Slashdot Mirror
How Would You Change U.S. Election Procedures?
"How about a credit card-style voter registration card that I have to swipe in order to verify that I am eligible to vote? Such a card could be used to present custom electronic ballots to voters so they do not have to physically vote in their home districts (one could be away on business and within the country's borders or even at an embassy in a foreign country and still vote without an absentee ballot). Federal standards would also put the burden of maintaining proper voting facilities on the Federal government, helping to alleviate issues that can arise with insufficient equipment in less affluent or populous districts. The idea is not to centralize the voting regulations that are currently in place in each state, but rather to centralize and unify the mechanics of casting a vote. Your thoughts?"
Let the individual states run the elections if they want, but have the Federal governement set the rules.
It works up here in Canada. We have been laughing our asses off at how the US runs an election for the past 4 years, and this time was no exception. When I voted, I had not been registered, I walked into the voting hall, handed them some ID, and they let me vote. No provisional ballot, nothing weird, I just voted and put it in the same box as everyone else.
And to vote, I have a single piece of paper with all the names in that race listed. I put an X (or any mark) in the space next to the name and that's it. If I mark more then one, it is a spoiled ballot.
It boils down to, I put an X next to who I want on a piece of paper.
How much harder does it have to be. We may have to wait a little longer to get the official counts, but we at least are sure it counted, and I know my vote was counted.
Anyway...
Enjoy!
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
in this series of articles (free-reg-req). Summary via comp.risks:
1. Election day should be a holiday (rather than penalizing employees for having to take time off to vote).
2. Early voting can allow people to vote when it is convenient for them.
3. Voter-verified audit trails, source code accessibility to election officials, spot checks of code on Election Day (as is done in Nevada's slot machines!)
4. Shorter lines at the polls, standards for numbers of voting machines and poll workers.
5. Impartial election administrators, and restrictions on insiders endorsing candidates.
6. Uniform and inclusive voter registration standards.
7. Accurate and transparent voting roll purges.
8. Uniform and voter-friendly standards for counting provisional ballots.
9. Upgraded voting machines and improved ballot design.
10. Fair and uniform voter ID rules.
11. An end to minority vote suppression, disenfranchisement, harassment, dirty tricks.
12. Improved absentee ballot procedures, e.g., downloading absentee ballots from the Internet, but avoiding the ballot-by-scan/fax/e-mail with explicit loss of privacy.
It's called Prime Minister's Question Time. He has to do it in the House of Commons, and he has to do it every week. It used to be twice a week, but Tony Blair changed it to once a week (but doubled the length of the session).
He also faces constant questioning because he participates in parliament in general (which would be like the president sitting in the senate every day).
I think you've hit on a major problem with American politics. Because your lead politician and figurehead is never engaged in discussion, his views are never, ever questioned. I think this may have had a more general effect on the level of debate in the country in general.
The Votes are counted at the polling station.
If you think it works read this report from a volunteer election monitor in Tampa. You will get an enchanting picture of the still endemic rascism and voter suppression, now Republican inspired, that is designed to disenfranchise minority voters and rig elections.
In her report an old white cracker, and assorted other apparently Republican poll workers do there best to discourage, con and intimidate minorities and people they visually brand as Democrats from voting. This racially inspired voter intimidation is as old as the hills, and used to be the specialty of Southern Democrats but it has since migrated to the Republican's, along with Southern white voters, since the mid 1960's and is a key reason the Republicans now own the south.
This observer was a black lady and an old white guy did everything he could to try to intimidate her in to leaving including physically body slamming her, because she was calling in potential violations of the law and intimidation efforts.
They tried to send con one hispanic, first time voter, in to leaving the precinct where he was supposed to vote and go to a precinct where he wasn't supposed to be and which would have been closed by the time he got there.
A black lady, ex felon who'd apparently gone to the great lengths necessary to have her voting rights reinstated, which Jeb Bush does for a handful of people each year, was put on a phone to Tallahassee and threatened with felony charges if she voted. She did anyway, in spite of the threats, since it was her right under Florida law.
@de_machina
While I agree with your idea, and in fact I'd prefer a parliamentary system to our seperated branches of government (in practice, rather than in theory, it seems to offer more of a check on government abuse, while ironically also allowing a more efficient government), I wonder how effective a question hour would be in our system.
The Prime Minister is (typically) the leader of the dominant party in the House of Commons (similar to Tom DeLay, Majority Party Leader in Congress). He is also, by virtue of that, the head of government (the head of state - the ceremonial and theoretical source of executive power - is the Queen). Put simply, he is a legislator that has been "granted" executive power on the Queen's behalf because he can command the support of a majority of Parliament.
Under that system, it's necessary for him to remain accountable to the legislature, because if he gets too abusive with his power, the legislature can simply demand he resign (vote of no confidence) or stop supporting his actions, completely hamstringing his government. So he has to answer questions and appeal to them (which coincidentally, demands far better speaking and rhetorical skills, since he must constantly defend his positions).
In our system, the President is elected separately - he is not merely a member of Congress picked to run the executive branch. So he is in no way accountable to Congress - if they fail to support him, he keeps his job. Also (and this is particularly important), the President is both head of government (like Blair) and head of state (like the Queen). The later position requires a certain dignitas, a remaining above the fray of politics, while the former requires being in the political fight.
Uniting these positions was one of the mistakes made in the Constitution, I think, because the President gets the mystique of being a head of state and the power of head of government. In a parliamentary system, no one ever stops to say "he's the prime minister, so I'll stay behind him", as many do about the president - that sort of feeling is more focused on the Queen, who has no real power now.
In other words, A) The president wouldn't have any reason to refuse to answer a question because Congress (short of impeachment for criminal matters) can't just say "you're out of the executive", and B) many (in Congress and the public) would be unhappy with harsh criticism of the President that would never be the case with a distinct head of government (the way more people in Britain would check their criticism of the Queen, or moderate it, but feel fine ripping on Blair).