 |
each county uses different ballots--- the ballots in palm beach
county were flawed, they listed the candidates in one order and the
holes in another. This caused large numbers of people to vote for
the wrong candidate. This is an irregularity. It should be considered
the decent and right thing to do to allow them to re-vote. If the
situation were reversed, the Bush people would be asking for the same
thing.
This only matters because this irregularity swung the election. There
is no evidence that any irregularities anywhere else in the country
directly affected the outcome. These voters in Palm Beach have a right
to have their voices heard. Their right to vote was infringed upon by
a ballot that caused their votes to get mis-recorded.
,
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 216:
|
Nov 10 15:49 UTC 2000 |
oh, and in 1992 and 1996, clinton won the popular vote, so there not
being an electoral college would have made no difference whatsoever.
|
polygon
|
|
response 73 of 216:
|
Nov 10 15:56 UTC 2000 |
Re 72. But at least in 1992, he only got a plurality of the popular
vote.
Here's a cute solution that would keep the Electoral College, avoid
going to the House in plurality cases like 1992, and yet almost always
give the election to the popular vote winner. Create AT-LARGE electors,
the number of them equal to the number of electors in the largest state,
and give them to the candidate who wins the popular vote.
It would still be possible to win the Electoral College without winning
the popular vote, but only under circumstances that would raise questions
about the popular vote winner's inability to win enough states.
|
fitz
|
|
response 74 of 216:
|
Nov 10 16:04 UTC 2000 |
Re #66: Punched cards are indeed already at a dead end, for the technology
is forty-years old. Those districts that have already invested in the
hardware support for punched card voting might have a reason to continue with
the status quo, but I doubt that any governmental entity will ever purchase
punched card ballots for a new system.
One existing alternative is pencil-marked, scannable sheets which are familiar
to all who have taken standardized tests. Polling place scanners can reject
spoilt ballots immediately, election results can be batched at the close of
the polls, and hand recounts are feasible.
|
log
|
|
response 75 of 216:
|
Nov 10 16:17 UTC 2000 |
One big problem with letting the Palm Beach folks vote again
is that they already know how the rest of the country voted.
Maybe the best thing is just to toss out ALL of the votes from
contested areas and let the election stand as it is.
Another unbelievably stupid aspect of this election was giving
the congressional seat to the wife of the dead guy. What kind of
logic is there in that? It should go to his assistant or somebody
that worked under him, who would know what he wanted. I'm assuming,
and correct me if I'm wrong, that with his salary, his wife was
a homemaker. How is she qualified to serve in congress?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 76 of 216:
|
Nov 10 16:22 UTC 2000 |
What I'm really amused about is that *SHE WON*. People knew that that would
be who got the seat, and she won!
|
keesan
|
|
response 77 of 216:
|
Nov 10 17:48 UTC 2000 |
The man ahead of me at Miller Manor (at the special low wheelchair booth,
which was used by three wheelchair occupants while I was waiting), was told
he filled out his ballot wrong (the type with the magic marker) and asked to
do it over, after the machine rejected it. Everyone's ballot was therefore
presumably legitimate with the scanner system.
|
senna
|
|
response 78 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:44 UTC 2000 |
I would have voted for her.
|
log
|
|
response 79 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:49 UTC 2000 |
I think she won because people wanted to vote Democratic
and there was no other Democratic choice. It's too bad that
when we vote we can only vote for one candidate, it would
be better if we could aslo name a second choice, say, "I'd
like candidate A as a first choice and candidate B second."
I don't know, maybe she's qualified, but it just seems
kinda dumb.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 80 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:55 UTC 2000 |
>Another unbelievably stupid aspect of this election was giving
>the congressional seat to the wife of the dead guy. What kind of
>logic is there in that? It should go to his assistant or somebody
>that worked under him, who would know what he wanted. I'm assuming,
>and correct me if I'm wrong, that with his salary, his wife was
>a homemaker. How is she qualified to serve in congress?
So who do you think would know more about his ideas and ideals, and
remain faithful to same--his partner of almost 50 years, or an underling
with political aspirations of his own? And, by the way, being a
homemaker (which she isn't) does not make one an idiot.
|
log
|
|
response 81 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:09 UTC 2000 |
As I said, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe she is qualified.
And I was just waiting for someone to assume that I implied
that being a homemaker is trivial. It's not and I never said
that. You aparantly know more about this situaion than I do
so what does she do?
My point is this, if I'm working on something important and I
die, I'd rather have my coworkers continue where I left off.
My wife, (who is neither a homemaker or an idiot :-) ), wouldn't
know the first thing about my job unless she was in the same
field.
So I'm not knocking her or her husband, I'm just saying the
system doesn't make much sense on the surface.
|
birdy
|
|
response 82 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:25 UTC 2000 |
The reason the ballots in Palm Beach were so screwy, according to the lady
who designed them (paraphrase): "I made them a larger print since I figured
it would be easier for the seniors to read. This must have led to confusion
with the holes for Gore and Buchanen. I'm terribly sorry, and I regret this
mistake."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:39 UTC 2000 |
For those against the electoral college - are you also opposed to state's
rights, and "powers not granted the federal government are reserved to the
states" (that's paraphrased from memory)? The electoral college system
with electoral votes in a state being the sum of their senators and
representatives promotes states rights. This is found in other parts of
the government. For example, two senators per state. *That* is certainly
not proportional to the population. Do you propose to abolish the senate?
Their votes are arguably more important than the popular vote for the
president.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 84 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:40 UTC 2000 |
I respect the fact that she did try to make them easier to read in a place
where that is a necessity.
|
log
|
|
response 85 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:42 UTC 2000 |
no rane
http://www.carnahan2000.com/jean.htm
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:56 UTC 2000 |
What's that URL have to do with the issue?
|
flem
|
|
response 87 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:04 UTC 2000 |
The thing that amuses me about this whole thing is that it brings to light
just how non-rational elections are. I mean, elections, especially
presidential elections, always seem to be prey to tons of completely
irrelevant factors. Big percentage point shift because Gore kisses his wife?
Because Bush has a slip of the tongue? Campaigns are vulnerable to all kinds
of bizzare, random influences, from the weather to the makeup artist to the
speechwriter's girlfriend's dog. How many times have we heard about female
voters being won over by a candidate's looks (the worst part about that kind
of sexism is that it somehow seems *plausible*)? Not to mention all the times
we hear people on TV saying intelligent, rational things like "I'm voting for
X because I trust him." I confess, I was against W. from the start because
he kinda looked like Bobby Ross, who can't seem to win a big game to save his
life. :) We live in a country where it is possible for a newsperson to
say, with a straight face, "This election is going to be about the issues,"
and not only is it not a completely stupid thing to say, it's *news*!
Stuff like this Florida thing is just another brick in the wall, but
a very visible brick that lots of people are making a big fuss over.
As if the elections weren't a nearly random process anyway.
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:43 UTC 2000 |
mrs. carnahan didnt win, her husband did. even though he died, his name
was still on the ballot (it was too late to take it off) The GOP is going
to challenge his posthumous victory on the grounds that, since he was
dead, he was no longer a resident of Missourri and therefore ineligible to
run. Ashcroft, the republican incumbent, was in a bad position, because
he was essentially running against a woman who had just lost her husband
and son, and there were doubtless sympathy votes from folks who felt,
"well she doesnt have a family anymore, so she should at least have a
career" But I heard her interviewed after the election, and she seems to
be a substantial woman-- remember she's the longtime first lady of
missourri-- and I there's little doubt she can do the job.
|
drew
|
|
response 89 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:52 UTC 2000 |
Hey, if dead people can vote in Chicago, why can't a dead person run for
Congress in Missouri?
|
log
|
|
response 90 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:55 UTC 2000 |
I visited congress once when I was a little kid.
I remember being shocked at how few people were
actually there, and at how nobody was listening
to the speaker. Looked like a high school classroom.
|
birdy
|
|
response 91 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:56 UTC 2000 |
'So she should at least have a career.'
I thought she was employed...
Maybe she had the same view on issues as her husband and promised to serve
just as he would. Maybe she actually *earned* the votes. Since I am not a
resident of Missouri, however, I didn't see the ads or read much about it,
so I don't feel qualified to judge it. <shrug>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:56 UTC 2000 |
Wasn't Carnahan buried in Missouri? If so, he is still "resident".
|