Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[evilbau]

My problem is you say things and we are somehow supposed to divine what you mean. Linking the National Initiative or w/e is not making a point or putting forth an argument. Saying "Simple solution: do away with the electoral college" is not a compelling argument, or even a coherent position. On top of that I wasn't even talking about the electoral college, but the delegates in the primary, so your out-of-left-field comment makes even less sense.

But I'll pretend you actually said something of substance and put forth cogent thoughts (like, "the electoral college puts an disproportional focus on swing states and it becomes a game of milking the system for electoral votes"). Changing it to a popular vote would be good... for the top 10 populated states. For the bottom half of populated states, they will be ignored and campaigns will be decided by big media purchases in the most populated areas. Swing states won't have any importance anymore as they would be split down the middle. None of those states would be interested in moving away from the electoral college system as it would render them all unimportant. So thats why it won't happen. Give actual reasons why you think the way you do and maybe you won't be bashed for your opinions and the way you say things.

[sunb1ind]

I apologize evilbau for posting seemingly vague or out-of-left-field comments sometimes. The EC statement may have not been relevant to YOUR post directly, but it was more of a general statement about the whole theme itself.

Maybe I should write long paragraphs about "Do away with the Electoral College". I don't think it deserves that much discussion when you admit its flawed, right?

P.S. Sorry also for the shameless advertising of the National Initiative. I have strong feelings towards this IRL and try as much as possible to put this in any sort of election/congress/new bills/etc discussions. Its depressing how little attention it gets.

[evilbau]

I agree the EC is flawed, but I don't think the popular vote is better. Taking into account that its unlikely ever to be significantly changed, if you want to have a EC discussion, fine. But it would be a good idea to not quote something not related (leading people to believe you are responding to it), and also admit you are talking in theory, as anyone who knows about the EC knows that its heavily slanted towards maintaining the status quo.

Personally I think the best solution is to have electoral votes determined by district, although that promotes gerrymandering. Grandfather it in 20 or 30 years from now so no current politicians are directly affected by it (and perhaps it will allow them to vote their conscience for once) and re-draw district lines at that same time. If you take out these points of corruption maybe a real change can happen. I hate generalizations like 'get rid of the electoral college'. It tells me you have a superficial knowledge of it.

[pohibaba]

I've always been a fan of Instant Runoff Voting as it would give third party candidates a much better shot at winning elections because then people could vote for the candidate they really want and not feel like they're wasting their vote.

Edit: Sorry, I know this doesn't directly relate to your conversation on the Electoral College, but in regards to that, I actually like it. As with helping the less populated states have more of a voice, it also helps third party candidates because it's easier to win a few states than it is to win a significant amount of the popular vote.

[aurik]

There are a bunch of viable systems other than regional winner-takes-all which is what the EC boils down to.

Instant runoff is a great one. It allows people to show their support for minor candidates without fear of "wasting" their vote.

[sunb1ind]

I don't believe IVR will solve anything really. It doesn't address the problems with voter fraud: big money influence, big media, etc.

Edit: also, I think it would be a disaster if implemented on paper ballots(which obviously is the first step to prevent the elections from being tampered with.)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't believe IVR will solve anything really. It doesn't address the problems with voter fraud: big money influence, big media, etc.

Edit: also, I think it would be a disaster if implemented on paper ballots(which obviously is the first step to prevent the elections from being tampered with.)

It's not the voting systems responsibility to address big money influence, big media, etc. A voting systems responsibility is to collect votes. It seems like that would be outside the scope of a voting system. Something else would have to influence those things.

[evilbau]

NBC: Huckabee projected winner in Kansas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23068044/

More primary watching haha

[Maxxthepenguin]

I don't believe IVR will solve anything really. It doesn't address the problems with voter fraud: big money influence, big media, etc.

Edit: also, I think it would be a disaster if implemented on paper ballots(which obviously is the first step to prevent the elections from being tampered with.)

It's not the voting systems responsibility to address big money influence, big media, etc. A voting systems responsibility is to collect votes. It seems like that would be outside the scope of a voting system. Something else would have to influence those things.

I say we should go to the British system where the candidates aren't announced till very close to the election and each candidate has an equal amount of money to advertise (and the amount is more like 2mil instead of 50mil). It would waste far less time and money while giving people a more fair platform.

Not that the system is flawless but it would be a good starting point.

[sunb1ind]

This is a good example. There are alot of other countries who are doing it better than us(not perfect, but better). Its an interesting read if you examine some of the systems used all over Europe. Each one unique, but sharing similar values. The least we could over here, to start with, is a reform on our candidate fundraising and electronic ballots plaguing our elections.

[archibaldcrane]

If I recall, hanging chads and the butterfly ballot of 2000 were both paper ballots.

[sunb1ind]

Its easy to fix problems with paper ballots. You will never be able to fix this about electronic votes.

[aurik]

There really isn't anything wrong with a well-designed electronic ballot system.

[archibaldcrane]

It's also possible to grab a box of ballots and run screaming into the night.

Show me evidence that this has occurred, beyond his saying "if the exit polls are different from the actual results, then I believe that it was hacked" - hell, the exit polls in West Palm Beach county were different from the results in 2000 (who knew Pat Buchanan had such support among old Jews?) and that's without electronic voting.

I don't have a strong feeling for or against electronic voting, but I do have a strong feeling against people who say that you will "never be able to prevent the polling machines from being hacked".

There are very public and important documented problems with some paper balloting systems - until you show evidence of the same actual (not potential) problems with electronic machines, your argument is weak. "Beware the technology" is a potent battle cry though.

[sunb1ind]

The shear ease it is for someone to fuck with massive amounts of votes(not even close to paper) should be enough reason alone to not use electronic ballots. You make it sound like its possible to track these switched votes in comparison to rigging paper elections(*cough* george dubya). You won't be seeing the word recount anytime soon.

[archibaldcrane]

Elucidate me as to how easy it is.

[Delta_9]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kap ... 26301.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshillust ... 9/sizes/l/

I think there is a solution to the e-voting problem. Just have to get some competent people working on a machine it seems.

[evilbau]

Elucidate me as to how easy it is.

yeah he doesn't do that, provide details

[archibaldcrane]

Of course, your USB flash drive has to have the proper formatted software to inject, but yeah that looks pretty easy.

And of course, polling places are run by volunteers, generally retired people who don't know dick about computers.

Of course, the key here is:

There really isn't anything wrong with a well-designed electronic ballot system.

Meaning one not easily tampered with. Edit: Of course. (where did that speech pattern come from? I need to stop posting while xping smn.)

[sunb1ind]

Elucidate me as to how easy it is.

yeah he doesn't do that, provide details

You're full of shit lol All I do on these forums is 90% arguing the details.

Its naive to think electronic voting will ever be safe enough to use for the public. Haven't you learned anything from using the internet? Hackers will always find away through security. Going back to paper ballots at this point is a "no brainer".

Edit: I refuse to hold people's hands through a debate by posting every article out there on the follies of electronic fraud machines. Do your own research. I already gave a video of the dude testifying under oath about how easy it was for him to make a program to rig elections(surprising). Trust me, there's plenty more whistleblowers out there, just not in friendly video format.

I don't mind discussing long-winded issues(see fbi thread), but it begins to be not worth my time when I have to drop multiple replies on "is electronic voting bad?".