Senators Introduce Bill That Would Require State and Local Governments To Use Paper Ballots in an Effort To Secure Elections (cnet.com) 470
From a report: On Tuesday, nine Senators introduced a bill that would require state and local governments to use paper ballots in an effort to secure elections from hackers. The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes. "Leaving the fate of America's democracy up to hackable election machines is like leaving your front door open, unlocked and putting up a sign that says 'out of town,'" Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said in a release. "Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters." The Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2018 was drafted amid intense scrutiny of voting systems ahead of the mid-term elections in November. Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has elevated concern over the security of the country's voting systems. The senators said rigorous audits will ensure votes are legitimate. Currently, 22 states don't require post-election audits, according to the release.
you omited the most tasty part (Score:5, Insightful)
"In addition to Wyden, the bill was sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Sen. Ed Markey (Massachusetts), Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut). All are Democrats."
somehow, I knew it would not be the R's that wanted an audit trail.
funny, that...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
can't spell Russia without an R
Re: you omited the most tasty part (Score:2, Informative)
You also can't spell Democratic without an R.
Re: (Score:2)
you truly can, what you can't spell without an R is, DemocRatic
i would bid you caution when you go to vote and see "DemocRatic" as an option.
That's not an audit trail it's voter suppression (Score:5, Insightful)
Multiple emails have leaked where Republican leaders didn't just talk about how these factors made voter Id a suppression technique but where they did the research to prove that it was before they put the effort into passing it. Those leaked emails have been what's caused voter Id to be thrown out where ever it's been tried. The Republicans have noticed this and are working to stack the courts with judges who will ignore the rule of law. So far they're succeeding.
If you're involved enough in politics to know about voter Id laws you are probably aware of all this. If not then I trust you no longer favor voter Id. If you are somehow still in favor of voter Id knowing all this then it's clear you oppose democracy. If that's the case then just come right out and say it. I'm tired of listening to dog whistles.
Re:That's not an audit trail it's voter suppressio (Score:5, Interesting)
As for tapes, we have your guys on tape talking about decades of voter fraud.
Citation needed.
Every effort to find evidence of voter fraud has come up with bupkis. Even the recent one appointed by Trump, and helmed by Mr. Voter-Suppression himself, Kris Kobach. All they ever find is a handful of isolated cases, mostly mistakes or misunderstandings (eg: voting in the wrong precinct).
If these "tapes" you refer to actually exist, I think we'd have all heard them by now. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, here's a video [youtube.com] of Paul Weyrich, one of the "godfathers" of modern conservatism, clearly expressing his preference for reducing the number of people who are eligible to vote.
Again, google (Score:5, Informative)
If you're OK with voter suppression then by all means, support voter Id. Just understand that you're opposing democracy. You may have your reasons. You may earnestly believe those people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should at least be aware of what your support for Voter Id laws is actually doing and not delude yourself into thinking you're protecting democracy.
Re:you omited the most tasty part (Score:5, Insightful)
They enjoy the extra votes from illegal immigrants to much.
Yeah. The both of them.
Come on, man. This one isn't even difficult to rebut. [brennancenter.org]
What about voter ID? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters."
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.
I suspect that many of the people who are going to stand there and beat the drum on this one will also oppose requirements for voter ID. This despite the fact that every US state offers non-driver license state issued ID cards for a nominal fee or free in the case of financial hardship. At least, I am not aware of a state where that isn't the case.
Oh well. If not for double standards we would have no standards at all, it seems.
Re:What about voter ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
> OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote?
I feel that we first need proof that in-person voter fraud is a big enough problem to require a solution that can potentially disenfranchise vulnerable populations.
(Absentee ballot fraud, on the other hand, could arguably be worth addressing.)
Re:What about voter ID? (Score:5, Informative)
The problems with voter ID laws is that then politicians close down DMVs in areas where they want less voters. Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote. If implemented properly, voter ID laws would be fine - in reality, that's never happened:
Alabama:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/01/alabama_closes_dmvs_in_majority_of_black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html
Wisconsin:
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote.
My DMV requires proof of citizenship and proof of residence for ID. For DL, proof of vision and at some time in the past proof of driving ability. So, for ID, everything that is required for voting and nothing more.
alabama_closes_dmvs
If only there were some way of getting ID by mail ... like maybe going to a post office and doing something ... States don't control post offices like they do DMV offices.
This bill is being pushed by Wyden, and yes, Oregon is a state with a lot of logging that supports papermaking plants. It is
Re: (Score:2)
Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
And repeating something over and over while loudly insisting it's a "fact" doesn't actually make it one. Despite thousands of accusations, and myriad investigations, that sort of intentional fraud has never been shown to occur.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old [time.com] and vote totals changed to reflect any outcome wanted.
Now, let's apply Mr. Ockham's Razor to this, shall we? Which is more likely to occur: a single individual hacks a voting machine, with no wit
Re: (Score:2)
- Create weird laws like requiring early voting to be open more hours then needed
Wait, it's BAD for voting to be easier for people who can't make it to the polling places on "election day"? How long is "needed"?
- Reject vote by mail
Vote by mail is an open door to fraud of all kinds, which defeats the concept of having any ID at all to be able to vote. How do you make sure that the person whose ballot you got in the mail was voted by the person whose is supposed to be voting it?
But, being in Oregon, and having to put up with Wyden, I am rolling on the floor laughing at your claim that "vote by mail" is bei
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that many of the people who are going to stand there and beat the drum on this one will also oppose requirements for voter ID. This despite the fact that every US state offers non-driver license state issued ID cards for a nominal fee or free in the case of financial hardship. At least, I am not aware of a state where that isn't the case.
It's easy for "us" and too often, not so much for "them". I've found precious few cases where the states requiring photo ID also providing a mechanism or set of mechanisms for helping to make it possible. I specifically remember the Alabama story:
https://www.al.com/opinion/ind... [al.com]
As a lapsed poll-worker (too busy working overtime these days to volunteer), and whose assignments were in mixed-to-majority-minority precincts, I have found that out of 250-400 people voting, all but 2-5 of them people have photo I
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, I get it. In Alabama, bussing of voters so they can vote multiple times is not a problem so therefore it is not a problem in any state.
Provide evidence.
I provide experiential description of the statistically tiny effect of photo ID in majority minority precincts. That experience is repeated all over my state (Ohio, not one of your big blue states). That's the statistics all over the country, especially in "blue" states. Interestingly, the blue states that you so casually describe as not requiring photo ID also tend to be the most technogically advanced and tend to have a far smaller fractional population of limited-resource people.
The "sem
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote?
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Here's your problem Cletus. Every time an election comes up, the Republicans get a case of the bloody shits about all of those damn chocolate people voting with no damn ID.
Bitch, please. If you were any more obvious, you'd post KKK members outside every polling place. So knock it the fuck off.
Now, if you came up with a plan that was actually supposed to work, that was supposed to allow avery adult to vote if they choose to do so, you
Re: (Score:2)
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
But your typical right before election bawlbaby bitching about is couldn't be any more transparent of your motives.
I'm sorry, is this discussion right before an election? How long before an election is long enough for you to stop playing the racist card and allow the adults to discuss a solution to the problem? Does it help to refer to people as "chocolate people"?
And looky here, a little over 2 months from the election,
This discussion has been going on for a long time, so the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
;/quote> This is a federal ID because it is proof that a person is a citizen of the United States of America. Being a citizen over 18 years old, and with no felony convictions qualifies a person to vote. Useable in Local, State, and Federal elections.
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
Driver's licenses are legal proof of identity. As well, during voter registration is when the determination of whether or not a person is a citizen and otherwise qualified to vote happens. My voters information is already in a database and a booklet that the poll workers can look up. They do this for every election, if I show ID, my name is in their book, and it shows I have not voted yet, that is a fully legal enfranchisement. I could also use my Voter ID that I already have, but they might want two forms
Re:What about voter ID? (Score:5, Interesting)
Government issued IDs when voting are not necessary as anybody who as studied this issue knows.
Voter fraud is not an issue. First, I need to define this term. Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter and not very efficient. Republicans have been trying to prove massive voter fraud for many years, at least since George W. Bush has been in office. I don't have exact statistics handy, but there has been less that two people per state per year. It is not a problem.
However there have been documented cases of legitimate people being denied the right to vote because they could not get an ID. IDs cost money, and some people could not afford the fees and/or could not afford the transportation costs to get the ID. Even if they could afford the ID, they could not afford to take off time from work to get IDs.
In some states, officials reduce the hours of offices where you could get IDs or closed offices. Most of these offices where minority areas or heavily Democratic areas. In Texas, they allowed hunting licenses to be used, but not student IDs issues by state schools because they thought that hunters were more likely to be Republicans than students
So no, it is not a double standard to opposed government issued IDs because the requirement was and is used to deny the people their right to vote.
Re:What about voter ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are talking about only one state. Some people do not even have an extra dollar.
As I mentioned in my post, one, it is not just the cost of the ID. There are also transportation costs and lost wages. Two, the law is not needed and serves no useful purpose. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent.
I oppose it (Score:5, Informative)
a. It's been shown to be unnecessary. Voter fraud is not the problem. The problem is the election officials cheating. Go google the actual research on voter fraud and you'll find this out.
b. It's also been clearly shown to be a suppression tactic. Republican official have been caught several times doing research to prove that it targets their opposition (minorities and women mostly), that the fees associated with the Ids are defacto poll taxes and that the laws exist only to prevent legitimate voters. This is why the laws have been struct down over and over again.
Anyone who suggests voter Id is a solution to fraud is lying to you and opposes democracy. You should be highly suspicious of them and their motives. Again, spend a few hours on google and you can corroborate all this yourself. If you want voter Id to stop the "wrong" persons from voting then I can't really argue with that. But if you actually believe in democracy then you should oppose it.
ID is required in almost all countries except USA (Score:2)
> . So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election.
I don't know of any country which allows you to vote without an ID.
My country does not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not the same.
See, here's the thing. I should be able to walk into a polling place and vote. And, after the election, the ballots will be audited to determine whether my vote is legitimate.
I'd rather throw out a million votes from illegal immigrants after the election than prevent someone's 90 year-old grandmother from voting because she, wisely, does not have a driver's license.
For example, here's someone who voted twice [independent.co.uk]. Guess what? They caught her. Here [washingtonpost.com]'s an article with a bunch of other exa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I normally don't reply to AC, but this one is too good to pass up.
The right to vote is a constitutional right.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID is required in order to exercise your rights.
The right to keep and bear arms is also a constitutional right.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a background check is required in order to exercise your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a background check is required in order to exercise your rights.
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
You might try to say that since it is a NATIONAL election then the NATIONAL government is running it, but you'd be wrong. The only election for a national office is not a national election, it is a collection of state elections, where each state is told to pick their electors but not how that must be done. The actual final election is conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
Also, for those who ar
Re: What about voter ID? (Score:5, Informative)
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
Except in Article I, Section 4, and in the 15th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
You should really review the law instead of making false claims.
Re: (Score:3)
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.
The right to vote is a constitutional right.
And I ask you, does a non-citizen have this right then? That would be no. Proving you have the right to vote, does not deny anyone their rights, getting a government issued ID does not infringe your rights at all. We require such documentation and proof of citizenship to do all sorts of things in today's world.
You cannot pick and choose when you apply the constitution and when you ignore it.
No, voting is not a Constitutional right. Backward (Score:3)
> The right to vote is a constitutional right.
> Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID
You've got that precisely backwards. Please go spend a few minutes reading the Constitution. It isn't very long. Here's the relevant portion:
--
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors
--
The only people who have a vote under the Constitution are those APPOINTED by the state, not just issued an ID.
States have used diffe
PS United States, not United People (Score:2)
PS - if you do decide to refresh your memory by reading the Constitution, it may help to make things clear if you remember it's the Constitution of the United States, not the United People. It's a document describimg how the states can work together, uniting for such things as military defense. That's why the STATES get a vote on who the president is.
Individuals are mentioned mostly in the context of what the federal government isn't allowed to do. The federal government can't make any laws choosing a part
I still recall touching 'Obama'... (Score:4, Interesting)
In 2008, when I touched the 'Obama' button on the touch screen, McCain's name was selected instead, until I tapped Obama a couple more times.
'Blue' state anyway, but the machines are just not reliable.
Sign of an end of an era (Score:5, Insightful)
...of public obsession with all things digital, that software will cure all ills Zuckerberg style, and that schoolchildren need tablets to learn.
As a nerd, I say good riddance. Leave the nerd stuff to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme guess... (Score:2)
We still use paper ballots up here, eh (Score:3, Informative)
Thankfully the Calgary Flames/Gary Bettman/NHL annointed candidate of choice lost, seemed like he was ready to cut them a nice big juicy new arena cheque had he won.
10th (Score:2)
While I think using a paper ballot is a GOOD thing (especially when combined with optical readers and such), I am not sure the Federal Government (Congress) has the authority to impose such a law. My understanding is that the polling/election process is solely a State responsibility and domain. The Constitution assigns such powers to the States and then follows up with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they make it a funding thing, like the old 55MPH limit. Technically, the Feds never mandated a 55 limit (though I could probably make a constitutional argument that Interstate Highway System and the US Highway system fall under the Commerce Clause), but simply said that if the limit is over 55, no federal highway funds.
This bill might be similar. E.g., something like: "No State shall receive any federal election funding unless the following conditions are met for federal elections..."
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not mentioned in the Constitution at all. The only thing there is how the Electoral College votes.
Each State may select its Electoral College members in whatever manner it so chooses.
The last few elections (Score:2)
I've voted in, you fill out your votes on paper which is then scanned.
It seems to be an OK process, as long as nobody has messed with the scanning/collation software.
Touchscreens with no accountability or paper trails seem to be asking for "trouble."
Don't Tread On the Paper Ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
Being an established computer consultant, I got to provide input when the US Virgin Islands' election system was upgraded, a good friend on the Board of Elections brought over a bunch of brochures for me to review one evening in the early 1980s. There were chad systems ("Punch cards? You must be joking!") and push-button machines ("Where's the paper trail? Do you know what a 'hacker' is?" "It's available but 'costs extra'. Are these people for real??"). And there were optical zoned page scanners.
My friend and I agreed -- his vote on the Board of Elections -- was to keep the paper ballot. People are used to it. If anything, beef up the security and oversight surrounding transport of ballots cast; use bleeding-edge technology cautiously and wisely: do the counting of paper ballots with optical readers. Because just like the money counter machines, you can do it again quickly to see if you get the same result. And if the machines break and the power goes out -- the election process is 'safe', breezes along as smoothly as ever -- only the results are delayed.
Just WHEN was it decided that election results needed to be tallied in hours or minutes? From where did the pressure arise such that hand counting of paper ballots (or in the least, optical scan of same) is too slow? That we instead impose few-vendor centralized no-paper systems that are inherently hackable?
Here's the test I impose. A paper ballot system may also have its problems -- BUT -- any given layman you bring in off the street to observe the tally process will have a clear view of a ballot box's chain of custody. Any layman observing the subsequent counting of those ballots (by hand or optical reader, with verification of random batches to test the reader) has a clear grasp of the process, and can tell whether the system is honest. No one can say if a wholly computerized system is honest. And even if you find someone who claims they are sure, no one can tell whether they are being honest.
If it's Democracy you want, use as simple a voting/tally system as possible; for the tally process use as many human beings as possible, local volunteers as participants and observers. If it's Oligarchy you want, go ahead and totally castrate the process of transparency by implementing insecurity through obscurity, touch screen BS with no hope of verification or recount.
The idea of all-electronic voting really should have been laughed out of the room, once upon a time. This is coming from a techie who favors modernization in other areas of society. xkcd agrees [xkcd.com].
My friend on the Board was voted down: they decided to purchase push-button machines from Shouptronics... but at least each station had its own built-in battery backup and built in receipt-type printer that ran a paper tape. Unlike most today.
You don't even need optical machine (Score:5, Informative)
Can work (Score:5, Informative)
We use paper ballots in Australia and usually the result is known within four hours of votes closing. I wasn't aware of some of the other protections that go into the process until I was early to vote one year. I was invited into the polling centre and asked to inspect the empty ballot boxes before they were sealed and signed to confirm that the serial numbers of the seals matched. This has to be done by a member of the public - it can't be done by an electoral official. I believe another member of the public must verify the seals again when the boxes are opened. I was also told that each polling centre has to account for all the ballot papers issued to them. Remaining blank ballot papers plus spoiled ballot papers (people made a mistake and exchanged for a fresh paper) plus votes cast must be very close to ballot papers issued or there is cause to dispute the result. At one election 1400 ballot papers went missing for the senate. The whole senate election was rerun. That's the sort of protection you want.
The other thing I really like is optional preferential voting. As a voter you can vote for as many candidates as you want in order - or not. All the first preference votes are counted and the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their ballot papers are distributed to the next preference on the ballot paper. This is repeated until only one candidate remains. You can vote for an independent or minor party but if they don't get elected your vote still counts toward which of the major parties gets elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "optional preferential voting" is called "ranked choice voting" ("RCV") in the United States.
It'd be nice if we could get federal legislators—or, at least, federal Democrats—behind a movement for that.
Unexpected good (Score:2)
I'm perfectly okay with this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be SUBSTANTIALLY harder to tamper with paper ballots. With paper ballots, the easiest way to muck things up would be to steal absentee or vote by mail ballots, and then send them back. Curiously, in 2016, there were several reports of nursing homes and assisted living centers where none of the residents received their vote by mail ballots - but many of them had been voted and mailed back.
Paper for legal record, machines for early returns (Score:5, Interesting)
Having been a "real time software" developer way back when that was what we were called, and called an "embedded developer" today, and having been a poll worker, I have a few observations:
* Voting is much like a real time data acquisition application: There is exactly one chance to record the transition from private vote to public count. It's deceptively easy to say and deceptively hard to get right.
* Voters MUST have the ability to see that the legal record of their votes is recorded as they intended, without "translation" or "electronic" conversion out of their sight or control.
* In close elections, it MUST be possible for recounts to be performed in full view of unaugmented interested observers.
* It is entirely reasonable for the paper ballot to be scanned to provide early but informal estimates of the aggregated vote through election evenings.
* It is entirely reasonable to use technological means, including touchscreen voting machines to help voters make their choices, to produce legible printed ballots that constitute the legal record of the voters' choices.
So: Machines are fine, as long as the true legal record is visible, recountable and auditable.
It takes more people in more places to conspire to fix an election recorded on individually recorded media, in contrast with voting systems where single programs/computers/subsystems that may be hacked are replicated throughout many precincts. The naturally distributed nature of paper ballots makes them surprisingly more robust against tampering.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. I'd mod you up if I had mod points today.
Paper ballots work in Canada (Score:2)
We use simple paper ballots in Canada. Here's your ballot, mark an X, put it in the ballot box. Try hacking that!
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paper ballots work in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
That can't happen.
The election is observed at each polling station by representatives of each party involved. The ballots are counted on site, in triplicate, under the supervision of representatives of each candidate contesting the election. These results are then phoned into the central reporting system, and the scrutineers can verify that the correct numbers were transmitted.
Recounts rarely result in more than a change by one or two votes.
Must maintain the illusion... (Score:2)
...of free and fair elections.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we'd like to ACHIEVE the REALITY of free and fair elections. It isn't real now, and has not been the reality for probably 50 years, But it CAN BECOME the reality.
And ... (Score:2)
... this is how a narrative is constructed.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has elevated concern over the security of the country's voting systems.
Russians did not "hack" voting machines; they did not "hack" the election, no matter how convenient a narrative that would be for those who lost.
But there's a smooth attempt here to conflate concerns about small Russian linked ad buys on Facebook with notions of voting machines being "hacked".
(obDisclaimer: I like paper ballots, etc. I'm referring to the narrative here, not the concept of paper voting itself. Again, the attempt is to slip a false narrative in the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only thing Russians were trying to do is spread hate and discontent by using Fakebook advertising, and my God, how far they succeeded!
But there's a lot of other kinds of election fraud besides hacking voting machines. And I suspect that EVERY possible way of manipulating the elections has been attempted.
About Damned Time! (Score:3)
It's about time that we got serious about security our voting systems. Too many elections have been decided by "discovered" boxes of ballots, or where 200% of the registered voters in a precinct all voted the same way. Or precincts where the election monitors were kicked out by gang members, and 100% of the votes were for the gang's preferred candidate.
We need paper ballots, ink on fingers, and 100% voter ID.
Re: (Score:2)
election fraud is older than voting machines.
paper solves nothing. I'd even argue it's easier to tamper with a paper ballot system than a well designed electronic one.
paper with holes in it are easy to make, and easy to switch right under people's noses.
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
If these Democrat senators are so concerned about election purity then why are none of them supporting having to show proof of citizenship at the polls in order to cast votes?
Why not both? (Score:2)
1. Touchscreen for voters to input their selections. This information is stored digitally in this system.
2. Based on this input, a paper ballot is printed out in human readable form with clear printed marks next to selections for voter to verify.
3. This paper printout is then optically scanned by a 2nd system (independent of the 1st system). This information is also stored digitally.
4. The two computer systems cross check the data and verify that they match.
5. As a bonus, you now have a paper pri
The fact this is not a bipartisan bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
s/eliminated/eliminate/
Geeze.
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
Electors elect the President. They may vote as they wish. The people have no legal weight in electing the President as far as the federal government is concerned.
Each State is allotted a number of votes. Electors represent the States and exercise those votes. They can vote in line with the election or not. They can award them all to the winner in that State based on popular vote, they can portion them out based
Re: (Score:3)
Electors elect the President. They may vote as they wish. The people have no legal weight in electing the President as far as the federal government is concerned.
Not entirely accurate.
There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law. So if the majority of people in the state voted for some ass-hat, the elector must cast his or her vote for said ass-hat, even though they know he or she is an ass-hat.
The second part is correct, though if nobody gets the required electoral votes, it goes to the House of Representatives, though each state coalition only gets one vote.
But you're right--the "popular vote" is of no int
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
You can claim that as a theoretical use of the elector system, for sure. You however cannot claim that is what it was designed for. It's well documented what it was designed for. It neatly implements the 3/5ths compromise in presidential elections, as well as handles the issue that suffrage in the south was limited to land owners, making their popular vote tally quite small.
To quote Mr. Madison, the pragmatist who was the force behind having it implemented:
The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Conven
Re: (Score:2)
No, the 3/5ths compromise was the slavery bit. The electoral college is there so that a few major population centers can't fuck over everyone else. The biggest problem with the Electoral college doesn't even originate within the college itself, but instead in the House of Representatives. Namely, they need to triple or quadruple the number of people in the House.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think the 3/5ths compromise existed for?
So that states with a lot of slaves could have congressional representation based upon their population and 3/5ths their population of slaves?
Now, where do you think the amount of electors a state has in the electoral college comes from?
Let's just ask the guy who invented it.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
Re:A good start (Score:4, Insightful)
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Agreed this is a good start. Disagree about electoral college (which does need to be fixed), the next more important step is ensuring the paper trail is audited, as part of the election process, not some vague "recount" territory.
Why is it that gambling machines have more audits and checks than voting machines? It's not like the process isn't clear. We just have to hold people and systems accountable.
Re:A good start (Score:5, Insightful)
the next more important step is ensuring the paper trail is audited, as part of the election process, not some vague "recount" territory.
That's already in the bill. From the article: "The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why is it that gambling machines have more audits and checks than voting machines?
Because organized crime is more honest than US politicians.
Can always "find a box of ballots" when you need (Score:3)
Franken unexpectedly picked up 37 votes due to a combined machine malfunction and human error on Election Day that left 171 Maplewood ballots safe, secure but uncounted until Tuesday’s final day of recounting in Ramsey County. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office immediately asked county officials to explain what had happened, and U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s campaign said it sent its own experts to Ramsey County to review the situation and said it was “skeptical about [the ballots
Re:A good start (Score:5, Insightful)
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
First of all, wrong. Tbe federal government was, among other things, a convocation of independent and sovereign states. The state governments wanted a finger in the control of the feds or they ain't buying into it. What's the past tense of ain't? They t'warn't buying into it.
And good luck convincing the myriad small flyover states that what's wrong with the country is the concrete canyons of the coast don't have enough power and control to do the things they hate.
Your idea there is something inherently great in your position is ahistoric and made up out of whole cloth. You have control over your state, who has control over their chunk of the federal government.
Re:A good start (Score:5, Insightful)
And good luck convincing the myriad small flyover states that what's wrong with the country is the concrete canyons of the coast don't have enough power and control to do the things they hate.
I sometimes forget: people on the coasts are worth less than wholesome middle Americans because (a) they live on the coast and (b) live closer together. So, their votes should count for less too.
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to Sorry, You're Wrong. Impy the Impiuos Imp is correct. You may not like it, but there's no legal room to disagree or argue against it. It's part of the bedrock of the nation.
To change this shit you must first get an Amendment passed or call a Constitutional Convention. There's no other legal avenue.
Re:A good start (Score:5, Insightful)
>To change this shit you must first get an Amendment passed or call a Constitutional Convention. There's no other legal avenue.
Or a few more states pass the popular vote compact [wikipedia.org]
Re:A good start (Score:5, Interesting)
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Actually it was more a fear of idiocracy, but unfortunately the result achieved was exactly the opposite of intentions. Another big thing that needs to be eliminated, the blatant gerrymanders and the gerrymander machine. And another one, unlimited campaign contributions including corporate contributions. Behold the fruit of labor of evil republican hands.
Re:A good start (Score:5, Informative)
Well, okay, depending upon which idiots we're talking about. In reading Madison's Notes it's important to keep in mind that the "minority" whom the founders spoke of protecting was their own class, the moneyed elite. Which made everyone else the idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, okay, depending upon which idiots we're talking about. In reading Madison's Notes it's important to keep in mind that the "minority" whom the founders spoke of protecting was their own class, the moneyed elite. Which made everyone else the idiots.
+1. So worth reading all of Madison's notes, I am in awe of this historical record, [yale.edu] but sadly have looked at only a fraction of it so far. Personally, I don't feel in a position to make a judgment about where the balance between self interest and desire to carve out a position in history as having laid the foundation of thousand year republic lies. My sense is, in those days people cared a lot more about how history would judge them, thus the primary motivation was to establish a stable democratic system. A
Re: (Score:3)
My sense is, in those days people cared a lot more about how history would judge them, thus the primary motivation was to establish a stable democratic system.
That mattered to them, but the primary motivation was to salvage the nation. There was widespread discontent at the time, in no small part due to the Continental (currency) having become worthless. In essence, the founders had financed the revolution with money they printed willy-nilly, and with IOU's. The wealthy merchant class (who had financed the war), particularly, was hard hit by this -- if your wealth was in agricultural land and slaves you were in pretty okay shape, but those who held their wealth i
Re: (Score:3)
How about UNLIMITED campaign contributions. I think we should have ZERO limits on contributions to campaigns by US citizens, give as much as you want anytime you want, but it's not tax deductible. Corporations which are based in the USA are also able to give unlimited amounts to campaigns, but they are not allowed to deduct them as expenses and they must be 100% sourced from USA portions of the business. Foreign nationals and companies are NOT allowed to participate, directly or indirectly.
BUT, every camp
It's largely because of FPTP (Score:4, Insightful)
It's largely because of FPTP. Only 2 UK parties can actually win and have won every single election for a century.
And the smaller parties need about 100x more votes to win a seat than the two incumbents.
Neither the US not the UK system have anything more than a passing resemblance to democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Well, that's going to take a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. You will need 2/3rds of the states to agree to this and I seriously doubt you will get the low population states to ratify that idea. While you are at it, you might want to revamp how Congress works, given it's the same model.
I believe the founders made it pretty clear they where not forming a democracy, but a representative republic. They had some pretty good reasons for this, which I wouldn't call fear, but wisdom. They saw how
Re: (Score:3)
200 years is barely a grain of sand in the hourglass of human time
But other forms of democracy have failed in less time. Our founders where genius with this idea. Our very form of government is based on the division of powers and keeping those powers in balance. Thus we get three branches of government, We get Two house of Congress, one based on population and one based on the states, and the electoral college. It is the division of power that makes this model work so well and we owe our founders much for their wisdom and efforts to design such a unique system based on
Re:A good start (Score:5, Interesting)
The U.S. system is actually just a really dumb adaptation of the Westminster System. The biggest problem in 1776 was poor allocation of seats in Parliament. Various areas had little or no representation, while other areas were overrepresented (rotten boroughs). Fixing that is of course very difficult, as reform threatens the entrenched powers. The UK passed the Great Reform Act in 1832.
Ironically, the UK ended up with a better system. There's too many reasons to list here, but it's enough to say this was recognized even by the U.S. When we went to write the Japanese constitution, we modeled it on the British system. Parliamentary systems have proven far more resilient and democratic than presidential systems. Even if someone as nutty as Trump had somehow managed to get enough votes in Parliament to become PM in the first place, his government would have lost a confidence vote and been replaced long ago.
(Oh, and separation of powers isn't really the greatest invention either, the British system is based on fusion of powers and it works fine)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same with the Electoral College. We elect representatives that pick the President for us.
Somebody does not know how the Electoral College works, the representatives aren't choosing anybody, they are chosen who to vote for, not to make a decision.
The Electors have full autonomy and can place votes however they wish. Doing so in a way that doesn't match the State's laws and the outcome of the State's election is perfectly valid as far as the federal election is concerned.
If Candidate A won State X, and its Electors all voted for Candidate B, State X might try to imprison those Electors. But their votes for Candidate B stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, the political landscape is such that a candidate receiving millions of votes less than another, can win the election.
Working as designed. We are a nation of States.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfff
The electoral college is the only thing standing in the way of California and New York making all our choices for us.
Without it, we may as well be a one party system.
which is why the electoral college is here to stay and those who complain about it needing to change just need to get used to it.
NONE of the fly over states would consider ceding their power to the coasts and it's going to take 2/3rds of the states to change the electoral college system in the constitution. This just isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
Ain't it great that there's a mechanism in place to prevent California and New York from having more electoral votes than the less populous states?
Oh, uh... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind reading: You're not good at it.
My complaint with the current system is not about the embarrassment I feel resulting from a shrieking clown being in the White House. I wish for democracy, which was not written into the Constitution. Eliminating the electoral college is just the first step toward acquiring it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wish for a democracy then you are a fool.
Democracy has been tried in the passed and every time it has failed. The Founding Fathers knew this and they choose to go with a Representative Republic. Another name for "democracy" is mob rule.
I'm sorry that you feel that way about our president*. Next time field a better candidate.
* Yes, he is our President, yours and mine. I'm sure you are thinking or even screeching "He is not my President!" I most assure you he is, and your denial of reality w
Re: (Score:2)
don't be so confident that the Russians will not try to somehow 'hack' the paper ballot and/or audit trail.
At least I am convinced someone will claim they had done it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, i agree, what you say is factual!!! however i thought we were concerned with beliefs here. no one seems to be concerned with facts in this age of "fake news" and "horrible CNN"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to do vote fraud. Showing up without an ID is but one avenue.
Where I don't want to dissuade folks from voting who cannot make it to the polls, I agree that we need to tighten up the absentee balloting process somehow. I'm at a loss for ideas how to do that though.
What do you think we can reasonably do?
Re: (Score:2)
Around here, we have early voting where polls are opened up for a couple of weekends before the election. I believe they also have them in hospitals and such as well as embassies. Not perfect as it means the ballots are stored until after the election though in most elections they're never counted as the margin of victory is larger then the absentee ballots. Last Provincial election, they did matter and instead of taking a couple of hours to decide the winner, it took a month as the house was close to tied
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
in POF, here in COlorado, we caught so many voter fraud, that the head of the group that was investigating it was caught submitting as hit wife. He got the ballot through with a signature that passed as hers. It was shear luck that they busted him.
"So many" being a small handful. Two or three that I recall hearing of. The putz you're referring to was a former chairman of the Colorado GOP, claimed that he didn't know it was illegal, doesn't remember doing it, and also that it was done during some kind of diabetic episode which rendered him incompetent.
If there are more than a few, please cite references. As a fellow Coloradan I'd like to know of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. I got it. Paper ballots make it harder to tabulate votes and catch voter fraud.
Bull shit.
The processes for catching voter fraud are in the registration and checking-in before being authorized to even start the actual voting.
But I am confident that you know that and are simply being a disengenuous troll.
Or perhaps you simply cannot read the many comments in this thread where several commenters report that their communities use modern tools like scanners to provide early returns for those interested in seeing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they shouldn't get any credit for proposing this now because they didn't in the past.
That's um.... that's.... something alright....