


Election Day May Go Away... In Florida 92
That's Unpossible! writes "The Orlando Sentinel is reporting about a proposed change to the way Florida will run future elections. Due to the popularity of this year's 'advanced voting' trial run, it seems likely that the voting process can be streamlined by spreading it out over two weeks, allowing people to vote when and where they can. 'Fewer polling places would reduce the number of voting machines and would require fewer poll workers, which could cut salary and training costs. It also would reduce the chances of human error and electronic glitches, supervisors said.'"
Nothing really new (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing really new (Score:4, Funny)
"Vote democrat"
I got a reply:
"Nothing happens."
With a footnote that to keep playing the VBM I had to pay the monthly fee.
Re:Nothing really new (Score:1)
Re:Nothing really new (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Nothing really new (Score:2, Funny)
Think of the children! (Score:4, Funny)
human error and electronic glitches (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
If you have a running exit poll every day for 2 weeks of "how the election is going" thatv is going to effect how people vote. It may not change your or my decision, but a surprising number of people vote on trivial reasons like "wanting to vote for the winner", and hence knowing who is head right now makes a difference. At the same time there are all the people who will be discouraged from voting because they think their person is already fated to lose/win. It has the potential to seriously mess with the numbers in strange ways.
Jedidiah.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
As for people who would be discouraged from voting because their person's fate is decided, this is one of the reasons I hate the electoral college. That's happening already and happening all the time. For the past 4 years I've rolled my eyes whenever some liberal dishes out the "gore won the popular vote" line (and it looks l
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Most estimates put the election 2000 vote loss for Bush in Florida at between 15 and 20 thousand when CBS called the state for Gore while the polls in the strongly conservative panhandle were still open.
Personally, I'd just as soon see the state legislatures show some backbone and follow their con
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I'd have the opposite reaction "hey he's losing, he NEEDS my vote more than ever".
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
With only one day to vote, I'd agree. (Score:2)
I can see this increasing the voter turn-out. Particularly because there would be 2 weekends in the 2 weeks of voting.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
The even bigger concern is say, an abusive o
This could be a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I, for one, have to question the idea of reducing the number of poll workers. Doing so may increase the possibility of error, as well as provide more potential for someone to mess with the system.
On the other hand, I think that requiring the polling places ot be open on weekends as well as weekdays should improve voter turnout, since currently, a lot of people can not seem to get away from work to go vote.
To
Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Is democracy damned when people don't vote? The damned view believes that non-voters don't have fate in the system. On the other hand perhaps these people think everything is just fine.
But would spreading voting out over more then a day really help? Those who "forget" to go would still forget and you would also miss the effect of having voting day. One clear day on wich everyone knows that today is the day to vote with everyone remembring people around them.
Sure sure economic effect of people taking an hour of to vote (or even a day). So what? Cost of doing business. If a company really really needs all its people there let it open a polling boot inside.
Also would candidates still be banned from campaigning during the entire two weeks?
As for mistakes and cost of salaries. Well now the ballot boxes have to be guarded for 1 day. The staff needs to be paid for 1 day and only take 1 day of from their day job. You just increase the cost because now the polling station has to be guarded for 14 days and nights. The cost for foreing volunteers to observe the elections also goes op (hmmm might US elections not withstand foreign scrutiny?)
Few polling stations? Oh goodie, means longer distances to travel. No problem for the rich and middle classes but poorer people might have to spend more money they don't have to get to their polling station. Isn't the entire idea of having so many stations to make them easily accesable to everyone?
Lets review
Is it really that much of a problem to go and vote?
Re:Weird (Score:3, Interesting)
Before computers, this would have been a tall order. Now it's realistic, if not easy. One national database, one PKI set, and no more chads or impounded ballots or fraud of any kind. Everybody wins, and most importantly, it'll probably drive the cost of holding elections way down.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Informative)
Elections in the U.S. are required to be secret, to prevent vote-selling, among other things. It's also illegal to force people to present credentials to vote - because, among other things, this was used to prevent black people from voting in the South during the heyday of Jim Crow laws.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
PKI would allow secrecy...? Maybe I am misunderstanding your post.
>>It's also illegal to force people to present credentials to vote - because, among other things, this was used to prevent black people from voting in the South during the heyday of Jim Crow laws.
I thought I heard about people being required to show not one but *two* forms of ID in the last presidential election
Re:Weird (Score:2)
You've sold me. In fact, why just 2 weeks? Let's make it 2 years!
Re:Weird (Score:2)
What media-free non-polarized nation are you living in? The 2004 U.S. Presidential election voting day was better known this year to Tuareg camel caravaners in the remotes of the Sahara than it was in Washington D.C. in 2000.
Reducing electronic glitches (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reducing electronic glitches (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm. Diebold machines are windows machines. They run MS Access as the database too.
Scary, I know.
Re:Reducing electronic glitches (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reducing electronic glitches (Score:2)
Cover for problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Malarky. Having fewer voting centers would not guarantee fewer 'electronic glitches'. On the contrary, it could exacerbate the problems.
If you haven't checked recently, you need to catch up on what's happening in Florida [blackboxvoting.org]. Also interesting is that apparently Keith Olbermann is under extreme pressure to lie about Bev Harris [msn.com] of BlackBoxVoting.org, likely by TPTB. Probably to discredit Keith and Bev as he basically in the only one in the media that had any fortitude to actually perform a proper media role in questioning the elections voting integrity.
Window for fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
Continuous voting (Score:5, Interesting)
This could be a step towards continuous voting [basiclaw.net]:
I'd probably prefer a condorcet-style ranked election method over the plurality method outlined on the page cited above, however.
Re:Continuous voting (Score:5, Interesting)
At the base level it is a direct democracy on every issue. For every issue, every bill, everyone gets a vote, one vote per person. Of course most people don't care to follow every issue, nor take the time to vote on them. That's okay, because under this system you can pass your vote on to a proxy, who will vote for you. You can nominate anyone as your proxy - your wife, your brother, some professor you happen to think is intelligent and informed, or a politician who campaigned to get your proxy. In turn, the person with your vote can pass their (and all the votes of the people who nominated them as a proxy) on to yet another person. This essentially amounts to a concentration of votes into a small number of representatives - their voting power weighted by the number of people they are the effective proxy for. As you can see, keeping track of that tree of proxy voting requires some computing power, especially given that anyone can change their proxy at any time.
Now, besides being able to change you proxy at any time (so there are no fixed terms, no fixed voting days to decide representatives), you can also, at any time, recover your vote. That means that if some issue does arise that you do have an interest in, you can, if you choose, cast your vote individually on that particular issue yourself. This can happen at any level of the proxy tree, so if you gave your vote to your brother, who in turn passed it on to some politician, your brother can recover and vote for both himself and you (unless of course you recover your vote). This means that you can always be sure that your vote goes the way you want, regardless of what your upstream proxy believes, on any issue you care about.
The two major problems with this system that I can see are implementation, and getting such a thing instituted. To track all the votes, and allow anyone to cast their vote individually requires a strong secure network with some powerful mainframes to keep the tallies. Implementation is far from trivial. At the same time, this isn't a system that can evolve naturally from current systems, it would require a ground up restructuring of whatever democracy decided to implement it - it's a revolutionary rather than evolutionary change. That means, realistically, it won't be implemented by any current modern democracy, but instead possibly by some future newly formed democratic republic.
Jedidiah.
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2, Insightful)
'At the same time, this isn't a system that can evolve naturally from current systems...'
The proxy/recovery approach you describe could probably be applied in other contexts. (Investment decision-making comes to mind, but it might not be a terribly good example.) Once the technology is proven for other applications, adapting it to function as the decision-making process of a large political system would probably be an easier task.
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2)
True, but realistically I see it as more likely that such a system might get instituted somewhere small, or in an emerging democracy, and after having proved itself
Re:Continuous voting (Score:1)
The recoverable part is, in my notably inexpert, opini
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2)
How do you avoid votes being bought?
And how do avoid a reversal of power? In other words, how do you avoid that you empowering your proxy doesn't give him the power to coerce you to make him your proxy? The anonymity of the voter is a very important part of democracy.
See, it's not like you couldn't vote in "Communistic" countries. In some, there were even other parties, or you could elect any person you like. But you may guess what will happen, if y
Re:Continuous voting (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you avoid votes being bought?
By lack of assurance that you get what you pay for, just like the current system.
And how do avoid a reversal of power? In other words, how do you avoid that you empowering your proxy doesn't give him the power to coerce you to make him your proxy? The anonymity of the voter is a very important part of democracy.
There's no reason to eliminate anonymity here - not unless the central server keeping track of eve
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2)
As to the coercion issue, just don't tell the proxy, anywhere along the chain, when a person has decided to recover their vote. Just give the proxy a "Vote this way for all votes assigned to me" button, but no access as to how many they -do- have or whose they are. Under the current system, someone can -try- to force you to vote for candidate X, but they can't go into the voting booth with you. (Even if you say you want them to.)
The core principle, in both cases, is that if someone tries to coerce you, the
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2)
Jedidiah.
Re:Continuous voting (Score:2)
Personally I don't like this system, because people are way to quick to say somebody is guilty without allowing them
But . . . (Score:2)
Re:But . . . (Score:2)
Re:But . . . (Score:2)
Then, there's the old machine politics. Let's face it, the issues we're facing now in terms of voter fraud are nothing new in this country. However, I think the trend to increas
Re:But . . . (Score:2)
Fewer Polling Places? WTF!! (Score:4, Insightful)
In Ohio, some people waited up to 9 hours to vote. We need more polling places, more machines and more poll workers, not less. While I'm all for a 2 week voting period, using one as an excuse to reduce the number of machines and locations is insane. What about people who have a hard time with transportation? Will they no longer be able to go to their local polling place? Will we just cut out polling places in poor areas or rural areas, tell those folks they've got 2 weeks to go stand in a long line miles from home to exercise their Constitutional rights?
This is only a solution if it increases overall availability of the polls to all voters, anything less smells of poll taxes and literacy tests.
Reducing election burdens (Score:1)
Re:Reducing election burdens (Score:1)
Or we could go one further and just let the companies that make the voting machines pic..oh wait..
Re:Reducing election burdens (Score:2)
Re:Reducing election burdens (Score:2)
Re:Reducing election burdens (Score:1)
Oh! Stop! Please! Your rapier wit is killing me!!!
Hmmm, I wonder what laws cover that. (Score:3, Informative)
For the presidential election see the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 4.
That's for Electoral College votes (only 538 of those each election). So I guess it depends on if Congress has enacted a law which would prohibit the states from using that as the "Time of chusing the Electors" (that's what we do on election day) or not. There is a similar statement covering the two houses of Congress. I'm not familiar enough with Federal Election laws to be sure what if any limits Congress has passed covering this. However, I'm guessing it's not incredibly illegal otherwise Florida couldn't have done it this year. Presumably, it's the same provision that makes Absentee ballots legal. I know several people who voted early in Nebraska (where I live). One I believe was thru a local polling place that accepted absentee ballots early when given in person.
Kirby
Re:Hmmm, I wonder what laws cover that. (Score:2)
And, IANAL, but maybe that "Day" could be interpreted to be the day that votes are counted, whenever they were cast up till that Day.
Re:Hmmm, I wonder what laws cover that. (Score:2)
Also, there was a Supre
Fewer polling places may not be that good an idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are reasons 100% uptime computer systems use redundency all over the place. Spreading the voting over time adds redundancy, but if they are expecting this to save money, then I bet they plan to cut the number of polling places so that the removed redundancy is greater than that added by the longer term.
The last thing we need is for this to actually put MORE possibility of error into the system.
oh really? (Score:2)
Fewer polling places would also make it harder for the poor to reach 'super' polling places especially if they were located with ill intent. Remember that there were long lines at many of the 'super' polling places open early in Florida this year all through the voting season. Having fewer places open longer is not necessarily a panacea.
Oh Good! (Score:2)
Florida will be a cinch in 2008.
...but they're talking about... (Score:2)
This could profoundly distort the results (Score:4, Interesting)
Early voting here, in Pasco and Pinellas counties, took place at three locations in each county in county government buildings. These buildings (more so in Pinellas than Pasco, which is a more rural county) are in fairly heavily populated areas, and many elderly are unwilling to travel to such areas due to the traffic congestion and the uncertainty involved in travelling farther from home. Further, many are barred from travelling farther than a certain distance from their primary health care provider. Lastly, many can travel only short distances due to the logistics of their limited mobility.
If voting locations are going to be open for two weeks, I don't see how they'll get around this - they're certainly not going to be using churches and schools, the current precinct poll locations, for two weeks straight.
I voted early here, and loved it... but I live about 5 minutes from one of the three locations in Pasco county where I could vote, so it was trivial for me. I think we still need to have a small window where people are able to vote locally. Otherwise, this could effectively disenfranchise a lot of people.
Some gotchas (Score:2)
It seems like there is much more possibility for illegal pressure or influence (payoffs, etc.) when people don't have the option of voting at a polling place. You may tell someone how you will vote but the booth is private. T
Re:Some gotchas (Score:2)
What's downright sad is that many campaigners completely ignore this source of information as well- I kept getting "have you voted yet" calls for a full two weeks AFTER I voted- despite the fact that it wouldn't make a bit o
N.C. has had this for a while... (Score:1, Interesting)
I went to vote early, but it was still going to take three hours so I waited for election day (and an hour and a half wait).
One interesting side effect is that the infamous last minute "surprises" that the candidates like to spring are much less releavant. Well...at least now they'll have to pull them two w
WF?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
More potential for abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
In Afganistan they were in an uproar that permanent ink used to prevent this problem wasn't string enough. Here we have huge percentages of voters voting with absentee ballots unneccessarily and people voting without IDs!
If voting periods are lengthened will will continue to see me counties with more votes cast than there are registered voters. And yes these things still happen.
Smoke Screen (Score:3, Interesting)
Did your vote count?
Until the voters of Florida can answer that question with certainty no other question needs to be asked.
This is a smoke screen distracting us from the real problem. Our voting system is a joke. Fix it.
Votes have value. Treat them as such.
Voter fraud (Score:2, Insightful)
Comes down to this. Lose elections, figure out a way to make sure you can win.
Whether it's redistricting in Texas, or recounts until you get the result you want in Washington, stuff like this shouldn't happen.
Australia does this and more (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Australia does this and more (Score:2)
This isn't really true. While there is prepoll voting in Australia for a couple of weeks beforehand, most polling places are only open on polling day and the vast majority of people vote on polling day.
You are right that voting is compulsory which delivers turnouts of 95%+. It should also be noted that there is widespread agreement about compulsory voting. Opinion polls are usually about 2/3 in
Not far enough (Score:3, Funny)
(No, I'm not serious)
Re:Not far enough (Score:2)
Election fraud (Score:2)
Re:Election fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's get this straight. I don't give a good goddamn who won or lost. What I do care about is being ABLE TO TELL. If there is one unveri
Here's how Texas does it (Score:1)
Comment (Score:2)
fix it in public first (Score:3, Insightful)
Florida has a lot more repair of its voting in store, before it gets to work on "more convenient". Those changes need to be made in public, and tested free of fraud before they hide its workings deeper in the offices of the unaccountable criminals who count the votes, and control the elections.
Re:fix it in public first (Score:2)
Sorry, this is completely illogical.
Having fewer polling places makes it much EASIER for non-partisan poll watchers to keep an eye on the entire process and keep everything fair.
Re:fix it in public first (Score:2)