US Election "Rules"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Some of the many reasons why the American voting system needs a serious modernizing to take into account 2+ centuries of advancement...

[Over]

It's still not clear to me the need to elect someone to represent a state in a presidential lection. Couldn't they just count each state votes and then ad them up? (sure, it would take days at the time, but I don't think that would be too inconvenient).

Anyway, we're in the 21st century, surely te reasoning behind that system is outdated?

radioflyertoo, basically, you're talking about 1st and 2nd class citizens, ones whose votes should really cout and others that don't. I understand the reasoning: how many times did I think how certain people shouldn't be able to vote and how I have to suffer certain outcomes voted by fools... But I'm more afraid about that liberty control.

I mean, a whole state can vote A and it's representative could vote B? Am I the only one that thinks that's outrageous? It's so much easier to corrupt a single representative than fool a whole state, I would guess!

[daffy4u]

I would prefer to get rid of the electoral college and just use the popular vote. Some parts of our voting system are just too complicated.

[Greg Anos]

My apologies, I was inadequately informed.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Over

It's still not clear to me the need to elect someone to represent a state in a presidential lection. Couldn't they just count each state votes and then ad them up? (sure, it would take days at the time, but I don't think that would be too inconvenient).

Anyway, we're in the 21st century, surely te reasoning behind that system is outdated?

radioflyertoo, basically, you're talking about 1st and 2nd class citizens, ones whose votes should really cout and others that don't. I understand the reasoning: how many times did I think how certain people shouldn't be able to vote and how I have to suffer certain outcomes voted by fools... But I'm more afraid about that liberty control.

I mean, a whole state can vote A and it's representative could vote B? Am I the only one that thinks that's outrageous? It's so much easier to corrupt a single representative than fool a whole state, I would guess!

The electoral college was a compromise between the needs of big states and little states, the same as the congress was set up. (The number of electors was the number of house seat + the number of senate seats, per state)

Obsolete? Look at a county election map of the 2004 US election. The majority of people living in 88% of the land mass of the US voted for GW. The Democratic votes were limited to mostly dense urban environments. Question, is all the nation better served by decisions made of, by and for dense urban environments? Decisions that are great for the urban lifestyle may be damaging for the non-urban lifestyle. How do you draw a balance?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Over

Anyway, we're in the 21st century, surely te reasoning behind that system is outdated?

That's exactly it: We're using a system designed when information traveled this vast country on horseback, identities were not as easily verified and impossible to track, and education was a lot less pervasive, nor nationally regulated. The system does need to be modernized, made clearer to voters, made easier for shut-ins, more secure for identity management, and more direct for the public at-large to register their votes.

Of course, to make the system more secure and direct-vote would mean more secure personal identification, and probably a national ID, and right now the ACLU and Big-Brother-phobic citizens are making tighter ID security difficult. (Heck, they didn't ask to see my ID when I voted... I literally could have been anybody. What kind of a voting system is that?)

We would probably also need a more secure communications system (phone, web), capable of positively identifying a user in realtime... and here, the same privacy concerns apply.

Then, the system has to be designed to make every individually-recorded vote an anonymous vote... in other words, erase the person's ID and leave just the vote behind. And somewhere in there, each person needs a receipt to prove they voted as they did, a receipt that also leaves no ID trail behind... or goes to some organization that can be entrusted to keep the ID details and never release them...

Oy.

In short, we won't be able to modernize the system unless Americans are willing to sacrifice a measure of privacy to allow more secure ID systems. It would be a tough job, and not everyone would be happy about it. I personally think that if it leads to fairer elections, it would probably be for the best to make that sacrifice. But there are plenty of Americans who disagree... any sacrifice of privacy is too much. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

[radioflyertoo]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The electoral college was a compromise between the needs of big states and little states, the same as the congress was set up. (The number of electors was the number of house seat + the number of senate seats, per state)

Obsolete? Look at a county election map of the 2004 US election. The majority of people living in 88% of the land mass of the US voted for GW. The Democratic votes were limited to mostly dense urban environments. Question, is all the nation better served by decisions made of, by and for dense urban environments? Decisions that are great for the urban lifestyle may be damaging for the non-urban lifestyle. How do you draw a balance?

I'm not sure we can draw a balance. We do live in a country that is more diverse then most, not including dictatorships, so IHMO this draws a delicate line between urban vs non-urban since the most populous states could with a little help from the less populous could always control the Pesidency if not congress. Also it would be interesting to see the voting demographics between urban and non-urban areas in this election because I suspect it was the cities that carried the day this time.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by radioflyertoo

I'm not sure we can draw a balance. We do live in a country that is more diverse then most, not including dictatorships, so IHMO this draws a delicate line between urban vs non-urban since the most populous states could with a little help from the less populous could always control the Pesidency if not congress. Also it would be interesting to see the voting demographics between urban and non-urban areas in this election because I suspect it was the cities that carried the day this time.

I suspect you're right. The breakdown by county is interesting, because it shows the urban/non-urban in extreme relief, whereas lumping by states tends to mute it.

[radioflyertoo]

[QUOTE=Steve Jordan;283674]
Of course, to make the system more secure and direct-vote would mean more secure personal identification, and probably a national ID, and right now the ACLU and Big-Brother-phobic citizens are making tighter ID security difficult. (Heck, they didn't ask to see my ID when I voted... I literally could have been anybody. What kind of a voting system is that?)

We would probably also need a more secure communications system (phone, web), capable of positively identifying a user in realtime... and here, the same privacy concerns apply.

Then, the system has to be designed to make every individually-recorded vote an anonymous vote... in other words, erase the person's ID and leave just the vote behind. And somewhere in there, each person needs a receipt to prove they voted as they did, a receipt that also leaves no ID trail behind... or goes to some organization that can be entrusted to keep the ID details and never release them...

.[/QUOTE

Personally I think we already have a national ID even though it's not stated as such - you SS. number. If you look at it, the number is used for just about everything. Where I work it WAS used as your employee #, most medical plans use it as ID, It can be used in Mass. (unless it was changed since I lived there) as the drive license #, it's your taxpayer ID number, credit report ID, etc.

The town I live in now in PA issues you a ballot with and ID # that is not recorded when they check off your vote. You retain a stub with that ID # on it as proof of ballot - I think something of that nature could be used,maybe a receipt printed from the voting machine ala ATM with a ID # and how you voted in case a check was needed.

Oh well!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by radioflyertoo

Personally I think we already have a national ID even though it's not stated as such - you SS. number. If you look at it, the number is used for just about everything. Where I work it WAS used as your employee #, most medical plans use it as ID, It can be used in Mass. (unless it was changed since I lived there) as the drive license #, it's your taxpayer ID number, credit report ID, etc.

True enough. It's just not attached to any biometric or other ID data, to prove the number is yours (one of the reasons for SS fraud). If it was attached to a national ID card, along with established rights and restrictions (right to drive, right to vote, registration in selective service, that kind of thing), and verifiable photo or biometric data, it would do the job.

Originally Posted by radioflyertoo

The town I live in now in PA issues you a ballot with and ID # that is not recorded when they check off your vote. You retain a stub with that ID # on it as proof of ballot - I think something of that nature could be used,maybe a receipt printed from the voting machine ala ATM with a ID # and how you voted in case a check was needed.

I was given nothing for me to keep, and prove after the fact how I voted (or even that I did), other than an "I voted" sticker. The paper receipt for my ballot was kept with the machine on which I voted, using an electronic card, and the card (which I believe uses an RFD chip that could be erased with a powerful-enough EM signal) went into a cardboard box. I see this as a very non-verifiable system that desperately needs updating.

[Nate the great]

The problem with using SSN as an identifier is that the numbers are not unique. When the user of a SSN dies, the number is recycled.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The electoral college was a compromise between the needs of big states and little states, the same as the congress was set up. (The number of electors was the number of house seat + the number of senate seats, per state)

Obsolete? Look at a county election map of the 2004 US election. The majority of people living in 88% of the land mass of the US voted for GW. The Democratic votes were limited to mostly dense urban environments. Question, is all the nation better served by decisions made of, by and for dense urban environments? Decisions that are great for the urban lifestyle may be damaging for the non-urban lifestyle. How do you draw a balance?

This also is one of the problems with laws such as the "Gun Control" laws. In rural areas where hunting is part of the life style guns (of certain types) make sense but they don't make sense in urban areas since there can be no hunting there. Yet the urban areas can dictate to the rural areas on such laws.

[DTM]

Obama is not yet the president-elect, as an earlier post mentioned. He becomes president-elect when the Electoral College votes in mid-December. At that point, if he dies, the usual presidential succession kicks in and Biden would become president. And if he, too, died, the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) would become president and so on down the list.

But if Obama dies before the Electoral College votes, things get dicey very fast. His electors would probably vote for Biden, but they don't have to, and some can't. Here in Michigan, as in many other states, the electors are bound to the candidate they are pledged to and cannot legally vote for anyone else. Not all states have provisions for what happens if the guy is dead. There are some pretty odd--and downright frightening--scenarios that could play out.

For a fascinating article, go here: http://presidentelect.org/art_deathpresidentelect.html

[HarryT]

Thanks - that's a great article!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My apologies, I was inadequately informed.

No problem - I've certainly learned some interesting stuff by asking, and now you have too!