The joke has become reality.
November 1, 2002 3:13 AM   Subscribe

The joke has become reality.
Albanian and Russian observers sent to monitor American elections... [via Cursor]
posted by talos (49 comments total)
 
"...disastrous 36-day showdown between George Bush and Al Gore in 2000, in which the world saw every wart in Florida's deeply flawed electoral system without ever discovering for sure who had won."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:23 AM on November 1, 2002


Does that mean I won't get to vote twice this year? Dang!
posted by bclark at 4:28 AM on November 1, 2002


Straight out of The Onion.
posted by ptermit at 4:31 AM on November 1, 2002


Thank you, Jeb & George Bush, for making our democratic process laughing stock of the world.
posted by crunchland at 4:42 AM on November 1, 2002


a chadgedy
posted by johnnyboy at 4:58 AM on November 1, 2002


WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
JEB?
posted by thewittyname at 5:21 AM on November 1, 2002


You know, as a righty, I really don't have a problem with this. The mechanisms for counting the vote and the laws regulating elections in Florida suck, and introduce a large amount of noise into the process, so much that that the signal, the number of voters who want one candidate or the other, sometimes can't be discerned in a close race.

Florida isn't alone. News coverage after the election showed that many states and counties are even worse; it's rarely noticed because the signal usually is stronger than the noise. The Philly Inquirer reviewed voting machine tallies in Philadelphia after the Florida debacle, and found all sorts of transcription and arithmetic errors. 'Butterfly ballots' were not unique to Florida, but were also used elsewhere, such as Chicago.

Is it embarrassing that we're being 'observed' by Russia and Albania (and other European states)? Sure. Of course, the world is full of people who would love any pretext for embarrassing the US. Why, that describes half the users of MeFi! But if it's an impetus to fix the system, I have no complaint with being humiliated. Let's fix it.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 5:50 AM on November 1, 2002


the laws regulating elections in Florida suck

Having just read Bush v. Gore for the 2nd time the other day, what about the Florida laws didn't you like?
posted by probablysteve at 5:58 AM on November 1, 2002


These potatoe-growing foreigners have deeply misunderestimated us.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:13 AM on November 1, 2002


What? They thought you could spell? ;-)
posted by i_cola at 6:45 AM on November 1, 2002


I just love hearing Democrats blabber about how Bush "stole" the election because he didn't have the popular vote. It's called an Electoral College, people! Read the Constitution. It really doesn't matter who has the popular vote -- and with good reason.
posted by oissubke at 7:18 AM on November 1, 2002


probablysteve: two laws in particular, that interact badly.

1) A very tight deadline for final vote counts, November 14.

2) Hand recounts must assess the intent of the voter.

How do you assess the 'intent' of the voter without reading the voter's mind? What does a chad hanging by one pip mean? What about 2 pips? Three pips? What about one that's just a little indented? Did the voter not press hard enough? Or did he change his mind? What 'intent' caused the voter to do that? What about the punchcard in which the voter punches all the Democrat candidates -- except the presidential race? What does that mean? That he 'intended' to vote, but forgot? Or that he hated the top of the ticket, but couldn't bring himself to vote for the other party?

Who knows? I call it all bullshit. The ballot is the voter's opportunity to express his intent. Marking it correctly is the voter's responsibility. If he blows it, he blows it. I don't think you can assess the 'intent' of the voter outside of an unambiguously voted ballot, and it's foolishness to try. Trying to assess such things as hanging chads, by minimally trained volunteers, takes a huge amount of time, will inevitably be fraught with controversy and challenges from the other side, and comes into conflict with 1) above. Given the impossible 'intent of the voter' criterion, it was inevitable that vote counting would be interrupted by 1).

There are other problems with Florida law: for example, the vesting of most of the power to arrange voting procedures at the level of the county, with minimal oversight from above. This gave rise to multiple different voting technologies and counting procedures across the state, which (as I understand, IANAL) was one of the reasons the Supremes voided the recounts, because they were being conducted differently in every county.

If I were King, I would propose:

1. A national study by ANSI or the NIH (who have experience designing polls and questionnaires) addressing how to create a voting technology that is easy to vote, hard to screw up, hard to corrupt, and affordable.

2. Minimal national standards for voting procedures.

3. Accountability of counties to states and states to the Feds for how voting is run.

4. Financial assistance to very poor counties to bring their voting procedures up to par.

5. NO DAMNED HAND RECOUNTS! No more guessing and second-guessing and trying to mind-read. Once ballots are designed that are as clear as they can be made, the voter must cast a vote that is unambiguous to a machine or a human reader, or the vote is void.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:19 AM on November 1, 2002


I, for one, welcome our new Russian overlords.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2002


Slithy_Tove:

1. I don't think the November 14th date was really a problem. The November 14th deadline was the result of a 7-day statutory certification deadline following the election. But it wasn't as much a final date as an interim date. Certification just triggered the "contest period" that ran (well, would have run*) from that date through December 12.

* I say "would have run" since the Florida Supreme Court first extended the certification date (Harris I) and then essentially elliminated it (Harris II).

2. Your second concern was addressed by the Supreme Court as follows:

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

(emphasis added)

The problem was with different rules in different counties. That's why 7 of the justices found equal protection problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

But I agree with you, your way is much cleaner.
posted by probablysteve at 8:31 AM on November 1, 2002


*long sigh*

ok, oissubuke, i'll bite. what's the good reason for the electoral college? i've yet to hear one.

btw, the US consitution is painfully out of date, if somebody has the balls to try to fix it.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:44 AM on November 1, 2002


geez. i'm an idiot. "constitution" (though they might as well call it the "institution")
posted by mrgrimm at 9:45 AM on November 1, 2002


I'll bite too, oissubuke - who said anything about popular vote
vs. the electoral college? The main issue is that there was a concerted effort by the Bush team to ignore or disqualify tens of thousands of votes which were valid and would have swung the election.

Also mr.grimm, I agree the electoral college thing seems a bit outdated. The best argument I've heard for it is that if not for the electoral college, presidential candidates would spend all their time campaigning in the cities and that rural areas would be ignored - although thats probably not the case anymore since campaigns mainly take place on television.
posted by tranceformer at 9:58 AM on November 1, 2002


Who was joking about this?
The international community has a stake in the outcome of our elections, and should take action when it is obvious that our system is broken.
posted by 2sheets at 10:03 AM on November 1, 2002


ok, oissubuke, i'll bite. what's the good reason for the electoral college? i've yet to hear one.

Take a look at this document. It explains the basic reasons. You can feel free to disagree, but those are the reasons that we have an electoral college.

btw, the US consitution is painfully out of date, if somebody has the balls to try to fix it.

The U.S. Constitution is a flexible, modifiable document. If you want to see it changed, what are you doing about it? Do you have the balls to get it changed?
posted by oissubke at 10:22 AM on November 1, 2002


argh. had a nice, (fairly) short reponse to you, oissubke (sorry for the previous misspell), but the metafilter server disappeared on me.

i'm supposedly working right now, so it will take me a little time to read your link and respond.

in reponse to your last graph, i don't think the Constitution is flexible (yes, modifiable, but not significantly), and no, i don't have the balls to change it b/c i believe it will likely require a lower-class, urban revolt against the government and i'm not there yet. no taste for blood.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:24 AM on November 1, 2002


in reponse to your last graph, i don't think the Constitution is flexible (yes, modifiable, but not significantly), and no, i don't have the balls to change it b/c i believe it will likely require a lower-class, urban revolt against the government and i'm not there yet. no taste for blood.

Why don't you think it's flexible? It's certainly doesn't mean the same today as it was at the time it was written. It can be amended, modified, revised, overhauled, whatever needs to be done, and it doesn't require a drop of blood to do so.

However, it does require some kind of agreement that it needs to be changed in a certain way. If you are correct in the things that you believe need to change, you can certainly make a reasonable case and persuade many. If you're just some guy with a random opinion, you might have a harder time of it.
posted by oissubke at 12:31 PM on November 1, 2002


NO DAMNED HAND RECOUNTS!

To the contrary, the ability to do hand recounts is absolutely essential to the integrity of the secret ballot system. Machines make mistakes, software has bugs, switches, touch screens and optical sensors go flakey. The contract for voting machines goes to the lowest bidder or worse to the bidder with the biggest campaign contribution. Currently all voting machines are treated as black boxes as far as integrity is concerned. The manufacturers' contracts prohibit anyone from inspecting their mechanisms or software so that the potential for fraud is high. It would be simple for the software to simply switch one vote out of a hundred and there would be absolutely no way for anyone to ever know. When your vote goes into an electronic machine you have no way of knowing if or for whom it was counted.

A paper ballot serves as an audit trail to prevent errors or corruption. One method proposed for doing this is to have any electronic voting machine print out a paper ballot with your selections. This paper ballot would be visible behind a window and you would have the choice of accepting or modifying your vote. Once accepted, the paper ballot would automatically drop into the ballot box to form a permanent record. Normally, the electronic count would be used for vote tabulation, but in the case of a close race or suspected fraud, the paper ballots could be compared with the electronic count.

One could cite our acceptance and trust of ATM machines, but the difference is that ATM transactions are not anonymous. Each transaction is matched between an individual and an account number. You get a receipt and a monthly statement that form an audit trail so that you can verify your transaction was accounted for correctly. For anonymous transactions with voting machines, the paper trail and hand recounts are our only guarantee that the machines are working correctly.
posted by JackFlash at 12:42 PM on November 1, 2002


Of course, the world is full of people who would love any pretext for embarrassing the US. Why, that describes half the users of MeFi!

Slithy_Tove, I resent the implication that half of us on metafilter like embarrassing the US, and demand a recount. Maybe the popular half, sure, but the electoral half sure doesn't, and that's what counts!

I just love hearing Democrats blabber about how Bush "stole" the election because he didn't have the popular vote. It's called an Electoral College, people! Read the Constitution. It really doesn't matter who has the popular vote -- and with good reason.

oissubke: Careful with that broad brush. I think you're quite correct about the electoral college, but I'm not comfortable with the strawman you're setting up. Sometimes democrats bring up the fact that Gore had the popular vote for reasons other than the election outcome, and there are other complaints about the election process other than popular-vs.-electoral, such as the obstruction of even the two recounts conducted, and the courts running out the clock...

I wouldn't claim that democrat behavior was beyond reproach in the election, by the way, nor do I identify myself with the democrats per se. But take care not to characterize the democratic party in the way your statement implies...
posted by namespan at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2002


oissubke: Thanks for the PDF on the electoral college. It doesn't change my mind much, but made for interesting reading. It was obviously written before the 2000 election which makes certain sections almost humorous. From page one, these are the reasons America uses a electoral college:

1) The 13 states were actually republics that distrusted one another and distrusted central authority even more. (This is no longer true)
2) There was a logistics problem conducting an election with 4 million voters spread over 1000s of miles with very little infrastructure. (This is also no longer true)
3) The Founding Fathers didn't expect the formation and rise of political parties. (We now have a entrenched two party system)
4) There was a belief that 'gentlemen' didn't seek office - the office was supposed to seek them. (OOOOKAAAY?)

The paper lists the following objections to the electoral college:

1) There is a possibility of electing a president who had a minority of votes. (2000 elections)
2) Electors can be faithless. (Not a problem in 2000)
3) The electoral college can depress turnout. (2000 elections - the media announcing winners before the polls close was a definite factor)
4) Doesn't reflect the national public will. (2000 elections)

The electoral college is outmoded, period. There needs to be a federal system of hand counted elections that is standardized, transparent, fast, and dependent on a majority (popular) vote.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:31 PM on November 1, 2002


Careful with that broad brush. I think you're quite correct about the electoral college, but I'm not comfortable with the strawman you're setting up.

Fair enough. I did get a bit carried away in my statement, but I had just come off talking with a guy who swore to me that the Electoral College was a Republican conspiracy, and referred to Gore only as "President Gore". :-)

Thanks for calling me on that.
posted by oissubke at 1:32 PM on November 1, 2002


The electoral college is outmoded, period. There needs to be a federal system of hand counted elections that is standardized, transparent, fast, and dependent on a majority (popular) vote.

And campaigns will shift hard to population centres, ignoring anywhere with few enough people that their vote doesn't really count anymore. Not enough votes to matter. And, so, the backbone of America suddenly shifts to being an unwanted appendix, that if it ever inflames will just get taken out by a majority vote of the rest of the body.

The senate, and the Electoral College, exist to be sure that everyone gets heard, even those that don't want to live next to half a million of their closest Friends[tm].
posted by dwivian at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2002


The reason we have the electoral college is simple: it's what would pass the Convention. It's a deal, pure and simple in all its tawdry glory.

Is it likely to change? No. If you want to change it, you're going to have to do it with an amendment, which means getting 3/4 of the states behind it. And I really don't think that you'll be able to get the good people of Nebraska and Iowa and Kansas and Arkansas to give up some of their power and hand it over to pseudointellectual Manhattanites and vapid Angelenos, which is what you'd be doing minus the stereotypes.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:00 PM on November 1, 2002


NO DAMNED HAND RECOUNTS!

To the contrary, the ability to do hand recounts is absolutely essential to the integrity of the secret ballot system. Machines make mistakes,


It's obvious in context that the original poster meant the sort of mind-reading "What was the intent of this mark?" hand-recounting. IE, that if it ain't plainly visibly and obvious, it's a spoiled ballot.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:02 PM on November 1, 2002


It's my understanding that the Electoral College gives two votes to each state (the same number of Senators) plus one vote for each representative. Small states are already underrepresented - why do you think California and New York are such hot spots? States themselves aren't always the focus of campaigns anyway, demographic groups are. A presidential candidate isn't just trying to appeal to voters of a region as much as to the elderly, minority groups, unions etc. The idea of small states being 'defended' by the Electoral College is 18th century mythology.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:35 PM on November 1, 2002


I would like to point out that this Electoral College v.s. popular vote debate is foolish and academic. George W. Bush was elected by a vote of 5 to 4, among the only one's who mattered in 2000: The Supreme Court. We (not one fucking one of us) will ever know who won Florida because the SC(r)OTUS said, "NO" to recounts and legal challenges. Uphold the will of the Electoral College all you want. I will still hold to the belief that a recount/repolling should have been completed in Florida. If International observers aid that effort, then more power to them. Better that than having the Supreme Court choose our president.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2002


Actually, small states are over-represented in the Electoral College, if by small you mean small population. For example, in 2000, Wyoming had one electoral vote for every 164,000 citizens and Texas had one electoral vote for every 651,000 citizens. This is one of the worst problems with the current system -- some people's votes are worth more than others.
posted by JackFlash at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2002


oissubke: I can understand how speaking with one of President Gore's subjects might be aggravating.


elwoodwiles: I do question the merits of strong federal authority to some extent, and would question it even more if it catered politically to large population centers like New York and California. The electoral college keeps a balance which makes sure my home state isn't just a flyover state.

Of course, 90% of the state just reflexively votes republican, so no one bothers campaigning here anyway, but that's not the point...

On Preview, what dwivian and ROU_Xenophobe said. Yep.
posted by namespan at 3:27 PM on November 1, 2002


If it weren't for the Electoral College there would already have been a revolution. Anyone seen the famous blue and red map? If the vast majority of the country had its values and identity completely decimated in real actuality (rather than just near actuality as is currently the case), the people would fight back. States aren't just lines on paper, they are real choices that we get to make about what we stand for and how we live our lives.

And I would note that the only thing that makes our working Constitution old is that it works- it has maintained a nation that has survived to be old.
posted by loafingcactus at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2002


I do question the merits of strong federal authority to some extent, and would question it even more if it catered politically to large population centers like New York and California. The electoral college keeps a balance which makes sure my home state isn't just a flyover state.

In other words, you don't believe in democracy, you believe in whatever will give your home state unfair overrepresentation. The reason "large population centers" are "catered to" (i.e., fairly represented) is because that's where the most people are. Democracy is about one man, one vote -- "I get more votes than you because I'm special" is what the US has been trying to get away from for a couple of hundred years now. If you don't believe in democracy, that's fine -- MeFi is a house with many rooms. But be upfront about it.
posted by languagehat at 3:51 PM on November 1, 2002


well, it took me a while to get around to the electoral college .pdf, and there have been quite a few unusual (to say the least) comments since.

ROU_Xenophobe is right on, of course, which is why this argument is truly moot. the Electoral College will never change without a constitutional convention, which is extremely unlikely.

as long as 13 states (which in wcs could be as little as 5% of the population) can keep any amendment from passing, why on earth would Alaskans, Dakotans, Vermonters, Wyomingians, etc. agree to forfeit a current system that (as Kimberling specifically mentions) makes their votes for president worth 3 times as much as Floridians?

but to the paper...

although Kimberling mentions those 4 original reasons for the Electoral College that elwoodwiles quotes above, he also goes on to explain that those aren't the reasons why it's still effective.

basically, his two main reasons are:

1) the EC encourages not just popular support (lots of people) for a president, but widespread distributive support (people all across the country).

2) the EC bolsters the two-party political system, making third parties virtually impossible. according to Kimberling, this concentration is a good thing, forcing "extremist" third parties to moderate their views and join one of the major two. "In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government."

i think a lot of us would disagree with the second point, so i won't go into the reasons why i think a wide range of significant political parties with representation in Congress/the Oval Office would improve both political dialogue and voter participation.

i will take a few seconds to discuss why i think he's wrong about the first point.

when we think of "distributive support," we assume he means a general level of coast-to-coast representation. what we end up with, however, is election 2000, with the middle and south going to Bush and the west and (north)east coasts going to Gore. just b/c Bush's (fewer) supporters cover more land, does that make his support more distributive? of course not.

and instead of encouraging candidates to campaign everywhere in the US (which would be the best method of building true distributive support), the mathematics of the EC actually encourages them only to campaign in states where they have a chance of winning. where was the 2000 presidential campaign in California? nowhere, b/c pollsters gave the state to Gore fairly early. where was my incentive to vote? i had none, and i didn't (for president). Kimberling is wrong about voter turnout. if every vote for president mattered, wouldn't you be more likely to make it to the polls? he basically writes that off (though mentioning the idea has "a certain surface plausibility"), saying that holding state and local elections at the same time will ensure people come out to vote. bah. how many people don't vote at all b/c they think their vote won't count?

the fundamental issue is well expressed by languagehat. modern democracy (in every(?) other country in the world) means one person = one vote. any other system is inherently wrong, if not (which i believe) a means for those in power to consolidate and expand their power, which they are currently doing quite effectively - see the attempted permanent repeal of the estate tax, which benefits almost no one except the extremely rich (of which many are career politicians).

make no mistake. despite the original 4 reasons for the EC that Kimberly quotes, the real reason is that land-owning white men wanted protection against commoners making crazy (i.e. dangerous for them) decisions for president. the EC is and has always been a method for protecting those with power and wealth.

and let me tell you something, dwivian. most people don't have a choice whether or not they want to live next to half a million of their friends. the ones who do are predominantly upper class and white, the real "minority" that the EC is designed to protect.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:14 PM on November 1, 2002


In other words, you don't believe in democracy, you believe in whatever will give your home state unfair overrepresentation. The reason "large population centers" are "catered to" (i.e., fairly represented) is because that's where the most people are. Democracy is about one man, one vote -- "I get more votes than you because I'm special" is what the US has been trying to get away from for a couple of hundred years now. If you don't believe in democracy, that's fine -- MeFi is a house with many rooms. But be upfront about it.

languagehat, you are a big meanie, but I will respond to you anyway.

The equal representation of regions is just as important a democratic concept as the equal representation of individuals. Sometimes people in one region have no clue about issues in another. Water rights and management, for example, are different from east to west -- heck, from Northern to Southern California. And would you expect the city of New York to make decisions that are equally wise for Meridian Idaho? Or does an easterner really have any idea of the impacts that oil exploration that could drive down the price of their winter heating costs could have on National Parks here in the West? You could count on everybody from one region to study the issues carefully and make the wisest decision for the other (hah!) ... or you could build a protection into the system that includes regional self-determination as a factor, and give communities/regions more power over their own destiny. Not doing that welcomes us back to the era of colonialism... the less populous, less powerful region is just a resource for the more populous and more powerful region.

Or do you believe the U.S. should be able to do what it wants with Mali, because there's more of us? Of course not, you might say, but that's different because they're a sovereign. But many if not most of the current states in the U.S. (and ALL of the original 13) WERE sovereign states before they signed the constitution. They signed on under condition of the rules mentioned in the constitution, precisely because they recognized the realities about regional representation that I mentioned above.

And it's not particularly polite or, for that matter, the least bit correct, to say I don't believe in democracy because I believe in some regional balance. It's generally recognized that pure democracy can have any number of failings. There are checks in a sensible system to keep these problems out. Is one a despot for believing in representative democracy instead of pure democracy? Is one a communist for believing in public libraries? No -- and neither am I anti democracy for believing that popular votes should be tempered by regional representation. The current compromises -- the balance between the representation in the house and the senate, and the proportional but tempred resulting reflection in the electoral college seem to be rather effective mechanisms.

Of course, if you're a colonialist, you could just come out and say it. : )
posted by namespan at 6:34 PM on November 1, 2002


I agree that paper ballots are probably more easily audit-able (is that a word?) than ATM-type voting transactions. But one of the biggest problems with the punch-card ballots (less so with optical-scan or other forms of paper ballots) was that they degraded each time they were handled. I was in some of the recount rooms in Broward County and Palm Beach County in 2000, and there were lots of piles of chads on the table, no matter how carefully the recounters worked.

When it is literally impossible to get the same totals twice in a row with each count, you KNOW the system is screwed.
posted by Vidiot at 8:47 PM on November 1, 2002


What is the problem with putting an X on a piece of paper and dropping it into a sealed box, as most of the world has continued to do for centuries? It's by far the most reliable system. Until we all have individually allocated IP addresses or embedded microchips, I don't see that there any better mechanism currently available. It just takes plenty of volunteers to count, that's all.
posted by cbrody at 9:31 PM on November 1, 2002


What is the problem with putting an X on a piece of paper and dropping it into a sealed box, as most of the world has continued to do for centuries?

Most of the world has been ruled by monarchs and despots for centuries, and voting of any kind has been the rare exception, but let that go.

The problem is that counting hand-marked ballots is a) slow and b) prone to human error and outright political corruption. I've mentioned before that it's known that when humans do anything by hand, errors inevitably creep into the process. The original article from the Inquirer about all the errors in the Philadelphia election counts is pay-archive only, but the text seems to be reproduced here. Read it and weep. Or giggle. And these are just transcription errors; the original votes were recorded on old-fashioned mechanical voting machines. Even more errors would have crept in if the votes had been tallied by hand.

Why do you think that hand-counted ballots are the 'most reliable' system? Show me the evidence. That concept is contrary to everything else we know about repetitive mechanical tasks, which are performed more reliably by machines than by humans.

If there is a machine breakdown, or allegations of fraud, yes, by all means, re-count the ballots by hand. Twice, at least, by representatives of all parties. But that should be the rare exception.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:55 PM on November 1, 2002


namespan: I'm not a meanie, I'm just attacking your argument. When you've been savaged by one of the real meanies around here, you'll know it. But I apologize for any hurt feelings.

At any rate, of course I know the standard argument for giving extra votes to people who live in less populous states, I just don't believe it. It simply isn't true that "The equal representation of regions is just as important a democratic concept as the equal representation of individuals." Let's reduce it to the absurd: the entire population of the US is in one state, except for one guy who's in another state. You're saying that one guy should have the same weight in voting as all the others combined because of "equal representation of regions"? Of course not. "Regions" are dirt, rocks, and trees. They don't get votes. People get votes, and their rights shouldn't be affected whether they live in big cities or remote mountain cabins.

I may be particularly cranky about this because I live in New York City, which is routinely shafted by both New York State and the national government. The city is the main economic engine of the state, and one of the main national ones, and yet it's treated as a cash cow: we pay far more in taxes than we get back in services, and our public transport (vital for the economy, and good for the environment to boot) is starved to pay for ever more highways for our rural cousins. Why? Because our votes count for less. Fie, I say. It's undemocratic.
posted by languagehat at 8:27 AM on November 2, 2002


what about the Florida laws didn't you like?

The lack of provisional ballots, probablysteve. When Florida wrongly purged tens of thousands of black voters from the rolls as "felons," those people had zero recourse when they got to the polls. In many (most?) other states, provisional ballots are available that allow the person to vote; the vote is then set aside to be checked later for legitimacy. That Florida had nothing of the kind was unconscionable, and played a much bigger role in lost Gore votes than chads, butterflies or anything else.
posted by mediareport at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2002


SlithyTove: it's known that when humans do anything by hand, errors inevitably creep into the process.

The only correct reponse to this assertion is that, OK, let's get on with it and let machines do the voting in the first place. Not, in my opinion, a very difficult program to write given the binary nature of the options available in the current system.

What a great idea. It has to catch on eventually!
posted by cbrody at 10:44 AM on November 2, 2002


Nosed around a bit and found this detailed overview map of the status of provisional voting in each state (p.5, pdf). Not surprisingly, no two states do it the same way. A year after the 2000 fiasco, there were still 13 states with no provisional voting. Vermont's election head is actually quoted saying, "We don't have it and we don't want it." Amazing.
posted by mediareport at 10:55 AM on November 2, 2002


mediareport, when I lived in Vermont, in the early 70's, the state still had a poll tax.

Yep, the infamous poll tax, that was derided in that Tom Lehrer song. A decade or more after poll taxes had been declared unconstitutional. Why? Because no one had ever challenged it in the courts. Long after it was gone from Mississippi and Alabama, Vermont still had it, and may have it still, for all I know.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:14 PM on November 2, 2002


Jeb Bush's secret weapon (Salon Premium article):
In December 2000, we reported that Florida's use of a faulty and politically questionable list of felons and dead people "scrubbed" from voter rolls -- half of them African-Americans -- may have cost Al Gore the 537-vote margin of victory claimed by George W. Bush in Florida.

Fast-forward two years. There's another close race in Florida. This time, younger brother Jeb is fighting to fend off a challenge from Bill McBride for the governor's race. The Nov. 5 face-off could again come down to thousands, if not hundreds, of votes.

And even though the list has been widely condemned -- the company that created it admits probable errors -- the same voter scrub list, with more than 94,000 names on it, is still in operation in Florida. Moreover, DBT Online, which generated the disastrously flawed list, reports that if it followed strict criteria to eliminate those errors, roughly 3,000 names would remain -- and a whopping 91,000 people would have their voting rights restored.

Eventually the list will be fixed, state officials have promised, in accordance with a settlement with the NAACP in its civil rights suit against Florida following the 2000 election. But not until the beginning of next year -- and after Jeb Bush's reelection bid is long over.
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on November 2, 2002


Why do you think that hand-counted ballots are the 'most reliable' system? Show me the evidence. That concept is contrary to everything else we know about repetitive mechanical tasks, which are performed more reliably by machines than by humans.

I'd like to expand on this, though cbrody has just pointed out the important distinction: the priority should be eliminating voter error, since that's a distributed problem, whereas there are any number of solutions to eliminate counting error.

"Cross in the box" ballots are low-tech: that's their charm. It's really hard for even the most marginally competent eligible voter to screw it up. And I'd rather discern voter intent from a written ballot than sift through the chadalicious folderol of punch cards.

JackFlash did a great job explaining the defects of voting machines. The question remains, how do you keep the hand-count accurate and honest? Scrutineers from all parties watch the count, and if a recount's needed let more of them watch. Let the wonderful feedback machine of competing self-interest do its work after the election as well as before.

On the Electoral College. Perhaps its most unfortunate aspect is that the "winner takes all" in most States, which distorts the true political intent of their residents and feeds the mad "red-state/blue-state" division. Florida was hotly contested not for its 25 votes (cf the GOP handwashing of California and New York, the Dems in Texas) but because those votes would go all Republican or all Democrat (and in so doing decide the election). Perhaps a more reasonable description of the election would have been 13 Republican votes, 12 Democrat votes and a narrow victory for Gore in line with the popular vote.
posted by stinglessbee at 12:25 PM on November 2, 2002


I'm not a meanie, I'm just attacking your argument. When you've been savaged by one of the real meanies around here, you'll know it. But I apologize for any hurt feelings.

OK, I guess we can be neighbors. I was just a bit put out by the implication that because I didn't think pure democracy was the best system, I didn't believe in democracy at all.

"Regions" are dirt, rocks, and trees.

Not so, although I can see how the term is misleading. What I was looking for was a term that could communicate the same meaning as "community" without the connotation of smallness... a larger but defineable ecology/economy of land and people.

Let's reduce it to the absurd: the entire population of the US is in one state, except for one guy who's in another state.

Let's do. You've pointed out the absurdity of having that one guy have the equal vote to the rest of the population. I'd agree. Let's have it your way, now, though. One man, one voite.... how would the end result be any different from the colonialist problem that I mentioned? That mans livelihood and rights to whatever his stewardship was in the area would be of no consequence to the majority... if indeed they bothered to think about him.

You're saying that one guy should have the same weight in voting as all the others combined because of "equal representation of regions"? Of course not

And of course it's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the best system doesn't lie at either extreme -- it leads to the difficulties that both you and I have pointed out. The best system lies somewhere in the middle. The framers of the constitution had this conversation already, and came up with the tempered proportional system we have today.

I might add that the fuss you're making seems a little disproportionate to the disproportion of the representation -- at least as far as the electoral college goes. If elector distribution went straight by representative coount (which is supposed to be proportional to population), you would have 31, and Alaska would have 1. Instead, you have 33, and Alaska has 3. Those two votes per state don't really make each state particularly extra empowered when it comes to presidential elections, but 100 extra votes floating around the country ensure that a candidate has to pay attention to the nation as a whole, rather than just hanging out on the coasts the whole time.

I may be particularly cranky about this because I live in New York City, which is routinely shafted by both New York State and the national government. The city is the main economic engine of the state, and one of the main national ones, and yet it's treated as a cash cow: we pay far more in taxes than we get back in services, and our public transport (vital for the economy, and good for the environment to boot) is starved to pay for ever more highways for our rural cousins. Why? Because our votes count for less. Fie, I say. It's undemocratic.

Nope. It's not purely democratic. And so it goes with much of the rest of the U.S. constitution. A pure democracy isn't the highest ideal -- it can result in a tyranny of the majority that tramples on essential individual rights -- and in some places, the constitution protects other ideals before democracy. Think about how easily a pure democracy could have resulted in mass Muslim lynchings a year ago.

I can understand your concern, though, especially with the city... they probably realy do end up subsidizing a fair bit of state services for other areas, and if NYC is hurting for resources that's going to be especially troublesome. But you might try looking at some other angles. New York City very likely receives the lions share of services for the state... rural areas usual suffer when it comes to quality and availability of utilities and government services, whether it's schools or telecom. And yet they're as important as the city...they and those like it grow your food and future furniture. It's not bad having an infrastructure in place to support goals like that, and it ought to be worth something to New Yorkers to invest in it.

Although I wish the darn government in my state would start thinking more about public transportation and less about building more highways, which they can't figure out how to maintain anyway, and will eventually turn the place into another Los Angeles. Haven't these people learned anything from watching LA vs. Portland?
posted by namespan at 3:07 PM on November 2, 2002


If elector distribution went straight by representative coount (which is supposed to be proportional to population), you would have 31, and Alaska would have 1. Instead, you have 33, and Alaska has 3.

A minor note, the apportionment of House seats is not completely proportional to population either due to the fact that the size of the House of Representatives is capped by statute at 435 members.
e.g. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming(actually 68 and a little over a half), which is the smallest state by population, but it only has 53 times as many seats.
Wyoming actually has 1/568th of the country's population.
posted by Octaviuz at 10:48 PM on November 2, 2002


data from here (the US Census Bureau)
posted by Octaviuz at 10:53 PM on November 2, 2002


« Older The Turner Prize   |   Scrollbar racing Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments