Simplifying future cliffhanger elections
Dr H
On 8 Nov 2000, Dan Robinson wrote:
}
}The main issue of campaign reform is getting the money out of
}elections. But we have corruption beyond that, such as the two
}party system, and them being in control of who gets into the
}debates. (Without getting into issues of proportional
}representation and such...) Then we have the electoral college.
}
}There's surely soon going to be some arguments for getting rid of
}the electoral college, especially if, as present numbers suggest,
}Gore gets the national popular vote and Bush gets the electoral
}vote. The only good argument I've heard against eliminating it is
}that in an election this close, we'd have to do a recount for the
}whole country. So, when it's declared all the votes are counted,
}if the difference between numbers of votes for candidates gets
}within one percent (or one half percent?), rather than doing a
}national recount, a flip of a coin, or its equivalent, should
}decide the election.
What's wrong with doing a national recount, if necessary? If the
principle of one-person/one-vote is to have any meaning, this is the
only equitable way to proceed.
}Should we be going to a lot of expense to get an "exact" count?
Yes. But I think the bozos that run for office should have to chip
in a certain proportion of their total campaign spending to help
defray the cost of such a contingency.
}Suppose the Florida recount turns up a difference of .01 percent.
}Should we have another recount? Should Florida hold another
}election? Should we just forget about the Florida count? With the
}increased motivation, what's the chance that someone, or more
}than one on both sides, will find ways to fudge a few numbers?
}Doesn't it become pretty much a matter of chance which side can
}fudge best?
For national elections there should be a standardized national
ballot, and an standardized voting protocol that is the same for
all voters, in all states. The electoral college should be abolished,
and the office of president decided by the outcome of a direct
popular vote. The allowable margin of error in the count should be
fixed constitutionally, and thus be the same for everyone.
Dr H
Dan Robinson
On 2000-11-28 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
>What's wrong with doing a national recount, if necessary? If the
>principle of one-person/one-vote is to have any meaning, this is the
>only equitable way to proceed.
It doesn't seem to have much meaning in Florida. What makes you
think it will be better in the rest of the country? There is no
exact count. The main good of a national recount would be to
demonstrate this. The more ballots are handled, the less exact it
gets. Live with it.
>}Should we be going to a lot of expense to get an "exact" count?
>Yes. But I think the bozos that run for office should have to chip
>in a certain proportion of their total campaign spending to help
>defray the cost of such a contingency.
While your about it, why don't you think the corporations into
paying the rest? Thinking it is not the same as making it happen.
>For national elections there should be a standardized national
>ballot, and an standardized voting protocol that is the same for
>all voters, in all states. The electoral college should be
>abolished, and the office of president decided by the outcome of a
>direct popular vote. The allowable margin of error in the count
>should be fixed constitutionally, and thus be the same for everyone.
That's all nice, for the future. Keep thinking and maybe it will
happen. Meanwhile, what about this time?
Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/
"We are awake so that the cosmos can know itself."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Dr H
On 30 Nov 2000, Dan Robinson wrote:
}
}On 2000-11-28 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
}>What's wrong with doing a national recount, if necessary? If the
}>principle of one-person/one-vote is to have any meaning, this is the
}>only equitable way to proceed.
}
}It doesn't seem to have much meaning in Florida. What makes you
}think it will be better in the rest of the country?
Because right now we are dealing with the vaguaries of 50 different
sets of election laws. Ambiguities in Florida required the intervention
of the courts to interpret the laws; if the same were to happen in Oregon
there would be a completely different set of contingencies. Having
a national standard would make the US Supreme Court the sole arbiter
of questions of election protocol in all states.
}There is no exact count.
Agreed.
}The main good of a national recount would be to
}demonstrate this. The more ballots are handled, the less exact it
}gets. Live with it.
Right now we have at least 50 different versions of what constitutes an
acceptable deviation from an exact count. With a national standard,
any vote would theoretically receive the same treatment as any other
vote, anywhere else in the country. Currently, we don't even have
a guarantee of similar treatment of ballots, much less the same
treatment.
}>}Should we be going to a lot of expense to get an "exact" count?
}
}>Yes. But I think the bozos that run for office should have to chip
}>in a certain proportion of their total campaign spending to help
}>defray the cost of such a contingency.
}
}While your about it, why don't you think the corporations into
}paying the rest? Thinking it is not the same as making it happen.
What's your point? That we should act without thinking? Or
that we should do nothing?
}>For national elections there should be a standardized national
}>ballot, and an standardized voting protocol that is the same for
}>all voters, in all states. The electoral college should be
}>abolished, and the office of president decided by the outcome of a
}>direct popular vote. The allowable margin of error in the count
}>should be fixed constitutionally, and thus be the same for everyone.
}
}That's all nice, for the future. Keep thinking and maybe it will
}happen.
Kind of like you thinking that voting for Nader had any practical
effect other than to probably give Bush the presidency? ;-)
}Meanwhile, what about this time?
From what available options? I favor a re-vote for president in Florida
using standardized ballots. Failing that, I favor a recount of the
whole state under the supervision of a neutral third party, if it's
possible to define such a thing in this case. Failing that, I favor a
complete recount of all the votes in the disputed counties.
Failing that, I favor throwing out the Florida vote entirely, and
deciding the election based on the votes of the remaining states,
with congress breaking a tie, if necessary. What the hell, we already
know that thousands of votes weren't counted, why balk at millions?
Dr H