Mathematicians: Elections Flawed

Nader-licious writes "Science News Online reports: 'With recent reports of malfunctioning voter machines and uncounted votes during primaries in Florida, Maryland, and elsewhere, reformers are once again clamoring for extensive changes. But while attention is focused on these familiar irregularities, a much more serious problem is being neglected: the fundamental flaws of the voting procedure itself. Mathematics are shedding light on questions about how well different voting procedures capture the will of the voters.' The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot."

Comments

Take cover

[Keylarn]

Slashdot has conspired with Sciencenews in an attempt to claim that there are inperfections in American Democracy.

I fully expect Dubyah to declare both sites to be terrorist regimes in league with Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. He'll surely sight ./ effect as an example of a weapon of mass destruction.

On the bright side if the least popular candidate does win, that does explain a lot about various elections over the years...

Re:Absolutely wrong.

[Zeinfeld]

If the Founders felt the common man or woman was too stupid to pick the President, they wouldn't have permitted a popular vote at all. The Founders did think the electorate was ill-equipped to select Senators, and made special provisions in the Constitution for Senators to be elected by State legislatures as opposed to the people.

The founders did think the common man was unable to pick the President. The states made their own election laws. The founders were mostly aristocrats who were attempting to establish a Republic, not a democracy.

Democracy had a bad reputation at the time, which got considerably worse after the French Revolution.

Early on the Vice President was even the runner up in the Presidential election. People started to see that this might be a problem after the election of Burr as Vice President.

It was only in terms of pure popular vote that Gore nudged ahead. But, as it turns out, pure popular vote doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's pure electoral vote that matters.

Historically Presidents who have failled to win the popular vote have been considered failures. I have little doubt Bush mkII will be considered a failure too. In two years he has broken every campaign promise with the exception of his vast tax cut for the very richest. While many promises were outside his power, his promise to be a 'uniter not a divider' was not, instead of keeping his promise he was so divisive he split his own party and lost control o0f the senate.

At the end of the day this president is going to be remembered for his cynical exploitation of 9-11 for his own political ends, his attacks on veterans injured in Vietnam as being 'not interested in national security', turning a surplus into a deficit and an economic recession. That is unless he can start a war in Iraq in which case he may be remembered for that. Given his talent for turning things into fiascos I suspect he is more likely to be remembered for America's second Vietnam. What Bush has either forgotten or never realised about Afgahnistan is that the Russians captured Kabul in considerably less time than the US took. The problem was not invading a country armed with obsolete light arms, the problem was holding the country against a bunch of fanatical loonies. The importance of US stinger missiles is greatly exaggerated by both the US and the ex-USSR, the real problem was inability to hold the supply lines.