How Would You Change U.S. Election Procedures?

kkrista asks: "Ignoring for a moment your opinions on the outcome of the presidential election, what do you feel can be done to improve polling procedures in the U.S.? Verifiable votes seem an obvious necessity, but what else? It seems to me that standardized Federal election procedures would help ensure a fair election." Read on for some of kkrista's ideas -- do you have any better ones?

"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?"

Comments

How about empower the Electoral College

[sb_steele]

My thought is to give back the power to the Electoral College. Enable the system as it was designed. We should all be voting for a local representative (aligned with the same district as your House Representative). Everyone within that district votes for their representative to the college. And then the entire Electoral College makes their vote for whomever they feel is the best candidate. The system is broken... I agree, but let's repair it to its original design...

Federal Voting Rules

[dJCL]

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!

Re:Federal Voting Rules

[TheCarp]

Theres several problems with our voting system (not the least of which is that I think the 1 vote for one candidate thing is silly, I would rather see a ranked voting system)

1. There are no standards

every system has its problems, differences in how votes are counted, error rates, etc. I find it amusing that in 2000 the SCOTUS stopped the recount because different systems in different counties for doing recounts meant that ballots were not bein gcounted in a univorm manner... so they tossed it on equal protection grounds.

Speculation as to their motives aside, its true, and you would think they could fix it. However nothing was done.

2. Political Parties are way too involved.

In most states to be involved in the elections, you effectivly have to be aproved by the parties. In flordia high level election officals were also high level Bush campaign people.

Now I am not saying that they cheated, but if anyone was going to cheat, then they were in the position to do so. This is a matter of conflict of interest. People who are strongly invested in one candidate winning are involved with vote counting? That has an air of inpropriety that should be avoided.

What we need is a central elections authority with very strict non-partisan rules. The entire system needs to be made completly transparent so that there is nothing to contest after the fact.

3. The system is biased

Sure you can bet a Dem and a Repub will be on the ballot, but who else can get on the ballot in every state? Nader can't, but he probably came the closest. I think we need to a) drop ALL offical recognition of political designations and parties. b) make it easier to get on ballots.

John Kerry and George Bush campaigns should have had to go through exactly the same process that Nader had to go through to get on the ballots. That would be much more fair. It just should not be so hard to get on the ballot.

In addition to this, I think there should be one ballot, on in one state, on in every state.

4 Debates

There should be federally regulated debates. Every candidate on the ballot should be invited to the debates. There should be several of them, and the candidates should be GIVEN the rules, not allowed to try to negotiate them for their own favor.

Beyond that its up to the candidates to deliver their message and call eachother on their shit. Overall I think Kerry's mistake was not calling Bush on his shit.

Kerry got in there with policy talk. He came out with concrete actions and numbers. These are things that you can disagree with though. He let Bush get away with talking in vague generality and metaphore about values and whatnot.

Frankly, if I don't rea dbetween the lines, I find myself agreeing with Bush in his speaches and his debates. he never says anything that you will disagree with. Its all visual metaphores. There is no "we are going to reform taxes, help fammilies etc", whereas Kerry is "we are going to cut this, put the money here to do that". Well nobody is going to disagree with "reform" or "helping fammilies", but they may disagree with specifics about how you do that.

But, thats up to the candidates, reforming the system can only go so far, some steps they have to take on their own.

-Steve

Re:Federal Voting Rules

[software_trainer]

"Let the individual states run the elections if they want, but have the Federal governement set the rules...It works up here in Canada..."

Each state is allowed to run the election its own way, and many other things its own way, so that the states are like laboratories or individual countries where they compete to come up with the best quality of life and the best government policies. Because U.S. citizens can freely and easily move from state-to-state, it's easy for them to "vote with their feet" for the best government solutions. Our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) had faith in the free market's ability to propogate the best quality of life, and they extended that faith in the free market to state governments.

"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.'

Well, that's certainly a valuable contribution to this discussion. I'm glad that you have found something to feel smug about. Perhaps this will help lift you out of your inferiority complex. On a more productive note, the fact that the U.S. still gives states so much autonomy reflects our different view of the proper role of federal government. Many countries and cultures believe that if it can be regulated at the federal level, then it should for the sake of consistency. In the U.S., we generally believe that if it can be regulated at the local level, then it should for the sake of flexibility. The Swiss have been having this discussion recently, in regards to their education system. Education in Switzerland is almost entirely regulated by the 26 individual cantons. That kind of local control makes schools more responsive to local needs, but the differences also make it more difficult to move between cantons when you've got school-age children.

"If I mark more then one, it is a spoiled ballot."

It's a shame that most people can't understand or don't care about the advantages of Condorcet voting. That kind of approval voting would fulfill the intent of the Electoral College, without the controversy that the College generates every year.

Re:Federal Voting Rules

[Golias]

You are talking about two completely different types of nations.

Canada is one state, divided into provences.

America is fifty states, united into a federation.

The purpose of the US federal government is to provide a common defense, print a common currency, and regulate insterstate commerce. The role has expanded somewhat since the founding, particularilly in the areas of protecting individual rights, but we are still governed by our states.

If I murder my neighbor, it is the State of Minnesota, not the US, which throws me in prison. If I lose my job and wish to file for unemployment assistance, I apply with Minnesota, not the federal government. If I even want a fishing license, I get it from Minnesota.

As I understand it, if an Ottowan murders somebody, he is tried in a Canadian court. If he loses his job, he gets whatever commie benifits they have up there from the Canadian government. If he wants to fish, he applies for a license from the government of Canada.

See the difference?

Same day registration + indelilible ink

[stomv]

(In addition to the electronic voting stuff)

Same day registration is important. The right to vote should not be predicated on the actions of dealing with a government agency prior to election day.

Some states have same day registration, but it opens the state up to more voter fraud. So: use indelible ink. Nations with low person-specific government recognition including Afghanistan and India use it. Simply, it is ink that can't be rubbed off for at least 24 hours.

You vote. You get your thumb inked. You don't need an "I voted" sticker. Since you can cast a spoiled vote, even those who would prefer not to vote can get the ink on their thumbs. If you've got ink on your thumb, you can't reregister or revote at a different precinct/ward.

Easier to vote + fewer instances of fraud = better democracy.

Leave it alone

[duffbeer703]

The system works, let it be.

Nobody wants a fiasco in their state, so the states are individually reforming the system to avoid a situation like the one in Florida in 2000.

It takes time, anything involving government does.

The last thing that we need is yet another massive Federal program with arbritrary rules and unfunded mandates.

Re:Leave it alone

[goatan]

The system works, let it be.

How can you say a system that allows someone who didn't win the popular vote become the president work?

Re:Leave it alone

[malachid69]

You obviously haven't been reading the other posts here on Slashdot.

There is plenty of evidence that the Republican party got many votes it didn't win (and in some cases many more votes than voters). I really doubt that the Democrats were the ones giving more votes to Republicans.

It could be argued that much of the problem is caused by f'ed up hardware/software (like in the Votergate video where they showed selecting one candidate and it printing a different one) -- but there is too much discrepancy to point the finger at a malfunction.

The fact of the matter is that much of the US does not have faith in the process. That in itself is an issue. Even if everything was on the up and up (which I don't believe), lack of faith in the system drastically changes the outcome (many don't vote because they feel it doesn't matter).

In addition, our system is designed to favor the Republican or Democratic parties, not really giving 3rd parties a chance. Many people this election voted for the lesser-of-2-evils instead of who they liked because they didn't feel that voting for their preferred candidate would help.

And then there are lots of people that vote for their party, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. The system should be designed in such a way that people vote on their ideals, not on their party.

If you really think that what you said was true, take a look at the other political links Slashdot has provided lately and THEN make up your mind. You should never decide because your party wins/looses or because your party says things are a specific way. You should look at all the evidence and decide for yourself.

Re:Leave it alone

[demachina]

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.

Standardized X

[rueger]

Uniform voting regulations across the country (I know, states rights etc) and a good old paper ballot. This should be simple.

It's insane that each of thousands of states and counties have different rules, different technology, different everything.

And, as the latest irregularities show, there is simply nothing as useful as a simple and unambiguous paper trail.

Oh yeah - and better candidates.

Re:Standardized X

[WhiplashII]

In addition to standardizing things - improve the standard. Require the ballot to have a short description of each candidate, including who they are and what their platform is.

Most people know the presidential candidates, but who knew the options for their District Court Judge, comptroller, etc?

Third Parties

[Hythlodaeus]

The change I would make does not have to do with voter registration/identification. I would introduce some sort of runoff system, so that people would not feel that votes for third parties are "wasted." There's a lot of political vector space left unrepresented by the two parties.

Tweaking the Electoral College procedures

[NeMon'ess]

I heard an idea I like that would shift the campaign more to the populated states, but would keep middle-sized states relevant. The small states are, and will continue to be overlooked, but there's even a benefit for them too.

Presently each state gets electoral votes equal to one for each member of the House it has and two for the Senators. Thus even the least populated states get three electoral votes. I'm not suggesting a change to this, but a change to the way they are awarded. The two senatorial electoral votes are separated out and the population based ones are distributed based on the percentage of the popular vote won in that state. The winner of the popular vote in each state gets two senatorial votes.

Example: Georgia - worth 15 votes (13 population, 2 senatorial)
If Lisa gets 55% of the vote and Jack gets 45%, Lisa is awarded 7 of the 13 and the two for winning for a total of 9. All further examples assume the same percentages.

Example: Montana - worth 3 votes (1 population, 2 senatorial)
The winner gets 2 plus the remaining 1. Thus winning this state is worth all 3 votes and denies the losing candidate even 1 vote.

Example: New Mexico - worth 5 (3 population, 2 senatorial)
Winner gets 2 plus 2 of the remaining 3. That's 4 of the 5. Simply splitting all 5 might've been only 3 to the winner. This way the winner gets 1 more and loser gets 1 less.

What do I like about this extra layer of complexity vs. only awarding votes based on the percentage breakdown? Because it makes it slightly more worth it to not give up on the smaller states. In New Mexico, under a simple split, the loser gets 2 while the winner receives 3. That's an acceptable loss, only 1 point difference. A candidate behind in the polls might write off the state. But if the winner gets 4 of the 5, it becomes more costly to give up.

Example: Indiana - worth 11
Winner gets 2 plus 5 of the remaining 9. That's 7 out of 11. Writing off this state may be costly.

Now let me clarify here, if Lisa wins between 50 and 61.11% she'll get 7 votes. If it's 61.12 to 72.22% she'll get 8.

If you're still reading, it's time to address an important question: Why not write off all the smaller states and focus on the large ones?
Because, compared to simply awarding everything based on the popular vote, every state won is an additional vote. Winning 30 states is worth 30 extra votes. Consider Texas. Lisa and her campaign spend a large amount of time and resources in the state, which has boosted her standing in the polls to 60% so she's getting lots of votes plus the extra one. She has a choice now, she could spend X time and resources there trying to get more votes, or she could go focus them on Wisconsin where she's statistically tied with Jack. The (hypothetical) polls also seem to show her support is plateauing. If she chooses Texas, she'll probably only get one more vote. It makes more sense to go to Wisconsin where she could win the state and get 6 votes there instead of 4.

I like this system better than what we have presently because it makes 8 large, currently uncompetitive, states competitive and important to the race. These 8 are 184 votes, which is 34% of 538. Since smaller states are better represented, these 8 actually have more than 38% of the population who are not being attended to by the electoral process. Counting Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, and Maryland, these 12 are 220 votes and over 44% of the population.

Re:Tweaking the Electoral College procedures

[rednip]

Colorado rejected a bill to split by popular vote, and Maine and Nebraska already split by house district.

Re:Tweaking the Electoral College procedures

[demachina]

Proportional assignment of electoral college votes is really not a great idea even with your twist. It takes huge swings in the vote to register a 1 elector change, you justed added another 1 elector swing at the 50% mark.

Colorado had proportional assignment on the ballot and it was voted down. It would have resulted in candidates ignoring Colorado because its not worth spending time in a state if you have to swing a huge number of voters to get a 1 elector difference. The only reason it was on the ballot was because Democrats had written off Colorado to the Republicans and it was a way to strip them of a few electoral votes. But Colorado is starting to swing Democratic and if it does they will actually want the current winner take all system.

If you make this the rule in every state, it would result in a bizarre system where candidates look at it each state to see how close they are in the polls to crossing a threshold where they would pick up or lose one elector. They might launch a massive campaign in a state that is 80% to one candidate just because it happens to be on the threshold of swinging one elector. All in all it would end up being worse than it is now.

Fact is each person in this country should have one vote and popular vote should decide the election. There really is no reason why someone living in a small state should have 1.1 votes and someone living in a big state should have 0.9 votes.

Some will argue candidates will ignore the small states, well no they wouldn't. They would be forced to campaign for everyone's vote which is the way it should be. Small states already have disproportional clout thanks to the Senate. There is no reason they should have even more clout in choosing a President.

I imagine the Republicans would fight it to death since they win a lot of small states and pick up the extra electors they have under the current system.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[rednip]

The system is broken... I agree, but let's repair it to its original design...

So then, slaves would count as 3/5 a person?

It's an interesting idea, but then instead of one race we'd have 500 or so vote for me because I'd vote for him races. Technically the electors can already vote for anyone they want, in practice it has only happened a couple of times.

Personally, what I think is broken is the primary system itself. While I still think that Kerry is a much better man than Bush (it's not all that hard), we could have come out with a better canidate (one with fewer 'negatives'), but Kerry was real agressive in Iowa, and that's who they picked.

What is the impetus?

[revscat]

The only problem with changing the electoral system is that there is never any groundswell of support for such an idea. Who is going to implement it, the Republicans? They're control the entire federal government, and have learned how to game the current system to their advantage. Changing that would risk their power base.

This is not going to happen without widespread and energetic grassroots support and, in the case of Diebold and other unverifiable voting systems, possibly bloodshed. Neither seems likely when "The OC" is on TV tonight.

It's Not The Elections, But I'd Change...

[TheWanderingHermit]

There's one thing I'd like to see changed in the American governmental structure. It's not the election, but I think it would have an effect. In Great Britain, the Prime Minister has to defend his position to the opposition. (I don't know whether it's in the House of Lords or Commons. Could a British reader elaborate on this?) I've seen this several times on "The News Hour" (and now, once I've mentioned a PBS program, I'm sure I'll be branded a liberal and a lot of people will use that as cause to ignore anything I say), with Tony Blair having to justify and explain his reasoning for his position or actions.

While it isn't actually part of the election, I think if the President had to go before the Senate (or House) and personally and directly (in other words, he can't send a Secretary or spin doctor) respond to the opposition, the public (at least those who watch C-SPAN and those who see the mis-representative sound bytes on the news) would know more about who is in office (and possibly up for re-election). During the past 4 years, the President had very few news conferences. There were frequent reports that when he made public appearances, attendees were vetted to make sure they were supporters. The same was done in campaign stops.

I'm not targeting Bush, it's just he's a good example. I think the President, who is elected by the full country, should be held responsible to tell us why he is making the choices he makes -- and should be held to that by the opposition party so he can either clearly explain what he is doing, or reveal that his reasoning is suspect. While this would not have effected Monica-gate, it would have benefited all of us during Clinton's terms as well, since he would have to answer to Republicans about what he is doing.

While it's not part of the election, once a President gets in office, he's basically campaigning for re-election. This would mean he can't spin everything and would have to continually face challenging questions about what he is doing. I think it'd effect elections in the long run, because we'd be more aware of how a sitting President makes his decisions.

Re:It's Not The Elections, But I'd Change...

[Singletoned]

"the Prime Minister has to defend his position to the opposition"

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.

Re:It's Not The Elections, But I'd Change...

[buxton2k]

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).

Weekend Voting

[Lomby]

The USA could begin by making people vote on Saturday and Sunday. Many countries vote on these days: people tend to have more time during the weekend.

A unified voting procedure also helps: just as an example you can then use national television to illustrate the voting procedure.

Political Spam

[Eil]

Amongst all the pyramid schemes, \/iagra, and business opportunies from my good Nigerian friends, here's a message from "George W. Bush" that arrived in the old Inbox this morning.

This is the first spam that I can recall receiving that was purely politically motivated. (And also the first one in a very long time that I read all the way through.) The message discusses all the various conspiracy theories that have popped up on Slashdot over the past few weeks (months, years). While I'm skeptical how much is fact and how much is fiction, I thought it interesting enough to paste here, especially as it relates to this Slashdot article. There does not seem to be any copy of it on the web yet, or I'd have just linked to it instead.

What are the chances that we'll start seeing a lot more political spam of this variety in the future?

Subject: How I stole your election (ha ha ha ha!!!)
From: "George W.Bush"
Date: Tue, November 9, 2004 5:46 pm

How I Stole Your Election
by George W. Bush

The first thing I did to steal your election was to make friends with ALL the
manufacturers and code-verifyers of the Electronic Voting Machines. They were
really nice, especially Diebold who gave me $600,000 for my campaign. Wow,
thanks dude!

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/stealing.htm

Next, I had my attack dog, Karl Rove, convince these companies to either alter
the vote totals on the central tabulator machines (simple PCs running windows
using Remote Access Server -- RAS), or reprogram (via a downloadable software
patch) the voting machines themselves so that they would give the advantage to
ME! Isn't America great?!? A little money and some religious zealotry goes a
looooong, loooong way. Oh, the religious zealotry thing? That's just a
cover. I'm not really a Christian -- or at least I don't act like one.
Anyway, I digress.

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-25.htm#rig

Did you ever hear the media complaining about how inaccurate the exit polls
were in prior elections? No. That's because they basically ARE accurate.
But this election, the exit polls showed Kerry WAY ahead. No problem. My
buddies rigged the machines (and all they needed to do was rig it in one
state, Ohio, but they took care of at least Florida for me too) not only to
make me squeak by in the important battleground states, like Florida and Ohio,
but they also made sure that when I did get a state that I was expected to
win, the margin was HUGE so that my "popular" vote would make it look like I
had a mandate.

So let's recap how the popular vote thing worked again. Let's say we didn't
want it to look suspicious by taking states that Kerry really would have won
(except for Ohio and Florida, gotta take those! heh heh). So we let him win
there, but in order once again to boost the "popular" vote (I put that in
quotes because as you know, I'm not REALLY popular), we bring my vote tallies
RIGHT UP NEXT to Kerry's, to jack up the "popular" vote as much as possible,
even if I didn't win the state.

Then, with states like North Carolina, we know we're going to steal the state
anyway (at least according to what the exit polls were telling everyone....
and according to the long, long lines of new voters were telling everyone ...
because we all know most of those people were voting for Kerry, not the status
quo), so we just jack the crap out of the vote total to REALLY stuff a
crapload of "popular" votes in my pocket. You see, this way I can get on the
TV and declare that I have a "mandate" and that I'm going to "cash in" on my
political "capital" (which I don't really have of course, but we made it look
that way).

Here's a nice chart to show you what I mean. Take special note of how the
electronic voting machine totals compare to the paper ballot totals. And see
what I mean about North Carolina?
http://www.bandsagainst

Just some ideas

[Antony-Kyre]

1. Allow absentee voting for everyone. Not all states allow absentee voting unless you are absentee, or some other excuse.

2. The option to paper vote at the polls, regardless of being able to electronically vote.

3. Have the polls open from 6am to midnight at least cause some people sleep during the day.

4. iVoting. Being able to cast your ballot over the Internet would be nice, but too much corruption exists.

5. Modify the Electoral College
5a. Use IRV to determine the winner of the state popular vote. That winner receives two electoral votes.
5b. The remaining electoral votes are split among the plurality. ...
The state winner, determined by IRV, gets those two votes. If Bush gets 40% of the votes, then 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him. If Kerry gets 40% of the votes, 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him.

6. Declare Election Day an official holiday, giving students of all kinds the day off. Create more polling stations at public schools.
6a. Modify overtime laws so if you work more than six hours on Election Day, you get double overtime. Logically, a 7 hour day would pay the same as an 8 hour day any other day.

7. To get a bigger voter turn out, offer a tax "credit" for voting. If you have voted in every single election in a given year (the ones in February, March, May, September, November, and any other ones your locality may have), you get like a $50 tax credit of off your income taxes. Of course, if 200 million voted, that's $10 billion there.

Oh gosh, that's easy.

[mog]

Trial by combat.

Bingo Ballots . . .

[Dausha]

I have a strong distrust of electronic balloting in general, and recommend something that most Americans can handle: Bingo Ballots.

1. A Bingo Ballot (BB) is a stack of cards, perhaps 4"x 6".

2. Each (BB) card contains only one race. (I suppose they could be called Race Cards.)
a. All candidates listed in alphabetical order
b. A candidate slot for "none of the above" will always be provided at the bottom.
c. candidate slots will be evenly spaced on the card (i.e., if there are three candidates, then each occupies a fourth of the card. Don't forget the "None" candidate slot).
d. a row resembling a row of equal signs will divide each partition (======)
e. Each card will have a registration number (e.g. 12345-6-8). The middle digit is the "card" number, and the last digit is the "of cards" number. This will show the voter that there are eight cards to complete.
f. Font will be Courier 18pt minimum.
g. cards will be glued together as a notepad is, but such that they can be easily removed for counting.
h. For aiming purposes, a one centimeter box will be provided to the left of the candidate's name. As you will see below, this is not really important.

Voting:
a. The voter will be given an ink blotter resembling that used in Bingo, such to provide a one centimeter dot.
b. Voter will vote on each card, to be inspected at the end. Any race not voted for the voter will be required to mark "None."
c. Voter much manage to make a substancial mark (with a blotter that should be easy), that does not cross the line dividing candidates.
d. If the gap in the row (===) contains the substancial mark, then that vote is discarded.
e. If there's a big mark and a little mark, then the big mark counts.
f. If the voter screwed up, then they draw a fat 'X' on the ballot and is handed a replacement card. The original and replacement are stapled together.

Ballot Initiatives will have half the card to explain the initiative, and the bottom half will have three candidate slots: Yes, No, Don't Care.

Re:One simple fix.

[snooo53]

Yes, by denying matching government funds to say, any party that got more than say 30% of the vote in the last election. The republicans and democrats have enough money in their coffers, why are my tax dollars going to perpetuate them?

What would I do to improve elections?

[Henry V .009]

I'd restrict suffrage to male property owners. I'd institute a poll tax and a reasonable test for intelligence and knowledge of history and current affairs. Seriously. We have this reflexive "everybody votes in a democracy" type thinking, but expanding suffrage to everybody just doesn't lead to better government in practice. Democracy has its place in constitutional government, but like the American founders knew, it should not reign supreme.

I probably shouldn't have added male in the first sentence. I can't really justify it. But hell, if you're going to make a suggestion like this, you may as well go all the way and be traditional about it.

Re:What would I do to improve elections?

[Henry V .009]

Hmm. Well, people make their own decisions on what they find interesting I expect.

Whether my suggestion is democracy or not is another matter. All democracies restrict suffrage to some degree. The United States did not extend suffrage to women until 1920. I certainly do not see any great improvement in our elected officials dating from the time. Nor do I see decline, although single women (a larger voting block than it used to be) tend to vote Democrat.

Still, I have reconsidered my original point. Male property owners and married women. People with a stake in the polis.

The NY Times Already Printed A LOT of Good Ideas

[Noksagt]

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.

Re:Let France elect the US president!

[MindStalker]

Yes, of course, brilliant. Any country can count its population and be assigned an amount of electoral votes!!

Of course the countries have to may tax, and the states need to conform to our constituion.

Did I say states? Opps.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[_iris]

How Beltway Democrats Sank Howard Dean

Restore the Great Republic

[WayneConrad]

It's a bad idea to have the people directly elect the president. The electoral college was designed the thwart democracy. Think I'm a nut case? So were the founding fathers. Check out this little piece that Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers:

The Federalist Papers : No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President

Hamilton makes it clear that the electoral college was designed to prevent just the sort of elections we have today:

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers did not foresee either the ffects of political parties upon the electoral collage, or of states passing laws binding the electors to vote a certain way.

Democracy is bad. Republic is good. Restore the great republic and liberty may reign again. We don't need to change the constitution nearly as much as we need to follow it.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[Gilk180]

The electoral college is in place and had lasted this long for a reason. It forces candidates to go after voters across the nation/gives all states a say in the election.

The college has the same effect as the congress. Smaller states are given the same number of senators so that they are represented nationally. Larger states are given more representatives because they have more people and pay more taxes. States are given electoral votes so that smaller states have a say.

Without the electoral college, candidates would simply pander to NY, LA, Chicago, and maybe a few other markets. They can then safely ignore the rest of the nation because a small victory in the large markets overcomes even the largest losses in the rest of the nation.

The other reason for using the electoral college is that it creates a consensus. This year was a big enough victory that it doesn't really matter, but four years ago, the popular vote was too close to call(Let it go.), but the electoral college presented a clear winner(eventually). I think that after some thought, people on both sides of the issue would agree that if the election is really that close, we are better off with either candidate as president than with the presidency vacant.

a few

[zogger]

Reduce the cost and propoganda blitz, outlaw corporate contributions to political parties and candidates for office. They are bribes, let's call them what they are.

Along that line, drop the contribution level that a single named human can contribute,(down to 100$ or something small like that) and make it illegal to contribute to a candidate running for office in an election you are not privy too legally.

Force the inclusion into debates broadcast on public airwaves with all candidates that have gotten on the ballot in enough states to theoretically get an electoral win, and make the ballot requirements uniform across the states.

Hold the news organizations to the spirit of the FCC regs where their parent corporations are required to be at least somewhat in the public interest. Their "license" is provisional, it is not granted *solely* so they can make profit. They must provide news that cover ALL the candidates in their normal mix.

And my favorite, somewhere, sometime, someplace, we need a brave public prosecutior to open grand jury proceedings to investigate the DNC and the RNC under the RICO statutes. Enough's enough on this hijacked government. We have what, IMO, is in essence two criminal gangs who have co-opted government to the point of ownership of the public government and have betrayed the public trust. The loose term "corruption" applies.

And egads, just get rid of black box voting, it is NOT needed and a large amount of the available evidence points to a severe and on purpose fraud.

Very Easy

[temojen]

The Votes are counted at the polling station.

Re:Voter Verifiable Voting

[NoBeardPete]

This is a _terrible_ idea. If voters walk out of the voting booth with a receipt that says how they voted, you've just enabled everyone who might want to pressure, bribe, or influence voters. Domineering husbands will demand that their cowed wives vote the "right" way, and then offer proof of it when they get home. Employers will give bonuses to employees who proove they voted a certain way. Religious figures will deny services to people who voted "wrong". In areas with a poor police presence, gangs will demand to see your receipt and beat you up if you can't prove you voted the way they want.

It's a deliberate feature of our voting system that after you leave the voting booth, there is no way that anyone can gain knowledge of how you voted. This enables people to vote their concience. It makes it almost impossible to harass or reward someone based on how they voted. To change this would be a disaster.

Re:Top three changes

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

if it comes down to the popular vote across the nation, that means no one location is so critically important.

That's not strictly true - it means "densely-populated cities" become the "critically important" locations. A pure "popular vote" based mechanism means a proportionally sharp under-representation of non-urban areas.

Do you WANT the nation's garbage being dumped next to all the farm fields, just because the farmers are outvoted by "city folk" who just want to get rid of their garbage? Do you WANT all the water shipped to supply e.g. Los Angeles instead of growing food? There's a reason people have been proposing other, more complex replacements for the electoral college than a simple popular vote...

Not to say that I'm in favor of the current system, either - the "Electoral College" is rigged to require "major party" votes only get counted.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[ChristTrekker]

Not many other countries take the idea of federalism to the degree that the US has. The federal model protects the rights of citizens. The EC balances the concerns of States vs the concerns of people in a singular office, just as the two houses of Congress do this for a multi-seat body. It may not be a perfect balance between the two concerns, but you cannot eliminate the validity of State concerns in the federal government. Since the 17th Amendment we've already seen growth in the power of the central government that has eroded the freedoms of citizens.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[Minna Kirai]

You do realize, of course that the reason the 3/5th person clause was put into the Constitution was to weaken the power of the Slave holding states.

Backwards. It was to increase their power, and thereby entice them to enter a union with the more-populous northern states that otherwise might dominate federal voting. (In a similar way, the "Conneticut Compromise" gave smaller states extra power to attract their membership)

By making a slave count as 3/5th of a person, you have weakened the federal power of a slave holding state.

Livestock, such as cows, chickens, and slaves, count as zero people. Only the special exception embodied in that clause adds them to representative totals.

One cannot argue that slaves were already people anyway, because although biologically human, they were certainly not people under the eyes of the law. Otherwise typical slave-owner actions like bondage and beatings would be illegal kidnapping or felony assault.

Thanks Jim

[dangermouse]

1. You're right in your follow-up that restricting suffrage to males is idiotic.
2. You forgot that restrictiing it to property owners is also idiotic. Do you really think that because I rent my home, I have less stake in the decisions of government than does some guy with a 1/20th-acre townhouse plot?
3. Poll tax? The poor have no stake in government? The poor have a great many problems that can only be addressed by government, and a great many of them are caused by government policy. I think they should get a damn vote.
4. A test? In a nation that is split almost 50/50 on every major issue, who are you going to get to write this test without disenfranchising half the population? The Ministry of Truth?

Expanding suffrage to everybody does lead to better government than the alternative, which is what we call oligarchy. Of course, I define "better" as "more representative of and responsive to the people", not "in agreement with me specifically". I understand that's very trendy of me.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My Solution

[liqnitro]

My solution to the voting problem is two fold solution. It is part social, part technological.

First I would get rid of the electoral college. It forces canidates to focus on a small segment of the population ( individual states, and demographic groups ) that could leave them with a win instead of focusing on isues that effect everyone. Second, anyone who is a citizen of voting age can vote period. This eliminates the problem of voter disinfrachisement, provisional ballots, and absentee ballots.

Second is the technological solution to the voting predicament. Social security numbers should be used to ensure that duplicate votes are not entered, and only living people vote. Voting machines should be allways be networked using encryption to transmit and hashes to verify the autenicity. Voting machines should also create an optically scanalble paper ballot trail, it should also be plainly visible to the voter who he voted for by looking at the card. The purpose of the networked envirement is to collect live ellection results, and increase ellection efficieny, ensure only one vote per person. The purpose of the cards is to ensure election accuracy. Also absentee ballots could be handled in much the same way using an web application, and user balot card that must be printed out and sent in. At the end of the election results, the votes are audited using the paper cards, regardless of wether voter fruad is suspected.

That is my solution to the mess we call voting, simplification and verification. If India can vote electronically and correctly we should be able to as well. Please post any security concerns about my implimentation.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[wonkavader]

Allow me to stick my neck out.

I flip back and forth on this. A smaller number of people to bribe (or, as another poster pointed out, to swap votes with, and make deals with) means graft, and petty politics.

And clearly, CLEARLY, that's bad.

But what the electoral college was set up to do is to protect us from the beast. That is, the people, for 70% of the people, my fellow slashdotters, are unlike us. They are poorly educated, non-rational... folks, they're stupid, and they hold out fates in their hands. I know, that's anti-democratic. But when a race is based on the will of the people, by pure numbers, candidates have to worry about how people perceive them on an emotional level, not on how they stand on issues. Kerry kept saying "I have a plan" because if he said what it was, it would confuse the electorate.

So we have to elect someone sight unseen, essentially, because we cannot be told what a rational person needs to be told, and that because 70% of us aren't rational.

So the electoral college means electing a local big-wig who goes to the convention. Any surity that that person will be rational? No. Any surity that that person will be more likely to be rational than the man in the street. YES.

A system which allows 20 candidates to be in serious contention, and which required a 2/3 majority to elect (very parlimentary, essentially) would be much better for third party candidates. But electors could very well be party hacks. And we might have stalemate.

But the electoral college would have public votes. Electors would be held responsible for a shitty president by the people in their ward. We could burn their house down, or stone them if they chose for personal gain, or certainly never elect them to the College again.

So again, I go back and forth. But I'll tell you something, we need change, here, whether it's the Electoral College or something else.

Howsabout this: We reduce the power of the president. Why are we at war in Iraq? Do you remember a declaration of war (only congress has the power to do so)? If you do, you're halucinating. Imprisonment without lawyers for years? Anyone who can do that has too much power.

Make Elections Transparent and Unriggable

[natoochtoniket]

A substantial fraction (nearly half) of the USA population is convinced that the last presidential election was rigged. I have a Ph.D. in computer science -- and I am almost certain that this election was rigged. That is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't really matter whether or not the past election was really rigged. What really matters is that it clearly could have been, and many people believe that it was.

For the government to be stable, we need the vast majority of people to believe that the elections are fair and honest. When some of the people believe that the election is rigged, those same people are likely to seek an alternative way to force power away from the people who rigged the election. We see that happen in other countries, every year. It's called an assasination, or a revolution, or a civil war. Whatever you call it, it is messy and bloody, and there is only one way to avoid it. That way is to make the election process so transparent and honest that everyone can be certain that it is honest.

I have read that there are four boxes to use in defense of liberty: Soap; Ballot; Jury; Ammo. The first two have now failed. It's time for the third. If the legal process fails to correct the election process in this country, then it may be time for the fourth. I sincerely hope that the fourth box will not be necessary.

The details of the election process matter, but not nearly as much as the transparency. Paper ballots go a long way to make elections transparent. Paper ballots provide evidence that can be examined if the election is disputed. Registration requirements have been used to disenfranchise people, so registration should be eliminated. Inking the thumb of each voter provides a transparent way of being sure that no one votes multiple times. Electronic machinery can be useful, to provide handicap access or save labor, but only to the extent that it does not reduce honesty or transparency. Other mechanisms may also be useful, but each should be judged by the extent to which it improves honesty and transparency.

Rigging or attempting to rig an election should be a capital crime, even for minor conspirators and accomplices, and even for minor local elections.

Independent election agency or agencies

[Hamster Lover]

I've said it here before, but the various state elections commissions should not be headed by the Secretary of State or any other political official. It should be entirely independent and apolitical like we have in Canada. I do not understand how Americans tolerate such a blatently politicized system.

Yes, our system is not perfect and yes we still use paper ballots, but in the end it is about as fair as humanly possible (and we have verifiable paper ballots in case the recound rules take effect). To accept that partisian elements ultimately control the process for selecting their own representitives is crazy.

Another area where Canada differs from the U.S. concerns the prohibition of political contributions from corporations and unions. Again, not a perfect solution and one that would probably not fly in the U.S., but at least it's a step forward.

Get rid of elections all together

[JimBean]

Some wacky alternatives:

1. Just have people bid for their desired positions--acknowledge the fact that money controls politics, not ideas. Stop beating around the bush with the current system.

2. Have a lottery during each election cycle in which citizens/residents are randomly chosen for positions. (Those chosen would, of course, have the option of declining). People don't understand elections, but they sure understand lotteries. This system would get a wide swath of Americans involved in politics. They probably could perform just as well (or poorly) as the current "professionals."

3. Go the Platonic route. Periodically measure everyone's intelligence (method to be determined). Offer government positions to those with the highest levels of intelligence. Witness the rise of NerD Nation!

And I'm spent.

Re:How about empower the Electoral College

[ToyKeeper]

70% of the people, my fellow slashdotters, are ... poorly educated, non-rational... folks, they're stupid, and they hold out fates in their hands. I know, that's anti-democratic. But when a race is based on the will of the people, by pure numbers, candidates have to worry about how people perceive them on an emotional level, not on how they stand on issues.

Though I'd generally agree that people are stupid... I think you just explained Bush's campaign technique. He won because he ignored issues, appealed to people on an emotional level, and told the stupid masses what would make them feel better.

The electoral college does not protect us from that sort of politics.

I don't know a reasonable, fair way to keep clueless knee-jerk voters out of the system. If this image has any truth to it, a simple IQ test (require an IQ of 100 or greater) would have produced a landslide victory for Kerry. But that's not fair, and not democratic. So, we'll just have to deal with all those uninformed people who haven't been paying attention to the world; the ones who made the PIPA report so interesting. Bleh.

For now, the only reasonable things I think would help are: switch to Condorcet voting, get rid of the electoral college, and add a "nobody" entry in every election.