At 23:44 11-11-00 -0400, Gord Sellar wrote:
> >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.
The workaround already exists. We've been using it for decades.
A few weeks before the election, everyone who is allowed to vote receives a
card from City Hall, stating when the elections will be held, what they are
for (City Council, Provincial, Congress) and in what location you can vote.
This is typically the location closest to your home. If you wish to vote in
an other location, you note that location on your card and return it to
City Hall. You will then be given a new card.
On election day, all polling stations are provided with a list of all the
people who may vote at that specific location. A voter hands over his card
(which has the voter's name, address and date of birth on it) to the
officials who then compare it to their list. If you're on the list, your
name is marked. The voter must prove his identity by showing some form of
ID (passport, ID-card or driver's license). You are then directed to a
polling booth, where you simply find the name of the person you wish to
vote for, and push the button next to that name. Press the "confirm"
button, and you're done. If you change your mind before pressing "confirm",
just press "cancel" and try again.
With this system you can't vote in more than one place, and you can't vote
for more than one candidate. Fast, easy, efficient, safe.
> >>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.
Um, Gord, keep in mind that you're talking about the *US* here. You know,
that country south of Canada where people have the words "I have the right
to <anything I want>" written on the inside of their eyelids, and where
people believe that the federal government's sole purpose is to take those
rights away from them. <grin>
>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?"
Not only do they still use paper ballots, but voters even need an arrow to
help them find the right dot for the candidate they wish to vote for?
Ouch... :)
This is worrying. The Americans can send satellites into Earth orbit,
people to the moon and spacecraft to Mars (perhaps even without crashing
them <grin>), but they can't find the correct dot on a ballot without some
help. Again: ouch. :)
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
Brin-L Party Page: http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/party.html
