John, I think you have word wrap on or something, dude. You also don't have
line-length limits on your emails, so when I reply I get only one quote ">"
thingie at the beginning of each paragraph.
Also, I was much more impressed with your comments earlier on this week,
whereas what you are writing now is much more problematic.
Okay, back to the discussion:
At 2:03 PM -0400 11/11/2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>>Come on John. The machines they use are old, the ballot was messy,
>people were apparently not allowed to fix their mistakes . . .
>
>The key word there is apparently. Thus far, we have one report
>from one voter to that effect. If this was demonstrated to be
>widespread, that consitutes voter fraud. I have not seen anything
>near amounting to that level of proof, however.
Well, okay, but that only applies to the last point. As you conceded, the
system in place is flawed. And my question was, what kind of rectification
is possible?
Or is it not serious enough to warrant addressing? I mean, it's only like
the primary ideal of your much-touted system, isn't it?
>>>Come on now, do we really want people who couldn't
>>>follow an arrow to a dot deciding the President of the United
>>States?
>>
>>I thought that in your country, it was one vote per person of voting
>age. Isn't it?
>
>My point was not so much that, but more that we shouldn't
>have a great deal of sympathy who made errors completely
>out of their own inceompetence. A reasonable person, taking
>voting seriously, and taking their time with the ballot would
>not have screwed up.
So people who made mistakes were "unreasonable"? Before you implied that
they were merely dumb (ie. dumber than schoolkids), and now you're claiming
instead that they were uncareful and irresponsible. 19,000 people, John? If
you're gonna talk about such a large group in such blithe generalities,
please at least pick a single mischaraterization and stick with it, dude.
>>That'd be a ballot for which NO possibility for contestation
>> would be possible. Why not do that instead of saying "well, the
>system has warts."
>
>Because it *does* have warts Gord. Maybe as a Canadian,
>you don't realize all the inadequacies of our system.
Actually, I am more familiar with your system than my own, thanks to this
list. I'm quite aware of many those inadequacies, I just think your
argument that "the system has warts" is not good enough... every system is
imperfect, is one way to say it. The other way to say it is how my old
undergrad compsci professor put it: "There is always a better way of doing
this."
>1) Secret ballot prevents us from checking ballots to ensure
>that they are filled out correctly.
As you point out, rectification for this is possible though more efficient
equipment.
>2) Universal sufferage precents us from checking the identity
>of voters with anything more than a signature saying that they
>are who they really say they are. (which is compared to a signature
>made when the voter first registered to vote.)
Right, I don't see the problem there. I see potential for problems, but
then again I think the workaround will come in time. The identity of voters
can't be checked by the government, but if I have the right gear, one can
certainly have one's computer stake out the voting halls in one's town to
scan for multiple visits by the same person, _Transparent Society_-style.
>3) Ballot box stuffing is still not uncommon, especially in
>urban areas. Usually, it is not to a degree to affect the result.
>This year, that is obviously a distinct possibility.
Please explain, I don't know what you mean by "ballot box stuffing". Do you
mean faked out ballots that are stolen and filled out and then entered as
"real" ballots?
>4) Bribery remains widespread, especially in urban areas. At
>least one case has been confirmed in Milwaukee. The distribution
>of "walking money" remains common in predominatnly black areas.
> Voter intimidation is not unheard of in rural, especially
>predominantly black rural areas.
Okay, and precisely my question: what's done about this? That was my
question in the beginning: how can this be rectified?
>5) Bias and corruption in the counting and certification provess
>remains not unheard of. In fact, a judge has recently declared the
>election in New Mexico to be compromised.
There are likely dozens of possible workarounds for this. It is probable
that the addressing of #1 would best coincide with the addressing of #5.
>>Make a consistent nationwide ballot-template to prevent such> >problems
>>from recurring.
>
>This is probably unconstitutional, as each State is responsible
>for electing their own representatives.
This is probably irrelevant. What's the friggin' difference? They're
responsible for electing their own representatives, but they could adopt a
basic template and/or system (such as what you mentioned above, using a
mechanical system or something else) to avoid future problems of this sort.
I'm sure it's far more unconstitutional to have one's vote chucked because
a few twerps were in a technical mood.
>>But I will point out one thing to you: anyone can look at another
>>group (usually one defined in the observer's own mind) and decide
>>that those people are unfit to decide something like who should run
>>the country.
>
>Let me say again, I am not saying that they are unfit to vote.
>Merely that these people are responsible for their own actions,
>and they were given a free and fair opportunity to vote, the same
>as everybody else. Moreover, the needs of these people are
>completely unsufficient to take the drastic step of ordering a revote.
That's a far different statement from "Come on now, do we really want
people who couldn't follow an arrow to a dot deciding the President of the
United States?" Regardless of whether it's worth ordering a revote or not
(I can see it's a big deal either way), I think that the problem DOES
suggest some reform is necessary. And really, it's probably necessary
elsewhere as well, with what you've written taken into account.
>My own example, if you choose the lottery numbers 2-4-7-13-24-40-57 and
>say that you meant to pick 2-4-7-13-24-40-58, but the holes were too small
>and messed up, you don't get to repick your lottery numbers after finding
>out how close you were.
>You still had a *right* to pick those lottery numbers, and you were not
>disenfranchised when you made a mistake. You are responsible for your own
>actions.
Cute example, but like the sports analogies you posted, this analogy fails
because it is a false analogy. People choose to participate in the lottery
at their own risk, and by doing so tacitly accept the terms of the game as
proposed by the lotto company itself. I think you should note the
difference between that and this hypothesis of democracy that you have
spoken about here so often . . . after all, it's been dramatically
illustrated that a single vote CAN count in your country, (regardless of
what effect THAT effect really has); now the question is whether your
people are willing to optimize the system to make good on that assertion,
or not. I guess I'm asking because, well, I am trying to think of a
business that uses 40-year-old technology sans post-1960 improvements. The
place I worked in this summer had air-conditioning systems that were less
than 5 years old. Somehow I would place this idea of "democracy" somewhere
ahead of air conditioning on the priority scale.
Gord
