> Marvin wrote:
> If either presidential candidate is willing to put patriotism and
> statemanship ahead mere politics, then they will act as this article
> recommends:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
And John replied:
> Two words: No way.
>
> Can you imagine the circus atmosphere in letting the voters of Palm Beach
County (or Florida for that matter) decide the Presidential election?
>
> Can you imagine the pressure?
>
> Can you imagine the money that would pour in?
>
> Can you imagine the further opportunity for voter fraud, human error, and
other "irregularities?"
>
> Besides, what would ultimately be the justification for such a thing?
The answer is simply that the ballot was close?
>
> Sure, the possible outcome of Palm Beach County is tantalizing - but
really, voter fraud is a part of life.
1. Last year's election here in Victoria resulted in the shock defeat of the
ruling conservative coalition. It took quite a while, some 3 weeks or more,
to determine the outcome because:
a. no party gained a majority of votes
b. 3 non-party aligned independents were elected and were faced with the
prospect that any two of them could align themselves with one side to form
government.
Oh, and one electorate had its vote annulled because one of its candidate's
died the night before the election. Unlike some places, rigor mortis is
enough to disqualify a candidate from election in Australia.
So, imagine the pressure on the voters etc. And yes, the incumbent
government suddenly started promising to pour money into the electorate.
Guess what - it was a very counterproductive move because the voters, sheep
that they are, can smell a hypocrite.
So, three weeks later that electorate went to the polls and voted again.
Labor won the seat that had previously been held by the conservatives. Labor
already had the most seats, just not enough to win government alone. They
had now won more than 50% of the State vote, just. And the independents
decided they could work with a new labor government, particularly in light
of the treatment they'd got frrom the previous government (why do
conservative parties always assume a "born to rule" attitude?).
A year later, and the Labor premier's approval rating is about 75 %.
>
> The dirty little secret of the American Electoral Process is that it has
all the accuracy of measuring a first down with the "chains" in a football
game. We would like to think that we can tally our elections to the nearest
ballot, but the truth of the matter is that even in recount after recount
our vote tallys represent the true wishes of the voters only within a margin
of +/- a couple thousand votes. In other words, all this recount stuff has
all the validity of sending Al Gore and George Bush to Tallahasse, and
conductin a coin flip with Bush calling it in the air.
>
> Our vote tallying system is simply unable to accurately tally votes to any
greater degree of accuracy. Yes, the vote in Florida is simply too close to
call.
Sounds to me like you need a pretty dramatic overhaul of how you vote then,
as well as how it is counted. It'd be different wouldn't it if your vote was
one of the one or two thousand.
>
> Were ballots stuffed in Miami-Dade County for Gore? Probably.
Evidence, John. Show us the evidence.
>Were black intimidated from voting in Central Florida? Probably again.
>
> Such are the flaws, warts, and scratches of American democracy.
>
> Nevertheless, it is impossible to argue that a re-vote, giving the Nader
voters a chance to switch to Gore with the Presidency at stake, would any
more accurately reflect the will of the people than the recounts currently
being conducted, or even a coin flip.
>
> The central point, however, is that we all agreed beforehand that a
recount would be the final arbiter of the count of the election. That
recount, according to the AP, is completed, with Bush the victor by 327
votes. Barring a shocking Gore upset in the overseas ballots (I find it
very difficult to believe Gore will carry a group of people that voted
54%-44% for Dole over Clinton), Bush should be the President-elect of the
United States.
>
And a few other points I'd like to throw in, based on having participated in
a fairly boisterous democracy:
1. Like probably much of the world, I am astounded that you don't have a
national system of voting and tabulation. Judging by an article in the NY
Times (printed here in the Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/20001111/A41272-2000Nov10.html) your whole
voting structure can be down to county level. Not even standard polling
hours!
To have the ballots designed at the local level, and the funding for both
running the election and then counting is unbelievable. I guess that also
means that voter registration is also done at the local level, too. I think
I now see why the south had some of the problems it did. Funny how it is
when the brick finally drops. How in hell can you put up with a system so
prone to corruption?
Here, we have a national electoral commission that is publicly funded and
applied nationwide. In fact, I think most places have just such a national
organisation. Maybe you should consider such a one?
2. In Australia, we occasionally have elections where a party achieves a
majority of votes nationally but doesn't win because the heavy votes occur,
frex, in solid seats for that party. In fact, the current Liberal Prime
Minister is in office even though Labor won 51 % or more of the vote. The
Libs won more seats, and government is achieved by the total number of
electorates won. It happens. Get over it.
And Gore and co seem to have solidly gotten over that problem by confirming
it all falls to the Electoral college vote. Takes guts.
3. Recounts are not automatic? Again, unbelievable. I don't just mean where
the margin is one percent or so, I mean for every electorate/state whatever.
Absolutely routine here, so that about 2-4 weeks after the election a full
recount of every seat is done to confirm the original vote. If you want
democracy, you've gotta pay for it to work.
4. The electoral college is based on winner take all for the states? Don't
you use proportional representation at all? That is, instead of say one
candidate getting all 25 of Florida's votes once achieving 50% plus 1, that
Bush should get say 13 and Gore 12 and then you tote it all up at the end on
a national basis. That way everyone clearly gets their say. I know
proportional representation is a radical idea, we've only been using it in
Australia for about 80 years, but you just never know, it might work.
5. So, because in 1996 over 15000 votes were ineligible in the county noone
should complain about the 19000 votes this year? That's over 4% of the vote
invalid isn't it? (based on Gore 269696+Bush 152954 = 422650, and rounded
out to guessed 450000 total) Not to mention a 75%+ increase in the error
rate. That's a pretty horrible error rate and should be minimised somehow.
Something is wrong if 1 in every 25 votes is invalid.
The total error rate here averages about 1%, and has done for decades. and
that error rate includes those who deliberately post a blank ballot. But we
vote far more often and using a consistent if older method - handwritten on
a paper ballot. I don't suggest you change to handwritten, but if you have
an error rate like that I think you ought to seriously look at how you
arrange your voting. And to take it as a given is enormously egocentric.
6. You can't wait a couple of weeks for every vote to be counted? near
enough is good enough to declare the winner of the most powerful job in the
world? Give it a rest!
You have 2 months to get this right, remember, and you currently have a
President, fully empowered to make whatever decisions are needed. What's the
rush? If you believe in democracy, then give it the time needed to fully
determine the will of the people.
7. Please don't expect me to ever take at face value a US government
criticising another country's voting system. It stank of hubris before, now
it's just ... ridiculous.
Brett
