Voting Machines Selecting Default Candidates

overThruster writes "Some voters in Las Vegas have noticed that Democrat Harry Reid's name is checked by default on their electronic voting machines. By way of explanation, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, has her name checked by default."

Comments

I abstain

[Robadob]

Surely there should be a box to abstain from voting (spoil your ballot), and this neutral should be checked by default.

Re:I abstain

[Hatta]

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise. Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up. Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted.

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system. Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances. Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

Re:I abstain

[WrongSizeGlass]

Surely there should be a box to abstain from voting (spoil your ballot), and this neutral should be checked by default.

Or at the very least the 'Write In' box should be selected automatically ... with the voter's name and SSN pre-filled to save them a little time ;-)

Re:I abstain

[Crudely_Indecent]

Voting machines are not supposed to have any information about the voter. This is known as Secret Ballot

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

The problem with a no-confidence plebiscite is the resolution. Historically, when an election provides the option of returning no winner, like many parliaments have or once implemented, you'd end up with a situation where the body went months or years without a leader, and in the vacuum other institutions (like revolutionary parties) would take over -- eventually if you belong to the group with the most money or guns, it becomes in your interest to spoil the votes because you benefit from the chaos and can claim the body is "do-nothing."

The best way to protect the democratic institution of voting is ensure that it always returns an unambiguous result. If it isn't able to do this all the time, the institution itself will lose legitimacy.

Re:I abstain

[denis-The-menace]

RE: Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

This is why you NEVER see how many ballots were wasted along with the election results.

Even Joe-Six-Packs will see that there is a problem with the options to choose from or the system.

Instead we have "Democracy by obscurity".

Re:I abstain

[Angst Badger]

Surely there should be a box to abstain from voting (spoil your ballot), and this neutral should be checked by default.

This has actually been tried in a few places. It always ends up being discontinued because "None of the Above" wins too many elections.

Re:I abstain

[mark72005]

While I agree with what you are saying, that there should be no default selected.

But if you've traveled to the polling place with the specific purpose of voting, shouldn't it be incumbent on you at some level to not be an idiot and actually read the ballot, selecting for whom you'd like to vote? You know... all those things that comprise the process of VOTING?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Re:I abstain

[mark72005]

Sorry. Grammar fail.

Re:I abstain

[Anrego]

I'm Canadian, so maybe the political situation is completely different "down there", but I think you are reading a little too much into people not showing up to vote.

Sure some people are making a statement by not voting, but I think most who do not vote are either lazy (probably the majority) or don't feel they have enough understanding to make a serious choice.

And personally, I would actually rather have a relatively small turn out of voters making a choice based on their beliefs, than a huge crowd of people just randomly picking a candidate because everyone is telling them they must vote. Voting isn't the important part.. keeping yourself aware of the politics of your country is!

I do like the idea of specifically counting people who say "I don't think any of these are good" and maybe even a "I don't feel confident to make a choice". Would be an interesting number to see.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

Re:I abstain

[bonkeydcow]

I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots. In my last election, there were 3. They were the results of either stray marks where the voter rested their pen in a box before checking a different box, and the machine wasn't sure which they meant, so they got a new ballot. The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one. If you would like I will post again next week with the spoiled ballot count for this election. We have to keep track of every single ballot, so knowing the number of spoiled ballots is trivial.

Re:I abstain

[Late Adopter]

Sometimes you don't feel educated enough to make a vote for Clerk of the County Court, etc. I would find it *more* problematic for voters to just vote party line than cast no vote at all.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

Agreed.

I'm a very multi-lingual kind of guy...go most places in the world, and you'll see English plastered everywhere. Likewise, I think it's only fair to do the same thing with "alternate" languages that are common in this country.

That being said, there shouldn't need to be an "English" option when it comes to voting. you can (in theory, anyway) only vote if you are are a citizen or here legally. I can't imagine either case being true without being able to speak English well enough to vote.

Re:I abstain

[Hatta]

Better to have no leader than an illegitimate leader. If the institution installs a leader that does not have popular support then it is already illegitimate. If the people cannot agree on a leader to support, then it's time to dissolve the institution and start over.

Re:I abstain

[Hatta]

If not enough people voted for county clerk, then there would be no county clerk. They'd either learn really quick how important the county clerk is and start voting, or they'd get by without one. It's a self correcting problem.

As for voting party lines, party affiliation should not be on ballots. People hold offices, not parties.

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system. Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances. Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

Agreed!

I'm certainly not going to vote in this mid-term election, because I'm either disgusted by or uninterested with every single choice I have.

Something many people fail to remember is that we don't just have the right to vote...we have the right to choose to vote, which is a luxury some people in this world don't have.

Re:I abstain

[molo]

A person can be born in the US and raised and educated speaking a non-english language.

BTW, in some jurisdictions, you can register to vote in local elections just by being a resident. I'm not sure if Nevada has any jurisdictions like that however.

-molo

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

However you do not have to know english in order to be an american citizen.

Of course people who don't speak english don't deserve to get their vote counted if you listen to certain radio hosts.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, lots of crowded areas don't use id or a registered voter's list.

You need ID to get food stamps, healthcare, etc. But not to vote? ish.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no official national language in America. English is not the national language, as there is none. So no, there is no proficiency in any language to be a american citizen.

Re:I abstain

[snkline]

The US does not have an official language at the Federal level. If a state only wants to issue ballots in English, I believe they can, but they are also allowed to issue them in other languages if they want to. If Nevada wanted to they could provide you with options for every single written language in the world.

Re:I abstain

[bsDaemon]

There is no "citizen or here legally option." It is if and only if you are a citizen. Voting rights are pretty much the definition of citizenship.

Re:I abstain

[ShanghaiBill]

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system.

No it isn't. Most people that don't vote do so out of apathy and laziness. They are not protesting. They are basically saying they don't care enough to bother, and are willing to just accept the outcome. This is the opposite of a "vote against the system".

If you don't like the choices on the ballot, then your only alternative should be to get involved in the process of selecting the candidates, or run for office yourself.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately no-one would get the Hispanic vote if they didnt cater to them by having Spanish translations. Its obviously that illegal immigrants are not the sole cause of this, since illegal immigrants cant even vote. Why would you bother having Spanish translations if you knew they couldn't vote anyway? Thats like making voting machines have Russian translations "just in case".

Re:I abstain

[Bemopolis]

If proficiency in English were a requirement of citizenship, 2/3rds of the students and 1/2 of the teachers at my high school would have been deported back to Northern Europe. Also, morons who can't pronounce "nuclear" wouldn't be eligible to be president.

Re:I abstain

[jgtg32a]

But But I want to blame the other team

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Immigration Services seems to disagree with you. "To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must ... Be able to read, write, and speak English..." The two exceptions are if you're 50 and have lived in the US for 20 years, or you're 55 and have lived in the US for 15 years. And I suppose that if you're born in the US there's no requirement to learn English...

Re:I abstain

[jargonCCNA]

I disagree. I think that abstaining is a vote of "I don't care", but actually spoiling your ballot is a way to indicate you have no confidence in any of the candidates--and *those* ballots should be counted toward the overall total.

Of course, I also think that an election should be won by a majority of eligible voters, rather than a simple plurality of voters who turned up... But that's just me. And I'm aware that those are kind of contradictory statements... it's hard to explain. More just of a case of what I think abstentions and ballot-spoils mean in terms of intent.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most who do not vote are either lazy (probably the majority) or don't feel they have enough understanding to make a serious choice.

Or to paraphrase: most people don't deserve to have a government. ;-)

Ok, that's harsh (obviously they deserve certain protections) but do they really deserve to have the power to .. um .. give their political power to a body who then uses force against other people to enact political aims? There really is something to the idea that if a government doesn't have the support of the people (the people don't even vote for them), then that government shouldn't be creating laws that fuck with those people. Of course, you can turn it around and say that if people can't be bothered to vote, then they deserve to have a hostile government that creates laws to fuck those people to the maximum possible.

Some people say, "If you didn't vote, then don't complain," but maybe it should be "if you didn't vote, then I hope they hurt you and you end up subsidizing me."

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be born in the USA and be a Citizen and yet not speak a word of English.
your comment exudes a latent racism ...

Re:I abstain

[deathlyslow]

Unfortunately that only accounts for the dead ballots, with obvious errors or other issues. If there are preselected options and the voter either doesn't want to vote for either person and ignores that contest, it should not be a vote period for that particular contest. There should never preselected options. It should always be that just actual cast votes are counted, regardless of how many ballots are there. Nobody ever said I had to make a choice for every contest. Does that nullify my entire ballot, I would hope not.

Re:I abstain

[rokstar]

Oddly enough Nevada is one of the few states in the US that has a "None of These Candidates" as an option on the ballot. There are polls out that say as many as 1 in 10 will cast the protest vote.

Re:I abstain

[Sloppy]

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise.

I think this is a bad idea, as long as you have write ins. If someone wants to vote for none of the above, they have the ability to do that. But how can they vote "I don't give a fuck" rather than voting for someone? There isn't any mechanism for signaling that, so having "I don't give a fuck" being the default option, is a pretty reasonable way to accommodate everyone.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is the United States not England, and in places where a large portion of the population doesn't speak the Queens language, it is better to provide instructions in languages that people might be more fluent in. This helps to make sure they can Vote properly. Just because you have enough proficiency to pass a citizenship exam, doesn't mean that you don't have trouble with a language. As a democracy we should be encouraging people to vote, not put up barriers to make voting a difficult chore for people.

Re:I abstain

[Dishevel]

Then vote a "Kick the Fuckers Out!" ticket. Just vote for the guy who has had the least amount of time in any political office.

Re:I abstain

[emag]

But you *do* have to demonstrate a proficiency in English to become a naturalized citizen of the US... From General Path to Citizenship:

Eligibility Requirements

• ...
   
• Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
   
• ...

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

No.

An uninformed vote is just as bad as a misguided vote. I'm not going to say I support someone if I don't.

Re:I abstain

[ffreeloader]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"The US does not have an official language at the Federal level. If a state only wants to issue ballots in English, I believe they can, but they are also allowed to issue them in other languages if they want to. If Nevada wanted to they could provide you with options for every single written language in the world."

You might want to check in Immigration.

If you are foreign born, and want to pass the tests to become a naturalized US citizen, you most certainly do have to show by test a proficiency in English.

Re:I abstain

[TheLink]

You can also go to the ballot box, and vote for "none of the above".

Yes that's a "spoilt vote". But if there turned out to be a lot of spoiled votes (assuming they show up in the results as spoilt), then some people who are better potential candidates than you are, might get encouraged by that and run for office.

Re:I abstain

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm certainly not going to vote in this mid-term election, because I'm either disgusted by or uninterested with every single choice I have.

There are still bond issues and ballot questions to vote on. And you can write in candidates if you don't like any of the choices given.

Re:I abstain

[BlackSnake112]

By defaulting to any person running you are giving an unfair advantage to that person. How many people just take the defaults with software and just click on through? They may see voting as the same thing and just click on through. The default should be no vote and you have to pick (or write in) someone to continue.

Re:I abstain

[icebraining]

In theory, yes. In practice, see Irak.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise. Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up.

The problem for such a system in the U.S.A. (in so far as I know, I am from the 'old world.') that there is no way to know (exactly) how many people are eligible to vote as such things are not registered. This is, as it seems to be from my point of view, also the reason for the decennial census.

In the Netherlands, if you want to know how many people are eligible to vote or are living in the Netherlands legally this can be obtained from the digital civil registry.

Re:I abstain

[modecx]

The one case that I can see non-English voting being valid: anchor-babies, born to illegal parents, but whom are citizens of the US because of very generous law--and who happen to have remained so culturally isolated that they don't know English. In some localities, it's entirely possible for one to live his life without learning an ounce of English.

Unlike prior immigrants, some (many?) have no desire to assimilate. Even our public schools bend over backwards to facilitate this bilingual culture, due in part to federal and state law, the most recent being the No Child Left Behind Act, which provides up to three consecutive years of bilingual education--and like prior efforts it tends to fail. We make it far too easy.

Surely this subset of people is so much of a minority, that it doesn't justify the costs. We didn't do it for the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians, Chinese, Poles or anyone else, who came here legally. Yet every damn government publication is produced in English and Spanish. What other country on this Earth would let that happen? Switzerland? They're small enough to get away with it.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Many States have gone out of their way to allow illegal immigrants to vote.

Iowa allows you to register to vote the day of the elections, and the polling place without identification, and then provides ballots in Spanish.

What is stopping a felon or an illegal immigrant from voting? What is stopping you from going to every polling location and voting multiple times?

Minorities and illegal immigrants tend to slant to one side, so obviously that party wants votes in any way they can.

Re:I abstain

[Rob the Bold]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

Knowledge of English is not a prerequisite or requirement to be a citizen of the US. There is not an official language of the US. Perhaps if one became a citizen through immigration and naturalization, then one would have had to have been as proficient as necessary to pass the citizenship exam. There are more ways than that to become a US citizen, however.

I can think of no ethical reason to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their franchise. If you are holding an election where a substantial portion of the electorate is more proficient in another language, then you should provide ballots in that language.

Re:I abstain

[nedlohs]

There's no requirement to be proficient to be a citizen, sure to become on after a given age.

I can not teach my kid any English and that doesn't revoke the citizenship they had at birth (when they also couldn't understand English).

Re:I abstain

[Chapter80]

There's a HUGE difference between "being" an American citizen and "becoming" an American citizen through naturalization.

Simple example, both of my kids were American citizens at least a year before they were able to speak English. Same with almost every kid born in this country!

Re:I abstain

[Raistlin77]

If there was an option for "I confidently feel that none of these candidates are deserving of my vote", I'd show up every time.

Re:I abstain

[Rob the Bold]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

I think Woodrow Wilson is standing outside your window right now, getting ready to force you to learn Spanish.

Re:I abstain

[Chapter80]

I'd be interested to find out whether this is in a precinct of 10 voters or 2000.

Otherwise we can't tell if 3 is a lot.

Re:I abstain

[whoever57]

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

There are exceptions -- older people, minor children, etc..

Re:I abstain

[mspohr]

Actually, Nevada is one of the few places (?only place) where there is an option to vote for "None of the above".

If you are going to have a default, it should be this option. (But probably better to not have a default and setting the default for any one candidate is definitely wrong.)

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

I should have clarified: I'll vote for ballot measures and such, but I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of two evils"...I just won't vote for any of them.

As far as "choices given" are concerned, it's more a problem with the system in general. In this day and age (and who knows how long it has been this way), the very nature of what's required for someone to make it in politics, in my mind, immediately disqualifies them from being fit for office.

Re:I abstain

[MyLongNickName]

If you read his entire post and not just the first couple sentences, he acknowledges 'And I suppose that if you're born in the US there's no requirement to learn English...'

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

surely names are the same in any language.

Re:I abstain

[dlenmn]

For better or worse, if you are a natural born citizen then that requirement doesn't exist.

Re:I abstain

[scuzzlebutt]

"To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must ... Be able to read, write, and speak English..."

What if you're a blind, deaf mute amputee? What then?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... actually, it is a requirement, at least if someone is not currently an American citizen but wants to become one. Per Wikipedia, under "Eligibility for Naturalization", they "must have a working knowledge of the English language". It does note some exemptions for older applicants and those with disabilities.

For immigrants to vote, they must be Citizens. To become one if they aren't already, they need to understand English. Not at a graduate level, perhaps, but they need to know some of it.

And if they do not know English, nor are Citizens, then we have a bigger problem with them being in the voting booth.

Re:I abstain

[TheEyes]

I don't know about Iowa, but in California you can only cast a provisional ballot; your vote doesn't get counted until your registration checks out (which usually means the electin is decided before they get around to counting your vote.)

Re:I abstain

[Defenestrar]

Maybe not speak (i.e. technically mute (You Insensitive Anonymous Clod)), but citizens should be able to read English (by braille if nothing else). The states are required to provide K-12 education (of which English is a required subject for all 13 years). The state is also required to provide education meeting the needs of any disadvantaged/disabled child which includes special ed, braille, sign language, full time dedicated teacher's aid, and while some of those require parents to go through the court system to force cash-strapped states into their legal obligations - there is almost never any controversy about the provision of English as a Second Language (ESL) accommodations. Typically it is also illegal to drop out of school before acquiring a sophomore level education (or home-school equivalent).

So no. There is no reason that a citizen (naturalized* or born-and-educated) should not be able to read the ballot in the de facto national language of this country. If a local jurisdiction elects (pun intended) to provide that alternate ballot languages as a service - that is their prerogative, but it should not be out of any sense of political correctness or necessity. Assuming a citizen can read English is not a statement with latent racism.

*I believe there are an extremely limited number of cases where a person may be naturalized while having the language requirement waived. They are probably along the lines of asylum-citizenship conversions (for international legal protection), extreme age, or unique disabilities. Each case would likely be able to bring a translator to the polls, or request a special ballot.

Re:I abstain

[malraid]

I'm sorry, but your comment is just ridiculous bigotry. I was born outside the US, and since my mother was a US citizen, I have US citizenship by birth. I did not become proficient in English until I moved to the US around the age of 13. So yeah, the test is required for naturalization, but that's not the only way to citizenship. And yes, those born here in the US have no requirement to learn English. Then there's those who can only speak one language (English), but can't really read or write. But that's beyond help.

Re:I abstain

[scuzzlebutt]

What language is your Driver's License in? The deed to your house? How about your state constitution? Languages other than English are afforded as a courtesy to those who do not speak it. English is our de facto national language, like it or not...

Re:I abstain

[chaboud]

It's not a requirement for non-naturalized citizens (people born here), because that would be ridiculous. It harkens back to Jim Crow laws. More importantly, the United States does not have a formal official language.

There are sections of Texas with roadsigns (and they used to do decrees and other official documents) in German, but I'd bet that Spanish is more common a tongue there than Texas German. Why should we buck the trend?

Oh, right, because you're a racist troll.

Re:I abstain

[Imagix]

Or as a few other people have mentioned, and I have specifically done. Intentionally not voted as I did not have enough information (recently moved to the municipal riding, so no idea what the local issues were, or the local people) from which to make a choice. I found it more important to not vote than to uninformed vote. No protesting, or making a grand statement of "I don't believe in the system!". Just uninformed.

Re:I abstain

[cdrguru]

I cannot believe there is a real requirement for English anymore - it would be divisive and against the overall policy of diversity. OK, maybe they make you receite an oath in English, but that is probably about it.

Some states have adopted official languages, but the Federal government has not. Therefore, I am pretty sure it is illegal to produce ballots only in English. This is one of the justifications for electronic voting machines as it is extremely impractical to produce ballots in Urdu and Farsi only to use three or four of them.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Given that you don't even need to provide ID, how will they really check out your registration?

And what is the reason to allow people to register on that day without ID in the first place? How is this an improvement?

Re:I abstain

[chaboud]

if they are here legally

Um... Did I miss the joke?

That doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. It's legal to vote if you're here legally? Madness!

Presumably we're talking about being a legal citizen, not just a vacationer on a six-week visa. Though... Voting tourism. November would become a high-season.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"You can be born in the USA and be a Citizen and yet not speak a word of English. your comment exudes a latent racism ..."

Excuse me?

Where exactly did I mention anything that exuded racism??

I merely stated that to become a naturalized US citizen of the US, on the tests, you must pass (with only a couple of limited exceptions) showing a proficiency in English.

Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...is kind of needed to really succeed and operate in this country.

I know I'm a bit older, but this wasn't something unusual very many years ago...if you move here, live here and want to be a citizen and be productive here...you speak the language.

I'd not go to France and expect them to let me vote, or have everything labeled in English, what is the difference in that type thinking here?

I've been to Mexico more than a few times...I've noticed they don't often have everything with 2 signs, one for Spanish and one for English. Why do we make such (often expensive) concessions here in the US these days? It isn't racist to expect visitors to this country to follow the "when in Rome" type thinking, is it?

Re:I abstain

[ultranova]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Who is bringing up what laws where? BTW, I heard that some conservatives want to do something possibly bad somewhere. Prove me wrong.

In any case, anyone who can vote holds de facto citizenship. In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requires almost all residents to have such power; almost all residents must be citizens, otherwise you'll soon get to the slippery slope of ever larger share of the populace being excluded from power, leading to a dictatorship.

Re:I abstain

[azadrozny]

What do you propose should happen when enough people vote your "none of the above" option? It would be interesting to have a system where another election is held, but the current candidates are banned from that ballot.

Re:I abstain

[chaboud]

And you could turn around and teach your natively-born kids only Klingon...

Re:I abstain

[BudAaron]

It's even more insidious to me. Any legal resident ot the USA MUST speak, read and write English. I know - both my wife and daughter-in-law are naturalized citizens and HAD to learn English. So why should the ballots be printed in Spanish???

Re:I abstain

[ArieKremen]

It is only a 'no confidence vote' if you show up and/or record a non-valid vote. Otherwise it's laziness and irresponsibility.

Re:I abstain

[wetdogjp]

Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up. Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself...

Slow down there. Failure to vote *can* be such a statement, but I find it to be a rare occurrence for anyone to actively not vote. Lack of voting is the result of apathy, with a pinch of disenfranchisement mixed it.

Voter turnout in the US sucks, and it sucks that it sucks, and it needs to be fixed. I'm no expert on how to fix it, but I've got some ideas that involve marketing to people's ideals about civic pride (or creating those ideals, perhaps.)

I've helped in my share of voter drives, and I serve as the Inspector of a local voting district. Those people that show up feel it's their duty to vote. Those that don't simply don't feel a sense of duty; they feel inconvenienced.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"Unfortunately no-one would get the Hispanic vote if they didnt cater to them by having Spanish translations. "

Would this NOT give extra incentive to learn the language of the land, and assimilate into the greater US culture, as past generations of immigrants did?

We are supposed to be ONE great nation, built upon the cultures and influences brought into this country by people that come here to be citizens. This model has worked pretty well until the past couple of decades. When you come to this country, to be a citizen, you become and American, and are no longer a XYZ-ian.

If you want to come here and become a US citizen...then love the country, wave the US flag, learn the language, assimilate into the culture and bring whatever gifts you have to it.

Re:I abstain

[JesseMcDonald]

abstaining is a vote of "I don't care", but actually spoiling your ballot is a way to indicate you have no confidence in any of the candidates

So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate.

Also, from a pragmatic point-of-view, spoiled ballots tend to be reported and counted exactly the same as uncast ballots, so showing up just to cast a spoiled ballot is a complete waste of time (yours and the officials') regardless of the reason.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the natives? Don't they get a say in anything?

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"The one case that I can see non-English voting being valid: anchor-babies"

Hopefully someone will have the balls to change this law, or at least clarify the definition of it.

Isn't a challenge or two to this making its way through the court system right now?

I don't know of any other country that allows you to be ready to drop a kid out of the womb, and if you make it to home base in time, if the kid lands on your soil, it automatically becomes a citizen.

It shouldn't be that way here either...

Re:I abstain

[c6gunner]

We're talking different levels of proficiency here. Also, colloquialisms and accents don't disqualify you from being proficient in a given language. If that were the standard, we could safely say that nobody in the US is proficient in English, since you all speak it quite differently from the brits.

Re:I abstain

[glueball]

[citation]
http://www.kansas.com/2010/10/24/1555918/portland-may-let-noncitizens-vote.html

"Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it."

Re:I abstain

[Americano]

If the people cannot agree on a leader to support, then it's time to dissolve the institution and start over.

I'm unable to fully articulate how uncomfortable this statement makes me.

It takes a peculiar sense of entitlement to say "If you all won't agree and give me a pre-made set of choices which match my desires perfectly, I'll take my ball and go home." If you want a candidate who agrees 100% with you - run for office. If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate - support a third party candidate that does agree with your views. Elections don't happen randomly, with no advanced notice. You have plenty of time to educate yourself, decide which candidates to support (or whether or not to run yourself). Refusing to participate, and then demanding that everybody else allow their government be dissolved to honor the fact that your wishes weren't met (even though you did nothing to go out and try and make them come true yourself) is a childish notion.

If you refuse to participate in the process at all other than to show up on election day and check a box on the ballot, don't expect to have a large voice in shaping the political landscape.

Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of, "The people get the rulers they deserve." He was right. Your options are:
1) Don't participate, and just grumble about the choices other people make;
2) Participate actively in shaping your political system & your society, secure in the knowledge that even if your guy loses, your rights are protected under the constitution, and you can continue trying to bring people around to your way of thinking;
3) Let your society collapse into a patchwork of warring tribal factions (See: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan), with power falling to the most ruthles.

Saying, "Right, Hatta wasn't happy with the results, let's do it all over again, and let's get some new candidates on stage this time," is a recipe for #3. Your wishes do not trump the wishes of millions of other people who did take the time to support candidates & go out and vote.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing bigoted about his comment. You are jumping to conclusions because you are a bit of a racist/bigot yourself (i.e. assuming he must hate foreigners and immigrants and anyone who doesn't speak English). What one must do to attain citizenship in the US is not something that is taught in public schools (at least not in WA State where I attended). In fact, until I looked it up in response to his comment I had no idea there wasn't actually a language requirement. When everyone you know or deal with regularly speaks a language its kind of easy to forget that its not really an official state or federal language. Particularly when most other countries in the world have an official language listed.

Really, you should look again at what the post said and how you replied and do a bit of introspection. You come off as far more bigoted than anyone else in this thread so far (particularly the one comment about people being beyond help).

Re:I abstain

[Smallpond]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

The Help America Vote (sic) Act of 2002 is designed to prevent US residents from voting unless they can present a valid photo ID, so since federal law trumps local law, your suggestion is absurd.

Re:I abstain

[MightyYar]

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally.

If you heard this secondhand, then you need to check out your sources before spouting off.

There is one city - not state - putting this up for vote: Portland, Maine. And it only applies to the local elections. Other cities and states do this, and have in fits and starts over the last 150 years or so.

It is a GOOD thing for the residents of a city to be involved in local politics. Let localities decide who is an is not a "citizen" of their region. That's not "progressives" - that's good old-fashioned individual liberty tea-party style talk.

Re:I abstain

[jargonCCNA]

So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate.

...That is an excellent point.

Also, from a pragmatic point-of-view, spoiled ballots tend to be reported and counted exactly the same as uncast ballots, so showing up just to cast a spoiled ballot is a complete waste of time (yours and the officials') regardless of the reason.

Well, Toronto just finished its mayoral election, which was decided by a margin of almost 100K people (out of the roughly 500K votes that seemed to be counted for the mayor's office). My showing up (to vote not for the guy I thought would do the best job, but in typically Canadian fashion, against the guy I thought would do the worst) feels like it was a waste of my time, other than councillor, where i did vote for the winner. School board trustee, they gave me the wrong ballot, so I had to abstain there.

Basically, I don’t think showing up and spoiling your ballot is a waste of time; it’s speaking up and registering your discontent. I know they’re counted the same as uncast ballots, but maybe they shouldn’t be.

Re:I abstain

[h4rr4r]

Note local elections, these locations have a right to decide that.

Re:I abstain

[Samalie]

You cannot assume that someone not showing up equals a vote against the system.

My wife will regularly not-vote in an election. It is not because she's disillusioned with the system...its that she just really doesn't give a fuck.

I do believe that there absolutely has to be an option of "All these assholes suck" on every ballot, and these votes should be counted against the rest of the votes. If the majority ov people who voted voted for "none of the above" - then basically the vote for that district should be thrown out & that district starts over.

But to assume that every no show = a vote for none of the above is pure fail.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

"Anchor baby" is a ridiculously loaded term, and one that shows ignorance of how immigration works in the US. A child born in the US to non-citizen parents must be 21 years old before he or she can act as a sponsor for the naturalization of the parents.

If people are doing what your use of the term suggests, it is an incredibly inefficient way to get legal residency.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Who is bringing up what laws where? BTW, I heard that some conservatives want to do something possibly bad somewhere. Prove me wrong.

In any case, anyone who can vote holds de facto citizenship. In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requires almost all residents to have such power; almost all residents must be citizens, otherwise you'll soon get to the slippery slope of ever larger share of the populace being excluded from power, leading to a dictatorship.

So you are saying women weren't Citizens of the United States until the 1920's?

Neither Suffrage nor Citizenship are granted in the US just for showing up. I've known citizen's of foreign nations who have resided in this country for decades, having not committed themselves to this country I see no reason to grant them a vote.

Re:I abstain

[cgenman]

While I'd tend to agree, we're busy people. Just because you have a job interview that day, or thought it was Wednesday instead of Tuesday, or needed to pick up your daughter from recital after work, doesn't mean that it's a vote against the system. It means the opportunity cost of voting was higher than the expected payout (a very, very slim vote at a change in government).

Also, has there ever been a US election where 1/2 of the population showed up?

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"I cannot believe there is a real requirement for English anymore - it would be divisive and against the overall policy of diversity. "

What policy of diversity are you talking about?

There is no diversity when it comes to being an American. Once a citizen, you are to assimilate into the big melting pot that is America, at least that's how it has been working till about the last few decades.

Sure, bring your cultural gifts and traditions...but make them part of the greater US culture.

Sure, you'll still be diverse in the things about you you cannot change...sex, race...etc. But when you become a US citizen, you really should cease to be a any other -ian. That's the point of becoming a US citizen. So, come here..learn the language, integrate into the society. If you want to stay German and speak only German...why bother coming to the US and going for citizenship? Same for coming from China, or Mexico or anywhere else? If you don't want to join and intergrate itno the larger American society, why fucking bother coming here and becoming a citizen.

If from wherever you came from was so great...why not stay there? Why try to change the US into YOUR country?

When I go to another country, I certainly don't expect to vote...and I don't expect them to make everything accessible in English. No, if I visit over there, I try to learn as much of the language as I can.

I've noticed that other countries don't bend over as backwards as we're trying to do of late...and I wonder why we are changing? I don't think they should...and I don't think WE should either.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes perfect sense. If you give a person a visa to live there, and they work and pay their taxes, they should get a say. They're essentially declaring that city citizenship has to do with where you legally live, and is not the same as country citizenship. It's not like they are there illegally, and it's not like the law allows vacationers in. Legal residency takes time to establish.

Re:I abstain

[chris mazuc]

Where exactly did I mention anything that exuded racism??

Racism probably wasn't the word they were looking for. You made a statement that assumes anyone that doesn't speak English obviously wasn't from here, which is definitely not always the case.

Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...is kind of needed to really succeed and operate in this country.

While it may be true that today almost all people born in the USA will learn English, there are still some older citizens that might have not ever bothered to learn because the largely self sufficient communities they live in don't primarily speak English.

It isn't racist to expect visitors to this country to follow the "when in Rome" type thinking, is it?

Isn't it reasonable to use the best understood language to communicate in? There happens to be a very large minority in this country that speaks Spanish as a primary language even if you find that distasteful. Even if they did speak English well enough to pass the citizenship exam, that doesn't mean that they aren't more comfortable with their native language. I think voting is an act that lends itself to having a complete understanding of the situation.

Re:I abstain

[h4rr4r]

You are incorrect. I was born outside the USA and was a legal US citizen before I learned English. It happens. In my case my father was a US soldier.

There is also no legal requirement for me to teach my US born future children english. I can raise them Klingon if I so desired.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there are people who have been here for generations. In parts of the southwest, Spanish was there long before the United States was.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Who in their right mind would actually want to give power over the government to people who can't even be bothered to learn the language of their own nation?"

Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA? Last I knew about it USA hasn't an official language so English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change.

Re:I abstain

[muckracer]

> Um... Did I miss the joke?
> That doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. It's legal to vote if you're here legally? Madness!

You did miss quite a bit actually. Even a tourist on a 3-months stay is here 'legally'. Doesn't mean, s/he should be able to vote or it would be madness indeed. Or did you get to vote on your vacation outside the US?

> Presumably we're talking about being a legal citizen

Well, yes we are. Aside from Guantanamo guests, there are no 'illegal' citizens. You either are or you are not a citizen. The precursor to citizenship (permanent resident aka Greencard) does not permit you to vote, because you have no US citizenship yet.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so scared of people who don't speak english? In Australia voting forms are produced in something like 17 different languages, since the government (state and federal) realize that people can have different ethnicity (and hence language), but still be australian. Australia hasn't imploded or anything due to all these different languages.

Why is a multi-lingual country so scary to you?

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally

I'm here legally and I vote, is there a problem with that? Is anyone proposing that someone who is here illegally be entitled to vote?

Re:I abstain

[shoehornjob]

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system. Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances.

Constitutionally that may be the case however the current system is based on party (partisan) and voter apathy. There will always be a certain segment of the population that clings to party lines because they believe the shit their party is throwing them and will gladly shovel it. The rest of us realize the whole damned system is rigged against us and don't have the will to change it. It's a nice lesson about theory and reality.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"We are supposed to be ONE great nation, built upon the cultures and influences brought into this country by people that come here to be citizens. This model has worked pretty well until the past couple of decades."

I'll beg to disagree. USA has traditionally been a country of seggregation and ghettos and even citizenship (by means of the ability to cast a vote) hasn't been a thing for all till relatively recent.

Re:I abstain

[chris mazuc]

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? It's not like the non-citizens can give themselves the right to vote, and it doesn't affect anything other than local government. Now if they were to give them the right to vote in Federal elections that would obviously be unconstitutional. Should such a constitutional amendment come up I would be against it, however if the residents of Portland want to allow legal resident non-citizens to vote in their local elections it should be up to them to decide.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

"Drop a kid" "home base" "lands on your soil"

This is dehumanizing language.

The standards for being a citizen at birth are set in the Constitution, so good luck changing that law or challenging it.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

Keep the government out of people's lives. Unless they speak Spanish, in which case, jackboot away!

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Insanity why? Local policy is not the same as national direction. It makes sense, and it makes for a nicer place to live, to gather the opinion of everyone who lives in a city in order to decide things like public transit investments, development zoning, etc. In the EU and many a civilized country this has been done for years, often with the constraint (rarely enforced) that the country of origin also has to grant voting rights for local elections to citizens of the host country.

Re:I abstain

[Omestes]

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system.

Your reading to much into it. Not everything in this world is politically motivated. Most of the people I know don't vote, and it generally isn't a form of protest. Its just apathy. They don't care. It isn't that they think that their vote doesn't matter, it isn't because they think the system is against them, they just don't care. Even if the government was some mythic ideal they wouldn't vote.

Political people breath too much into politics, they think everyone is engaged at some level. But really politics and the government are very inconsequential to most people. The government is some tertiary entity out in the nebulous periphery of their existence. It isn't a real force in their lives, being that their too busy living, working, caring for their family and community, watching reality TV, and caring about pop culture. They might care about politics, and the political future of this country, but it is all very abstract to them. The government does it thing, they do theirs, and rarely do these influences over lap. They aren't disenfranchised, they aren't repressed, they aren't protesting. On the contrary, the government has done a decent job keeping the basics of life common, and keeping the peace, so it is very hard for the typical person to be very motivated one way or another.

Politics are only important when there is a threat to the real things in life, family, basic survival, and security. Despite all the left/right wing FUD, this threat is pretty abstract and almost non-existent.

I only vote because I was raised to think it is my civic duty. I really don't care all that much, especially about local (and being that I'm in Arizona loco) politics. I probably wouldn't vote in them if not for the feeling of guilt that I was raised with. I also would probably ignore the House of Representatives completely as well, and only vote for Senators and Presidents. Even then it doesn't matter too much, I really can't see America being much different with McCain at the helm, or whoever else wants to sit in the Oval Office. My life will tick on just like it always has. I will pay my taxes, which I don't like (though I like the benefits this gets me... and will have schizophenic feelings about it just like everyone else since the invention of taxes and services paid for om by them), I will interface with the government only very rarely (the DMV, the annoyance of dodging jury duty, etc..), and pretty much completely ignore politics unless it is as theater or as something to get indignant about then pass on... Or to feel elitist over that other 50% of the population who doesn't agree with me, how stupid they must be! Then I will finish my newspaper, put down my coffee and completely forget about the whole damn mess.

Re:I abstain

[natehoy]

No, the difference here is that the current system is based on actual citizenship, not legality of their presence here.

If you come to the United States for the purposes of obtaining citizenship, there is a significant period between the time you declare your intention to be a citizen and the time when you are actually sworn in as a citizen. People who are undergoing this process are here perfectly legally, but they have not yet become citizens, though many have declared their intentions to do so and are currently undergoing the immigration/naturalization process.

Currently, in most states, only eligible citizens can vote. That is, those who were either born here, or have been here long enough to be sworn in as fully-vested citizens. Legal immigrants are in a grey area. They cannot vote, because they were not granted citizenship by right of birth and they have not yet taken the oath of citizenship. They are here perfectly legitimately, working, paying taxes, etc, and many are even working toward earning citizenship, but they are not yet full citizens and therefore cannot yet vote.

This law seeks to change that. I haven't read the legislation on the ballot in Portland (because, while I live in Maine, I don't live in Portland and therefore cannot vote on this one), but I presume it allows anyone who has stated the intent to become a citizen to vote in elections.

Re:I abstain

[IdolizingStewie]

Because, as a bunch of other people have said above, there is no requirement for a natural-born citizen to know English. It would be pretty impressive to live here for 18 or more years and not pick it up, but it is entirely possible in certain areas of Texas, and more than likely other places as well.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

"*I believe there are an extremely limited number of cases where a person may be naturalized while having the language requirement waived. They are probably along the lines of asylum-citizenship conversions (for international legal protection), extreme age, or unique disabilities. Each case would likely be able to bring a translator to the polls, or request a special ballot."

Indeed, there's only about 3 MILLION American Indians (officially) in the US, and, of course ALL of them speak English -sarcasm-

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

Why are you assuming that the language of everyone native to this country is English?

I think the Americans citizens of Puerto Rico(1) would beg to differ, as would the Acadian settler descendants who lived in the Louisiana purchase area and still speak Cajun French, or the native Spanish and French settler descendants of that same region who speak Louisiana Creole, or the Spanish speaker descendants who lived in the territory purchased from Mexico (Part of which, in fact, is actually part of Nevada.) or in Texas before is seceded from Mexico, or the native Hawaiian descendants, or all the Native American tribes.

Oh, look at that. Not all American citizens, not even ones who are citizens from birth, speak English. Even pretending that every single person who moves here learns English and all their children do also, there were plenty of people already speaking another language when they magically found themselves inside the US, and there's never been any requirement whatsoever for them to learn English.

1) Before anyone points out they 'can't vote', they are indeed American citizens, and can indeed vote. It's just that Puerto Rico doesn't have any Federal representation, and hence they obviously cannot vote for representation that does not exist. If they move somewhere else in the US they can vote just fine.

Re:I abstain

[bmo]

is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

Not really. The test doesn't measure any kind of real world proficiency, just a rudimentary working knowledge of English, at a basic level.

The test also only measures a very basic understanding of the political system here, but I have the feeling that many American citizens would fail it.

But let me ask you this, what are the requirements for voting as a naturally born citizen of the US? Age of majority and being on this side of the turf. We tried literacy tests, but we all know how that went.

--
BMO

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...is kind of needed to really succeed and operate in this country."

Absolutly true. But I think this is more about the purity of the argument. Since USA hasn't an official language you could *in theory* live in USA without knowing English (not in practice, except on the most extreme examples).

"I'd not go to France and expect them to let me vote"

Then you'd be surprised. Once you are a resident you'll be able to vote on local (city level) elections (which IMHO makes perfect sense since you are being taxed there).

"or have everything labeled in English"

Probably not in France (those chovinists) but you can bet that if you go on holiday to Majorca (Spain) you'll read and hear more German than Spanish.

"Why do we make such (often expensive) concessions here in the US these days?"

Mexico, Spain or France have an official language that their respective citizens have the right to use and the obligation to know. That's not the case for the USA.

"It isn't racist to expect visitors to this country to follow the "when in Rome" type thinking, is it?"

It wouldn't be racist in any case, but it might be xenophobic (and despite its origins, it's not as if USA didn't have it before: "America for the Americans", you know).

Re:I abstain

[jo_ham]

America has no official language. They may speak English, but not officially.

Re:I abstain

[sco08y]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

The US is unique in that a woman can come here as a tourist, bear a child, and then take the child back to her country. Even if the child never sets foot in the US, he or she is a full US citizen with all the privileges and (theoretically) the responsibilities.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

As several of my British coworkers will attest, American's in general don't speak English. And as someone who has actually read the US Constitution would realize, there is no language requirement. So maybe certain radio talk show hosts are catering to xenophobia?

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

Where exactly did I mention anything that exuded racism??

In principle, and according to US law, if you use a particular form of discrimination/qualification/etc. that isn't racism, and even if racism isn't the intent, but has the mere effect of summarily excluding a group of people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin, it's racism and forbidden. See disparate impact.

Re:I abstain

[chocolatetrumpet]

Would this NOT give extra incentive to learn the language of the land, and assimilate into the greater US culture, as past generations of immigrants did?

Yes, the original immigrants assimilated and adopted the languages and ways of the native peoples of North America.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Actually, it is 'progressive'. A major aim of the Progressive Era was election reform. Without that, there'd be no recall or ballot initiative laws, and party bosses would still pick candidates instead of having primaries, and, of course, the seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators and the nineteenth allow women to vote.

While I can't think of any specific 'let non-citizens vote' concept (I suspect the Progressives would actually push for immigration reform instead.), it's not incredibly off-kilter from the rest of the stuff. I mean, they demanded letting all citizens vote. (People tend to get confused. Women were always citizens. It's just there's no requirement that all citizens be allowed to vote.)

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Yet every damn government publication is produced in English and Spanish. What other country on this Earth would let that happen? Switzerland? They're small enough to get away with it."

There's quite a lot of countries with more than one official language. Spain, for instance, has four (while only one is official over the whole country). You can bet that if you go to, say, Euskadi, traffic signals, street names and official documents will be in the two local official languages.

Re:I abstain

[modecx]

Of course, you're right. There's no need for an anchor baby. They're already effectively homesteaded here, kids or not. They got a sweet 125% loan-to-value mortgage when the banks were handing out money like so much Halloween candy. They bought up fancy trucks and Cadillacs, and drive them with their illegitimate credentials, often without insurance. And while there's a non-zero chance that law enforcement will nab the parents and send them back, the probability is incredibly small--unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

The reason I call them anchor babies is this: over the last few decades, Immigration has demonstrated a certain reluctance to send back the illegal parents of a US citizen. Whether or not you agree with that idea, it's documented, even if it's less common today. Also, consider this: the baby (and the parents, by proxy) may be eligible for welfare and a myriad of other social services.

Something must change.

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

Don't be ridiculous. It's not insanity, it makes perfect sense. The people who aren't legally here are much, much more likely to vote Democrat, because that party panders to that bloc, so the "progressives" want to allow those people to vote since it'll guarantee them more wins.

So no, it's not insanity. It's evil.

Of course, Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, so it's not like having Democrats elected by fraudulent means will "ruin the country"; we're fucked either way. We need to toss them both out and start all over.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am in your house illegally, is it theft if I eat your food, even if I am really hungry?

But if I am legally in your house then I must be legally entitled to eat your food, right?

I propose a compromise: I am hungry and cold. You have a nice warm house. Rather than eating the groceries you already have I'll just take whatever money I can find in your house and buy more groceries for us. I'll do the cooking, and then you can do the dishes. Also, everyone needs love, right? So I am going to bang your mom. If you need me, I'll be asleep on your couch.

I hate people that are not willing to compromise. They just want poor people to starve while freezing to death in the street, unloved. Oh, and let me know when the next house meeting is so I get a chance to vote.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Hey, imbecile, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment.

Other countries can create an entire underclass of non-citizens who can't vote, like various countries in Europe have done with the Middle Eastern immigrates.

That's working out real well for them, isn't it?

Here in the US, if people who've lived here since they were born can vote. It works a fuckload better than a system where entire groups of people have no political say, so start rioting in the streets to get listened to.

Re:I abstain

[Hatta]

I'm unable to fully articulate how uncomfortable this statement makes me.

I'm glad I made you profoundly uncomfortable. This is how I feel about our political system all the time.

1) Don't participate, and just grumble about the choices other people make;
2) Participate actively in shaping your political system & your society, secure in the knowledge that even if your guy loses, your rights are protected under the constitution, and you can continue trying to bring people around to your way of thinking;
3) Let your society collapse into a patchwork of warring tribal factions (See: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan), with power falling to the most ruthles.

For the sake of argument, which of these options would you recommend if the system were well and truly rigged? None of them seem appropriate to me. Participating in a broken system only legitimizes it.

I realize you may not see our current system as broken beyond repair. But you must at least acknowledge the possibility. How do you fix a rigged system from within the system? You cannot, and this is why we need a way for the people to express that they have no faith in the system and to dissolve it without resorting to bloodshed.

Also, our rights are protected by the constitution? Where have you been?

Saying, "Right, Hatta wasn't happy with the results, let's do it all over again, and let's get some new candidates on stage this time," is a recipe for #3. Your wishes do not trump the wishes of millions of other people who did take the time to support candidates & go out and vote.

Of course not. I'm just one person. Does your vote trump the wishes of millions of people who don't have enough faith in the system to even show up?

Re:I abstain

[darthdavid]

Firstly, 16% of the world operates on Jus Soli (right of the soil) so just because you don't know about those countries (and didn't care to spend 15 seconds googling it) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Secondly, why do you think it's such a big problem? A lot of people who harp on this issue froth at the mouth about 'terror babies' and other inanity of that nature, but really most of the people who have children this law applies to just over here trying to make a better life for themselves, and usually do the jobs that none of the locals want to do anyway (and often get exploited and held in virtual slavery while doing so). Why shouldn't their children have a chance at all the benefits anyone else would have?

Lastly, we're a nation of immigrants. We built our strength on the backs of successive waves of immigration and we're hardly low on space or food. Why should we make it so difficult for new people to have a shot at success in the land of the free? And don't go pulling any 'we were here first' bullshit on me, I'm a member of the Cherokee nation bitch!

Re:I abstain

[HeronBlademaster]

Plenty of people have valid US photo IDs even though they're not US citizens. Any foreigner who lives in the U.S. and drives a car, for example, probably has a driver's license (in whatever state they live).

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"I think most who do not vote are either lazy (probably the majority) or don't feel they have enough understanding to make a serious choice.
Or to paraphrase: most people don't deserve to have a government. ;-)"

Hummm... no. It would be more "most people don't deserve a *democratic* government".

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but your comment is just ridiculous bigotry

Are you serious? How the hell do you know who you want to vote for if you can't read their statements and can't understand what they're saying? How the hell do you read the actual text of a proposition if you can't read English? You just rely on what some media outlet translates for you? Are you fucking serious?

I don't want you voting ... even if you speak fluent English.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be a legal permanent resident without being a citizen, and only need to renew your LPR every 10 years.

Re:I abstain

[Hatta]

Not everything in this world is politically motivated. Most of the people I know don't vote, and it generally isn't a form of protest. Its just apathy. They don't care.

Apathy is a form of political motivation in itself. If they are so apathetic that they can't show up to vote, they shouldn't care when the government shuts down due to the lack of a mandate. On the other hand, if they don't show up and services they need shut down then they will learn pretty quickly not to be so apathetic.

Re:I abstain

[dondelelcaro]

For immigrants to vote, they must be Citizens. To become one if they aren't already, they need to understand English.

You don't need to speak English to be a US Citizen, because the US allows naturalization by birth. And moreover, there are lots of people who have a working knowledge of English, but are far more comfortable with another language. it's perfectly fine to have ballots and election material printed in multiple languages to avoid disenfranchising individuals who are legitimate voters.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

You really need to stop listening to talk radio. Because you're just asserting shit with absolutely no evidence of it.

There's been no change in assimilation at all. There's no evidence of any change. There's no 'cultural isolation', it's all made up.

And No Child Left Behind Act has fuck-all to do with this. No Child Left Behind is utterly stupid nonsense that has failed, and the failure doesn't have anything to do with bilingual education.

I bet you're one of those people who think crime in Arizona is skyrocketing due to illegal immigration, don't you?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides that it's illegal, you automatically forfeit your eventual upgrade to citizenship if you vote

One of the pass/fail questions in the citizenship interview is if you have ever pretended to be a citizen under any circumstance, if you say yes you're done.

Re:I abstain

[chris mazuc]

Unlike prior immigrants, some (many?) have no desire to assimilate.

Cultural assimilation is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.

which provides up to three consecutive years of bilingual education--and like prior efforts it tends to fail.

Mandating certain education strategies in legislation is always bound to fail. Is it the goal or the method you are against? You can't learn in a classroom surrounded by a language you don't speak.

Surely this subset of people is so much of a minority, that it doesn't justify the costs.

Tell that to these places

Yet every damn government publication is produced in English and Spanish.

Well Puerto Rico is a US territory that has Spanish as its primary language, so for that reason alone you really don't have a point. On a side note, it would definitely put an end this discussion if Puerto Rico became a state.

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

The USA has unfortunately had segregation and ghettos, but that is not the national ideal in any way; those are unfortunate historical realities (like slavery), mistakes that we don't want to repeat. Segregation has not been a source of strength for us as a nation; instead, it's caused divisiveness and injustice.

The USA's ideal has always been assimilation and unity. You can't have unity if different groups of people are speaking different languages, and are self-segregating into different Balkanized districts.

So why are "progressives" arguing for more segregation and ghettoization?

Re:I abstain

[thtrgremlin]

There are many ways to be here legally and not all of them include citizenship. People come here temporarily for work and school in addition to vacation. Further, how can people not be denied the right to vote but then also need prove that they are not just a tourist?

Personally, I think you just made the best example of "here legally" != "legal citizen", and how it can be get complicated.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Are you stupid or drunk?

The stuff that stops you from doing that is the same stuff that stops you from registering multiple times before an election and voting.

In your universe, a mandatory delay magically makes everyone follow the rules? Because people who want to vote illegally can't plan a month in advance?

But, go ahead, I know the right desperately needs 'voter fraud' out there so they can wave their victim flag.

In actuality, there has been no voter fraud by ineligible people voting in thirty years. In the whole country. You people keep talking about 'the dead voting in Chicago', while failing to recognize that was functionally the last time that sort of fraud happened. Ineligible people do not vote, period.

All recent voter fraud has been either vote tampering, or voter suppression. You know, like what you're trying to do by putting hardships in the way of legitimate voting.

Re:I abstain

[ooshna]

You probably wouldn't be worrying about voting in the first place.

Re:I abstain

[Lemmy Caution]

What must change is your stubborn chauvinism and near-paranoia.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

[I mean...]is it not a requirement for those coming to this country to show proficiency in English in an exam, in order to obtain citizenship??

fixed that for ya

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

Not really. They live in their own, separate nations, and are able to do things however they want. They're not even subject to the laws of the States that their reservations happen to lie within; they only answer to the Federal government, and deal with them on a treaty basis through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

For instance, here in Arizona, state law is that you can own a gun, and as of recently, you can carry it concealed with you just about wherever you want without a permit. However, if you cross over into an Indian Reservation (easy to do since they're everywhere, with many of them bordering the Phoenix metro area), suddenly those laws are null and void, and you can be thrown in jail for possessing a firearm, something that's illegal on reservations. There's even a bunch of weird exceptions, because many public roads cross through reservations, so just having a gun with you as you're driving could get you in trouble when you cross into a Res, but usually they have agreements with the State government called "safe passage", so if you're only passing through and not stopping you're OK, but don't stop for gas or anything because you could get in trouble then.

However, in my observation, the Natives are much more pragmatic and realistic than many immigrants from the South; even though they'd be entirely within their rights to only use their native languages, they all know and use English because it makes it much easier for them to work with and interact with everyone around them (esp. when they set up big fancy casinos).

Re:I abstain

[HotBits]

In the state of New York the old mechanical voting machines had no votes selected by default. You had to flip one lever to vote for each of the things being voted on. That never seemed to be a problem.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we don't have an official language. Providing a spanish option (and indeed an english option...) is a courtesy to the large populations in this country whose primary language is english or spanish.

There is no requirement for you to speak or read english, and there very well probably isn't any requirement for the voting to be done in english, except that there's no reason not to with all the english speakers in this country. But it's entirely possible they could put the voting in pig-latin or sanskrit, or a made-up symbol language (and, indeed, they once did the symbol thing. It was very good for democrats....) without running afoul of any codified law.

What's upsetting is the idea that there would be defaults. Also that the defaults varied based on language, but the first thing is the main thing.

Re:I abstain

[sjames]

And the problem with THAT is that it creates an illusion of legitimacy for an institution that truly isn't legitimate. If there are enough people in your party to cause a no-confidence situation by abstaining from voting, there are enough of you to elect the leader of your choice anyway.

We already have 2 parties in the U.S. that HAVE filled the power vacuum. They use the current electoral process to claim legitimacy even when they win less than 25% of the electorate (but 51% of those who actually vote). In part through that false air of legitimacy, they crowd out other candidates in the media (even excluding them from debates) who might otherwise prove more popular.

In addition to choosing one of the candidates or writing someone in, other legitimate expressions include "don't know", "don't care", "none of the above", and "can't be bothered to show up".

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

"Progressives" think that it's racist to expect anyone to learn English, and that we should cater to people in whatever language they prefer, be it Spanish, Ukrainian, or Swahili, or even Klingon.

However, they don't think this applies to any country outside the USA.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spanish-speaking US citizenry is not all made up of what you so contemptuously refer to as "anchor-babies". You can be here perfectly legally on a green card or other documentation, and if you have a child that child is a natural-born US citizen.

I'm not saying the law is right, only that you are making a mockery of your own point by waving the "illegals are to blame!" flag where it doesn't apply. It makes the rest of your post read like a Rush Limbaugh rant. And it's also inaccurate. Every time you get a large influx of a non-English-speaking population, you'll get a population of non-English-speaking kids from that population. A percentage of those kids have no interest in assimilating. And we have, in fact, accommodated them throughout our history. Eventually, the populations of those who are not interested in assimilating dwindle, and the population becomes majority bilingual or English speakers. This is what prompted the term "melting pot" to describe the US form of cultural assimilation. We don't force it, it just happens naturally.

In the Northeast, the problem also exists to an extent with French-speakers from Quebec. They immigrate (both legally and illegally) and their children (being natural-born citizens) are under no legal obligation to learn English. That issue, however, is slowly dwindling as people living in Quebec (where the official language is French) are gradually becoming natively bilingual (French/English) so they can do business with the provinces they share a border with, and the US states they also share a border with.

The issue with Spanish-speakers is that it's much easier to come to the US (illegally or legally) since we happen to share a land border, and Mexico remains very clearly a Spanish-speaking country. So there's a more constant influx of Spanish speakers who have legal kids here who then have a larger Spanish-speaking community they can be comfortable with generation after generation, so to them assimilation into US culture can include speaking only Spanish. Most other nationalities have to cover much greater distances, so they can't support immigration in such large numbers.

Though, having said that, there are a good number of Somali immigrants in a town nearby, and the company I work for has hired a large number of them. Some are naturalized citizens and speak English, some will remain under refugee status and possibly have kids and raise them not necessarily speaking English as a primary language. Those kids will, to put it honestly, be growing up with significant disadvantages, but many of them will learn English on their own. In a few generations, the problem will sort itself out.

I agree that multilingualism is somewhat of a problem in running a cohesive country where all of our citizens can freely communicate with each other, and I'm not trying to dismiss the challenges presented by non-English-speaking (and by weight of numbers primarily only-Spanish-speaking) citizens. On the other hand, we have the technology to overcome a lot of those problems now (voting machines can be soft-configured to display the text of initiatives in multiple languages, for example). We have reached the point where we can, by and large, accommodate multiple languages without horribly inconveniencing the majority.

There are certain things that (by practical consideration) still require a basic mastery of English. Driver's licenses should at least include demonstrating understanding of the signs people will encounter. Employers can still require a mastery of English for those positions that require it. There's plenty of incentive left to learn the language that the majority speaks.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

They bought up fancy trucks and Cadillacs

That sounds an awful lot like something a giant racist would say.

Getting back to the point at hand, language is complicated; public policy is complicated; I used to be able to speak Spanish pretty well, but I wouldn't have felt comfortable figuring out how to fill out a ballot or use a voting machine if there weren't instructions in English. Unless we stop immigration altogether, we're going to have people in this country who can't read/speak English as well as their native languages. We can either make it easier to participate in public life, or harder. You seem to think we should make it harder.

Re:I abstain

[pnewhook]

Sure it's English by default, but does that give the government the right to FORCE someone to operate in English who doesn't want to or hasn't yet learned to? Isn't that an assault on their personal liberties to use whatever language they choose?

There's no requirement to have only English at the voting boots, and if a region recognizes that a significant percentage of their voters are more comfortable in a different language, then supplying that language to make voting easier shouldn't be a problem.

Re:I abstain

[TheEyes]

Given that you have to give either a social security number or a driver's license number, I don't see the problem. A fake ID is easier to make than an entry in the state's DMV system, or in the SSA.

You can register without an ID for the same reason that we don't have a national ID card: people are understandably nervous about being "forced" to show their papers wherever they go. That's not the kind of thing you encourage in a free society.

Re:I abstain

[RapmasterT]

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise. Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up. Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted.

I was with you right up to the last sentence. You start by saying no assumptions should be made with the ballot, that all votes should be specific. Then you finish by saying a lack of a vote should be assumed to mean something that you've decided, rather than a specific vote.

Re:I abstain

[slyrat]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

Right, but there isn't a national language by law. Currently English is the default language used because the majority speaks / reads it. If they did enact a law for a particular language to be the national language then I would agree that there would be no need to have alternates for voting.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate."

That's not the problem. The real problem is that under a representative democracy (or republic) you ended up putting the fox to take care of the hens in this issue.

Solution (to your proposed problem): allow for a blank (or "no one of the above") vote. I don't know for the USA but a ton of countries allow for that option.

Why it doesn't work? Because your representatives don't want to lose the power your vote -or your no-vote give to them. That's why while a lot of countries allow for a blank vote, no one -that I know of, allow for those blank votes to hold representatives (as empty chairs in the representatives office). Politicians live quite a sweet life knowing that the more disconnected they are from the citizens they say to represent the easier for them to go after their own bussiness.

I wouldn't support dismantling government for too a high percentage of blank votes since that would lead to anarchy (see Irak or many African countries to see why anarchy is bad) but I certainly would favour for government going progressively into autopilot by means of blank votes leading to empty chairs.

In Spain for instance (and I presume it's more or less the same in USA) you need different majority levels for different kind of laws (like 2/3 in order to be able to ammend the Constitution, absolute majority for national budgets, simple majority for other laws...). Taking into account blank votes, then, first you wouldn't be able to ammend the Constitution, after that you wouldn't be able to pass yearly budgets (so you automatically would work on last years budget), then you wouldn't be able to pass any law: you would be forced just to be sit down and quiet in the Congress. Which can only make sense: if you didn't earn people's support you aren't entitled to govern the country -the less support you earned, the less important the changes you are allowed to introduce.

That's easy to acomplish and it would have the immediate effect that politicians would be *very* interested on gaining the attention and support of citizenship which would only be good for democracy. It's only that those in charge to pass such a law are the most interested on such a law never to be aproved.

Re:I abstain

[chris mazuc]

that there is no way to know (exactly) how many people are eligible to vote as such things are not registered.

Voters are generally required to register in the USA. In the states I have lived in, you cannot vote if you are not registered.

This is, as it seems to be from my point of view, also the reason for the decennial census.

The reason for the census is to determine the population for the purposes of drawing congressional districts.

Re:I abstain

[Phoenix Rising]

Federally, they must I believe have equal access to the ballot for all people. That includes those with disabilities and those who speak other languages as their primary language. That access may be via interpreter or by showing the ballot in multiple languages, or some combination of both.

Re:I abstain

[pnewhook]

"Unfortunately no-one would get the Hispanic vote if they didnt cater to them by having Spanish translations." Would this NOT give extra incentive to learn the language of the land, and assimilate into the greater US culture, as past generations of immigrants did?

You seem to forget that the Spanish were in the US long before the English. Many Spanish speaking are not immigrants.

Re:I abstain

[skydyr]

In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requires almost all residents to have such power; almost all residents must be citizens, otherwise you'll soon get to the slippery slope of ever larger share of the populace being excluded from power, leading to a dictatorship.

This explains perfectly why the proportion of the population with the franchise has been increasing consistently since the inception of the USA, and has been repeatedly expanded in Britain as well.

Re:I abstain

[sjames]

You DO realize that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens right?

Re:I abstain

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...

Yes, but only the "born" part is neccessary to become citizen. You can be born in the US (and thus become citizen), be raised somewhere else, and then come back at a later time (and vote)

Re:I abstain

[skydyr]

Just to clarify, there are still many people with citizenship who cannot vote, being under the age of majority.

Re:I abstain

[bornagainpenguin]

The problem with a no-confidence plebiscite is the resolution. Historically, when an election provides the option of returning no winner, like many parliaments have or once implemented, you'd end up with a situation where the body went months or years without a leader [...]

I'm really not seeing an issue with that to be honest.

A government that can't meet is also one that can't pass bills and confiscate people's property. If there is a need for government (because of an attack or war time circumstance) there are already safeguards put into place for that and people can vote then. Otherwise a vote of no confidence should be seen as just that--a vote for no action or governmental interference!

Re:I abstain

[modecx]

Yeah, I understand that there are quite a lot of countries with territorial languages, like the Basque you mentioned, Welsh, Scot, Gaelic, the various Uralic languages spoken along the tundra, to name a few, etc. etc.

But these languages are regional, and usually don't apply at at federal or national level, and all of them have one (maybe two) language which applies nationally. There are relatively few countries with a multiple 'official' languages, even if the government chooses to do business in the extraneous languages.

However, I can't think of a country remotely comparable to the size of the US (population or geographically) that is even officially bilingual. It's a significant logistical challenge. China, India? I don't know.

Re:I abstain

[el_gordo101]

Maine for one. In fact, until the 1920s, many states allowed legal immigrants to vote in state elections. I don't see this a being particularly outrageous, actually. My father, for example, has been a resident alien (aka green card holder) in the US since the 1950s. He has a social security number, pays federal and state income taxes, social security taxes, local property taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. Hell, he was drafted and served in the US army, but he cannot vote. He fully understands that he could very easily become a US citizen and earn that right, but he chooses instead to hang on to his national heritage.

Re:I abstain

[thefolkmetal]

I'm a little curious as to why we're arguing about the ability to vote of any individual who, due to language barriers, is unable to understand what he or she is voting for in the first place.

I think that there are many more aspects to consider here.

Re:I abstain

[Tsunayoshi]

That has nothing to do with whether the US has an official language...various groups have been trying for years to have a law passed (or an amendment to the Constitution) that makes English the official language of the US. Obviously they have not been successful to date. I doubt they ever will, since politicians would never pass it as it would hurt their image in the minds of non-English speaking constituents, not to mention all the idiots who would cry racism at such a move.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Iowa in particular asks for no indentification when showing up to the polls on election day itself and registering there. No SSN. No driver's license number, specifically to allow people to vote who can't provide legal identification.

They are going out of their way to cater to illegal immigrants. My father-in-law conversely has been paying taxes in the United States for something like 15 years now as a legal immigrant and can't vote yet.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).

You insist it hasn't happened in 30 years, except examples of it pop up constantly.

And allowing people to vote without supplying indentification is just enabling more fradulent votes.

I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.

Both sides have cheated in voter fraud over the years. Your insistance that no fake votes have been cast in 30 years, and that only one party is ever guilty is naive to a fault. And you call me stupid?

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Voter turnout in the US sucks, and it sucks that it sucks, and it needs to be fixed. I'm no expert on how to fix it"

For ballots that would populate a lot of chairs (i.e. Congress), blank/no one from the list will produce empty chairs; for ballots for a head (i.e: major), blank/no one from the list will make the previous one to stay in place (to avoid anarchy) or the ballot would be repeated if the last one can't continue.

Done.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

And the problem with THAT is that it creates an illusion of legitimacy for an institution that truly isn't legitimate.

Look, this is the process we have for picking leaders -- if you don't think voting is a valid process then I'm not sure where you fit into a modern liberal republic. OTOH, if you think voting can work, you've gotta propose a different way of doing it, and I'm saying is a destructive vote of no confidence is a really shitty way of fixing this problem. A democracy with thin legitimacy is probably more desirable than a very legitimate dictatorship, and I'm not aware of evidence that any other outcomes are more than unicorns and rainbows.

There are other ways of addressing this, namely requiring that if someone loses their mandate through lack of support, they can only lose their job if the electors can agree on a replacement -- this is the system the German parliament uses, since Hitler came to power on the back of several no confidence votes.

They use the current electoral process to claim legitimacy even when they win less than 25% of the electorate (but 51% of those who actually vote).

If you don't vote you have no claim to pass judgement on the government yea or nay. If you don't like the candidates get involved in primaries and parties. But beware, it will require you to actually talk to people, instead of whining on a forum about why politicians are all teh OMG corrupT!, and it may require you to compromise on somebody you may not like for X and Y but gives you Z and X and Ys voters besides.

Re:I abstain

[emt377]

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? It's not like the non-citizens can give themselves the right to vote, and it doesn't affect anything other than local government

More specifically, in SF it only applies to school board elections. Permanent legal residents are required by law to put their children in school, just like everybody else, so it's only reasonable that they have a say in what goes on there. A school board election, after all, is only a notch above a PTA meeting and they're welcome there.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who in their right mind would actually want to give power over the government to people who can't even be bothered to learn the language of their own nation?"

Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA? Last I knew about it USA hasn't an official language so English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change.

True, but irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of US citizens and residents speak English, which makes it the de facto official language. Regardless of what the government mandates, people wake up every morning expecting to conduct politics and commerce in English. Accordingly, all major government and commercial institutions responsible for making key political and economic decisions conduct their deliberations in English. And that means that anyone who can't speak English here might as well be illiterate when it comes to political and economic influence. Just try getting a job at the Federal Reserve or as a Congressional aide if you can't speak English at the conversational level--won't happen.

Just as important, English is the de facto language of US commerce, so anyone who can't speak English is necessarily limited in their ability to increase their earning power, Spanish being the lone exception in some of the larger cities. The ability to speak English is a prerequisite to attending virtually all universities and graduate and professional schools--the graduates of whom will always have far more ability to influence political and economics affairs than the under-educated.

So, yes, we preach multiculturalism, but there's a reason that you're never going to hear Obama give a State of the Union address in Hmong, Polish, Italian, or even Spanish. The government takes steps to help non-English speaking citizens vote and access public services, but the fact is that non-English speakers do not and cannot actually wield meaningful power in the United States on the national or state level on a daily basis.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

A good portion of political adverts are designed to make the mainstream feel so disgusted that they do not influence the outcome of the election. Sounds like it is working.

Keep fear alive!

Re:I abstain

[DrVxD]

Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself

No, it's a "vote" of not caring about the outcome - those that don't vote get the government they deserve.

After an election, the only people who have any right to complain about the result are those that cast a vote for somebody who didn't win - those that voted for the winner got what they asked for; those that didn't vote got what they asked for.

That being said, actual abstentions (those that select "none of the above" or its equivalent) should be counted; if they're more than a certain proportion (say 30% or so) of the votes cast, then a new election should be held.

Re:I abstain

[jvkjvk]

I only half agree.

If one choses to vote, then yes, I agree that there should be a default "none of the above".

However, I feel uncomfortable helping to legitimize the system in place by presuming that non-voters just don't like the candidates.

Even if you vote "none of the above", just by voting you are agreeing to accept the results of that vote (if the outcome is legitimate and not fixed).

It is equally possible that they feel the system is too corrupt to fix, and that voting only adds energy into the corrupt system. Counting these people in the "none of the above" group only helps the system remain corrupted.

Perhaps if less than 50% of the elgible people votefor a particular office it should remain vacant for that election cycle.

That might just shake things up a bit.

Regards.

Re:I abstain

[moortak]

There's no language requirement for native born citizens.

Re:I abstain

[Anrego]

Unfortunately they would almost have to be discarded (the votes, not the candidates), however the numbers could be published..

Right now we just tend to assume the massive percentage of people who don't vote are lazy.. if numbers showed that a high percentage wen't lazy, but felt that no candidate was qualified.. it might get a discussion going and _maybe_ something might actually change

Then again, people might just look at the numbers, sadly nod, then change the channel.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

Immigrant goes to America,
Many hellos in America;
Nobody knows in America
Puerto Rico's in America!

Re:I abstain

[s73v3r]

Should the Blind not be able to vote, then? I would assume a blind person would not have a ballot written in English, but in Braille.

Re:I abstain

[Americano]

I'm glad I made you profoundly uncomfortable. This is how I feel about our political system all the time.

Fair enough - I haven't reached the point where I'd say that the system is irredeemably broken. I can see where someone might throw their hands up and say "fuck this shit, it's all broken," but I'm not willing to conclude that at this point.

For the sake of argument, which of these options would you recommend if the system were well and truly rigged? None of them seem appropriate to me. Participating in a broken system only legitimizes it.

I'd say none of them are particularly appropriate. If it is, as you suggest, completely dysfunctional and broken, then the solution *is* revolution, and replacement with a better alternative - a blend of #2, and #3, I suppose. Hopefully your new country has a better time of implementing democracy than the countries I mentioned in #3.

But the issue I see is that the system we live in is expressly built to have representatives changed every few years, and that's why I think #1 is more or less our default state these days - it's a lot of work to get involved, engage other people in a real discussion of issues, and push for real, lasting change. It's a lot easier to sit at home (or here on Slashdot) and gripe about how all the candidates suck, and we oughta just get rid of the whole system.

But the question that point demands is: replace it with what? If the solution is more or less a 'reboot' of what we have, then get to work making it happen, no need for a civil war, just get new people elected to office, and hold them accountable for results. If the solution is something radically different... what would you propose?

I don't believe that it's a lost cause, and I volunteer for and support third party candidates. I also engage my friends, family, co-workers, and others in political discussion as often as I reasonably can, and encourage them to do the same. If the millions of people who opt out of the whole process did the same instead, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Also, our rights are protected by the constitution? Where have you been?

I chose that phrase for a reason - our rights *are* protected by the constitution. This does not guarantee that the *government* always behaves in a manner reflective of those principles. And we should absolutely be throwing any politician out of office who suggests that they have the right to disregard the constitution.

But we don't hold them responsible for their results. Both of them made mistakes, but the 'party faithful' can't or won't look at their track records objectively.

What I get from this whole attitude is that people want to have things exactly how they want, but they can't be arsed to work for it - they want it handed to them with no cost or effort. Is there something about the system today that makes it impossible (as in, 'it can't be done,' not 'it takes work') for change to happen? Is there some factor I'm missing that prevents them from being involved, or organizing other like-minded citizens together to push for changes and put new candidates forward?

Of course not. I'm just one person. Does your vote trump the wishes of millions of people who don't have enough faith in the system to even show up?

Votes are given in the context of the system they claim they've lost faith in - if you choose to 'opt out' of the system, then yes, my vote counts for more in that system than the wises of the millions who have chosen to not participate. Find a candidate you agree with, and get them on the ballot if the choices available are so unpalatable.

Until people stop seeing the political process as a ternary choice (Democrat; Republican; Abstain, no other choice possible), it will *continue* to be a ternary choice, and that simply plays into the wishes of both the Republican and the Democratic parties.

Re:I abstain

[s73v3r]

De facto does not equal official.

Re:I abstain

[moortak]

You have a rather warped view of US immigration history. You can still walk around neighborhoods in any older city in the US where English wasn't the traditionally dominant language. The easiest examples are French in many parts of Louisiana and German in Pennsylvania. There's also a huge block of Hungarian speakers in cities like Cleveland and Polish speakers in Chicago. That isn't even going into some of the seriously insular Little Italy's and Chinatowns scattered about.

Re:I abstain

[Totenglocke]

It never NEEDED to be made official because for the previous 400 years, everyone who came here learned English if they didn't already know it. However, in the last 15-20 years there's been a huge pro-Mexican movement derived from the massive influx of illegals and they think it's OK to refuse to learn English and that society should change for that small percent that refuses to learn English. We do need a law that makes English the official language, and quickly.

Re:I abstain

[Maudib]

This is hardly because of modern progressives. States have always had the right to determine eligibility for local elections.

For example the Wisconsin constitution gave foreign residents who intended to become citizens the right to vote in 1846. Different states gave the vote to African American's and Native Americans at different times before and during the civil war.

Determining local voting eligibility has always been a state right.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

A government that can't meet is also one that can't pass bills and confiscate people's property.

That's anarchism. A government that can't meet is also one that can't pay the police, thus anyone who can assemble more rifles than you can confiscate your property. And goodbye banking system, reliable capital investment, enforcement of contracts, real estate titles, and on and on.

In practice though this doesn't happen -- everybody in the state relies on the governments services, primarily the cops. The poor want criminal gangs controlled, the wealthy want their capital to be safe, the merchants want their stores to remain open and the businessmen want their operations to continue smoothly, and everyone wants the roads, rails, air traffic control towers, and banks to remain operating, and in the chaos they come to demand a leader that will re-institute the order of before at any price. It happens over and over.

Re:I abstain

[agrif]

Obligatory xkcd, but it's old, so perhaps this plug is excusable.

National Language

Re:I abstain

[zenyu]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

If you didn't then all those damn English speakers would act like a bunch of cry babies about directions not being provided in their language.

Re:I abstain

[cynyr]

and any one born here is a citizen regardless of the status of their parents last i checked.

Re:I abstain

[Roger W Moore]

A person can be born in the US and raised and educated speaking a non-english language.

...and many of them don't even know it until they visit England! ;-)

Re:I abstain

[Totenglocke]

If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate - support a third party candidate that does agree with your views.

Except it's not really an option in the US. It's not just a matter of social custom, but the media actively work against any third party candidate or any candidate (republican or democrat) who wants to try to defy what the media wants. Ron Paul is a great example of this during the primaries for the 2008 election - the media did their best to ignore him and not show the clips from his debates and if they did, they twisted things to try to make him look evil for wanting to reign in the governments ever expanding power and actually follow the Constitution. Then there's also the matter of MONEY when it comes to campaigns and due to the way the system is set up, third parties will have a very hard time getting the money to advertise enough for the majority of people to know that they exist, let alone what they stand for.

I'd love to see third parties rise up, but realistically unless we get some laws passed forcing changes to the way campaigns are run, it's never going to happen.

Re:I abstain

[lwsimon]

It's possible - you'd have to be born in the US, but grow up outside the country or in a non-English-speaking household.

Re:I abstain

[sjames]

I certainly believe in voting. I have no confidence in a 2 party system with a first past the post count. Unfortunately, any proposal for breaking up the 2 party oligarchy will never make it past the current members of those 2 parties. So abstaining or "spoiling" the ballot is the only form of expression left.

There are many reasons someone might object to the current implementation of democracy in the U.S. Some would maintain that the current implementation is more theater than democracy, much like democracy in the USSR was. Others (myself included) think it's not quite THAT bad.

I wouldn't mind a system where a majority vote of none of the above will go to the leading actual candidate BUT he is an instant lame duck to be replaced in a special election within 6 months. Otherwise we end up with the bad having an effectively endless term while people try to avoid even worse.

Getting involved in the primaries only helps if you can get behind one of the front-runners in either party.

Many people have tried to make their objections known. That's why there are so many write-ins for Alfred E Neuman, votes for Ficus, and even majority votes for deceased candidates.

Re:I abstain

[HeronBlademaster]

Switzerland has four official national languages, so their situation is a little different :)

I'd give you a convenient Wikipedia link, but Slashdot's comment box doesn't like letting me paste things in Chrome.

Re:I abstain

[shutdown -p now]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Historically, legally residing non-citizens could vote in many cases. So unless you meant to write "... even if they are here illegally", you'll have to explain how that progressive agenda ended up in the middle of 19th century...

Re:I abstain

[Shark]

In its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court used an argument derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to dual citizenship.

I agree with you, but the supreme court doesn't. A lot of congresscritters have dual citizenship. A surprisingly large proportion of those have a specific country as their other citizenship too. Incidentally, the US is often accused of being greatly influenced/manipulated by that country and this fact doesn't really help counter such accusations.

Re:I abstain

[shutdown -p now]

Neither Suffrage nor Citizenship are granted in the US just for showing up.

It's not that way today, but it was different a century ago - merely residing in the country for a year or two (depending on the state) "with intent to become a citizen" would get you citizenship.

Then again, non-citizens could also vote in local elections (in some cases this also included voting for the electors that would go on to vote in to national elections) in many states in the same time period.

Re:I abstain

[c6gunner]

Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA?

It's got nothing to do with phrasing of any document. Dialogue and the exchange of ideas are imperative for a functional democracy. If you can't communicate with the vast majority of your fellow citizens, you have no business voting.

Re:I abstain

[c6gunner]

Yes, because my objection is to the extra effort required to make a different kind of ballot. Right. Are you stupid, or just playing dumb?

Re:I abstain

[Spazntwich]

That's a great technical argument, and I won't disagree that the dominant language is subject to change, but it does seem silly or unnecessarily contrarian to be motivated enough to demand participation in a country's political process without making even a cursory effort to learn the language in which all of its politics are conducted.

Re:I abstain

[Chowderbags]

There are citizens who don't speak English (or would at least be much more comfortable with Spanish. They might be Cubans who made it to Florida (automatic citizenship for them), they might be children of illegal immigrants (automatic citizenship when born on US soil), or they might be descendants of groups that were on land that the US took over (see Mexican-American war). Like it or not, these are citizens too, and they get to vote.

Re:I abstain

[BatGnat]

Why? Just do what the majority do, and just don't vote...

Re:I abstain

[Shark]

Also, morons who can't pronounce "nuclear" wouldn't be eligible to be president.

Let's raise the bar to "aluminium", it's the president we're talking about.

Re:I abstain

[shutdown -p now]

Sometimes I think that you guys should really require every citizen (and not just naturalized ones) to pass your citizenship test, or be downgraded to permanent resident (so no right to vote or be elected). Then, maybe, people would actually know what their Constitution really says...

Re:I abstain

[c6gunner]

So not voting means you have more government in your life? ...

Wanna run that by me one more time?

Re:I abstain

[ais523]

Pretty much this happens in student union elections in the UK (most universities use more or less the same system, with a single-transferable-vote system and a "none of the above" option, personified as RON, the "ReOpen Nominations" candidate). If RON wins, the entire election is repeated; although the same candidates can stand again if they wish, they rarely do (as the electorate has already indicated that they'd prefer someone else to win).

It's pretty rare for RON to win an election (or indeed, come anywhere but last), but I've known it to happen on occasion. (Each time, it's caused quite a few extra candidates to run, and in my opinion at least the resulting elected candidate genuinely was better than the originals.)

Re:I abstain

[Belial6]

People also don't seem to get that while previous immigrants did go though a segregation phase, that is generally a temporary state. Do you know which of your neighbors were from German decent vs. English vs. Irish vs. Italian..etc...etc...? Do you even care? Unless they self segregate, likely not. Although when their nationality came here in large groups, they were likely shunned. Speaking the same language helped integrate them. Learning the local norms helped integrate them. As a society, we all took what we liked of what they brought, and shunned what we didn't. As immigrants, they did the same. In a pretty short period of time, "They" became "Us", and that is a good thing.

Re:I abstain

[SeaFox]

Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted.

It might just be a vote for extreme laziness. Some people assume their candidate will win anyway without their vote.

Re:I abstain

[shutdown -p now]

If you want a candidate who agrees 100% with you

I think the point is that you end up with candidates (or rather parties) where a significant part of the population (don't know if it's the majority, but I wouldn't be surprised) of the population agrees with less than 50% of their platform. So you end up choosing between the guy matching 20% of your views (and opposing 80%), and the guy matching 10% (and opposing 90%). Which is, indeed, a clear indication of system being broken.

"System" here not being representative democracy, of course, but rather the peculiar US voting system.

Re:I abstain

[RightSaidFred99]

Wow, such a startling display of wit with such a dry delivery!

I'm kidding, of course. Your post bored me. I mean I see what you're trying to do and I find the Glen Beckites and their insistence on using the word "progressives" so much a little tiresome too. I prefer the good old fashioned "librul!" moniker, myself.

That said - his underlying point is correct and your sorry attempt to be snide is very, very dreary.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

It's not quite so easy as you suggest. Here are the Iowa requirements.

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/voterinformation/voterregistration.html#2

You must prove your identity and residence. Further, anyone who registers on the day of election will have to go through a verification process outlined in the link.

Iowa does allow for people to vote by being "attested" by another registered voter, but the consequences of doing so fraudulently are very severe and there are still verification processes.

Lastly, you can vote a provisional balot without proving who you are on the day of election, but you must present proof of eligibility within 14 days after the election or your vote will not be counted.

Moral of the story: Don't listen to the right wing extremists. They lie to you, or don't tell you the complete truth.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

Do you understand what a provisional ballot is? If you don't prove your identity and eligability within a certain time period, it won't be counted. That's how they "check out your registration"

The reason for this process is so that people can vote, even if their situation currently does not allow them to prove things (maybe their house was destroyed by a tornado, or fire.. or they just moved and can't find all the necesary information on the day of the election).

Re:I abstain

[orgelspieler]

Did it occur to you that there could be natural-born citizens who don't speak English well? In some parts of Houston there are households where the children aren't exposed to anything but Vietnamese until they enter public school. I'm sure there are pockets of natural-born citizens across our country who speak English only as a second language. Should they not have the same voting rights as you? What about illiterate people? Should they not be allowed to vote?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances.

Correct in one sense of the word mandate.

Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

Incorrect... you can't just make up that rule on your own. The rules of the election don't say that an election requires 50% + 1 of participation. Do you know how rare it is for many, many locally elected positions to have 50% + 1 of voters to actually vote?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

> Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above"
> ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise.

But "none of the above" should not be abstention, but a total rejection
of the presented choices, PLUS no write-in alternative presented by the
voter. If "none of the above" wins, the entire slate (including write-ins)
is thrown out.

Yes, this would be complicated in e.g. US Presidential elections, but it
might actually stimulate a turnout, where voters now believe that the
"bad choices" have been selected before they ever saw a PRIMARY, or
where they have found no party whose caucus is worth attending.

Re:I abstain

[camperdave]

if you're born in the US there's no requirement to learn English...'

Not so. Children are required to attend school and there they are taught English.

Re:I abstain

[Fieryphoenix]

No, there is no such requirement. Moreover, we have free speech, which does not mean "free to say anything as long as you say it in English".
Oh, and by the way, there are natural born citizens who don't speak English or prefer their birth tongue.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).

No, your vote was provisional because of incorrect voter registration. Probably due to a mistake.

To be actual voter fraud, those imaginary people would need to show up and vote. Do you have any evidence they did?

As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.

I at no point said that the Democrats didn't practice voter suppression.

I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

To be specific, they screamed about voter suppression and vote tampering, not fraudulent voting, which only the Republicans imagine happens.

But I didn't say only one party does it, I said only one party invents crazy conspiracies about fraudulent voters before elections, despite that not actually happening.

In 2000 and 2004, Democrats were pointing to actual instances of voter suppression, after an election. (And the 2000 Supreme Court decision, which was not 'fraud', but contentious nevertheless.) People were actually wrongfully removed from voter rolls, there were fraudulent mailers sent out telling people their voter registration was invalid, etc, etc. Those things actually happened.(Vote tampering, OTOH, no one can say, because insane people think voting via computer is a good idea.)

It's the Republicans and their 'everyone hates us because we're the good guys' victim mentality who have to invent problems before elections, about things that simply do not happen, like people here illegally voting. We know it doesn't happen.

The DoJ, between 2002 and 2005, had 'election fraud' as a top priority, only convicted 24 people, all for illegally casting a ballot. (Not any sort of organization fraud, just casting one ballot. No one at all was charged with any sort of conspiracy to do that at a large scale.) And a very careful analysis of the 2004 Ohio presidential vote result in a fraud rate of...0.00004 percent.

That is the damn level of people voting illegally in this country. People casting bogus ballots is statistically less likely to effect an election than people who die in car accidents on the way to vote.

And yet we must constantly have 'more identification' and 'require registration in advance', all of which is a blatant effort to suppress the vote of poor people, who barely have the time to deal with voting as it is.

Re:I abstain

[Americano]

"System" here not being representative democracy, of course, but rather the peculiar US voting system.

Okay, I can't disagree that the current slate of candidates are pretty awful. But what would you suggest as a better alternative system? I'm not suggesting one doesn't exist, I'm honestly curious what you feel would be a better / more equitable arrangement for voting?

How do you get a more diverse slate of candidates to run (and get them elected) when people are checking out of the voting process altogether? And what system would encourage third party candidacies more than the current one, and what features does such a system need that our current one does not have?

I'm genuinely curious, because I haven't seen much of an argument for why these things can't be accomplished within the current framework - to me, it seems like laziness coupled with apathy breeds this 'checkout' mentality, and I wonder what the civil rights movement would look like today if this had been the norm in the 50's and 60's. What practical changes need to happen for us to reach a state you'd consider not-broken?

Re:I abstain

[Maudib]

Considering that about one third of Pennsylvania citizens were native German speakers, it is unlikely that the constitution would have been ratified there had there been an english requirement in the constitution. I don't think they would have been alone.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"If you can't communicate with the vast majority of your fellow citizens, you have no business voting."

Which makes my point even more prevalent:

"English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change."

Probably you'll be able to find towns in California, New Mexico or Texas where "your fellow citizens" will speak Spanish more than English so there might be a future where it is *you* the one with problems to communicate with your fellow citizens -will you remember by then, Mr. Englishspokenman your words about having no business to vote?

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.

Poor people can't register to vote?

In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.

Suggesting that poor people aren't being offered the ability to vote because you need to register in advance and provide id is the type of crazy conspiracy theory you're talking about.

Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.

What exactly are you advocating here?

Re:I abstain

[houghi]

Hypothetically, what if they decide to put them out only in Swahili? Would it not be considered as discrimination against non-Swahili speakers? And if that is the case is an English-only then not discrimination against non-English speakers?

Most likely you will see English and Spanish, but is that not discrimination against all others, like (just to avoid the discussion of if you are not speaking English, get out) http://www.native-languages.org/languages.htm#alpha

I am interested. I live in Belgium where language is the main point politicians keep coming up with to avoid working on solutions. (Much easier to blame the others)

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

they only answer to the Federal government, and deal with them on a treaty basis through the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Am I to understand that they have to obey your Federal laws, but don't get to vote for your Federal government? Sounds like a bad deal.

(I know, I know. The politicians make sure that voting doesn't matter anyway. But its a matter of principle.)

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"it does seem silly or unnecessarily contrarian to be motivated enough to demand participation in a country's political process without making even a cursory effort to learn the language in which all of its politics are conducted."

Quite an interesting point with regards what a Republic is about. Last I thought of it, it was the politicians, as citizenship representatives the ones that should do the effort to speak the language of their representees, not the other way around.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"So why are "progressives" arguing for more segregation and ghettoization?"

I'm not arguing anything. I'm not even a US citizen. I'm just stating facts: that USA hasn't an official language and that, despite all the spoken discourses about integration and egalitarism reality has been far away from that.

Re:I abstain

[shutdown -p now]

Okay, I can't disagree that the current slate of candidates are pretty awful. But what would you suggest as a better alternative system? I'm not suggesting one doesn't exist, I'm honestly curious what you feel would be a better / more equitable arrangement for voting?

For starters, you either need to scale back Federal government, or you need to replace the existing system with electors voting for President with direct elections. As it is, it just doesn't make sense - you have a system where people's votes are not directly counted, but the person elected has very significant influence over policies which directly affect them.

Going over to any preferential (rather than FPTP) system for all elections would also be a major step. Condorcet voting seems to be the best there, and I don't think that the argument for it being overcomplicated still holds in a society where everyone is supposed to learn basic math in schools. But other methods are fine too. The main goal is to avoid the "wasted vote" phenomenon.

Re:I abstain

[pooh666]

Your not from these parts I reckon..

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

No, read the link you provided.

If I "attest" for you, then you can vote without proving you live in the area, or that you have a legal right to vote. And that ballot isn't provisional. There is no indication that these votes are validated.

There are penalties for lying on this oath, but without making this votes provisional and actually verifying them, the penalties are empty threats because there is no means to verify who lied on the oath.

When I vote in Nebraska, I show up at the polling place, state my address and sign a book. If my house were destroyed in a tornado, I'd still be able to vote. I only need proof of my identity when I register, and I have all year to register.

That is fair and reasonable.

Specifically going out of your way to allow people to vote without registering, without proving place of residence, nor identification doesn't make sense. Please explain to me why that is necessary.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"However, I can't think of a country remotely comparable to the size of the US (population or geographically) that is even officially bilingual."

True, it's not a country, but EU (similar to USA at least in population) has 23 official languages with 4 working languages and it aspires to become a (more or less) single political and economical entity.

"It's a significant logistical challenge."

I wouldn't deny that: it is. But it is doable.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

You might want to check in Immigration.

If you are foreign born, and want to pass the tests to become a naturalized US citizen, you most certainly do have to show by test a proficiency in English.

That has nothing to do with an official language and does not apply to the vast majority of citizens (who are born here, not naturalized).

Heck, our first native-born president--Martin van Buren--was also a native Dutch speaker.

New Mexico in particular is an area where Spanish has been spoken since prior to the existence of the US; it's not a case of immigration at all. Indeed, New Mexican Spanish (spoken in much of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico) differs from other Spanish in many ways, starting at the most basic--in continental and Mexican Spanish, "I am" is said "Yo soy". New Mexican Spanish maintains the 16th-century form "Yo seigo". Many other features of New Mexican Spanish are unique to that region.

New Mexican Spanish also has many Native American loan words (as well as English borrowings). It is, in many ways, a uniquely American language.

It's also far from the only part of the US where English is not the predominant tongue and not all citizens speak it; I grew in Maine, and many of the northern cities (e.g. Madawaska) are primarily French speaking and have been so for centuries. Many residents speak no English. Puerto Rico is obviously primarily Spanish speaking, parts of Pennsylvanian Amish country speak a variant of German (which was also widespread in the midwest until the 1950s), there are still a handful of Cajun French-speaking Louisianan communities where English is not heard, etc.

The two oldest cities on US territory (St Augustine and San Juan) are originally Spanish-speaking and maintain Spanish-speaking populations to this day.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Children are not required to "attend school" - they are required to be given a minimal standard of education. These are not the same thing.

If you have the means and motive, you can home-school your child providing you can demonstrate the curriculum meets some minimal standard.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Your not from these parts I reckon.."

If by "these parts" you mean USA, no, I'm not. But please, enlighten me: how that does make what I said any wrong? You do really think it is impossible that in an unstated future English might pass away as the most used language within the territory? Absolutly?

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

That being said, there shouldn't need to be an "English" option when it comes to voting. you can (in theory, anyway) only vote if you are are a citizen or here legally. I can't imagine either case being true without being able to speak English well enough to vote.

It's a big and diverse country. I grew up in Maine; there are certainly folks in Madawaska and elsewhere who speak only French, in communities that have done so since before the USA existed--many of whom fought against the British to help found our country. There are non-English-speaking Americans living in parts of Cajun Louisiana, German-speaking Pennsylvania, and Hawaiian-speaking Hawaii--not to mention the many US citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and other US territories. And, of course, those few Native Americans remaining who don't speak English.

New Mexico in particular is an area where Spanish has been spoken since prior to the existence of the US; it's not a case of immigration at all. Indeed, New Mexican Spanish (spoken in much of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico) differs from other Spanish in many ways, starting at the most basic--in continental and Mexican Spanish, "I am" is said "Yo soy". New Mexican Spanish maintains the 16th-century form "Yo seigo". Many other features of New Mexican Spanish are unique to that region.

New Mexican Spanish also has many Native American loan words (as well as English borrowings). It is, in many ways, a uniquely American language.

Re:I abstain

[houghi]

In Belgium there is an obligation to vote. As we have a multi-party system, the situation is also different then in the US. People are so fed up will all the silliness, many vote at random. This paralyzes politics.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

But the ballot isn't provisional.

All you need is someone to show up and attest for you and then you can vote without registering, and with no indentification, and the ballot isn't provisional.

If you have no id, don't register, and don't have someone to attest, then you get a provisional ballot.

Re:I abstain

[modecx]

That sounds an awful lot like something a giant racist would say.

Thanks the the ad hominem, it really shows the strength of your argument. I'd feel hurt, it it weren't from some random twit on the internet, because I'm about as strongly anti-racist as one can be. But, no... It's really something an empiricist would say. That is, something an observer would say.

In my metropolitan, there's exactly three classes of hispanic drivers:

• Drives a pickup generally capable of some work related activity, often in the process of being converted into a lowrider
• Drives a barely road-worthy asian-made beater, usually having a subwoofer and fart-can fighting to shake the rattle-box apart
• Drives a shiny, expensive, gas guzzling late model of what you might call a 'sport pickup' (i.e. something of limited utility), like a Caddy SXT, Lincoln Navigator, GMC Denali, H2, etc. Also usually includes giant subwoofer, fart cans, a chrome trim kit, and expensive, ugly wheels. The more expensive the truck, the louder the stereo, the gaudier the accessories--the higher his social status.

My neighbor is a Ethiopian convenience store owner, and immigrant. What a stereotype! His English isn't the best, but he speaks six other languages, and he tries damn hard. My other neighbor is an Mexican national. Also a nice guy. He works concrete, or at least he did until the credit crunch brought construction to a dead stop. They both have similar mastery of our language. This isn't the sort of person I have a problem with-I like them both.

That said, one came to the US legally as a refugee, demonstrated a level of social proficiency and successfully immigrated. The other did not, but he chose to learn English and be an upstanding member of the community. Many of his peers do not so choose. I'm not as fond of them. It's as simple as that.

Re:I abstain

[NiceGeek]

The U.S. does not have an official language, and learning English is not a requirement of citizenship.

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

From http://www.justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm:

Can American Indians and Alaska Natives vote?
American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same right to vote as all United States citizens. American Indians and Alaska Natives vote in state and local elections, as well as in tribal elections. Just as state, federal, and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria; each Tribe has the right to decide its voter eligibility criteria for tribal elections.

Basically, Indians actually have more rights than the rest of us, at least when they're on reservation land. They get all the rights of regular citizens, but they also get to thumb their noses at State laws (like those which forbid casinos), so they can build casinos right next to big cities where it's banned otherwise. Obviously, this works out better for those tribes who happen to have reservations conveniently located right next to major metro areas, rather than reservations located in the middle of nowhere.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. They got screwed over so much 150+ years ago, a few little bonuses like being able to have a monopoly on casinos in some areas seems ok to me.

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

Arguing against an official language is in effect an argument for segregation.

Re:I abstain

[dhawton]

A citizen can get their US citizenship without learning English. The US doesn't have a primary language other than English for laws. There is no requirement to know English.

Re:I abstain

[mjwalshe]

there should be nothing automatically ticked on a ballot paper ever!

Re:I abstain

[Johnny5000]

Not so. Children are required to attend school and there they are taught English.

There's no requirement that US citizen children are required to attend school in the United States. They could be born in the US and then grow up in another country.

Re:I abstain

[c6gunner]

Probably you'll be able to find towns in California, New Mexico or Texas where "your fellow citizens" will speak Spanish more than English ...

Largely because they have massive populations of illegal immigrants, which makes the question of voting irrelevant. Regardless, even if we accept the idea that there is a town out there where 95% of the population is composed entirely of full US-citizens who all happen to speak the same language while simultaneously not speaking English, the best that you could argue for is that their municipal elections be conducted in a language other than English. I might even agree with that. However, when we're speaking about federal elections, a city doesn't mean much.

will you remember by then, Mr. Englishspokenman your words about having no business to vote?

Well, first of all, jackass, I'm an immigrant myself. Within 5 months of immigrating, I was speaking English fluently. By the time I got my citizenship, I had the highest English marks in my high-school class. Since I'm Canadian, I also took the time to learn some basic French, and am currently working on developing those skills further, even though there's no requirement for me to speak both official languages. So yeah, if 90% of my nation decided tomorrow that our official language should be Chinese, I'd bury my nose in a "Chinese for Dummies" book that evening, and stick with it until I sounded like a native of Beijing. But I suppose that's too much for you to wrap your head around, so feel free to just write me off as some racist redneck who doesn't want Dem Taco-Munching Sombrero-Wearing Mexi-can'ts voting in his God-fearing country.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

In Iowa, he was talking about California.

In Iowa, you still have to go through the verification process if you register day of the election, regardless of whether you are attested or not.

Re:I abstain

[painandgreed]

Surely there should be a box to abstain from voting (spoil your ballot), and this neutral should be checked by default.

Typically, this is signified by turning in a blank ballot, which would be the default state of a ballot given to a voter. In voting systems where a winner must attain a certain percentage of the votes or face a revote, this can actually affect the outcome.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

You're ignoring the verification part. The Secretary of State will mail a verificaiton letter to your stated address, and you have to return it for your day of the election vote to be counted.

Is it possible to cheat the system, perhaps.. but fake id's could also be used, as could any number of other mechanisms, if you really wanted to go to all that trouble.

Re:I abstain

[TheCarp]

I would argue that anything that protects "the democratic institution" has already stolen any legitimacy that it has. It is the institutions most fundamental job to make sure that its people support it. If it cannot do this, then it deserves to fail.

I see no problem here. Let it fail.

-Steve

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

From the link:

"After the election, all voters who register to vote on Election Day will be sent a notice by mail. The first notice will not be forwarded to another address. If this notice is returned as undeliverable, a second notice that is forwardable will be mailed to the voter. The voter must return the second notice to the county auditor within 14 days. If the second notice is not returned, the county attorney and Secretary of State's Office will be given the voter's information for investigation and prosecution."

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

Maybe not speak (i.e. technically mute (You Insensitive Anonymous Clod)), but citizens should be able to read English (by braille if nothing else). The states are required to provide K-12 education (of which English is a required subject for all 13 years).

English is not a required subject in all jurisdictions. Whether to make it so or not is up to the state or local government, and there are often strong political reasons not to--for instance, while the overwhelming majority of Navajo speak English there is still a minority who do not. There's no political will to impose English on the remaining population.

As a practical matter (regardless of the actual law), many areas of the US that are not natively English speaking do not provide significant English-language instructions (e.g. parts of French-speaking Maine and Louisiana, German-speaking Pennsylvania, native-speaking Alaska, Chamorro-speaking Guam, Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico--and, of course, various other Native American communities).

In some of those (e.g. parts of German-speaking Pennsylvania) religious freedom issues would seem to legally trump government education requirements, in addition to the de facto reality.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Apathy and indifference is not the same as a vote of no confidence. I'd agree if we were to count people that showed up to the polls to cast a none of the above vote, but to guess the mind of people who can't be bothered to vote is an impossible task.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but many states, including Nevada have no official languages. I lived in New Mexico for several years, and they have BOTH English and Spanish as the official state languages. Given the state's history, that makes quite a bit of sense. Also, one can be fluent in English and still feel more comfortable reading legal documents/laws in another language; they are often written at pretty absurd difficulty levels.

Frankly, it doesn't seem like a big deal unless you automatically associate non-english languages with illegal immigration... which ignores the role of Spanish across the southwest, French in Louisiana, German in the midwest, Hawaiian, etc.

Re:I abstain

[froggymana]

Here's another citation for you needing to be able to speak English to be a citizen citation .

And if thats not official enough for you, then I don't what is.

Re:I abstain

[uniquename72]

Which is totally off-topic, since those people still won't be on the voter roles. The law applies only to those legally entitled to vote to begin with. (Seriously, have you never actually voted?)

Re:I abstain

[Omestes]

How is it dehumanizing? Yes, a bit harsh and sarcastic, but it doesn't seem really dehumanizing. He could have phrased it all a bit better, but I don't really see anything inaccurate or particularly vile about it. The truth of the matter is that it is a stupid law that made sense at the time but makes none now.

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution were in favor of today's "anchor babies". Or would be.

Re:I abstain

[ChatHuant]

"Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it."

So it's about green card holders, or similar legal residents, I see.
 
Those people pay taxes, the same as citizens, but they don't actually have the right to vote, right? Well, too bad for them they don't live in one of those countries where the locals revolted against their government because of this silly concept of "No taxation without representation".

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

That doesn't verify that you have a legal right to vote.

The law was specifically changed to enable illegal immigrants to vote, along with felons.

When passing the bill, it was even discussed how it would enable illegal immigrants to vote.

Again, please explain to me why it is necessary to allow people to vote without registration or identification?

Re:I abstain

[LurkerXXX]

exceptions:

        * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;

        * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or

        * have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant's ability to learn English.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

No. The attesting clause was recently added for people who can't verify. That is why it exists.

We're providing non-provisional ballots to people who didn't register to vote and can't identify themselves.

Re:I abstain

[dcposch]

I almost agree.

"None of the above" should be the default option, but not for people who didn't show up.

Casting a ballot with that option is the "vote of no confidence" you described. Not showing up to vote at all is mere apathy.

And @iluvcapra,

the problem with a no-confidence plebiscite is the resolution ... you'd end up in a situation where the body went months or years without a leader

...I don't see this as a problem in our system, since you only need a plurality (not an outright majority) to win.

Someone will always win. If the winner had 30% of the vote and the loser had 20%, and the other 50% of voters chose "None of the above", then that winner has a much weaker mandate than if everyone is forced to pick a candidate and he wins 60-40. He's in office either way, but there is definitely a difference.

Re:I abstain

[Johnny5000]

In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV.

Poor people often don't have cars or driver's licenses.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Arguing against an official language is in effect an argument for segregation."

That maybe the case. But, please, read my lips: I-am-not-arguing-against-an-official-language. I'm just stating the point that there is not an official language in the USA.

Re:I abstain

[Bobb Sledd]

OMFG. I can't pick which freakin' idiot to respond to.

English is the language of the USA. If you think otherwise, just TRY to get a law passed in any other.

Moron.

There isn't room for two languages. There must only be one national language. It's hard enough to govern with the English set of laws we already have. Can you imagine valid laws in another language (and not just a translation, I mean a law that was authored and penned in the other language) as being the de facto rule? It's a completely asinine idea.

Re:I abstain

[Martin Blank]

In Sacramento County, I believe they do have ballots in Russian due to the large Russian population there.

Re:I abstain

[Bobb Sledd]

Hm. Really.

Then maybe you can educate me on why all the federal laws are written in English? (I mean authored and penned in English, not simply translated to other languages.)

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

But you can still register for free at the DMV whether you own a car or not.

I don't believe that Nebraska mandates a photo id the way that Calfornia does, but paying $15 for id that lasts you several years is trivial.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

Making broad, derisive comments about the culture, vehicle preferences, &c of Hispanic people is plain old racist; it doesn't matter if you also point to "one of the good ones."

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA? Last I knew about it USA hasn't an official language so English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change.

Actually, German is the official language of some counties in the US. We are all speaking the wrong language.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"English is the language of the USA. If you think otherwise, just TRY to get a law passed in any other.
Moron."

I might be a moron, no doubt, but at least this moron retains intact his reading comprehension, much more than can be said of you, Bobb Sledd. I'll repeat:

"USA hasn't an official language so English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change."

Are you implying that passing a law for the Congress to be able to accept further laws in, say, Cantonese would need to ammend the Constitution? I don't think so. It might be the case that it wouldn't be needed any class of law changes to pass one in, say, Navajo should the notion arise and be supported by a majority (maybe a law about regarding some Navajo Nation interest or right).

"There isn't room for two languages [...] It's a completely asinine idea."

That's probably true... for your average Bobb Sledds' brains. On the other hand, EU manages to have 23 official and 4 working languages. Not saying they do it without a hassle, but certainly demonstrating it's doable.

Re:I abstain

[Pretzalzz]

This is Nevada. There is an explicit none of the above option in every race. On some political sites there is running speculation that none of the above might draw 10-15% of the vote due to the unpopularity of both candidates. Unfortunately 'none of the above' can't actually win, if it receives the most votes the office goes to second place.

Re:I abstain

[dontbgay]

One man's progress is another man's setback. Stop lumping people into broad catergories. I consider myself a "progressive" and I abhor the notion of a non-citizen having control over my destiny. I'd like to think that there are a lot of other "progressives" stand with that.

Besides, I personally don't believe that to be progress in the least.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.

Yeah, and it seems like really idiotic 'fraud', too.

I can't address what really happened. I can sit here and guess all sorts of stuff. Perhaps you lived in an apartment and the box numbers got truncated. Perhaps there was another address that was like yours that was an apartment. Perhaps someone getting paid to fill out voter registration forms decided to just make stuff up.

I will point out that the story, as you related it, makes no fucking sense anyway. Why would they care how many people lived at your house, and thus make you vote provisionally? 12 voters can indeed live at one address.

I'm not going to try to figure out what happened in your story. I'll just, again, point out that all studies ever done about this have detected 'fraudulent voters' well below any statistical amount. We're talking like 1 person per state per election.

And no conspiracies, and no people voting multiple times under different names. In fact, almost all fraud is people deciding to vote somewhere they don't live.

In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.

WOW, you either really don't know anything about poor people or you're a troll.

Poor people often cannot drive. They do not have a car, so it's rather pointless to pay to get a license, so they cannot register to vote when they do that.

They also don't have a driver's license, so when Republicans attempt to 'tighten up' the requirements by requiring one, they can't vote even if they do register in advance and have the time to do it.

What a weird fucking coincidence, how protecting against all that imaginary fraud of extra voters results in a subset of actual voters finding it harder to vote. Poor voters, at that.

Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.

What are you, a communist? Who gives you the right to decide how much 'effort' is required to vote? I think we've finally managed to get past all the crap to see the real issue...Enderandrew thinks certain people shouldn't be voting. Voting should be difficult, so only people willing to spend time and money can vote. (Or, rather, only people with extra time and money should vote.)

Perhaps we should just require they buy a driver's license to vote, eh? Or just have a tax at the polling place.

I'm sure it's nice and easy for you to get in your car and drive down to the courthouse on a vacation day or something to register to vote.

For poor people, of course, the amount of free time they have, especially free time during business hours (Which is usually the only time you can register to vote) is limited. They're damn lucky to have time to vote in the first place.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"The standards for being a citizen at birth are set in the Constitution, so good luck changing that law or challenging it."

I know it is based on a Constiutional amendment...basically it was set up for the slaves to be considered citizens.

The intention wasn't for every visiting foreign national that could make it here in time to have a kid, to give that kid automatic citizenship.

I believe challenges to the interpretation of this amemdment are making their way through the courts up to the Supreme Court.

I do hope they interpret the law a bit more strictly that is currently seems to be interpreted.

I don't mind legal immigration...just come in throught he front door, take the test, let us know you're here. But if you just happen to be born here, while your non-citizen mom is here, and the father also is a non-citizen, then no...you should not automatically be a US citizen. You belong to your parents' country of origin. You've welcome to immigrate the legal way when you are of age, etc.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh.. BURN!!!

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

Well, for starters, non-citizens who give birth don't run 20 feet across the border and shit out a baby in the dirt; they tend to be living here, and they go to the hospital or midwife, just like everybody else.

The drafters of the Constitution protected the right of a white man to own a black man, so I'm not going to ask them what they think. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US because Southern states used all kinds of nit-picky tests to deny black people citizenship.

And how many children do you think are born to non-citizens in the US? Does it have a significant effect on immigration, illegal or otherwise?

Re:I abstain

[Omestes]

...but really most of the people who have children this law applies to just over here trying to make a better life for themselves...

This really doesn't mean much to me. I feel bad for them, they came from a shitty country with minimal rule of law (especially in the north) and who has some long standing racism against the mestizos who generally end up in the US. We should, obviously, assist them, but not at our own detriment. Whether or whether not they are good for the US, and where that line should be (between assistance and self-harm) should be the topic of debate, not all the emotive bullshit thrown out by both sides. I am an Arizonan, and I'm sick of it.

The anti-illegal immigration (often, erroneously painted as anti-immigrant in a silly attempt to rebrand them) crowd is often motivated by racism, and other less than pleasant motivations. This I understand. Though I, and around half the people I know (including a decent amount of Latinos) am for SB1070 and other ways of restricting illegal immigration and removing (humanely) the illegal immigrants we have, for reasons that have nothing to do with racism. The anti-illegal crowd is often a bunch of right-wing, crypto-racist morons, and worse, often just us it as a power grab (ala Jan Brewer) since it is probably the most popular cause around these parts.

The pro-illegal immigration crowd is just as inane, if not a bit more noble. A lot of them are of the "anti-borders" crowd, which is just bizarre. Borders serve a damn good purpose, and if they left their sociology classrooms and gave it a bit of thought they would realize this. Some of them are of the obnoxious "la raza" crowd, who are basically racists who hold some Aryan flavored mythology about some Aztec utopia that the whites stole from them (ignoring that the southwest were never Aztec, and that the Aztecs wore people's skin to make the corn grow). Most of them are just hopelessly idealistic with no sight to the actual consequences if their idealistic utopia came to be (hint; it wouldn't be a utopia, it never is). As we move up in income, age, and power the motivation changes to something more dubious; profit. Rich people love illegal immigrants. They work cheap and thus depress wages for everyone else. They can be used to break unions. They don't need to be taxed, nor do they need benefits. They are a cheap and disposable work force. Discouraging illegal immigration would hurt the bottom line, and thus politicians love it.

The politicians are why this is such a annoying debate. A majority of Americans want to cut off the illegal immigration pipe-line, but this isn't convenient for those who actually matter, those with the money. ... and usually do the jobs that none of the locals want to do anyway (and often get exploited and held in virtual slavery while doing so).

This fallacy makes me cringe. For most of the jobs illegal immigrants are doing right now, citizens were doing 20 years ago. The only difference is the amount of pay. One of our family friends was a plumber in Arizona, he had a very large firm that was in charge of many of the developers and hotel chains. He is now out of business. He only hired American citizens, and paid them a living wage, and was basically out competed by firms that only hired illegals, and paid them $2.50/hr under the table (no benefits, not taxes). This is before the housing crisis and so-called "great recession". The same happened in construction,and other blue collar jobs. In the 70's you could actually be middle class and blue collar. Obviously Americans would do these jobs, if it was possible to LIVE off of them. We are accustomed to a standard of living, and we cannot compete with people who expect much, much, less.

A fresh family of illegal immigrants are perfectly capable of living 20 to a house and basically living hand to mouth, we, citizens, expect more. Even in these circumstances the illegal immigrants are better of than they were in Mexico (or where ever).

Re:I abstain

[mellon]

A lot of European descendants were here when various states became states spoke Spanish as their first language. This is true of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Nevada, and also of Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana. And of course the indigenous people who lived in various states before the Europeans arrived all spoke languages other than English.

By your logic, the voting machines in Nevada should offer a choice between Goshute and Paiute.

Re:I abstain

[sumdumass]

Cubans making it to Florida are not automatic citizens. They are granted asylum which is an automatic right to remain within the country. They have to be naturalized like anyone else entering the country.

Perhaps a more apt example might be people born in our outlying or insular territories. The US still maintains several territorial jurisdiction which persons born in them are automatic citizens.

Re:I abstain

[sumdumass]

What's interesting about that comic is that it illustrates what happens when foreigners do no learn the native language. Just like the Cherokee, the natives get defeated and the foreigners take the land.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"Secondly, why do you think it's such a big problem? A lot of people who harp on this issue froth at the mouth about 'terror babies' and other inanity of that nature, but really most of the people who have children this law applies to just over here trying to make a better life for themselves, and usually do the jobs that none of the locals want to do anyway (and often get exploited and held in virtual slavery while doing so). Why shouldn't their children have a chance at all the benefits anyone else would have?

Lastly, we're a nation of immigrants. We built our strength on the backs of successive waves of immigration and we're hardly low on space or food. Why should we make it so difficult for new people to have a shot at success in the land of the free?

First, I have no problem with people following the rules and immigrating here legally. I don't believe that if you were just born here tomorrow and neither of your parents are citzens, that you should automatically be a US citizen. If you later want to immigrate, follow the rules.

As Dennis Miller put it something like "I don't mind if you want to come here to be a US citizen, just sign the fucking guest book on the way eh, eh?"

Sure, come to this country...but do it legally. If we need to modify, and I think we do, the the immigration pathway...then lets do so. However, the law of the land is the law of the land and just because it is currently inconvenient to come here legally, that doesn't give anyone the right to break that law.

If that were the case, why mess with anyone stealing money from a store register when no one is looking? It is certainly more convenient to do that than not work for a wage, eh?

One argument precisely in favor of not allowing illegal immigration, and the anchor babies that often help tie illegals to the US...is the virtual slavery you mentioned.

These people are law breakers...and since they are, they are afraid to speak up when mistreated. If they weren't here unlawfully, and weren't getting paid under the table, or using a fake SS#...they'd not be becoming a silent underclass of our society.

As for doing jobs the locals won't do....with today's unemployment?!?!?

I dare say there are plenty of locals for most any job out there right now...and since they wouldn't be illegal and afraid to come to authorities...wages likely would not be quite so depressed for many manual labor (construction jobs I've observed in particular) positions.

We have a right to regulate who and how many of whom comes into this country. It makes sense.

One of the limited, enumerated powers and responsiblities the US Constitutions gives the Federal Govt...is to secure our borders. They aren't doing that very well...are they?

Again, I don't care if you want to immigrate to the US. Just follow the rules. When you come here...don't act like this is your country of origin, you came here for a reason...to get away from there.

So, try to assimilate into the US culture. Learn the English language. Become a productive citizen...and feel free to pursue happiness.

But sign the fucking guest book on the way in...

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Right, and convicted felons, and mentally incompetent people. The right to vote can still be denied to citizens on many basis.

Just not the ones laid out in the constitution, either a) explicitly via 'the right to vote shall not be denied...' amendments, or b) via the Equal Protection clause, which would probably stop people being denied the right to vote based on religion(1), for example, or c) via the Due Process clause, which stops states from denying that right without an actual trial of some sort(2).

1) I don't know that this has actually ever come up, though. The Equal Protection clause would appear to stop that sort of thing, though, if the 1st amendment didn't do it all by itself.

2) Kids, don't get your hopes up. You can, indeed, sue the government for the right to vote...which you will lose if you're under 18 and the court can demonstrate it. If you're not under 18, but the government says you are and can't vote, feel free to sue. (This is probably only relevant to time travelers.)

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

From your post:

By your logic, the voting machines in Nevada should offer a choice between Goshute and Paiute.

From my post, the one that you posted this response to:

That being said, there shouldn't need to be an "English" option when it comes to voting. you can (in theory, anyway) only vote if you are are a citizen or here legally. I can't imagine either case being true without being able to speak English well enough to vote.

I'm just going to assume you responded to the wrong post, considering I said the exact opposite of what you are implying.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"The easiest examples are French in many parts of Louisiana..."

I live in southern LA.

There is very little French/Cajun spoken down here.

And there are even fewer people here that ONLY speak that...and not English too, chere!!

Re:I abstain

[Omestes]

And how many children do you think are born to non-citizens in the US? Does it have a significant effect on immigration, illegal or otherwise?

I live in the Southwest, so probably more than in most other places in the US. But I do know a significant portion are, not a huge portion but significant. It probably doesn't have a huge effect, but it probably happens more than we realize.

The anchor baby thing is a bit of a myth, since the law doesn't really work like that (as an anchor, they are citizens, but their whole family isn't). It is a bit of cultural knowledge, correct or not, and thus people do act accordingly (cultural knowledge is more meaningful than facts when looking at the actions of people). Also courts are less likely to break up a family than deport a random illegal immigrant. Bob and Julie (or Jose and Maria, or whatnot) have a legal child, its harder to break up the family, than if they didn't.

I never claimed, though, that the original poster was completely accurate. I know damn well (as, I bet, does the OP) that it doesn't work like that. But the general spirit of it was somewhat correct, if worded a bit nastily.

My main point, though, was that it isn't really dehumanizing. Not complimentary pr perhaps accurate, but still very human. His statement didn't make me think of animals or inanimate objects.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

I don't necessarily think it's important to preserve birthright citizenship for its own sake; forgive me if I'm hesitant to cooperate politically with a group of people who constantly say racist shit about Mexicans' cars and animals spawning out in the Arizona wilderness, in order to take rights away from Hispanic people.

If, however, you're demonizing brown people because you want to open the border and allow free movement of people, goods and money, liberalize our system of legal immigration and simplify the process of getting temporary permission to work here, and in return you're offering this as a compromise, then we can talk.

Re:I abstain

[sumdumass]

Actually, there is federal laws requiring English only to be used in many cases or situations. Unless they have changed it, you had to have the ability to speak and understand English well enough to read all road signs and follow instructions from law enforcement officers to be an interstate commercial truck driver and of course, all federal courts list English as the language they expect filings to be made in (which is ironic seeing how law entails many latin naming conventions).

There may not be a law that say X is the official language, but there are laws and rules that say you will be ignored or unqualified to work in some profession if it's not in English.

Re:I abstain

[modecx]

So, being critical makes somebody racist. I think that says something more about you than it says about me.

Re:I abstain

[Nethemas the Great]

People born in America have automatic citizenship and with it the right to vote. All this without proof of English language proficiency, nor education, nor the intellectual capacity to obtain either. Any reason in particular why you wish to make it more difficult for a person that actually cares enough about their new country of residence to vote?

Re:I abstain

[reboot246]

Just read the damned newspapers, watch the news on television, or read the news online! It's been reported by most major news outlets. If you don't keep up with what's going on, please don't vote.

Here's a start for ya -
In Montgomery County, Md., six cities (Garrett Park, Takoma Park, Somerset, Chevy Chase, Martin's Additions and Barnesville) allow illegal aliens to vote in local elections. So do Amherst and Cambridge, Mass. A similar policy was proposed last month by Democrats in San Francisco.

Now go look it up for yourself.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"Note local elections, these locations have a right to decide that."

\ Trouble is...letting someone register for local elections, also qualifies the for state and federal elections.

You get registered for one, you are registered for all...and that has potential problems that can effect more than just your local govt.

Let's say for some reason, Poland wanted to try to influence a presidental election. Well, send a bunch of people to Portaland...do what they have to just long enough to get registered locally...then, they also vote federally. If Oregon is a swing state...it might just make the difference.

With one city? No..not likely...BUT, what if a large number of cities DID allow this..then the scenario isn't quite as far fetched.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"Those people pay taxes, the same as citizens, but they don't actually have the right to vote, right? Well, too bad for them they don't live in one of those countries where the locals revolted against their government because of this silly concept of "No taxation without representation".

Not a valid analogy.

The colonists WERE British citizens...but weren't getting representation. They were CITIZENS tho....so, it makes a difference.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never suggested a tax to vote. I pointed out that there is a location where you can register to vote for free.

You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.

I last got a new license 5 years ago, and when I registered to vote then, it remains valid until I move again. So asking someone once every five years to go to a location and registering for free is this horrific burden than specifically excludes the poor? Let me repeat this again. REGISTERING TO VOTE IS FREE.

You then suggest that poor people have less free time? Judging from my friends and family, those with money can afford to do more with their free time and have more going on. Those who can't afford to do anything in turn have more free time. And time isn't even an issue when it takes a few minutes to register, and it lasts for years.

You've established that:

* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote.
* You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance.
* You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur.
* You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud.
* You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse.
* You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.

You've called me about 10 names while really stretching for ridiculous arguments, all the while ignoring facts. Please don't waste my time again.

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

Sorry if I seemed like I was picking on you personally. You're right of course, there is no official language, just a de facto one (government documents are only found in English (except in Puerto Rico), IRS forms must be filed in English, and Court proceedings are only conducted in English). However, there are a lot of people (e.g. liberals) who do advocate for a multi-lingual society, or against a single official language, and I'm pointing out this is exactly what causes division, Balkanization, and segregation.

Of course, they might point to some European countries which are officially multi-lingual and apparently successful (Switzerland and Belgium are the biggest ones I can think of, but Netherlands, Germany and others have minority languages which many people still speak, though I don't think they have any official status).
However, there's some big differences between those situations and the USA: 1) those countries always had those languages; they started out multi-lingual, rather than moving from unilingual to multilingual as a bunch of newcomers moved in. And more importantly, 2) in those countries, the different groups of people who speak different languages are all basically at the same socioeconomic status. Here in the USA, people who only speak minority languages (primarily Spanish) are at a much, much lower socioeconomic status than those who speak English. Encouraging them to not learn English isn't going to help advance their status, and trying to push the majority to learn their language is only going to create discord and resentment. How well do you think it'd go over in Germany if the government there told Germans they all needed to learn Turkish? Or if the French were required to learn Arabic?

Re:I abstain

[drsmithy]

You can just as easily argue that not showing up is a vote of confidence in the incumbents.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

It's sort of a category error to talk about "percentages" of ones platform. Planks of a platform are correlated, often complimentary or contingent, often bound together by an ideology. You really can't quantify agreement with a specific proportion of a platform, unless there are supplemental candidates that offer all of the permutations (in which case you'd just vote for the one that aligns with you). Another problem is one like we see with the health care legislation, where polls show that people find 50% of it good, 50% of it bad, but the stuff they don't like is required in order to pay for the 50% they do like.

You really shouldn't vote on issues for this reason, because the issues always change and you probably don't have enough information to know all of the different options available, and even if you do, you can't constrain the representative. Your better of voting for ideological alignment or because you think on candidate is more competent, or can draw on more political capital to accomplish goals you broadly agree with etc.

Re:I abstain

[ffreeloader]

Presumably we're talking about being a legal citizen, not just a vacationer on a six-week visa. Though... Voting tourism. November would become a high-season.

Ummm.... No. We're not talking about legal citizens. We're talking about people who can't be bothered to become citizens. If a legal resident wants to become a legal citizen of the US, then, yes, they should be given the right to vote. That's valuing being a part of the the community called the United States enough to become a legal part of it, and a natural right you gain upon becoming a legal member of the community.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

Who keeps following me around, modding everything I say "Troll?"

Re:I abstain

[ffreeloader]

Ummmm.... Women in the early US, 1700's and early 1800's, had the right to vote. This was abolished by the party system when the party in power, for which women weren't voting, created a law making it illegal for women to vote.

IOW's, denying women the vote was not done by our founding fathers.

Re:I abstain

[ffreeloader]

So, he deliberately chooses not to do that which would give him the right to vote. And just how is that discriminatory, or a failure on the part of the US? That's his choice, and he has continually made that same choice for decades.

Your father just doesn't value the right to vote enough to do what it takes to become a citizen. However, I don't see how holding dual citizenship would deny his national heritage. Becoming a US citizen does not destroy or revoke any previous citizenship.

Re:I abstain

[AK Marc]

In almost all cases, "here legally" means "here legally for an indefinite period of time greater than one year with the ability to stay at least two." It was simplified slightly and in no way indicated that there would be piles of tourists flying in at the first of November from China to vote and then leave with the intention of screwing up the US elections. Based on the laws of most countries that allow non-citizens to vote, you pretty much have to be on the path to citizenship to be able to vote. So it's really a question of timing, not final eligibility, as they are already on the path to voting, they just have to wait a while and fill out some more paperwork.

It really sounds like you don't like the idea so much you are unwilling to even listen to those stating it's use in many locations across the world without any of the problems you imply would happen. You've been proven wrong millions of times, now just open your eyes and see it (not that I have any hope some jackass over the Internet will ever recognize he's wrong, but for some reason, I keep trying).

Re:I abstain

[HeronBlademaster]

As others have mentioned, there are in fact cities where non-citizen residents can vote in local elections.

Yes, I have voted. What does that have to do with anything?

Re:I abstain

[McGiraf]

Legitimacy as nothing to do with the number of votes, it depends on the size of the army and police that you can control.

Re:I abstain

[McGiraf]

but i fully agree on you way of counting votes. Even those who go to the booth to abstain are not reported.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

So, do all these city examples you listed have the ballots also available in French (I live in LA, and have never seen any French ballots down here..all in English so far), German, etc?

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be a US Citizen to elect people to federal office. Most states also require citizenship to vote in local elections.

Re:I abstain

[John Meacham]

Failure to show up is a vote of *confidence* in the system. The US voter turnouts are so low because for the most part, US citizens are happy, or at least, not unhappy enough to give up an afternoon to change it. The places where they have 99% voter turnout are the ones in civil turmoil or just not good places to live, people want to change it.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the official language of several states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States#States_with_official_English

Re:I abstain

[Sparr0]

There is no requirement for natural-born citizens to exhibit a proficiency in English.
There is also no federal requirement that local elections be limited to citizens.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on population and native non-English speakers in the USA, you are going to have the official language be German. If you want to split the country by their regional languages they speak, we would have English for the Mid-East Coast, German for the North East and North Central regions, French for Lousiana through Alabama and Florida, and maybe Spanish in Nevada and New Mexico. The list goes on. I like how you assume Spanish would become the de facto language if English wasn't. American's are usually multi-lingual but the majority do NOT know Spanish.

Re:I abstain

[moortak]

Not many, but some. Go back to this mythic past where you imagine this grand integration and I think you'll find even more who spoke strictly French. Living in Cleveland there aren't many neighborhoods that are still strictly Hungarian either, but first generation immigrants didn't integrate in large parts of the country. Here's an example http://www.clevelandmemory.org/hungarians/pg229.htm

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue the opposite, that if a majority of the population chooses not to show up to vote, that its a de facto ENDORSEMENT of whomever ends up governing them. Any such vote of no confidence should and does require explicit enumeration, not passive resignation. Or do you honestly think that the majority of the US population has no confidence in their system of government? Perhaps no confidence in the elected officials you can argue with evidence, but to say that majority of Americans reject the governments mandate to rule is absurd. Rather, the majority of the population is simply apathetic.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

Very few states have any kind of verification of legal right to vote.

In virtually all states, all you need is a drivers license with a current address to register to vote. Immigrants and felons can have those, and nobody is checking to see if someone is a citizen or a felon.

If you're so determined to vote, you can get fake id's that will also work.

So what you're saying is that If i'm a felon, or an illegal immigrant, i have to a) find someone willing to risk going to prison to "attest" me, and b) make sure they can find me so *I* can go to prison by giving them my real mail address...

Yeah, right. It's a lot easier to get a fake id, and a lot less risky.

And why, exactly, are all these illegal aliens and felons trying so desperately to vote, risking years in prison in the process?

Give me a break.

Re:I abstain

[PyroMosh]

Becoming a citizen is not the same as being a citizen. The majority of citizens never had to pass that exam. As others have pointed out, there are many large groups in this country that have existed relatively separate from the rest of the population. Many of them have different primary languages. But at the end of the day, they are still entitled to all the rights of citizenship that others are. German speaking Amish get to vote. Those with French ancestry in Maine get to vote, although some of the communities have been relatively isolated, and use French as a primary language.

I know dealing with multiple languages is a pain. I only speak English, and I've been frustrated trying to communicate in broken Spanish before, just like lots of people. But in a country built on a strong democratic tradition like the U.S., the needs of making democracy more accessible trump that. We should be making any and all reasonable efforts to lower the bar for voting in this country, and to ensure that people have all reasonable means of understanding who or what they are voting for. To do that right, sometimes takes different languages.

Re:I abstain

[markdavis]

>If you want a candidate who agrees 100% with you - run for office. If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate - support a third party candidate that does agree with your views.

Except in the American system of voting, it is almost impossible for a "third party" candidate to win. Why? Because we are only allowed to cast a single vote (and to a lesser extent because of things like the electoral college). People are too scared to vote for a third party when it might mean essentially "giving" a vote to one of the two-party candidates that you don't want to win. It is a classic problem, with many solutions (like instant runoff voting). Unfortunately, nobody seems to want to fix the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM&feature=channel_page

Re:I abstain

[PyroMosh]

They didn't say that you needed to speak English to be a citizen. They said for immigrants to vote, they need to learn English to pass the citizenship test.

What you're talking about doesn't apply to immigrants. By being born here, you are by definition, not an immigrant. Like it or not.

That said, I agree with you. I understand and agree with the idea of ballots presented in other languages where they are regionally prominent. I don't see a lot of people clamoring to not let the Amish vote, and some of their communities speak German almost exclusively. Someone else pointed out Cajuns / Creole in Louisiana, and some of the few Native Americans still on reservation lands.

I may not enjoy trying to communicate with these people because of a language difference (not being able to understand each other is annoying, no doubt). But to imply that they are lesser people, or lesser citizens, because they speak a different language? That's absurd. Voting is too important a right in a democracy to trifle with over something trivial.

To me the only question becomes what's reasonable? Where do you draw a line? You can't have every ballot everywhere be offered in every language, because it's impractical. I live in New Jersey. There aren't a whole lot of Hawaiians here. But conceivably, there could be some! Should we offer Hawaiian on the ballot in New Jersey? My instinct is to say no, because there's no reason to expect significant numbers of Hawaiian-only speaking citizens living here, and those that do, know they have a lingual barrier problem in day-to-day life. However when there are significant communities of people who speak only one language, or are just much more comfortable in one language that's not English, then The Right Thing To Do(TM) is offer non-English ballots. It's better for democracy to make the system more accessible to a greater number of people.

Re:I abstain

[poopdeville]

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

No. America doesn't have an "official" language.

Re:I abstain

[PyroMosh]

I agree with most of what you say. Yes, English is the defacto standard on a National level. Jobs in government, debate and public policy, even commerce all rely on it being a common thread.

That said, there are isolated communities in the U.S. where they do have non-English tradition (The Amish in PA are an example near where I live. Many speak English, but many also speak only German.). To not do what is reasonable to allow them access to the democratic process is to not care about or trust the democratic process. Just because day to day interactions are difficult, and not learning English effectively bars these people from advanced participation in public policy and governance, does not mean that we should effectively deny them participation at the most basic, fundamental level. Majority rules, sure. But everyone deserves a voice.

This isn't about multiculturalism, it's about the fact that everyone has a right as a citizen to vote, but it's in everyone's best interest for people to be given every chance to understand who / what they are voting for.

Or would you rather non-English speakers be put into a voting booth with only English options? What if it's a state like California that has lots of ballot initiatives. They're wordy, and usually a paragraph or two long. What do non-English citizens do then? Randomly guess what button to press? How is that better than simply having a Spanish or French or Korean or Navajo option (when there are large communities in the region)? Which would you prefer?

I've thought about it, and I choose to make democracy as accessible as practical to as many citizens as possible. Sometimes that means the people will make choices that I think are wrong, or that I don't agree with. But that's democracy.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just say that an ambiguous result and a default selection or mutually exclusive problems. If nobody shows up to vote, then the vote is ambiguous. If people show up to vote on certain races, but the remainder which they abstain is by default, selected... then that is an erroneous vote. I frequently either "party vote" or abstain from races which I'm not well informed.

Re:I abstain

[dondelelcaro]

They didn't say that you needed to speak English to be a citizen. They said for immigrants to vote, they need to learn English to pass the citizenship test.

Sure, but whether someone is an immigrant or not is orthogonal to whether or not they are a citizen, so I ignored the feeble canard entirely.

To me the only question becomes what's reasonable?

It's reasonable to have it translated into every language you reasonably expect to have people require to exercise their franchise, and to allow people to petition to have ballots in languages that they speak fluently when they aren't able to speak another translated language with enough fluency to be comfortable voting.

There's almost no problem with the voting board being primarily reactive with regards to translated ballots and election materials.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's the point of becoming a US citizen. So, come here..learn the language, integrate into the society. If you want to stay German and speak only German...why bother coming to the US and going for citizenship?"

For all the reasons that our bigots usually take for granted. Freedom they've been denied in their "home" for one. The first amendment doesn't specify English as the language of protected speech nor should it. Yes, for practical purposes the ability to speak, read, and write English has enormous advantages. That doesn't mean everyone is required to conform.

Re:I abstain

[wesgray]

"Then there's those who can only speak one language (English), but can't really read or write. But that's beyond help." So, that's who posting at Slashdot now.

Re:I abstain

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah in fact its a bit of a joke here in Australia. I know plenty of people who have studied for the examination you have to pass on general Australian cultural knowledge and its all crap of no interest to me. I doubt I could pass. Apparently you have to know all about our great sportsmen and have similarly useless information in your head.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because day to day interactions are difficult, and not learning English effectively bars these people from advanced participation in public policy and governance, does not mean that we should effectively deny them participation at the most basic, fundamental level. Majority rules, sure. But everyone deserves a voice.

In principle, I agree with you. But this is a case where high-minded principles run into the hard wall of reality very quickly. As a practical matter, we cannot require every municipality to provide ballots and translation assistance at every polling place for every potential variation of non-English speaker that might be living in their boundaries. It becomes prohibitively expensive very quickly and most just don't have the resources. So realistically, at some point we have to demand that people bend to the practical need to learn English (or provide their own personal translator...probably a family member) if they want to participate in our democracy instead of letting them demand that the country bend over backwards to accommodate their refusal to learn English.

Re:I abstain

[PyroMosh]

I agree with this also, to a point. I think the question lies in where do you draw the line. To me, it's a question of if there's a large non-English speaking community in the region. Clearly Maine would be unlikely to offer Navajo, but there are folks who have spoken French there for hundreds of years (pre-U.S. era). Likewise New Mexico probably wouldn't offer Creole, but Louisiana would likely consider it in areas. And who would question offering Spanish on the ballot in Puerto Rico?

I don't know where you set the threshold for these things, but I do think that it's better to have one than ignore the problem or just say "that's the voter's problem".

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Immigration Services seems to disagree with you. "To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must ... Be able to read, write, and speak English..." The two exceptions are if you're 50 and have lived in the US for 20 years, or you're 55 and have lived in the US for 15 years. And I suppose that if you're born in the US there's no requirement to learn English...

In practice, this usually means writing a complete sentence (e.g. Today's weather is good.) in front of an immigration officer and answer a few easy questions about US history (e.g. Who was the first presidents of the United States?). For the latter part, there are bilingual list of usual questions and answers available. The business in my neighborhood used to distribute a Chinese language Yellow-Pages that has them in the "immigration FAQ" section.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, weren't they British subjects?

Re:I abstain

[pooh666]

You talk like one of those New York city people all fancy like..

Re:I abstain

[AK Marc]

I think technically Braille is English with letters coded to bumps. Just a code or transliteration doesn't create a new language. Now a deaf person doing it in ASL is in a different language. Though based on English, it quickly diverged to form a language separate from English with a new grammar, structure and such. But Braille is English with coded letters. Still English.

Re:I abstain

[AK Marc]

I have a son born who is a natural born citizen, but was born outside the USA. There's no requirement that I couldn't raise him in the foreign country in a foreign language and exclude English from his schooling. Then, when that natural born citizen returns to the US, he will be unable to function because the US has a default, but not an official language. Or the oldest, who was 2 upon moving, was born in the USA. I could just as well do the same with him and he was born in the USA.

And it's not as hard as you think to have children in the US raised with a "foreign" language. I know children who were raised with Russian, German, and Chinese as their first language, and their parents were also born in the USA. And of course, there are areas where multiple generations of natural born Americans speak Spanish as their first language.

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

" if they want to participate in our democracy"

If they have the right to vote then it's their democracy too.
It's their democracy just as much as it's your democracy.

You were doing so well till you went all republican-radio-show-host with that little comment.

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

Complete bullshit.
There's always been isolated communities where poeple stick to the languages they already know and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Stop listenting to glenn beck .
everything he says is crap and normally racist crap.

There is no need for any such law.
The US has been doing fine for hundreds of years without.

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

no, that illustrates what happens when foreigners have repeating rifles and the natives don't.
the natives get defeated and the foreigners take the land.

Language has sweet fuck all to do with it.

Re:I abstain

[AK Marc]

"What" they are voting for? What *are* they voting for? I thought it was a "who." And the "what" is similar around the world, so speaking English isn't a requirement to understand democracy. So what is this "what" to which you refer?

Re:I abstain

[Interfect]

Some native-born American citizens speak Spanish as a first language.

Re:I abstain

[sisamon]

Hi Cayenne, first a disclaimer I am not a US citizen/US resident. That may make my post non-relevant in your eyes. The US has no official language in its constitution, in their wisdom your Founding Fathers either did not consider it relevant or decided to let the door open to non English citizens. I think most if not all European constitutions address official language. You may also be interested in knowing that when you acquired (i.e. bought) Louisiana you granted the inhabitants the right to speak French. That was also the language used in the Treaty. Also I would like to point to you that you "acquired" Texas Nevada and Nuevo Mexico, their inhabitants spoke mostly Spanish. But i agree you need to be careful about all those immigrants. Look what happened to the Mexicans who allowed a group of settlers to move to Texas provided they did not engage in political activities nor conspire to secede the territory... oooppss. Those were you, sorry you may not like to be reminded about that. So once again congratulations for bringing the myth of the totally ignorant american to life once again for the pleasure of the / population. To the Americans here who know their history better, I am sorry guys i could not let this one pass. To the Europeans, don't get too excited folks. I look at kids in my own country now and their culture and their interest in culture are dropping so fast. We will all be like Homer Simpson really soon.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"If they have the right to vote then it's their democracy too."

Up to a point. Just for the sake of the argument, what if all ballot papers were in Klingon? Or what if the only ballot room were in Alaska? Hey, you still can vote, can't you?

It is not about the right to vote; it's about the right to vote *effectively*.

Re:I abstain

[vegiVamp]

> A person can be born in the US and raised and educated speaking a non-english language.

Yep. My mother could have perfectly raised me in Japanese. That is irrelevant, though: the only thing that matters is the country/state/region's official language(s).

I live in Belgium, and I conduct all my official business in dutch. Other parts of the country do so in french, some parts in german, and a limited few areas even offer multilingual services, as a *courtesy* because of of their closeness to a language frontier.

Re:I abstain

[Eivind Eklund]

A friend of mine has a US citizenship by virtue of being born there, but he was born of Norwegian parents (sailors) and more or less immediately returned to Norway. The US has not participated in his education in any way. Now, he does speak English (because learning that is mandatory here), but if his parents had been from another country, he could easily have avoided learning it.

Also, this guy, who has no particular ties to the US (I don't think he's ever visited) gets to vote and could run for president. Another friend who's lived in the US for 20 years can't vote for anything. This seems an unfortunate inconsistency.

Eivind.

Re:I abstain

[DrSkwid]

The US doesn't have an official language, so how would you choose ?

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

Why go with Klingon or any existing language when we can make one up?
one in which double negatives aren't positive or in which every statement is negated automatically unless a "not" is added.

Do you want to not not not vote against candidate who is not a candidate other than candidate A?

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

ya!
Fuck the disabled!
It's not like their opinions are worth anything anyway!

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Your logic is insisting that when a person registers to vote, that no verification is done.

But if a person gets a non-provisional ballot by was of someone attesting for them, that a verification process is then done and they will go to prison.

Your logic is a bit flawed here as you must provide identification to register to vote in advance, and thusly there is a greater risk of being exposed. When registering the day of without identification, there is less risk to you.

You also insist no one would ever dare break the law because they would risk jail time. I hate to break it to you, but people break the law all the time despite the risks. And in countries around the world, people vote even it means risking their lives.

My point wasn't that illegals are dying to vote however, rather that some states are trying to enable illegals to vote, which you think isn't happening. I've asked probably 5 times for a reasonable explanation why you need to go out of your way to allow people to vote without registering in advance, or providing identification. When the debate happened in Iowa, I was privy to the debate as I live on the border and work with people from Iowa. Maybe people directly cited enabling illegal aliens as the only reason they were pushing for it.

And if you still have doubt beyond reason (and I suspect you are beyond reason) Arizona just ruled specifically that you can't ask for illegals to provide identification to vote.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

And you might want to look closer into US Immigration laws.

As stated on other posts on this thread...and what I was alluding to, to become a Naturalized Citizen (foreign born and want to become a citizen here) with few exceptions, you DO have to show some proficiency in the use of English.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.

Well, that's nice in Omaha, but not everyone lives there, do they?

Here in Georgia, we have no goddamn buses, and here you can't register at the DMV, and here the Republicans try, continually, to require people to have a license or government ID to vote.

So poor people would have to get a ride 30+ miles to the DMV for an ID, and then get a ride to the courthouse to register, and then get a ride to the vote.

Originally, people had to pay $15 for an ID, but that law was struck down as a poll tax, so now they have to provide free IDs.

* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur.

The only examples you've cited are some sort of voter registration screw up. There is no actual fraud consisting of people voting when they shouldn't. A case argued before the supreme court managed to find one instance of impersonation to vote in recent history.

* You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud.

No, the Democrats point out actual voter suppression when it happens. (As do the Republicans.)

The Republicans also claim problems that don't exist so they can enact laws making it harder for the poor to vote.

* You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse.

Whereas you think somehow being 'uniformed', aka, not able to spend any time and money on voting, means you shouldn't be able to vote.

I'd much rather had a nation of me then a nation full of people who think they're in charge of what citizens can vote.

* You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.

Really? I live in a state that implemented a poll tax in 2005. The court said so.

I don't think I need to invent conspiracy theories about keeping the poor from voting.

Re:I abstain

[ikeman32]

Tell that to the government and just try and put that into action. Before long you will disappear and your friends will only talk about you in private and in hushed tones. When ask about you in public they will say, "Who? I'm sorry I've never heard of that person."

Re:I abstain

[MightyYar]

Actually, it is 'progressive'.

In the correct, Wilson-era sense yes. The commenter that I was answering was - I'm almost certain - referring to the present day politics of the "left".

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always "what" that you're voting for. Even if it's a candidate that you're casting your ballot for, you're voting for "what" their campaign platform is. You can't properly understand that unless you understand the language that they've campaigned in, and the language that their track record is documented.

Re:I abstain

[man_of_mr_e]

No. A verification is done for an attested person that they exist, so that they cannot just say they're someone at some address. They have to a) get someone to risk jailtime to fraudulently vouche for them, and b) have an address to receive mail.

Could someone do this? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Could that person be a felon or an illegal alien? Sure, but again it's not just risking jailtime for the voter, but also the attester and an attestor can only attest for one person, they can't do a whole vanload of people they picked up at the 7-11.

What you see as a flaw in my logic is nothing of the sort, it's me making a point that nobody needs to go through this process because there is no voter *eligibility* verification process in any state i'm aware of. Nobody is going through the records and comparing the list valid citizens or known felons.

Why do states allow people to register day of? Because most people are lazy and don't bother. I myself have registered to vote day of, *EVERY* single election I have ever voted in (10 or so elections). Every person I know is the same. If it required pre-registration, i simply would not bother to vote.

States that have a mandated pre-registration to vote have a *MUCH* lower voter turnout than states that have same day registration. And you see no good reason for it.. wow.

You are also confusing US elections with local elections. Many states have ruled that anyone living in their community can vote in local elections, including illegals. The laws preventing asking for identification only apply to local elections and cannot apply to federal ones.

It's perfectly legal for a state to allow anyone they choose to vote in local elections, although they cannot deny people based on race or other such qualifications.

Stop trying to imply that rules designed for local elections apply to federal ones. They don't.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Valid point. Currently, that's something that would be considered more 'liberal' instead of 'progressive'.

Although right now trying to figure out exactly what the difference is is rather hard...plenty of 'liberal' ideas only became part of this country (Despite them originating in classic liberal thought.) due to Progressives. I mean, if you had a time machine to ask John Locke who should be picking the people on the ballot, the people, or party leaders, I think we can guess what he'd say.

But it's all mixed up now, thanks to conservatives rejecting both progressivism and liberalism and thus them being shoehorned into one party for decades.

Frankly, we shouldn't have anywhere near the number of people living in this country who cannot vote. It produces scapegoats and an underclass to be abused.

I guess, if the US government isn't going to fix the problem by either making them legal, or making them not here, it's up to the local governments to give them some say on local issues. I'd really rather the problem be solved some other way, but whatever.

Although I'm sure that the OP was trying to imply local communities were letting them vote in national or state elections, which of course they aren't, but it's a good scapegoat issue.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but your comment is just ridiculous bigotry. I was born outside the US, and since my mother was a US citizen, I have US citizenship by birth. I did not become proficient in English until I moved to the US around the age of 13. So yeah, the test is required for naturalization, but that's not the only way to citizenship. And yes, those born here in the US have no requirement to learn English. Then there's those who can only speak one language (English), but can't really read or write. But that's beyond help.

I don't like to defend bigotry, but in this case I think it was probably ignorance- or maybe trolling

Re:I abstain

[Bobb Sledd]

I apologize for calling you a moron. Especially since you're not from the U.S. Sorry -- I carelessly assumed I was talking to one of our own.

No, English is not just a social custom and it's not really open to change. Unless you mean the complete dismantling and destruction of American society as we know it. I suppose I'll grant you that scenario.

So which country is EU exactly?

And if you violate a law in a language you don't understand, how does that play out?

Or are all "EUians" just taught and expected to know 4 languages?

There was an English-only movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement

It's not the official language of the federal government, but it IS the official language of these states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

My state is Texas, and English is apparently not the official language here... but I still point out that English is required in all 13 years of school, as well as most state-accredited college programs. And as of yet there are no laws in Spanish (the 2nd most popular language here). (Which is totally different from Spain Spanish.) (It's more like "Tex-Mex" or possibly "Spanglish.") Also, all courts (federal also) operate in English only. (I've never heard of a court proceeding in Spanish.) Also, all of our road signs are in English, and never in dual languages (I'm talking about road signs the government puts up, not billboards). All of our laws and regulations are in English, and if you're ever arrested you're read your rights only in English. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence for an "official language" any way you want to slice it, even if its unspoken or there's no explicit law that says so. (Semantics aside.)

But it's easy to see why no law could ever possibly be in Cantonese; if it ever were, that would be a strong indication that the United States would effectively be something else entirely anyway, thus making the whole problem moot.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

It varies by jurisdiction; there are definitely parts of Louisiana that offer French ballots (or did in 2004). And, of course, that's not related to whether something's an official language. LA has no official language, though French is de facto accorded quasi-official status (e.g. Governor Kathleen Blanco was sworn into office in both English and French).

In general, it's up to the state/locality to determine what language to print the ballot in. However, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires either in-language ballots or bilingual assistance for cases where either 5% of the population or more than 10,000 people in the jurisdiction speak a primary language other than English (with somewhat stricter requirements for Native American reservations).

I don't know that any parish in Louisiana currently meets those requirements (Allen Parish is required to provide bilingual assistance under 203 but I think that's Native American, not French), which means there's no federal requirement to offer French ballots or assistance; that doesn't stop localities from doing so if they want to, though.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

Independent of all the other arguments, section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act requires localities with sizable minority language speakers* to either offer ballots in the minority language or offer bilingual assistance.

Currently, 2/3 of the counties in New Mexico are federally required to either offer voting in Spanish or multilingual assistance.

In addition, 9 counties in New Mexico are also required to offer Pueblo language options, 7 counties must support the Navajo language, and San Juan County has to offer Ute-language options.

*Those that that have either 10,000 people or over 5% of their populace as native speakers of another language.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

If a state only wants to issue ballots in English, I believe they can

Technically true, but counties with significant non-English speaking populations* would be required to offer bilingual voting assistance at every polling station if they did not offer ballots in those languages (under the federal Voting Rights Act, section 203).

Currently, the majority (22 of 33) of counties in New Mexico are required to either offer Spanish language ballots or blingual assistance. Various counties are required to support the Pueblo, Navajo, and Ute languages as well.

*Any voting area with more than 5% of the population or more than 10,000 people speaking another language, with the exact method of tallying varying on Native American reservations.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

Any legal resident ot the USA MUST speak, read and write English.

As others have pointed out, you need to learn a minimal amount of English to naturalize. There's no requirement that native-born Americans learn English, though, so for the vast majority of Americans there is no requirement that they read, speak, or write English.

So why should the ballots be printed in Spanish???

There is a federal requirement (section 203 of the Voting Rights Act) that localities with significant non-English-speaking populations either offer ballots in the minority languages or offer bilingual assistance at every polling station.

Currently, 22 of 33 counties in New Mexico are federally required to offer Spanish ballots and/or bilingual assistance (along with several counties that are required to offer Navajo, Pueblo, and Ute language support).

This requirement was last debated fairly recently (in 2006) and seemed to have broad bipartisan support, passing the Senate 98-0 and the House 390-33.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

And of course this is Nevada, not New Mexico. But Clark County is also on the list of counties required to offer Spanish-language support.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

And of course this is Nevada, not New Mexico. But Clark County is also on the list of counties required to offer Spanish-language support.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

D'oh, my bad. This is Nevada, not New Mexico. But Clark County is also on the list of counties required to offer Spanish-language support.

Re:I abstain

[ChrisMaple]

"seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators"

You say that like it's a good thing. It's not.

"and the nineteenth allow women to vote."

By the time the 19th was passed, in most states women already had the legal ability to vote.

Re:I abstain

[MightyYar]

But it's all mixed up now, thanks to conservatives rejecting both progressivism and liberalism and thus them being shoehorned into one party for decades.

Both parties are so... weird... right now that I don't even know how to approach it. The "tea party" folks almost sound like a wing of the Libertarian party, but chances are they would drop their distaste in "big government" in a heartbeat if you brought up any of the traditional conservative sore points: religion, abortion, drugs, etc. Big government is just fine if it is keeping the drugs out!

The Dems are even weirder. So fractured, they can't even get stuff done with a super-majority in congress and the Whitehouse. They've always had trouble being the "big-tent" party, but they've gotten so many special interests in their tent that they can't actually say or do anything. You can't even apply the word liberal to them anymore, since they seem almost devoid of ideology.

In any event, it is clear that all both parties want is to be in power - everything else is secondary.

Re:I abstain

[riverat1]

They're talking about Portland, Maine, not Oregon.

Re:I abstain

[jwhitener]

And personally, I would actually rather have a relatively small turn out of voters making a choice based on their beliefs, than a huge crowd of people just randomly picking a candidate because everyone is telling them they must vote. Voting isn't the important part.. keeping yourself aware of the politics of your country is!

I would prefer that people stop voting their beliefs, and instead vote on facts. (Will lowering taxes stimulate the economy? How much, and where's the proof?, If we increased taxes the same amount we were going to lower them, and put that money in infrastructure jobs, would it have a bigger effect? How much, and where's the proof?) I'm pretty tired of all the ideological wars here in the US. Trying to find unbiased numbers to support an issue is getting harder and harder.

I agree with you that it would be nice if a larger percent of voters (everywhere) were more informed about politics and issues. However, in the states, low voter turnout is almost always a conservative win. That small slice of largely conservative folks who did vote, won't be more informed. Likely, they will just be more extreme in their views. Rabidly anti-abortion folks, Tea Partiers, the more often than not anti-change/anti-progressive senior citizens...basically, people who are angry, afraid, or some combination of the two are those that will always show up to vote.

So, I don't fear the uneducated masses voting. I wish they were more educated, sure. But being led by fear and anger is far worse than being led by the mixture contained in the uneducated masses. Some of who, happen to be very educated (college kids, busy people with careers and families, etc..).

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

Both parties are so... weird... right now that I don't even know how to approach it.

Indeed. And to this post I'll mention fact I'm a Democrat and usually called myself 'Progressive' because things like health care and jobs are the most important to me, and those are 'Progressive' issues, at least now. (In fact, both those appeared as issues in the original Progressive Era.)

The "tea party" folks almost sound like a wing of the Libertarian party, but chances are they would drop their distaste in "big government" in a heartbeat if you brought up any of the traditional conservative sore points: religion, abortion, drugs, etc. Big government is just fine if it is keeping the drugs out!

The Tea Party is, at this point, literally another phrase meaning 'the Republican base', except it's slipped out of control of the Republicans.

The people controlling the Tea Party, and by which I mean the monied interests who invented the entire thing, are desperately trying to make it solely about economic issues, which is all they care about...but the actual people are having no part of it, and religious fringe people seems just likely to run on 'Tea Party' support as likely as 'all taxes are bad people'. Witness O'Donnell for example.

Over the last two decades, the Republicans 'outsourced' running the Republican base to various conservative commentators who spewed nonsense that the Republican party could then disassociate themselves from...but I doubt they ever realized that those people would steal their base. It's rather hilarious.

The Dems are even weirder. So fractured, they can't even get stuff done with a super-majority in congress and the Whitehouse. They've always had trouble being the "big-tent" party, but they've gotten so many special interests in their tent that they can't actually say or do anything. You can't even apply the word liberal to them anymore, since they seem almost devoid of ideology.

I'm noticing that, just like the Republicans like to preach about all the stuff they'll when they takes office, like banning abortion and whatnot, but then mysteriously fail to do it...the Democrats are exactly the same way.

The Republicans blame Democrats to keep from passing stuff they pretend to want to pass, but the Democrats do the same thing by pretending to be very very very stupid, and 'compromising' with Republicans who then don't pass stuff anyway.

I.e., health care and the lies about the public option, or, hell, the fact they didn't start at nationalizing the entire system and compromise to single payer or at least public option. I though at the time they were total fucking imbeciles, accepting compromises that the right wanted but then didn't vote for the bill, but I've since learned they got exactly what they wanted...no single payer, but it looked like they 'tried' to get it.

OTOH, the Democrats are the only people who are willing to state what the actual problems are and propose actual solutions to them, even if they're not actually willing to pass said solutions, so I have to vote for them. The Republicans either pretend problems don't exist or pose nonsensical solutions.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

You say that like it's a good thing. It's not.

Actually, I just said it like it was true, and it was. The Progressive movement was huge on what we'd call 'direct democracy'. They're also the reason we end up voting for dogcatcher in some places.

You can argue it went too far in some places, but whatever. I was just stating a fact: The Progressive era resulted in the direct election of Senators.

By the time the 19th was passed, in most states women already had the legal ability to vote.

Well, excuse me for simplifying. I didn't say it solely gave women the right to vote.

But the difference is meaningless anyway. Progressives were responsible for the 19th, but they were also responsible for most of the local victories before that. For example, the Chicago Political Equality League in Illinois, progressive organization that resulted in women's right to vote in 1913 there.

And Arizona and Oregon passed women's suffrage as a result of a ballot initiative, which, of course, the Progressive movement had just created there. So that was, in a way, a double Progressive victory...they created the process to pass the law, then got the law passed.

The only states that had female voting without the Progressive movement's involvement were those weird western outlier states that passed it 20 years, in the 18th century, before everyone else. No one is quite sure why this is, but a theory exists that, due to the shortage of women, they were attempting to 'bribe' women to come there. And thanks to that shortage, women wouldn't be as much a political threat anyway.

In fact, when you look at history, an argument can be made that the Suffrage movement caused the Progressive movement, that it birthed the Progressive movement and then was subsumed by it, and then it managed to start having victories. And then it disbanded after it won, obviously.

I don't think it's quite that simple, I suspect the Progressive movement was going to happen after the Gilded Age no matter what, but the Suffrage movement certainly ended up with a large hand in its creation. And a very large hand in the issue that finally ended it, Prohibition, which was the other issue these women's suffrage groups cared about. Well, along with the abolition of slavery, but that obviously was a moot point by then.

Incidentally, whenever I talk about 'Progressive' back then, I'm pretty much talking about Republicans.

Re:I abstain

[sumdumass]

Um.. The Indians had repeating riffles too.

Language has everything to do with it. If the foreigners do not show up and assimilate into the society, they will eventually replace the society if lest to enter unchecked. And no, laws limiting how many can show up do not work, else we wouldn't be having the conversation. That's why there is a label called illegal.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Hatta Wrote: "Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted."

I disagree completely. For many people, voting doesn't matter much, because the government doesn't have much of an impact on their life, or they are relatively satisfied with the status quo. Both of those are good scenarios, and explain why someone might decide that voting is unimportant.

Personally, I wish the government was small enough and unintrusive enough that we could ignore it, including meaning that most people would not feel bothered to vote, or people are happy with what they have now, in terms of government.

It's when stuff is screwed up, that you expect to see large numbers of people voting. that's a sign of problems ocurring.

Re:I abstain

[denis-The-menace]

My problem is that in the news they will say Candidate A won with 40% of the vote.
They NEVER mention that 20% or 30% of the votes were invalid, etc.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason a common language would be important is because language bonds people, it is part of culture.

Another reason so people could discuss issues together.

Both of these are important because the people in our government are supposed to be the highest "bosses", that is difficult when the "bosses" cannot even communicate, or when the bosses have no common ground.

Incidentially, older people do not have to speak English, but in almost all other cases English is a requirement to become a citizen. None the less, voting is done in spanish and other languages because the law requires it be in their "primary" language, which does not have to be English to be a citizen.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

I don't think the formality of citizenship is of much importance to the Democratic party.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

What language did we declare independence in? What language is the constitution in? What language are laws written in? What language are court rulings written in?

Even if you decide to translate all of these things into every possible language, one language has to be the decisive version, (otherwise you have problems where some languages introduce ambiguity, even with literal translations). So far, that language has been English.

Re:I abstain

[riverat1]

I don't think most Republican politicians really want to ban abortion. It's too good an issue for them. Lots of guaranteed votes as long as it's an issue.

Re:I abstain

[riverat1]

I've got to tell you that if I was in a country illegally I would never try to vote. Why would you take the chance of drawing attention to yourself by doing something like that.

Re:I abstain

[DavidTC]

I know, that's my point.

I used to just think that was a Republican trick.

Since Obama's been elected, I've come to realize it was a Democrat trick also.

Witness failing to revoke DADT.

The only problem is that Democratic voters appear to be paying a lot more attention that Republican voters, or perhaps Democratic promises were much more specific and attainable, so failure to do them is a lot more obvious and really pissing people off.

Re:I abstain

[happyfeet2000]

There are areas in New Mexico (formerly Nuevo Mexico), California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Colorado and Nevada where the native language of the oldest residents is Spanish since it was Mexican territory. They didn't crossed the border, it was more like the border crossed them (Jessica dixit).

Re:I abstain

[riverat1]

Well I think the Democrat's problem is they are too afraid to stand up to the rhetoric the R's throw at them. Besides, they get plenty of votes from the pro-choice crowd.

Re:I abstain

[el_gordo101]

So, he deliberately chooses not to do that which would give him the right to vote.

Correct, that is his choice.

And just how is that discriminatory, or a failure on the part of the US?

It is not, nor did I say it was.

That's his choice, and he has continually made that same choice for decades.

Exactly, as I stated in my post.

Your father just doesn't value the right to vote enough to do what it takes to become a citizen. However, I don't see how holding dual citizenship would deny his national heritage. Becoming a US citizen does not destroy or revoke any previous citizenship.

Dual citizenship is kind of a grey, murky area. Technically, under US law, there is no such thing as dual citizenship as you are required to renounce your allegiances to any foreign flag when you naturalize. In reality, this is rarely enforced. As I stated in my original post, this is a choice that my father has made, knowing full well what the ramifications are. My point was that here is a man that has been a productive member of society, worked his entire life, always paid his fair share, always followed the law, and served in the US military. I don't think giving him a vote would be such a terrible thing.

Sharron Reid, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Harry suddenly marry Sharron Angle to make her Sharron Reid?

Re:Sharron Reid, eh?

[rock_climbing_guy]

Please spare me the horror.

Re:Sharron Reid, eh?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Please spare me the horror.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Sharron Reid, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please spare me the horror.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

You cited the wrong I Voted for Kodos link on Wikipedia. D'oh!

Re:Sharron Reid, eh?

[Muad'Dave]

Neither references the correct attribution, that of Kodos the Executioner.

Article Typo...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Reid's opponent is Sharron Angle, not Sharron Reid.

Re:Article Typo...

[JamesP]

Hey, you're right. But you don't need to be so obtuse, with such an acute error...

Re:Article Typo...

[mark72005]

I'd prefer to be right or straight.

(preferably both)

Re:Article Typo...

[gknoy]

Somehow, I misread it at first as Sharon Apple. Whoops.

Re:Article Typo...

[Anonymous Coward]

She'd probably be a better candidate, but then we all know how that would end...

Typo

[ByOhTek]

the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default."

Did they mean Sharron Angle?

Re:Typo

[m509272]

No, they mean Sharron Reid. It's so if you're not paying total attention you see Sharron and think it's Sharron Angle. This way the vote will be for neither Harry Reid or Sharron Angle (where it obviously would mean more). Just kidding.....

The more interesting question, what if you don't want to vote for anyone (which should be the default)? Is there no option for that? Don't have time to read thru this whole thread.

How hard is it

[Anonymous Coward]

to have a default option "None of the above"?

They are probably afraid that at the end "None of the above" wins by landslide

Re:How hard is it

[zach_the_lizard]

They already do. Voter turnout here in the states is very low, especially going into midterm elections. I'm not showing up; I don't like Cantor, nor anyone else on the ballot.

Re:How hard is it

[Anonymous Coward]

to have a default option "None of the above"?

They are probably afraid that at the end "None of the above" wins by landslide

Not in Nevada, the ballot option is there, but it has no effect. If there were 100 voters, and 99 picked "None of the Above" the candidate picked by the last voter would win.

At least that's what I've heard.

So it's rather toothless in terms of options. I'd rather have all of the candidates banned from running for office in the next election.

Re:How hard is it

[jgtg32a]

Yes but what about that one thing on the ballot I do like?

Re:How hard is it

[zach_the_lizard]

IIRC, you can just leave that blank and only choose what you want to choose. So, if you wanted to vote on any local referendums, you can do that. I recall skipping voting for some local positions in 2008. YMMV.

Explanation?

[gstoddart]

How is:

By way of explanation???, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.

an explanation? Who cares what language you're using the voting machine in. A voting machine should never have default candidates -- it needs to be explicitly blank until the user makes a selection.

Re:Explanation?

[digitalhermit]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

The problem is likely some poor interface design. I've seen it used deliberately on some installers in order to sneakily add other products. It may follow a series of "Next" buttons that asks "Also install McAfee agent" or "Install Yahoo Toolbar"... In this case, the checkbox for the candidate may happen to be on the "Next" button of the previous screen.

Re:Explanation?

[Lehk228]

sounds like it's not a "default" per se, i bet something isn't being cleared from the register after selection so the next menu has a persistence of touch location.

shitty embedded UI programming,

i would guess that rather than being even driven the UI cycles through an input loop that looks like an old basic getkey x loop, (except gettouch x,y) and fails to clear x and y after selecting a language and proceeding to the voting menu

Re:Explanation?

[xaxa]

The article talks about old people having this problem.

I expect if you're "firm" with the touchscreen you end up pressing a button on the following screen (selecting a candidate) while you still think you're pressing "English" (or "Spanish").

Easy solution 1: A "please wait" screen for a few seconds, which waits until nothing on the screen is being pressed
2: Not having any buttons "underneath" a button on the previous screen

Re:Explanation?

[Gravitron 5000]

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

Re:Explanation?

[LWATCDR]

Well if you read the link and not Slashdot's terrible, slanted, and sensationalist summary you will see that wasn't said.
The problem is a simple UI issue.
From reading the article it seems that they implemented the select language touch as select on touch begin and not select on touch end.
So if you hold your finger down long enough the next screen pops up and your finger will be on one of the candidates.
It is a simple UI issue combined with people being on auto pilot. Honestly not a huge issue because you should really check it before you hit next anyway but it should be fixed.

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible if people bother to read. And yes it is so the type of UI problem that I would expect in any program like this.

Re:Explanation?

[commodore64_love]

>>>shitty embedded UI programming,

The geek's definition of government.
I think we should go back to paper scantrons. They can be counted twice - once by machine, and again by hand, for verification. Also it's hard to rig an election when you have several thousand pounds of paper laying around.

Re:Explanation?

[ArcherB]

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."

All these people selected "Spanish"?

Re:Explanation?

[commodore64_love]

>>>you should really check it before you hit next anyway

You mean the way Floridians double-checked their hanging chad ballots, to make sure everything was removed? Not. People are lazy and DON'T double-check their work, and that creates errors. The UI for paper or computer ballots needs to assume the user is an idiot, and make itself as idiot proof as possible.

i.e. Don't auto-select a candidate. Don't put checkboxes in the identical location where a "heavy finger" could accidentally select across multiple pages. Don't make the ballot require any intelligence, period.

Re:Explanation?

[khallow]

It is a simple UI issue combined with people being on auto pilot. Honestly not a huge issue because you should really check it before you hit next anyway but it should be fixed.

Now suppose you found out that the electronic ballot had been deliberately configured so that Reid's name would be under the finger when this error occurred? Would you still call it a simple UI issue?

My point here is that we should take even innocent mistakes seriously when significant things are at stake and it is easy to pass off fraud or other deception as an innocent mistake.

Re:Explanation?

[MightyMartian]

More to the point, on something this critical, would should be flushing the keyboard buffer to make sure that spurious data doesn't end up triggering something on another form. You're right it's crappy coding, and once more underlines that jurisdictions are putting that most key democratic of activities in the hands of people of dubious capability.

Re:Explanation?

[nospam007]

""Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."" ...or witchcraft.

Re:Explanation?

[mark72005]

This.

It's a quality control issue with whatever Mickey Mouse company wrote this software.

The state board of elections also bears the accountability for this, in my opinion, for not thoroughly doing acceptance testing on the platform before rolling it out.

Software will always have defects. It's everyone's job to catch it.

Re:Explanation?

[radtea]

an explanation?

Yeah, this is pretty much the Chebacca defense: say something completely incoherent and totally unrelated to the issue, which is that voting systems should avoid any preferencing of candidates, and call it an "explanation" and hope that incredibly stupid people will repeat your claim by rote, as has happened with this story.

Electronic voting systems have the ability to be less biased than paper voting systems by, for example, randomizing the candidates list for each voter, to reduce any name-ordering bias.

Too bad the purpose of electronic voting has never been to do anything other than make it easier to corrupt the electoral process.

I voted in a local election last night that used paper ballots and electronic vote counting. This seems to me to be the optimal division of labour between material and electronic systems: robust, easily recountable, and generating fast returns (the first polls were reporting less than an hour after they closed, the election was called less than two hours after.)

Now on a totally unrelated note, go buy this book and be part of the future: http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Death-collection-stories-people/dp/0982167121

Re:Explanation?

[gilleain]

How many times do people have to be told? SHE IS NOT A WITCH!!1!

She's you, she's nothing you've ever seen....

Re:Explanation?

[formfeed]

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible

If incompetence and sloppy design work in your favor it is exactly that: "evil or a conspiracy".
That's how most gender or minority discrimination usually works. Incompetence and a attitude of not-thinking/ not-caring is what protects the status quo. I've seen it in job applications - and also your defense "just a mistake".

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

3) doing your actions on button up and not button down help a lot too

Oh and watch for debounce with physical buttons/touch screens...

Re:Explanation?

[careysub]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

The problem is likely some poor interface design....

Most likely this is the reason .... but it does not matter why the voting system is corrupted - it is just as corrupted. Any election with these machines (until the problem has been corrected, and confirmed by auditing them all) is invalid. Of course even the Supreme Court is willing to certify invalid elections. If the election system corruption were only restricted to the voting machines...

Re:Explanation?

[rokstar]

Doesn't seem to be too hard in in Afghanistan. Several thousand votes cast by several hundred people. Not saying i disagree mind you, its better just not bulletproof.

Re:Explanation?

[Dishevel]

You are almost correct.

The UI should assume the voter is an idiot and use that to invalidate the votes of as many of them as possible. Only after carefully checking your ballot and making sure to check the count my vote box and to uncheck the invalidate my ass box should any votes be counted.

Re:Explanation?

[LWATCDR]

Actually the solution is easier than those.
Change select on down to select on up. Don't go to the next screen until you lift your finger.

Re:Explanation?

[Sir_Lewk]

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

Who cares why it's fucked up, all that matters is that it is very very fucked up.

Re:Explanation?

[mdielmann]

This is the type of attitude that leads to these problems in the first place.
"Well, the nut holding the brake line in place wasn't completely tightened. But it's only a small piece, so it's not a big deal."
"I forgot to put the oil drain nut back on your car when I changed the oil, and sure, it seized your engine, but it's only a small piece, so no big deal."
"He forgot to check if the gun was unloaded before cleaning it, but it was only a tiny bullet. No biggie."
This is a small, easy feature. If you can't catch those most basic of errors, what monsters are lurking where we can't see them?

Re:Explanation?

[necro81]

In other words: "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity" And, in this case, I'd say that the stupidity lies with the machine vendor, not with the people using it. For voting machines, I'd say they need to be built to many of the same standards as medical devices. In medical devices, you need to build as many mitigations as possible into a device to guard against "reasonably foreseeable misuse." Relying on instructions and warnings in the user's manual is an unreliable mitigation.

If the jurisdiction and the vendor want people to use and accept their machines, they need to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Re:Explanation?

[pz]

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible if people bother to read. And yes it is so the type of UI problem that I would expect in any program like this.

Yes on number one (no conspiracy) and No on number two (not a design flaw).

EGAD this is a serious design flaw. IN A VOTING MACHINE NO LESS! If UI errors like that are acceptable, would you want the same people writing code that runs, say, radiation therapy machines for cancer treatment? It's OK for the user to hit Engage Maximum Dosage by accident since they left their index finger on Use English too long? It's the user's fault?

I didn't think so.

So if it isn't an acceptable UI error, or one that the user should be blamed for, in a life-or-death medical situation, why is it acceptable in a voting machine that will determine the outcome of an election?

(And, actually, given that most voters will be speaking English, I'm not so certain about there being no conspiracy.)

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be worse than that. I remember one election where two people were running for office. The screen was split 50/50 for the two people. To choose the republican person you had to press the button directly in the center. To choose the democratic pressing anywhere else on the whole monitor worked. For either side. If you press the screen on the republican side but not on the button, it choose the democratic person. I pointed it out the the people 'over seeing' the voting. They were very annoyed that I pointed it out. The democratic overseer said well why would anyone vote republican. I was quickly escorted out of the voting place. They made sure that I did not speak to any other person or reporter. That election year, my district went 97% democratic. I wonder why.

Re:Explanation?

[Rob the Bold]

sounds like it's not a "default" per se, i bet something isn't being cleared from the register after selection so the next menu has a persistence of touch location. shitty embedded UI programming, i would guess that rather than being even driven the UI cycles through an input loop that looks like an old basic getkey x loop, (except gettouch x,y) and fails to clear x and y after selecting a language and proceeding to the voting menu

Looks like a Diebold voting machine, in which case it's shitty windows UI programming.

But embedded or not, it still looks shitty. When the person demonstrating the practice of holding down "English" button, the screen switches to the ballot without the finger being lifted off "English". Now the finger is resting on a candidate's name and selecting that candidate and the box gets checked. I can't see why the UI should assume that the user has made a selection on until he lifts his finger in the first place.

Perhaps the person's finger is jittery, and bouncing up and down on the touchscreen. But it's not a difficult matter to "debounce" the input in software. The user hasn't made a selection unless the screen has been touched for a minimum period of time and not touched for a minimum period after that. You'd need to tune the times a little just to make sure the screen didn't appear too unresponsive. You should alter the appearance of the button when pressed vs, depressed an possibly use sound as well. I did this when I was developing the (never produced) Linux version of the iVotronic for ES&S. It just seemed like the reasonable way to code the interface.

Re:Explanation?

[Endlisnis]

Are you kidding? "simple UI issue"? Yes, the *source* of the issue is a simple mistake (we think), but the result is a bias towards certain candidates. This is not the type of UI problem I would expect in any program like this. The types of problem I would expect are: "The fonts are hard to read" or "Colour-blind people can't read this". Any issue that causes a voting bias is not something I expect. The order of candidates should be randomized for each vote anyway, that way you avoid problems with people just picking the first/last candidate (especially if they are not familiar or don't recognize any names). That would have avoided this problem almost entirely.

Re:Explanation?

[xaxa]

Someone with shaky fingers (for whatever reason) could make multiple presses. These people probably avoid computers normally, but must be catered to if they have to use an electronic voting machine.

What might be better is avoiding touch screens completely. Instead, make sure all selection options are in a vertical line, and provide a rotatable drum and a button. Rotating the drum changes which option is selected, pressing the button selects it. (Inspired by a French train ticket machine I remember, which arranges options in a ring and has a disc (the silver+green thing) to rotate and push.)

Re:Explanation?

[Doc Ruby]

When incompetence favors one party, and isn't fixed, then there's usually more than just the initial incompetence at work.

"Let it happen on purpose" is an excellent way to get what you want without collecting the blame for it.

Re:Explanation?

[LWATCDR]

It should be fixed. Is it that terrible an error? I don't think so because it is so noticeable.
Also the other errors that must happen for it to have any effect is HUGE.
For the wrong vote to be cast these are the errors that must happen.
1. You must hold down the button too long on the language selection.
2. You must then NOT pick a candidate or decide that the computer knows best and leave the miss selection.
3. You must not check the paper ballot that it prints with your actual vote.

It really should be fixed. That is not in doubt. Is it that big of an error? Only because it is causing people to distrust the system. It is so easy for the voter to catch and it is showing up in the early voting so hopefully everybody will double check their ballot. Which they should do because they may have made a mistake and hit the wrong person even without this glitch!

Re:Explanation?

[LWATCDR]

A timeout like a key dedbounce will work. Also remember that when you actually cast a vote you pick the candidate and then hit next. Picking the wrong candidate isn't that big of a deal since you can change it before you hit the next button.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, FUCKING TEST THE THING PROPERLY BEFORE FIELD USE!!!!!!!

How hard is it to QA a damn "multiple choice" software and UI ?

Things like this make me SO angry because it's evidence that someone somewhere is taking huge amounts of money (like most government contractors) and not really putting that money to use other than lining someone's pockets. I can picture it now. $1 million price tag, $10,000 paid to some low cost worker in India to actually develope the voting machine.

Re:Explanation?

[andyring]

It's interesting though that when we see these sorts of things happening, take notice. FAR, FAR more often the "error" is skewed towards Democrats. There are reports from North Carolina of similar shenanigans where someone voted Rep and it checked Dem.

Here in Nebraska, we use good 'ol fashioned paper ballots and No. 2 pencils. That's awfully hard to screw up. Honestly, until Florida 2000, I truly had no idea that any other system existed.

Re:Explanation?

[Kierthos]

But I've never seen a witch.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wanted to rig an election, and knew that 90% of the voting population's first language was English, putting the candidate you wanted to win "under" the English selection button, and programming in this UI "error" would be a very, very smart way to do it.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well actually - it sounds like buttons can be triggered on "mouse down" _or_ "mouse up" . If they simply made them all hilight on mouse down, and trigger on mouse up - like most other computers, this would not be a problem.

Re:Explanation?

[Enigma2175]

I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.

The article only quoted one person, Joyce Ferrara. She said that her ballot had the problem, as well as that of her husband and "several other voters". if Ms. Ferrara voted in Spanish, it is not unreasonable to assume that her husband may have also voted in Spanish and if she is a Spanish speaker the people she chatted with after voting may have also been Spanish speakers. It is not a representative sample of voters, it is one woman and her acquaintances. Las Vegas is about 30% latino, running into other people at the polls who also are voting in Spanish does not seem to be a huge stretch.

The interface design is terrible but is it malicious? Probably not.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The details sound like the touch screens are the issue.

When a person presses "English", if their finger does not immediately move off the screen then it registers a selection for Reid. If you pick "Spanish" it registers for Angle. (Because those names are in the same physical space as the language selection buttons.)

Brilliant system, I'll stick with paper thank you very much.

Re:Explanation?

[Cro Magnon]

But I've seen myself everytime I look in a mirror. If she's "me", she's certainly not "nothing I've ever seen".

I think she's better off being a witch. :P

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

That should not happen. The previous screen should only count the language (or whatever it is) as selected after the finger has been lifted, not in the moment it started to press. Your solution (1) is pretty close, but instead of an intermediate screen, just display the element in inverse/pressed/hilighted until release.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just wait for the finger to be removed from the screen before registering a new selection.

Re:Explanation?

[CraftyJack]

Also it's hard to rig an election when you have several thousand pounds of paper laying around.

Boss Tweed's grave just chuckled.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, it should be randomising the order of the candidates each time they're displayed. This avoids any bias voters may have towards the first item on a list - and it would also solve (or at least ameliorate) this particular problem.

Re:Explanation?

[Shotgun]

In fact, the voting machine should NEVER have any candidates name. The ballot should be a list of offices, and require the voter to correctly spell the candidates fully registered name. If you don't know enough about the candidates to correctly spell their name, you should not be allowed to vote (with special exceptions for qualified handicaps like blindness or dyslexia).

Life is not a multiple choice test. Voting should not be.

Re:Explanation?

[T.E.D.]

Further suppose that the company that makes the voting machines happens to have Nevada roots...

Also note that if you read the story, it is the Republican you get if you hold down on English too long. Presumably even in Nevada that is the more likely scenario. Nice deal when you can have a bug in your favor and complain about it too...

Re:Explanation?

[virtualXTC]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

.... Never (and always) are strong superlatives that one would be wise to avoid.

Re:Explanation?

[wings]

I can see it now, this being marketed as a speed voting 'feature':

Announcer: Tired of voting taking so much of your time? All that tedious 'select a candidate for a race and hit Next'? With new the new Vote-0-Matic 'Speed Voting (tm)' feature just press and hold and the 'best' candidate for your language will automatically be selected and proceed to the next screen. Voting for the whole ballot is fast, easy, and just one-click!

Re:Explanation?

[geekoid]

You are correct, OTOH, lets maintain a semblance of rational thinking. In this case it seems pretty clear it's bad design in the software.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ballot should be a list of offices, and require the voter to correctly spell the candidates fully registered name. If you don't know enough about the candidates to correctly spell their name, you should not be allowed to vote

What a stunningly stupid idea.

But, hey, you should be free to put forth stupid idea like everyone else and suggest we rewrite the democratic process to suit you.

Fuckwit.

Re:Explanation?

[geekoid]

NO it's not. It's incompetency, no matter whose favor it's in.
You need to look at the individual cases, in this case it's clearly a mistake. If it was malice why would it happen to BOTH parties? It happens regular of language selected.

Re:Explanation?

[Remus Shepherd]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

That's just what the openly malicious want you to think.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these people selected "Spanish"?

I'm as white as it gets and I select "Spanish" in the grocery store on the self checkouts. Why not? Maybe I just like to fuck with people around me.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be unconstitutional.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totaally agree. I can't beleive no one else raised that as a main issue.

Re:Explanation?

[Kijori]

Whether something is down to incompetence, evil or conspiracy is a question of motive. Whether something is discriminatory is a question of result. Someone can discriminate because they are prejudiced, but they can also discriminate through a mistake if they don't realise that something will indirectly create a barrier to entry for a certain group. Equally, in this case the UI error could be a mistake or it could be a matter of evil or conspiracy, but the result of an action can't affect the motive for it.

Re:Explanation?

[BeanThere]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

And this is true because? People repeat it a lot?

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those installers are malice, not incompetence.

Re:Explanation?

[houghi]

People are conditioned like Pavlov dogs to press any button several times for it to 'stick'. This works both for computers and for elevators. No sloppy coding (design is something different) with paper.

Re:Explanation?

[eastlight_jim]

Maybe I'm being a bit old fashioned about this but surely the best solution is to use pen and paper!

Re:Explanation?

[tobiah]

Exactly, this gets to the heart of the matter and really should go into the guidelines. We hired a guy for our medical device design to help come up with software interface- and hardware unit tests. He treated the machine like a deranged monkey for months, which led to it being Much closer to idiot-proof than it was.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... thats malice.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The order of ballots are typically random - as in chosen out of a hat or some other random ordering scheme that all of the candidates participating agree to because statistically speaking the person in spot number 1 ALWAYS gets more votes by virtue of being at the top of the list - though in america I assume people actually go to vote because they want to not because they have to reducing the prevalence of the #1 bump.

It just so happens that in this case, spot number 1 might not be the best spot; spots 2 and 3 (or whatever is under the most prevalent language option in any one region) happens to be the "lucky" spot.

No conspiracy but the one created by sensationalism.

Re:Explanation?

[wvmarle]

Very bad interface design it is indeed. Especially for something like voting machines, where nothing should be left to chance, which should work reliably and predictably under all circumstances, and should be clear to operate for even the greatest noob.

Lingering "too long" when selecting a language? Is the system not designed to react to "touch release" instead of "touch press"? Or how about a 1-2 second delay after one button is made before the next can be registered, if the next is a new screen?

Maybe next time they should talk to the people from Apple or so... if anything they do know about simple and clear user interface design...

Re:Explanation?

[formfeed]

Whether something is down to incompetence, evil or conspiracy is a question of motive. Whether something is discriminatory is a question of result. Someone can discriminate because they are prejudiced, but they can also discriminate through a mistake if they don't realise that something will indirectly create a barrier to entry for a certain group. Equally, in this case the UI error could be a mistake or it could be a matter of evil or conspiracy, but the result of an action can't affect the motive for it.

Agree, if you look at individuals. One can't assign an evil motive to mistakes or plain sloppiness.
I don't agree if you look at it on a system level. There you can assign a motive.

Example: TV news censorship. There might not be an individual reporter deciding to suppress certain news, but the system is setup, so certain news "sell" and certain news don't make it. If this benefits a group that doesn't want some of the news reported (and finances TV stations), than I don't think one should simply describe this as "lucky coincidence".

Basically, a group can act as if there were a single person with a motive behind it, even if all of the group members just act without their intentions being clear to themselves. In these cases I would say that the group has a motive. The motive is an (emerging) property of the group.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could have something to do with the SEIU being the union of the voting machine technicians in that area... Coincidence? hah.

Re:Explanation?

[Kijori]

I don't agree if you look at it on a system level. There you can assign a motive.

Example: TV news censorship. There might not be an individual reporter deciding to suppress certain news, but the system is setup, so certain news "sell" and certain news don't make it. If this benefits a group that doesn't want some of the news reported (and finances TV stations), than I don't think one should simply describe this as "lucky coincidence".

Basically, a group can act as if there were a single person with a motive behind it, even if all of the group members just act without their intentions being clear to themselves. In these cases I would say that the group has a motive. The motive is an (emerging) property of the group.

Surely this is still a question of result rather than cause? No matter how strange or unlikely the results I don't see that you can do more than infer that there is a strong possibility that there is a particular reason for it. Saying that the fact that news is censored shows that there is a deliberate bias is, I think, too strong; if it were established that there was deliberate censorship and that the censorship was biased then the statement would be true - but then it would beg the question.

The idea that a group can have an emergent motive is quite tempting. But I think that this is at least in part because many groups do, in fact, have a guiding purpose, so the idea seems to hold; few would disagree if you tried to say that a company is motivated by increasing its profit margin. But these cases are an illusion, since they do not show any emergent motive, only a reason that motivated the group's inception. When you apply the idea more widely the results are less acceptable: America is motivated by a desire to increase the divide between the rich and the poor; the EU is motivated by a desire to create more bureaucracy; Walmart is motivated by a desire to bankrupt small shopkeepers. In each case the group exists in a way that makes the outcome a certainty - it "act[s] as if there were a single person with a motive behind it" - but to say that it is therefore acting with a desire to cause that outcome is to advocate a definition of the word "motive" that requires no actual intent.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The candidate's location on the screen (or ballot) should also be randomized. Being on the top of the list helps.

FAIL!

[drenehtsral]

Yet another electronic voting snafu. *sigh*

Figures

[Archangel Michael]

Must be part of the republican conspiracy to steal elections.

Oh wait! Harry Reid is a (D)... so that is okay. Never mind. /sarcasm

(D) and (R) are both corrupt and beyond rehabilitation.

As for the problem: Why have a "default choice"? Sounds like just poor programming.

Re:Figures

[Mongoose Disciple]

Must be part of the republican conspiracy to steal elections.

Oh wait! Harry Reid is a (D)... so that is okay. Never mind. /sarcasm

Presumably more people in Nevada speak English than Spanish, so in that case you'd have been right the first time.

That being said, I think this issue is more about incompetence than conspiracy. Just like the candidates!

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have a "default choice"? Sounds like just poor programming.

Exactly, Whatever happened to just punching out a chad so the default is no one?

Re:Figures

[Sique]

What happened to an empty ballot and a pen to mark the choosen candidate?

Re:Figures

[gmuslera]

Dont attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity

Re:Figures

[m509272]

While that assumption may or may not be true, what is the percentage of people that vote that are Spanish speaking?

Re:Figures

[mark72005]

in Nevada you don't have to identify yourself with a license or anything. You can use, as in most states (dubiously), a utility bill with your name and address, a bank statement, etc.

So... there's really only very weak security around verifying of voter identities.

Re:Figures

[matt_gaia]

It's a little harder to rig those, having the paper trail and all.

Re:Figures

[geekoid]

There is no default choice. The selection screen is right after the language screen. If you press English and linger too long, it also selects what ever is at the position when the next screen shows up.

This is a 'young tester' type of bug. Any tester whose is comfortable and used to the type of technology won't see it. As soon as an old person whose finger lingers, it shows up.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering all the people I have met over my life, and the history of this country, I would be shocked if there was an election in the U.S.A. that didn't have fraud in it.

The U.S.A. was, and is, settled with the criminals and deviants of the world and goes to great lengths to preserve the most sociopathic genetic strains.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

The Florida 2000 fiasco?

Re:Figures

[careysub]

in Nevada you don't have to identify yourself with a license or anything. You can use, as in most states (dubiously), a utility bill with your name and address, a bank statement, etc. So... there's really only very weak security around verifying of voter identities.

Most (all?) places require the voter to sign a log of some sort - making auditing the election possible to prove fraud.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe statistically it would give an unfair advantage through people not being careful or not understanding the interface well.

Re:Figures

[mark72005]

(I forgot to mention, in this state you can simply have someone else "vouch" for you.)

But, how does signing a log allow auditing to prove fraud? All it proves is that someone claimed to be that person.

Re:Figures

[amRadioHed]

About ~30% of the population of Vegas is Latino, and obviously a lot of them prefer to use English. That being the case it seems highly unlikely that Spanish speakers would be the majority of voters.

Re:Figures

[Archangel Michael]

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/machine-91656-screen-voter.html

More of the same. If this was (R) the Dems would be screaming "Conspiracy" and blaming Diebold (or whatever its name is now).

Seriously, it isn't a conspiracy, it is poor programming and it doesn't favor anyone.

The problem is trying to dumb down voting to that idiots can make stupid choices like "Voting straight party line". I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ... who thought that was a good idea?

Re:Figures

[h4rr4r]

No this is an idiot programmer type of bug. Selections in a touch screen environment should occur on "mouse up" not "mouse down".

Re:Figures

[Sique]

Damn!

Re:Figures

[Jay L]

What happened to an empty ballot and a pen to mark the choosen candidate?

Florida.

Re:Figures

[tomkost]

They are just "helping" the voters out. We all know the white English speaking people want to vote R and the darker Spanish speaking people all want to vote D, right???? /sarcasm That's what you would think if you listen to the mindless drivel called news in this country.

Re:Figures

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, evidence is coming out that it MIGHT be a conspiracy, with SEIU members rigging ballot stations for Reid.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Voting-machines-in-Clark-County-Nevada-automatically-checking-Harry-Reids-name-Voting-machine-technicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

If you look at the inbreeding of politics (Rory Reid, Clark County Commissioner) it is starting to look a lot like North Korea in places.

Damn if politics makes me sick to my stomach. If the government didn't have this much control over people's lives, there would be no point in this kind of behavior. Idiots (D) and (R) people have no real clue how close we are to tyranny.

If you can vote in the U.S., demand a fix

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people write to Congress and let them know in clear, polite, firm words that this sort of thing is unacceptable, it will get fixed. Unfortunately, human tendency seems to be to rant about the things that are really infuriating, or just muddle through somehow if something's merely a minor annoyance. The former is easily dismissed by those not emotionally vested in the topic in question as overreaction. The latter is pretty much the poster child for silent assent.

Have you written to your senators and representative lately? I have.

QA FTW

[RayFinkle2]

QA FTW

Abstaining creates fraud.

[AnonymousClown]

Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.

Whoa!

Sometimes, when I don't like any candidate for a particular office, I abstain and thinking, maybe naively, that it will be noticed in the count - 20,000 votes cast but only 19,999 for the office of [whatever] . Selecting someone by default goes against my choice and I would consider that to be fraud. Period.

Re:Abstaining creates fraud.

[rickb928]

I didn't see in TFA if there was in fact a box for 'none of the above'.

It wouldn't surprise me that there not only isn't one, but that once you select a box, you must select at least ONE.

You still can't make this stuff up. Electonic voting is even less evolved than the TI-99/4A.

Well, actually, the 99/4A was pretty slick. E-voting is as evolved as, well, crayons on Jell-O.

Re:Abstaining creates fraud.

[Alsee]

The article was lousy. There was no "default" candidate being set. It correctly starts out as a blank ballot. The issue is that if your finger is still lying on the touch screen when the ballot comes up it will instantly trigger whatever candidate your finger happens to be touching. It happens so fast that the voter never saw the blank ballot. It looks as if the candidate came up pre-selected. You can change that mistaken selection before casting the ballot.

There is no fraud, nothing remotely resembling fraud. They definitely do need to clean up that touchscreen user interface. Confusing or unexpected behavior on a voting machine is a Very Bad Thing. Voting machine programmers must make extra special efforts to deal with potentially sloppy input from inexperienced users.

-

Re:Abstaining creates fraud.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Nevada, there's an explicit choice for "None of these candidates".

Typo in summary

[operagost]

By way of explanation???, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Whitey's name is checked by default

FTFY

My Favorite Line in the Article:

[RobotRunAmok]

(Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry) Lomax said voters need to have faith in the system.

Pure gold!

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[SatanicPuppy]

The real irony of it is that the system the Nevada Gaming Board has for checking slot machines, is the exact same system I'd like to see for electronic voting machines.

You can see which one they value.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[noidentity]

(Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry) Lomax said voters need to have faith in the system.

Pure gold!

Hey, it works for the FDIC.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[Anonymous Coward]

The real irony of it is that the system the Nevada Gaming Board has for checking slot machines, is the exact same system I'd like to see for electronic voting machines.

You can see which one they value.

The Gaming Board can also generate additional revenue based on the expected preference;

IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATE
  [SHARRON ANGLE]
PLEASE DEPOSIT ADDITIONAL
  [$40.00]

PRESS [HERE] TO VOTE FOR HARRY REID
OR WAIT 10, 9, 8, ... SECONDS.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, we all need to have faith in the system because it can't actually stand up to a rigorous inquiry.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[necro81]

An important difference with the FDIC, however, is their track record. Since going into effect during the great depression, no depositor in a failed bank has ever lost money (within the FDIC limit). And if the FDIC ever didn't have enough funds to cover depositors, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would believe that the US Treasury wouldn't step in and provide the necessary funds.

It is not unreasonable to have faith in a system that has demonstrated it is worthy of trust. Electronic voting, so far, hasn't earned anyone's trust. On the contrary, it seems the more anyone hears about it, the less faith they have in that system.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[noidentity]

Yes, the US monetary system is a good example of how to avoid catastrophe. In a few years, it'll be an even better example!

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[geekoid]

IF by 'they' you mean the people who make the voting machines then yes.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[necro81]

The FDIC is not the US Monetary system. They are not the US Treasury; they do not set monetary policy; they do not set tax policy; they do not set federal budget policy; they do not regulate Wall Street. If you don't know the difference, or why the difference matters, then I suggest you keep your sarcasm in check and educate yourself.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[the_womble]

Slot machines clearly a are a lot more important: they need to be trusted to make money.

I am not saying I endorse that view: its what is implied by the people who choose to check one more thoroughly than the other.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? After all they have faith in the giant spaghetti monster and try to instill that faith in the rest of the US. Why shouldn't they have blind faith in the magic voting contraptions The Lord hath placed in front of their noses?

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[Anonymous Coward]

We should always have faith in our leaders.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[noidentity]

Noted. But as you said, the US Treasury will back them up should they fail. And the very existence causes people to exercise little discretion where they deposit their money, thus removing a big check on what risks banks take, since they'll be backed regardless. You can't separate the FDIC from the rest.

Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whichever head you vote for it's still the same hydra...

Re:Does it really matter?

[Ipeunipig]

Not if you vote for the one in the middle. The others just grow back.

Re:Does it really matter?

[im_thatoneguy]

Maybe on a handful of issues. There are pretty significant differences between Reid and Angle's legislative agendas.

Fuck Electronic Voting Machines

[locallyunscene]

Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.

Re:Fuck Electronic Voting Machines

[DaHat]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it was the Republicans were the ones who misspelled the name of Rich Whitney on some machines?

Oh right... this is /.

Re:Fuck Electronic Voting Machines

[orthancstone]

If Democrats are pulling this

Let's be truly honest with ourselves here: If anyone's fucking these machines up, its the companies...not some local polling person affiliated with a party.

Re:Fuck Electronic Voting Machines

[Attila Dimedici]

Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.

You do know that the incident you are referring to occured in Illinois? And that the overwhelmng majority of Illinois elected officials are Democrats? In particular, the state board of elections is dominated by Democrats.

WTF?

[richg74]

the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.

This is so screwed up it's not even wrong. Why on earth should there be any default selection on the ballot? And why should the language have anything to do with it? It sounds like Clark County needs some new election officials, after they finish tarring and feathering the current ones.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA

Re:WTF?

[mjwalshe]

you forgot surcharging them and baring from public office

You insensitive clod

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a feature of a proactive friendly UI.

Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.
They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.
This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen.
In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Cwix]

Thanks.. I kinda figured it had to be an error. I bet Harry Reids name shows up where "Spanish" was and Sharron Angles name shows up where "English" was.

This is a non story.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[baomike]

I feel overly entertained

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[AnonymousClown]

They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen. In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

That's just what they want you to think! When rigging elections, do you honestly think that there's a code block that started with:

"/* Begin election rigging code here */"

They want it to look like it's just a "coding error" in case they get caught and then they can say "Oppsie! Our bad!".

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[electron sponge]

In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

That's what **THEY** want you to believe. I for one will only vote after I have covered myself in aluminum foil from head to toe. It's the only way to stop the evil Fox News/MSNBC mind control rays.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[mikvo]

Actually, even from reading the summary I assumed it was a coding error. Isn't that exactly the point, though? If this kind of trivial error gets through testing so easily, how can we have any confidence that more significant and impactful errors aren't slipping through?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[ArcherB]

Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!

This is the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. These are two entirely different entities.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[91degrees]

This is a non story.

Wouldn't say that exactly. Nevada using buggy voting machines that are prejudced towards a candidate is pretty bad. Suggestions of deliberate fraud are a little sensationalist though.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Hatta]

They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.

That's not the only thing wrong here. A properly designed electronic voting machine will randomize the names of the candidates to avoid giving any one of them an advantage from being on the top of the list. If this voting machine had done this, the double picking errors would be random and not affect the result of the election. That the names are not randomized is a much, much bigger flaw in this voting machine than the double picking bug described here.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[commodore64_love]

NOT a nonstory.

It's the same kind of error ("I didn't vote for that guy, but it said I did") (or "I couldn't get it to accept my vote") that led to the whole hanging chad mess in 2000 and angry voters.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[noidentity]

This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen.

If they did it based on touch begin, this wouldn't have occurred, since it sounds like a single touch causes TWO "clicks". So apparently the code is really the idiotic "if finger currently touching screen inside boundary of button, click button".

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[zotz]

"Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.
They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.
This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen."

Perhaps, but it is a coding error in a production system of some importance right? Should this have not been dealt with before going live? To me, this sort of error would invalidate an election. Not a good thing.

all the best,

drew

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[oji-sama]

That there's coding error in a voting system is not a non story. Especially as it is something that should have been found in testing. This doesn't seem like fraud, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important. Personally I would like to know if you can still vote empty after selecting a candidate.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

Interesting idea but I wouldn't say that is a design flaw.

Paper ballots are not randomized and in my state they send out copies of the ballot so you can study them and see who is running.

Suppose I did study the ballot sent to me and then I am presented with one that doesn't match?
I am allowed to take may study ballot in with me and for some people a randomized ballot could be more confusing.
A non-randomized ballot is no worse then a traditional paper ballot.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

I would say it is of very little importance. It doesn't vote for you unless you accept the default that is selected. Now if it then flipped automatically to the next screen then yes that would be a major problem. I do not think that it is too much to expect that people will read actual ballot.
Not a good thing but not a conspiracy or the nightmare that people are making it out to be.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[jayme0227]

I think your argument could have some merit, although it would require more information to figure out if this was being rigged and for whom. If we accept the argument that someone is trying to rig the election, then it comes down to expected responses for the majority of voters. If the first question's expected response for the majority of voters is "English," then the election would be rigged in favor of Angle. If the expectation is Spanish, then the election would be rigged in favor of Reid. Since Hispanics make up only 30% of the population, and it is unlikely that non-Hispanics would prefer the Spanish language option, it actually seems more likely that the election would be rigged in favor of Angle.

The more likely explanation, however, is that they are both listed in alphabetical order and it is just a poor coding job. Hanlon's Razor and all.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Hatta]

Paper ballots are not randomized

That is a design flaw. Whoever decides which candidate goes on top of the ballot has a lot of influence over the election.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

And what about problem that will cause with sending out ballots ahead of time?

And if a voter is influenced by whose name is first then frankly their is little hope for them at all.
Maybe we should make the first selection always Iam Tostupidtovote.
Anyone that picks that you just toss their ballot.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Rob the Bold]

That's not the only thing wrong here. A properly designed electronic voting machine will randomize the names of the candidates to avoid giving any one of them an advantage from being on the top of the list. If this voting machine had done this, the double picking errors would be random and not affect the result of the election. That the names are not randomized is a much, much bigger flaw in this voting machine than the double picking bug described here.

I'd say that randomizing the list of candidates is a good idea, too. It would somewhat avoid the tendency of favoring a candidate whose name was in some sweet spot in the list due to the ordering of names. However, this should be a political decision, not something decided by the coder of the machine. The coder should merely give the election board the option of randomizing the order of the ballot, either globally or per ballot. But the coder should not force the user to do it this way. There could be perfectly valid reasons not to randomize the order. For one, you could have a long list of candidates. Finding the one you want in a long unsorted list could be frustrating and time consuming.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Hatta]

The tendency to favor the first option in a list is inherent. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Obviously a staunch Obama voter isn't going to vote for McCain just because he's on the top of a list, but statistically there's a significant effect.

On the other hand being able to understand the difference between an example ballot and an actual ballot that's randomized is tightly linked to intelligence. The "too stupid to vote" option should be applied to anyone who can't figure that out.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[epine]

The more likely explanation, however, is that they are both listed in alphabetical order and it is just a poor coding job. Hanlon's Razor and all.

This would be true in a non-iterated system, but as soon as your nefarious adversary hears you declaring this with sincerity, it potentially becomes non-true in the next iteration, unless this is already the next iteration, it which case it might already be true.

Voting systems need to be built to standards at least as high as the judiciary, where perception of bias is considered almost as bad as bias itself.

Electronic voting designs should be subject to the same scrutiny that NIST applied in selecting AES or the next secure hash. Or is democracy not actually worth the effort? Funny how when America goes around exporting freedom, the customer response is tepid.

Hanlon's razor needs to be revised to read "Never attribute to malice in the first instance that which is adequately explained by stupidity." As Bush once tried to say "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

Is there any adequate explanation for trusting democracy to opaque code? I think not.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

Yea whatever... you have decided in your mind that random ballot is a requirement and any objection is not valid. Sorry but I don't buy your logic that randomization which will lead to confusion is a requirement. It is an interesting idea I will give you that but I think it would lead to more unintended votes than the minor bias of being near the top.
The bias that is introduced by being near the top only effect selections where the selector has no strong preference is is making a selection in ignorance.
In those cases randomization can actually cause the selector more harm than an ordered list.
A none political example would be the list of browsers that the EU required. If you completely randomize the list an uneducated person could pick some highly incompatible, insecure, and buggy browser because it happens to be at the top of the list. Where as a list ordered by popularity would group IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera near the top. All of which are good choices.
Now in politics since it will be based on the majority that randomization will have little positive effect.
The Majority will still vote for the two prime candidates. The only effect may be to cause a lot of miss cast votes to happen and trow the election from one of the main candidates to the other.
So no I feel that the introduced error will be greater than any decrease in order bias.

 

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Arthur Grumbine]

This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen.

To keep it simpler, they could just move the Language Select buttons away from where the Candidate Select buttons will be.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[dwillden]

Slashdot uses a guide when writing summaries?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[X.25]

Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.
They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.
This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen.
In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!

Oooooooooooh, it is alright then.

You retard.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Shotgun]

How about not having any of the the candidates names on the ballot. Every vote is a write-in. The voter has to correctly spell the candidates name. Anyone so apathetic they can't be bothered to learn to spell the candidates name will be eliminated from the voter pool. No candidate will get a boost from any random factors.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Tsunayoshi]

Is there any adequate explanation for trusting democracy to opaque code?

My corporate overlords told me their machines were so good that they don't need paper trails, am I not supposed to believe them?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem of a candidate gaining an advantage by being at the top of the list is just as much of a problem in meatspace as in e-space.

And since candidates can cause a lot of legal trouble trying to claim that advantage, *shocker*, there are laws which mandate the order names appear, often alphabetically by something (name or political party).

So, randomizing the sequence of the names would not be "proper design", unless local laws allowed it *and* the electoral board was OK with it and checked everything out. And even then, you have a system where different voters could see different ballots, and you'd have a similar legal battle on the other side about one candidate not getting their "fair share" of being first in the list. Now you have to explain probability theory to everyone in such a way as to not have the practice thrown out as potentially unfair.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[moortak]

Yes, but the unintended votes of a randomized ballot don't favor one candidate. We know that the ballot order effect is present it has been well studied. www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/PoliticalProcess/ballotordereffects.pdf If you can sway an election by a few percent you can drastically increase the odds of a specific candidate winning. It opens a lovely avenue for corruption. A randomized ballot should at worst cause errors that overall favor no particular candidate and don't impact the outcome.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[BeanThere]

If only there were some kind of systematic method to uncover problems like this before putting a system in the real world. I suggest it could be called "testing".

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[cjb909]

What about the random factor of some candidates having names that are easier to spell?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

I don't agree. If the race is close enough the randomized data can cause all sorts of problems. I also believe that it will cause more harm than the tiny amount of bias that may be introduced. I think you and that study may suffer from the same problem as this software did. You are not looking at the unintended problems that your introduction of complexity would cause.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[PCM2]

That is a design flaw. Whoever decides which candidate goes on top of the ballot has a lot of influence over the election.

In my jurisdiction the candidates are listed alphabetically by last name. So I guess American fathers are guilty of massive election fraud.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[moortak]

The catch is that we know that there is a statistically significant difference in non-randomized ballots. We know that the person who picks that order suddenly has a way to sway the election by a few percent. Unless you can show a greater and candidate specific harm from a random ballot the safer course of action is random.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

That is just it. It isn't about protecting the candidate. It is about protecting the voters. Anything that causes any voter to miss vote needs to be eliminated. I really doubt that a significant percentage of voters just pick the first one on the list. However if you cause confusion by randomization your are trading the welfare of the voter for the welfare of the candidate.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Trogre]

Randomizing names seems like a good idea if you have a small number of candidates. But present a randomized list of fifty candidates to a person of average-or-lower intelligence and they may well give up in frustration and pick one, well, randomly.

I think sticking with alphabetical lists would be better in that case.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

He showed you evidence of that effect, and yet you continue to "doubt". Perhaps the one who is too dumb to vote is you?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[moortak]

If there are structural errors that can be directed to the benefit of one party or candidate at the expense of the other the risk of limited voter confusion doesn't matter. Any error relating to confusion from a randomized ballot should result in no change to the outcome. Even a small error from a nonrandom ballot order can easily shift the outcome of a close race, even in a large district where voter error would likely average out.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Hatta]

Introducing random error would be better than biasing the poll towards any specific candidate, unless you're going to mathematically handicap that candidate to counter the bias.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

I think this simple question will solve it for you.

Would you ever vote for someone because their name is first?

Ask as many people as you want and count how many say yes.

Now ask a large number of people if they think having the ballot in a different order than the sample ballot sent to them would could cause problems?

I promise you that if the race is close and if the sample ballot doesn't match what people see in the voting booth you will have a disaster of huge proportions.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[zotz]

Imagine if your paper ballot came pre-ticked and you had to erase the default if you did not like it.

While I agree that people should read, how many will cast a mistaken vote because of this? We do not know. Do we really think it will be zero?

all the best,

drew

Too sensitive touch screen: Troll of a summary!

[czmax]

From TFA: "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they choose their candidate."

It is interesting how the options work out; but the real issue here is a lousy hardware/software implementation. I wonder if any individual can control the layout well enough to purposefully take advantage of this. (Obviously the original submission implies such: but I doubt they were thinking about it vs just being a troll).

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting machine votes for you.

Both candidates will love that "feature"!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[MasterPatricko]

So in Capitalist America, you vote for voting machine? Sounds about right ...

FOX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..

Re:FOX?

[ArcherB]

Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..

This was the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The two are not necessarily related. For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?

Oh nevermind. Facts will not persuade you.

Re:FOX?

[Mongoose Disciple]

For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?

Ironically, the Simpsons itself provided a (joke) conspiracy theory about why this is the case a few years ago.

Re:FOX?

[Hatta]

For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?

Um, yes? First, it makes them money. Second, nothing in any of those shows advocate any positions which would cost them money. Third, it makes them lots and lots of money.

Re:FOX?

[VShael]

Could it have something to do with the fact that comedy shows don't really influence voters as much as a weeping Glen Beck might, or a rabid Bill O'Reilly? Because that would be my guess.

Re:FOX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, there really isn't a rightwing conspiracy here. Fox News is not a exercise in trying to deprogram liberals.

Come back to reality. Fox News fills a market niche: it's peasant-themed news-based entertainment for "the wrong kind of white people". No other TV station does this; before Fox News, you could only get that sort of thing on talk radio.

Murdoch thought "I want some of that money" and brought it to TV. Smart decision - but not a political one. It was all about the money. Supply and demand.

Other Fox products are aimed at other markets, and that's why they aren't rightwing at all. Murdoch really doesn't give a shit about your politics, he only wants your money. You can be a raving leftie or a loony libertarian, whatever, so long as you keep watching. Hence Family Guy, the Simpsons, 24, etc... If these had a rightwing message and/or were made by conservatives, then they would not attract so many viewers, hence there would be less money.

Re:FOX?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I forget exactly what the details were, but it's something along the lines that Fox runs up FCC fines on purpose with its offensive programming to funnel money... somewhere.

Re:FOX?

[DrVxD]

Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference

Obligatory FTFY...

Re:FOX?

[dcw3]

Could it have something to do with the fact that comedy shows don't really influence voters as much as a weeping Glen Beck might, or a rabid Bill O'Reilly? Because that would be my guess.

I'd wager that The Daily Show has more influence than those two together.

Disclaimer: I watch them all, because I like hearing from a diverse group when trying to form my own opinions.

Why do we need Spanish?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we need spanish voting machines?

Citizenship is requitred to vote, and English profiency is required for Citizenship.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[allawalla]

English proficiency is not required for citizenship, only that you pass a test, or were born here. There is no federal requirement that those born in the US speak english.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[mano.m]

Sadly, English proficiency is not required for citizenship, and the United States does not have an official language (some states do, but not the country as a whole).

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[Anonymous Coward]

RACIst

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[VShael]

and English profiency is required for Citizenship.

Wrong. And you should thank your lucky stars that knowledge of the actual Citizenship requirements isn't a requirement.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[cayenne8]

"English proficiency is not required for citizenship, only that you pass a test, or were born here. There is no federal requirement that those born in the US speak english."

Actually, if you were NOT born a citizen of the US, and you become one...on the test there IS a requirement to show a proficiency in English.

And even if this where the case...why only a choice of English or Spanish? That doesn't seem quite fair to Chinese, French, Swahili, Russian...etc speakers does it?

Come to think of it...other countries have an official language, why have we in the US not even officially passed laws declaring English as our official language.

Heck, imagine how much money the Fed govt. alone could save if we only had to print stuff in one language...English.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[CrimsonAvenger]

and English profiency is required for Citizenship.

Wrong. And you should thank your lucky stars that knowledge of the actual Citizenship requirements isn't a requirement.

Well, naturalized citizens must demonstrate a working knowledge of English. Except for those with some disability preventing same, and older people (who, presumably, have a harder time learning a new language).

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, English proficiency is not required for citizenship, and the United States does not have an official language (some states do, but not the country as a whole).

Hardly. Every single law in the US is drafted and enacted in English. Wanna try again?

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[Anonymous Coward]

English proficiency is not required for citizenship, only that you pass a test, or were born here. There is no federal requirement that those born in the US speak english.

Then the person can be treated as being illiterate.

And BTW English is capitalized.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if this where the case...why only a choice of English or Spanish? That doesn't seem quite fair to Chinese, French, Swahili, Russian...etc speakers does it?

Not enough speakers of those languages in the jurisdiction of the state of Nevada to make it a cost productive action, at least insofar as this county is concerned. Others may be different.

Spanish though, is likely to be spoken by a substantial portion of the population. Many of whom may have ancestors who had been residents of current US areas before there was a United States of America, not just before the US took control.

Ain't territorial expansion a bitch?

Come to think of it...other countries have an official language, why have we in the US not even officially passed laws declaring English as our official language.

Because it'd be pointless, and counter-productive. The cost of operating in other languages is because of a desire to serve the citizens, and your suggestion of one official language would have a price far beyond dollar value. One I'm not at all willing to pay.

Re:Why do we need Spanish?

[porges]

Why do we need spanish voting machines?

Citizenship is requitred to vote, and English profiency is required for Citizenship.

Sometimes, spelling flames are the way to go.

Re:OMFG TEH REPULIKINS IS TEH EBIL!

[Mongoose Disciple]

(I'm amazed this made Slashdot.)

But, being Slashdot, no one is amazed you didn't RTFA.

The Problem with Voting Machines

[bkmoore]

The problem with voting machines and ballots in general is they are operated by people and institutions who have a vested interest in the outcome of the election.

Re:The Problem with Voting Machines

[wonkavader]

That's one problem. Some others are:

a. The companies doing them are incompetent, and this is allowed because the people buying the machines are incompetent.

b. The companies doing them are trying to maximize profit, which is normal for a profit-oriented company, and an indicator that we should be buying these from a not-for-profit entity.

c. Our populace in under-educated on this, as on many things.

Harry Angle?

[digitaldc]

Seriously, we need to dump electronic voting and go back to the paper ballot with ink stained thumbs method. Far more reliable.

Re:Harry Angle?

[pclminion]

Ink-stained thumbs? Why should I have to turn over a fingerprint in order to vote?

Nothing make sense...

[geogob]

The actual story... the explanation... the summary... nothing makes sense here.

Only this obligatory reference does...

Doesn't NV have "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

[baomike]

I thought Nevada had a "none of the above" choice.

Re:Doesn't NV have "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

[formfeed]

And Eastern Germany had five parties to choose from.

Not a default candidate it is a quick screen updat

[gurps_npc]

They did not build in a default candidate on purpose.

What happens is that when you touch the screen to select "English" as your language, it immediately goes to the next screen where you select your candidate. But the old button that said "English" is very close to where the new button that votes for candidates appears.

So if you are slow to remove your finger from the "English" button, your finger is already on the 'vote for candidate button', resulting in what the slow voter thinks is a default vote.

This is:

1. A bad GUI design. Grade D- in my opinion for putting the touch buttons so close and keeping the touch time too short/sensitive.

2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?

3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?

is it based off the code from this one?

[Joe The Dragon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3A9rG022M

Ob. Homer!

[DarthVain]

DEFAULT! DEFAULT! DEFAULT!

Scientist: [resigned] Well, Homer, I guess you're the winner by default.

Homer: Default? Woo hoo! The two sweetest words in the English language: de-fault! De-fault! De-fault!

                        [assistant clubs him]

Re:Ob. Homer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand it, that was non-alcoholic champagne.

Re:Ob. Homer!

[geekoid]

"Where did you get that?"

Re:Ob. Homer!

[farnsworth]

Sent away.

Finally!

[f5hacka]

Finally we're one step closer to having our votes cast for us. The government knows what is best for us so clearly letting them choose who to vote for in our place will leave us all better off in the end.

Seriously?

[FatRichie]

If there handn't been a direct link to the news story (and I then read it), I would have completely written this off as another completely made up, forwarded email story.

The state of our voting infrastructure in this country is ridiculous. I wish I had a great idea how to fix everything, but until then, I'll just be a disgusted whiner like the majority of the masses.

The article summary is wrong.

[mosb1000]

By way of explanation???, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.

Ignoring the fact that the name was wrong, this is not the explanation given in the article. The article says that the problem is the voter lingering on the previously selected area for too long. Does anybody test these things before they use them? It also says they should have faith in the system. Honestly, why does anyone vote anymore?

Oh, now this is just wrong

[davev2.0]

There should NEVER be a default selection on an election ballot. If one decides not to cast a ballot in a race with a default selection, one ends up voting for someone one does not wish to vote for unless one specifically has the ability to de-select any and all candidates.

Re:Oh, now this is just wrong

[geekoid]

And there isn't. Read the article.

Always choose "default"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

When installing software, always choose "default (recommended)." This policy also applies to voting.

CNN is about to have a special about "default" candidates . . .

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[metrometro]

> Can't we get competent people to design these things?

That depends. Does your community pass every tax cut referendum on the local ballot? If so, then no, you can't get competent people to design these things.

Maybe Mozilla can build us a fucking ballot box.

Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not possible for Democrats to commit vote fraud.
Vote fraud can only be committed by Republicans, much in the same way that it's only possible for white males to be racist.

Nothing to see here.... move on.

Re:Unpossible

[nedlohs]

Because if I was going to commit voter fraud I'd arrange, in a county with 22% Hispanic/Latino for my guy to get accidentally selected when you pick Spanish, and for the opponent to get accidentally selected when you pick English.

Well I guess they are pretty stupid... They need to import some advisors from Chicago or New Jersey.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[feepness]

3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?

It is a government project after all...

Re:OMFG TEH REPULIKINS IS TEH EBIL!

[WrongSizeGlass]

But, being Slashdot, no one is amazed you didn't RTFA.

AC didn't even read the next line of the summary.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[VShael]

They don't test these machines for usability. You can't have the lowest bid, if you include things like proper QA and testing.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[The MAZZTer]

I would have the UI only select things on finger up instead of finger down, just like mouse-based UIs work. I would also have the candidates (and language options) displayed in randomly selected order on the ballot screen to mitigate any possible problems due to order or positioning based on the previous screen.

This should be ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... the decisive stroke in the successful candidacy of "None of the above".

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Hatta]

They did not build in a default candidate on purpose.

Are you sure of that? If you were coding a voting machine and wanted to influence elections, wouldn't you want your influence to look like a coding error? I'm aware of Hanlon's razor, but whether it's incompetence or malice is irrelevant really. That such errors are so easy to make is a great reason not to use electronic voting machines at all.

Two wrongs fail again

[zerosomething]

Nope, two wrongs still don't make a right. Try again.

Yeah, that's nice.

[apparently]

Voting machines are not supposed to have any information about the voter. This is known as Secret Ballot

Too bad the post you replied to was making a joke about the voter writing themselves in as a -- get this -- write-in candidate. So good job on the pedantry; hopefully your reading comprehension skills will someday come to match it.

Re:Yeah, that's nice.

[Crudely_Indecent]

Pardon me for not focusing on what you classify as humor. I've heard of people writing their own name onto a ballot. That isn't a foreign concept to me, nor is it funny (to me) in any way.

I was more interested in:

...automatically ... with the voters name and SSN pre-filled...

Something that no voting machine should ever have is the identity of the voter.

Vote tampering

[Anonymous Coward]

The vote is the only sacrement allowed a secular society. Tampering with a citizen's vote is treason-lite. Nothing less.

"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[Joce640k]

Riiiiight. Nobody ever noticed this during testing, got it.

Re:"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[orthancstone]

Because testing has never failed to identify user stupidity...

Re:"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[Imagix]

Have you ever done extensive software testing? Users always find novel ways to break things. More than once I've has the discussion with QA "But who in their right mind would ever..... yeah, it's a bug, we need to fix it." And then a week later the customer comes up with something that none of us thought of, and the same statement gets uttered. (Who in their right mind would leave their fat finger on the screen after selecting an item.....)

Re:"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[Joce640k]

These machines aren't running office suites with millions of variables and working on unknown sources of data.

They perform one function and follow a linear sequence of events.

Re:"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[Joce640k]

On complex software, sure ... but this is a fixed-function machine with a couple of input screens containing a bunch of checkboxes.

There's probably only a couple of dozen possible code paths in the user interface.

Re:"Not evil or a conspiracy or anything..."

[orthancstone]

So, you haven't worked with users before. Duly noted.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[dasdrewid]

When I was too young to vote (think 6 years old), my parents would take me to the polling place. They had a special "learning machine" setup that had different names (I guess a default name the company made for demos?) and different colored ballots. Funny enough, I never found those "butterfly ballots" confusing, even though I was 6 and too short to easily see. You just punched the hole that the arrow pointed at (and if you had to use the little poker to slide over form the arrow cause you couldn't see perfect, well, you did). It's seemed pretty simple to me. At 6. I thought it was a clever, efficient use of paper, not to mention no one could tell who you voted for until they ran it through the machines...

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Anonymous Coward]

2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?

I don't think that's fair to the tester. That may have been reported. Development may have considered it minor, or difficult to correct.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Rogerborg]

They did not build in a default candidate on purpose.

Hmm. This is such an egregious accident that it may cross the gulf from incompetence to malice.

No shuffling of the candidates? No finger-up before accepting a new input? Aren't these required reading at Voting Machine Academy?

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[TheGratefulNet]

Can't we get competent people to design these things?

welcome to the new economy, mate. its not about getting things right, its about getting it down the cheapest way possible. hiring people who are too inexperienced to know better (hint: younger ones are cheaper. overseas ones, cheaper yet).

we get what we pay for. when we disrespect our own working force, we all lose.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Nadaka]

It can not be intentional, everyone knows that Diebold promised to deliver republican victories.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?

[citation needed]

If the design were so horribly illegal, someone would have objected when they were published in news papers prior to election, no?
Or maybe we need to do more to educate voters than rounding them up at retirement homes and yelling "VOTE FOR 2" at them.

Speaking of illegal, we should all just stick to slashing tires.

No leaders: how tragic!

[Anonymous Coward]

The reliance on leaders is a vestige of feudalism. Real democracy should not have singular, empowered leaders. They inherently work against government "of the people." Power really, honestly, truly does corrupt. It's not just "a saying."

I say open source it, dude and let everyone have a say.

Why would they stop

[Anonymous Coward]

These sensationalism at the cost of accuracy is a great way to get click-throughs and hence revenue. Slashdot has every incentive to keep doing this.

People keep falling for it, and keep coming back for more.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[geekoid]

Properly open voting machines are fine.
However, this is a case of poor implementation. They need to turn off input after the language selection is made of a second or two, and toss up a please wait screen.

Its stupid, clearly not tested correctly, and needs to e resolved and shared. Based on th way selections are coming up, it would be the stupidest way to rig an election, ever.

That is not what the Clark County Registrar said.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the article says is: "there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time."

My interpretation is the voting machines there need retired they have faulty mechanisms. I think the buttons are starting to fail making it hard for you to make your selection. Maybe they need the bubble in paper ballots like New Mexico has although I hate having to fill in the entire bubble. I was mad when they took the machines away and gave us paper but after reading this I could see this happening here. the buttons could have gotten a little sticky or got stuff on them.

Something's not right

[characterZer0]

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."

Wait wait wait. So as long as a software bug only occurs for one or two people she knows, she will accept the bug in her voting machine for her elected officials!

I bet she would be outraged if they messed up her vote for American Idol.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Blakey Rat]

At the very least, it could randomize the list of candidates so it's a *random* name getting selected by accident. Not that that justifies the bug...

Not the first place for this to happen

[Nexusone1984]

In my state North Carolina, some machines have come up with all Democrats selected. As for Conspiracy theories: We all know that Rich White English speaking people vote Republican so makes since to press 1 for English get the Republican. We all know that illegals, the dead and brain dead vote Democrat so makes since to have press 2 for Spanish get the Democrat.

Who tagged

[m0s3m8n]

Who is the racist bastard who tagged this story with "RichWhitey"?

Re:Who tagged

[benjamindees]

Rich Whitey (aka Rich Whitney, R) is the way some illiterate decided to program some voting machines in a predominately black voting district in Chicago.

Re:Who tagged

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure Rich Whitey is a racist comment. There is a candidate in the Chicago area running with the name Rich Whitey (who's actual name is Rich Whitney with an N).

Intentionally not fixed

[FranTaylor]

If the bug is left in there deliberately then there certainly is cause to believe there is something behind it.

These systems are "supposed" to be vetted and tested and approved before they are let loose on the voters.

Do you really think that this blatant UI bug was NOT noticed in testing? Why oh why was it not fixed? That is the interesting question.

Re:Intentionally not fixed

[LWATCDR]

Yep I do because I have seen this type of error a 100 times.
First of all this error isn't even really an error. It is a none optimal UI design.
Odds are that in testing no one held down their finger too long or even better they did and noticed it.
Some one in testing made the error but they knew they had caused it! What is also likely is they would say that it was no big deal. You see when you select who you meant to vote for it removes the check.
Think about this error in a rational way and not in the paranoid fantasy that people seem to live in today.
You hit English and the next screen pops up and your finger is on a selection and it also gets checked.
You would go... "well I held down my finger too long woops" and then you would check the correct box and get on with your life!
And actually this system has a lot of safeguards built in. You can go back and review your votes at anytime to double check that the ballot is right. At that point it then prints your ballot so you can check that. You then cast your vote! This system has a paper trail as well as electronic which everybody on Slashdot has been yelling for.
And yes I have made this same type of error in programing myself and it got through testing.
In a DOS program we set the command to copy from floppy to CTRL FF and the command to copy to a floppy to CTRL FT. It never occurred to use that someone would think that they had to hit all three keys at once! We thought that everybody knew that you used CTRL like a shift key and would tap a key at a time.
All of a sudden we where getting reports of people edits being deleted. I mean hours of and hours of work gone.
We couldn't figure how it was happening.
We say a user tryiing to hit all three keys at once and then it dawned on us what was happening.
They where holding down the F long enough that autorepeat was causing them to hit CTRL FF when they meant to hit CTRL FT!
And then they failed to read the overwrite warning....
Bingo.
Almost the same type of error and yes it got past a lot of in house testing and most people never ran into it!
So this is not a blatant UI bug at all. It only seems that way to you now that I pointed it out. AKA hindsite is 20/20.

So take off your tin foil hat.

Opt-out voting?

[karlandtanya]

For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time

They admit the machine will record an erroneous selection (vote) if a user (voter) leaves their fingers on the screen after a previous selection.
For something critical to the function of the system (both the voting machine and the democracy), "people are pressing the buttons wrong" is NOT acceptable.

Sounds like bad design

[wonkavader]

Seems like the name Reid is in the same position on the screen as the Spanish checkbox, and Sharron Angle's name is in the same position as the English checkbox.

Your finger lingers, and voila!

Bad design on several levels. Do people still use the term debounce (as in keyboards) on touch screens?

This stuff needs to be simple and rock solid. Instead it's (as we've seen with Deibold and Sequoia) complex and done badly.

It's amazing what bribes, free lunches and laziness can get done.

FOX bias?

[DynamoJoe]

The summary mentions that if you pick Spanish, you get Reid and you get Angle if you pick English.

This isn't mentioned in the article, just that Reid's name was autoselected. Is this FOX bias by omission?

Re:FOX bias?

[sumdumass]

You have to watch the video to see where it talks about picking angle. It's around the 2:20 time stamp.

What they are claiming (or it appears that way) is that when you press the english verses Spanish button, if you tap screen after it starts to move to the next screen, the entry is recorded for the closest vote there. This happens to be Reid when voting in Spanish and Angle in English.

However, they didn't show Reid being selected so we don't know if the same gestures are needed or not. It's obvious that it's human error in the video- we don't have video of the Reid instance to see how obvious that might be.

It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots.

In my last election, there were 3.

I will define any ballot for which there was a DEFAULT VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE BEFORE THE VOTER EVEN TOUCHED THE BALLOT as a spoiled ballot.

So, according to TFA, all the ballots in this Nevada election are spoiled.

The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one.

This is a flaw in the system: there is no reason that the ballot should be discarded in that case. Let them vote for all the candidates, if they want to.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[TheSpoom]

A bad GUI design.

This goes beyond bad GUI design. Any Javascript programmer with half a brain would figure this one out.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[gknoy]

Shouldn't choosing things be when one lets GO of the finger, rather than presses it, since that will prevent this entire class of errors? I bet user testing made people say they didn't like that.

*Citation Needed*

[dlenmn]

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally.

*Citation Needed*

Re:*Citation Needed*

[glueball]

[citation]
http://www.kansas.com/2010/10/24/1555918/portland-may-let-noncitizens-vote.html [kansas.com]

"Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it."

Re:*Citation Needed*

[eldepeche]

What's wrong with that?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[capnkr]

Hahahahh lol lol lol.... yer killin me...

Oh - you are *serious*???

What's wrong, is that you don't see anything wrong with people who are *not* bona fide US Citizens having a vote in a US election.

How about I get a vote on the board at your company which determines when, if, and how much of a raise you should get? Or a vote at your HOA/POA meetings, when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account? Or we could just cut out the meetings and voting, and I get to say how you can or can't spend your money. Yep, that's fair, isn't it? Makes a whole lot of sense, right?

No, it doesn't. At all. And *that* is 'whats wrong' with it. HTH.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[FeepingCreature]

That has to be the first time I've seen the Chewbacca defense actually used.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[eldepeche]

You're talking about local elections, though. Why not let everyone who lives in your town help choose the city council members?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[pixelpusher220]

well for starters it isn't a 'US' election, it's local. If anything this is libertarianism at its best, not liberal.

A local community deciding it's own rules. Isn't that what the Tea Party/GOP has been spouting off about for years?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Cederic]

when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account? Or we could just cut out the meetings and voting, and I get to say how you can or can't spend your money.

I believe there's an example of that - called taxation. If I'm living in your town paying taxes, too fucking right I want to vote on how the town's run.

Or you don't see anything wrong with taking peoples money through threat of force and giving them fuck all in return?

(That's a rhetorical question; you're American)

Re:*Citation Needed*

[spazdor]

Your analogy is flawless! Expanding the vote to include another group of people who would only constitute a small minority of voters at large, and who could only ever affect the outcome in concert with a much larger group of people who are already empowered to vote, is exactly like one person dictating all of someone else's spending decisisons! I see it all so clearly now! Is there some sort of book series or a correspondence class I can take in order to have razor-sharp metaphorical reasoning skills like yours?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[spazdor]

Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Pojut]

What's wrong, is that you don't see anything wrong with people who are *not* bona fide US Citizens having a vote in a US election.

According to the article you linked to, this is a ballot measure that will be voted on by the public.

Isn't that the whole point behind "States rights"? Letting people that live there decide on law that will only affect their local community? Who are we to judge what the people of Portland want for their own lives?

I recall a similar argument happening on another topic. What was it again? Oh right.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Shark]

So basically you're saying: No taxation without representation.

I completely agree with that. But I think what you ought to protest here is the fact that you pay taxes, not the fact that you aren't given a vote. You pay taxes as a property owner, which to a town is more or less equivalent to citizenship. If you want a say in how a government is run, you ought to be one of its citizens, otherwise you still get the option to vote... with your feet.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[shutdown -p now]

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections

I'd just like to point out that one of the core founding ideas of your nation was "no taxation without representation".

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem is you think of voting as simply controlling the money system, but there's more than that. Do you think people shouldn't have a say in their basic rights and freedoms as a human no matter where they have come from?

I hear your argument a lot, but the answer always seems to be to get rid of anyone not contributing to the tax base and not to welcome them in and have them contribute. Classic xenophobia. Perhaps its just fear that hard working new citizens would climb the ladder of success faster than you?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[RightSaidFred99]

Your sarcasm bores me, so I'll rephrase for you in a way that conveys your point but doesn't make me turn my head sideways while I'm reading and wonder why you're clearly trying to be clever but my cleverness sensor isn't going off.

Why shouldn't someone who participates in the community have a say in its decisions just because they weren't born there? Why do you get special rights because you happened to be born 1000 miles away from someone else?

Easy - self interest. How does it profit a US citizen to allow a non-US citizen to vote? It doesn't. It's as simple as that, I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.

Therein lies the problem with your sarcasm - what you said makes 100% sense, but you phrased it as if trying to be sarcastic. It doesn't compute.

I'll tell you what. If you're so selfless, how about you move to Texas and we declare our border with Mexico to be open. Why shouldn't poor Mexicans be able to come suck at the teat of the US citizen? When your standard of living goes to shit, tell me how awesome being "fair" to poor third world citizens is.

Generally I mocked conservatives when they theorized about how "Obongo" was going to "done let all them mexi-cans into this here country so they can vote Democrat" (phrased as most really right wing nuts would phrase it). My point was even with "amnesty" (which they consider a dirty word), they can't vote. Guess I was wrong - this is a fairly transparent ploy to try to create a more grass-roots political machine for illegals. First get them in the door in unimportant local elections, then you build from that.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[spazdor]

I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.

This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[SoulDrift]

Perhaps not, but let's say I am a legal resident of the United States. I am subject to all of its laws and its protections, and I pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to the United States ever year. Am I still entitled to zero influence on my home? Am I not allowed to have the same say as you as to what my taxes are spent on?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[sumdumass]

The term legal just means they are in the country legally, not that they are part of the country. To do that, the founders of this country instituted a power in the congress to determine what needs to be done in order to become part of the country (naturalization) after a certain date in time.

When you become part of the country, you get taxation with (somewhat limited in practice) representation. Until then, it's simply a cost of entry.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[iserlohn]

It is for *legal* *residents*, like those that come and work in the US under an employment contract as employees of legitimate companies. Not for illegals.

And they are only voting for local government that will be dealing with issues that affect them directly (like street crime and trash collection).

Not that I agree with these initiatives, but if you actually think before opening your mouth, instead of letting your knee-jerk reaction get the better of you, then you would look a lot less stupid.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[sumdumass]

Until your a citizen, your taxes are basically rent. It's sort of like being a home owner, you either pay someone else' mortgage or your own. If you choose to leave your home and visit mine, and I charge you rent for your stay, don't get all pissy when I don't allow you to have that party at 3 in the morning.

And yes, they do get more then fuck all in return. They get basic police and fire protection, they get the benefits of the society that created the jobs they are working at, they get the protections of an environmentally safe surrounding with clean drinking water and sanitation. So lets not pretend that they get nothing at all.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[PotatoFiend]

Do you also think it's fair to allow people who don't pay taxes to have a say in how your tax money is spent?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[sumdumass]

There is a process in which THAT GUY OVER THERE can obtain the same special legal status. It's called naturalization. And yes, that legal status is pretty important unless you want people with no vested interest in the long term survival of the community making decisions that they can up and walk away from. Granted, that can happen by outsiders who are also citizens moving into the area, but it raises the bar considerable for foreign influences attempting to take over from within. That's why the president is supposed to be a natural born citizen (after a certain date in time), so some foreigner can't get elected and disband the army (or direct them ineffectively) making it simple for a foreign power to walk in and take over- or to negotiate trade and other deals that benefit other countries to our demise. The natural citizen has a vested interest that isn't as clear with someone just visiting.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[sumdumass]

You can still show up and voice your opinion. You can still organize and run campaigns against certain spending. It's not like you're out of options or have zero influence or anything. In fact, doing those other things would give you more say then simply voting anyways because your vote is only one in how many thousands or millions compared to you influencing those thousands or millions to vote your specific way.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[spazdor]

Yes. After all, I expect to have an equal say in how other people's tax money is spent, even if their income (and therefore their tax contribution) is far greater than mine.

Tell me, do you think I should only get to vote with 1/100th the weight of someone who pays 100 times as many taxes as I do?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that voter registration is done locally. If you are registered to vote locally, you are registered to vote federally.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[QuantumPion]

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections

I'd just like to point out that one of the core founding ideas of your nation was "no taxation without representation".

I'm pretty sure that context only applies to citizens. I don't think the original Boston Tea Partiers intention was to give the British soldiers the right to vote to raise the taxes of the colonists...which is precisely what you are proposing.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[RightSaidFred99]

It's not unthinkable at all. Naivete does indeed exist and people have all kinds of crazy ideas. So you're right, it's not unthinkable and maybe some people are that selfless.

If you think it's a swell idea to greatly decrease your standard of living so someone unfortunate enough to be born in e.g. Mexico can marginally increase theirs, that's your opinion.

In fact, you should probably sell your computer and everything you don't need to survive - there are people right now dying because you won't give up all your worldly possessions and help feed them. By this argument, it's not really fair that you're sitting around typing on a computer while people are starving to death, is it?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[SoulDrift]

Very true, and all good points. However, I'll bet that that's the same argument that's used for *every* disenfranchised group. I'll bet, before women's suffrage, women were told they *could* be a part of political process by influencing how their husbands would vote. Why would they want a vote of their own, then?

If I'm allowed, in fact encouraged, to do those things you mention, then why can't I vote too?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[cayenne8]

"What's wrong with that?"

If you're not a US citizen...you should NOT be allowed to vote in US elections.

On a paranoid scale..lets say that anyone in the country could vote. Hmm..let's say country X would really like to sway an US, presidential or senate election. Well, they send over many of their countrymen with them set to vote how they wish.

Do you really want to have foreign countries with that kind of influence on the US?

Heck...I don't even want people from another state coming to flood and have influence on how people in my state want issues voted on... A norther state on the east coast has very different wants/needs that someone in the southern central or southwestern part of the US.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure it's the same thing here as women and minorities were already citizens being denied the ability to vote. A constitutional amendment was passed stating this couldn't happen any more if they were a citizen.

If they weren't citizens, I doubt they woulod have ever been given the right to vote.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[shutdown -p now]

I'm pretty sure that context only applies to citizens. I don't think the original Boston Tea Partiers intention was to give the British soldiers the right to vote to raise the taxes of the colonists...which is precisely what you are proposing.

I suggest that you read about the actual historical practice regarding the right to vote for non-citizens in the USA before jumping to conclusions.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[SoulDrift]

Ah well. I am a US citizen living in New Zealand. New Zealand allows all citizens *and* permanent residents to vote in general elections. It makes sense to me that if you live in a place, you should have a say. Even if it's a 300-millionth of an opinion. (or a 4 millionth of an opinion in NZ -- when you think about it my NZ vote is ~100x more powerful than my US one)

Re:*Citation Needed*

[StikyPad]

If you're legally part of my company, then I don't see anything wrong with having a vote (provided I'm one of those kind of companies to begin with.. you know the kind, the commie companies where employees actually have ownership).

You can argue that they're not permanent members of the community, but who among us really are? Aside from the fact that we're all mortal, citizens who voted on something in the past are just as free to move as anyone else (and possibly more likely to?).

The fact that you *do* see a problem with allowing people to have a say in the government that has jurisdiction is sort of ridiculous TBH.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[pixelpusher220]

A fair point that should be accommodated in the process of implementing this proposal should it pass.

However, it doesn't speak one way or the other as to whether the town should be able to decide to let legal residents vote locally.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[StikyPad]

I think what you ought to protest here is the fact that you pay taxes, not the fact that you aren't given a vote.

And you're free to hold that opinion, just like people who disagree are free to pursue the vote. But remember that the last time some residents of the colonies tried to stop paying taxes based on legal status, it resulted in violent rezoning.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.

This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?

You don't understand fairness. Fairness isn't giving group A something for which there is already an established process to attain, and which process millions of other people in group B have already followed, and which process group A can't be bothered to follow.

If you can't be bothered to follow the process, then you don't really value the end product, which in this case is citizenship and voting rights.

What about the rights of the existing citizens? You know, the people that were either born here, or have become citizens through the process of becoming a legal citizen. What about their rights? How is it fair to give someone who can't be bothered to go through the long-established process of becoming a citizen the same rights as someone who has? It isn't right, and it isn't fair to existing naturalized citizens.

In no nation in the world can you vote without being citizen of that nation. You want voting rights in Mexico? You have to prove you will be bringing something of value to Mexico before you can emigrate. Then you must go through the process of becoming citizen before you can vote. It's the same in every other country in the world too.

There are two sides to this question, and if you're going to be fair you must consider both sides equally. If you're not, then you're not being fair.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

If you want to vote, become a US citizen. There's a long-established process to gain citizenship in the USA which grants you the right to vote. You don't want to be a citizen? You don't value the right to vote enough to become a citizen of the US? Then why should you be given the right to vote?

 

Re:*Citation Needed*

[PotatoFiend]

Tell me, do you think I should only get to vote with 1/100th the weight of someone who pays 100 times as many taxes as I do?

Of course not. The equality of each person's vote -- political power -- serves as one reasonable balance against highly disproportionate economic power, the latter of which naturally tips our private-property-based society in the direction of feudalism. Higher taxes on higher incomes is another balance against that economic power, and is further justified by the reasoning that the have-mores have more to lose, and therefore have a higher interest in the social order maintained by our fair-minded system of government, without which society can easily tip too far toward highly disproportionate political power exercised by the have-littles robbing the have-mores into poverty.

Now, while people who have no property, don't pay taxes and can't vote also have an interest in this system of balances, they aren't sharing any of the liability, instead serving as unchecked disturbances in the system, making them inherently unfair.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[i_liek_turtles]

So resident aliens, even if they've been lawfully living here for decades, paying the same taxes that you pay, should have no say in the progress of the country?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[AK Marc]

I've met a standing UK member of parliment (or English, I never can figure out what's what, since England is a country and the UK is a country) who was not a UK (or English) citizen. And I'm registered to vote in multiple countries and only a citizen of one. The US is in the middle for rights. Some have more, others have less. But there isn't any "obviously non-citizens voting will make the country worse" argument in the areas where non-citizens vote. The representatives represent those living there.

You are arguing for taxation without representation when you assert that they should be taxed like residents and denied the vote. Are you really that unamerican?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[unitron]

When you say "US election", do you specifically mean elections of holders of federal office, or any election at any level to any governmental office (state legislator, governor, mayor, city council member, school board member, the obligatory "dogcatcher" mention, et cetera) occuring within the U.S.?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[jonwil]

Anyone who is affected by a body should have a vote for that body.

If your house is covered by the HOA, you should get a vote at HOA mettings and HOA director elections. If not, then no.
If you are a shareholder of a company, you should get a vote at shareholder meetings. If not, then no.
If you are living in a country, state, county, city or local area governed by a particular government/council/whatever, you should get a vote for that government/council/whatever when elections are held. If you are not living in that area, then no, you shouldnt get a vote.

If you are resident in the USA then you should get a vote in the US elections.

If you are not resident in the USA (e.g. only there temporarily and will be leaving it) then no, you shouldn't get a vote.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

You're talking about local elections, though. Why not let everyone who lives in your town help choose the city council members?

Why not? Because those people who have not bothered to become naturalized citizens have shown they don't value citizenship, so why should they be given the same rights a citizen has? There is a long-standing process set up so that anyone who legally resides in the US can choose to become a citizen with the right to vote, if they want to put forth the effort. If they don't think being able to vote is worth the effort of becoming a citizen, why should they be given the same rights as the citizens? I see no reason why they should, and neither did the founding fathers.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

If you want that right, become a naturalized citizen. Then you can vote. If you place no value on citizenship, then you don't value the right to vote either.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

Nice logical fallacy. I said nothing about keeping anyone from voting. All they have to be able to vote is become a citizen. If they don't value being an American citizen enough to do that, then they don't place much value on voting as an American either.

I don't care what race they are, where they come from, what color their skin is, or what language they speak. As long as they comply with laws of the land and follow lawful procedure they can vote. If they don't want to follow the law of the land, then they have no business complaining about not being able to vote.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[ffreeloader]

Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!

That's a really stupid argument, and a logical fallacy.

If a person isn't born here there is a process they can follow to have the same rights all other naturalized citizens have. They can choose to become a US citizen, or not. The choice is theirs. If they choose not to become a member of the community of citizens of the US, that's their problem. They are not special that they should have the same rights as all the other people who have followed the law, you know, all those people over the last 200 years who have emigrated here and gone through the process of becoming US citizens, and valued the right to vote enough to become US citizens.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps its just fear that hard working new citizens would climb the ladder of success faster than you?

Actually, it's usually the call of slack-jawed idiots who smoked, slept, spit-balled, cheated, or bullied their way through high school learning as little as possible, who are upset to find out that there are actual consequences in terms of personal competitiveness when they grow up. Those immigrants, legal or otherwise, are hard-working and competent in comparison. Plus the slack-jawed idiots want somebody they can feel superior to and dominate. If the immigrants get the vote then the elected officials might actually start to care (/make efforts to appear to care) when the immigrants are mistreated.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Eunuchswear]

So, that no taxation without representation thing, how's it working for you?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point - one I hadn't thought of! According to our forefathers, if you pay taxes, you should have some say in how your money is spent!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

How about I get a vote on the board at your company which determines when, if, and how much of a raise you should get? Or a vote at your HOA/POA meetings, when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account?

If you work at that company, that would be fair.

If someone lives in the USA, and is governed by the laws of the USA, and pays tax in the USA ... why is it totally unreasonable to consider allowing them to vote in local elections?

But maybe you won't see my point until a bunch of green-card holders start throwing coffee into Boston harbor ...

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Eivind Eklund]

So, your argument summarizes to "this feels bad, and other somewhat analogous things feels bad, and this feels bad, so no"?

Let me also give a few examples of what reasonable arguments in the same direction could look like:

• The people in question are generally not competent to vote. It takes a long while to get familiar enough with the nuances of the political system for a vote to meaningfully represent the person; the non-citizens are more likely to just be influenced by TV ads and other money driven political advertising, and giving money the ability to buy votes (directly or indirectly) is bad for the electoral system.
• The interests of foreigners living here are less aligned with the overall country than citizens. They're more likely to vote against the interests of the US and in favor of their original country, and the election is to take care of the US.
• The foreigners are likely to leave again, so they're unlikely to vote for what's right in the long term, taking just the short term view.
• Having foreigners vote will have US citizens devalue their citizenship, and be less interested in working for the benefit of the nation.
• Most foreigners can absentee vote in their own countries, having the power to vote in two places gives them double power compared to citizens, and this seems a violation of democratic principles.

Now, I"ll say that I'm overall in favor of having legal alien residents (and possibly illegal alien residents) able to vote, especially in local elections. I feel the benefit of the increased feeling of being part of the community from being allowed to vote and therefore caring more for it is enough to offset the disadvantages. The increased gov't legitimacy from "No taxation without representation" is a bonus. However, I see that it is not a clear cut is issue and a reasonable person can disagree with me - if you're going to do so, please use rational arguments.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"A local community deciding it's own rules. Isn't that what the Tea Party/GOP has been spouting off about for years?"

Haha, you can't even spell "homosexual"!!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"Or you don't see anything wrong with taking peoples money through threat of force and giving them fuck all in return?"

They forced you to move there???

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

Is that you Israel?? I didn't recognise you with that userid!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless"

*whispers* some people aren't pretending! They actually think differently due to their brains having evolved in a slightly different way to your own, ie, they actually evolved.

"If you're so selfless, how about you move to Texas"

That's not selfless, that's more self sacrificing, abandoning your home, friends, family, people you care about (I'll give you a few seconds to look up the word 'care'... ya done?). Watch, the same works both ways, I could pick an untra-extreme to disprove your point too:

If you're not selfless, why don't you kill all those around you?

See? It's a retarded point, it proves nothing, except the fact that you think in retarded terms.

"Why shouldn't poor Mexicans be able to come?"

More to the point, right now, why would they want to? Mexico's unemployed rate is half of the US's. America's basically falling apart, too many people like you who don't believe in looking after the things around you. Thinking that everything will stay completely fine for you if you neglect anything you don't know that you use directly, you end up neglecting things you don't know you're relying on until they fail and something stops working, whether they're levees, corrupt financial systems, or an education system. You can watch your own middle classes completely disapear and you just won't change a thing!

"When your standard of living goes to shit"

Ohh of course, that's why you won't solve problems, you're too busy blaming everybody else. Makes sense. Incredibly wrong, divorced from reality, but don't let that stop you.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Cederic]

They forced you to move there???

Sometimes, yes.
http://business.scotsman.com/natwestthree/British-bankers-are-told-that.2794259.jp

Of course, that's unusual. Far more common are political refugees, people attempting to better themselves or people providing valuable assistance to the US Economy by filling a skills gap.

Some of those are forced to live there, some are forced by circumstances to stay and some are free to leave when they want. What they aren't free to do is withhold taxes, even though they have no say in how that money is then spent (e.g. on immigration officials that then harass them despite their legal residence. Or maybe I know too many expats..)

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"or to negotiate trade and other deals that benefit other countries to our demise"

hahahahahahahahaaaa yeah you wouldn't want that to happen, would ya? *lol*

*cough* china *cough* israel *cough*

Yurp, it's a good job no one born in America is corruptable, imagine the damage that could be done if they could be bought by outsiders!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

Good point, although I think more people move by choice, or have some choice in where they move. Having no choice I think is rarer.

Not that I'm against your position btw, just the force based argument for it. People from America and here in the UK are responsible for a -lot- in the world. If people need to move here because we've screwed up over there, then we should damn well make them feel welcome.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"I expect to have an equal say in how other people's tax money is spent, even if their income (and therefore their tax contribution) is far greater than mine"

Of course, otherwise it becomes in everybody else's interest to keep you poor, especially if you have anything you disagree with them about. That's the reason why there's been some $2-3Bln spent on this election cycle's campaigns. That is basically rich people buying votes (via recruiting the uneducated)

Re:*Citation Needed*

[x2A]

"If you can't be bothered to follow the process"

You're assuming everybody knows the process, which might stand if you had posters along the border fences with all the details on in languages people know and a button to read it out to people who can't read. Some people are just hungry, and have nothing, and think "over there it will be better". It's not scheming and devious. It's desperation. You're thinking that they're all people like you, who've had what you've had, and so know what you know. They're not. What about all the people who have just escaped from somewhere they knew was bad, they're just scared of being sent back, and they suffer because of it. Anyone who's scared of something can have that thing used against them.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[markhb]

I actually live in Portland, Maine, and I am dead set against this charter amendment. First, it's very likely illegal under state law, which is just going to push the city into spending a bunch of money to defend itself against a challenge which it will probably lose (IANAL, but if you had heard the Charter Commission debate this you would have heard two Ivy League lawyers on it, one of whom said "neither election statute allows non-citizens to vote" and the other coming up with what sounded like a fairly convoluted legal theory as to how it might be legal).

Second, I distrust the motivations of those who proposed it (chiefly the outgoing state Green Party chair). Smells like a way to build a political machine to me; keep in mind that many of the "legal residents" they are referring to are actually Somali refugees.

Third, Portland previously declared itself to be a "sanctuary city," so how can you determine they are here legally if the officials aren't supposed to ask?

Fourth, "taxation without representation" is a canard. City councilors and school committee members represent everyone in their districts whether they voted or not; TWR was a reference to the fact that the Colonies had no representation in Westminster at all.

Fifth, no. Just, no. Take the oath, forswear all allegiance to any other country, and then you can step in our ballot box.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[shutdown -p now]

It's obviously up to the citizens of a particular country to decide how (and whether) voting rights are conferred on non-citizens. Most countries only allow citizens to vote, so it's perfectly normal. I was merely pointing out that US was historically different in that regard. And not just about the whole "taxation" thing - in most states of the Union, up until mid-to-late 19th century, resident aliens could vote in all elections (you'd have to reside for a certain period of time prior to that, usually 6 months or 1 year; sometimes you also had to declare the intent to become a citizen once eligible).

So the whole angle of "progressives inventing new things" doesn't really come into it - if anything, it would be a return to old practice.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like not letting felons vote?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[shutdown -p now]

Ironically, Maine does allow felons to vote even while in prison.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[WindShadow]

I'd just like to point out that one of the core founding ideas of your nation was "no taxation without representation".

And they let college students vote at school if they bother to register. Since the colleges are all tax exempt we now have representation without taxation.

I have thought of this

[SmallFurryCreature]

The dutch political system is currently locked. Despite having far more parties then the US, there is a common sentiment among voters that the elite (all the parties) do not represent them. Jan Marrijnissen with the SP (Socialist Party, yes pinkos for american readers, booga booga) played on this with his party early on. But when he stepped back and Agnes Kant took over and started adopting "elite" standpoints (pro-islam, anti-israel, green, arts etc etc) the party nose dived. Pim Fortuyn got a large popular vote, but was killed (by a muslim immigrant). His party quickly nose dived, partly because the elite (CDA) did a very good job of smother to death and partly because when you don't have the ruling elite in your party, you get some very strange people.

Now the resentment against the ruling elite is represented by Geert Wilders. But he seems to have gotten elected by some right wing promises (kick out the muslims) but ALSO (and this is often overlooked) with a LOT (far more) LEFT wing promisises like no extension of pension age, fewer cuts in social spending etc etc. Funnily enough, now he actually as agreed on a deal to support the new government, he seems to be skipping on a LOT of election promises and have gone straight into backroom deals and all the activities people hate in the elite.

So... if neither right nor left can provide a decent alternative. What could be done? What about a party that ISN'T a party. What about a party leader, who is NOT going to be running the country? What about a party that ends the party system?

The US has referendums, they have forced some intresting politics because people could vote for a candidate of party X and then force a series of policies on him that totally disagreed with the party line. California's drug laws for instance.

What if in Holland instead of voting for a party, we got a 100% referendum system. No more prime-minister, no more backroom deals, no whips (they are called that because they keep the party in line, with the new government having a very small majority, they became far more important because if a single person from the 3 parties votes against, the opposition wins. This means elected officials don't vote according to what their voters want but as the party orders them. This is actually highly illegal in dutch law. Every elected official must be able to vote without fear of consequence).

But this would also be very hard. You would need a country run by smart men, not popular men. And people would need to vote smart, not just for the guy that promises the lowest taxes. Because now you can't have secret deals to still fund essential road maintenance. If the people vote NO to spend money on the roads, then that is it. No road maintenance.

We might not like the system, but are we capable of going to a system that DOES work? Is the average voter for ready for REAL democracy? Where if you vote for spending cuts, you don't complain if your kids school is closed? If the police no longer police your neighbourhood?

Personally, I think that the current situation does not work either. But selling the alternative would be a hell of job. And anyone smooth enough, connected enough to start such an anti-party would be part of the system already and hardly want to dismantle the system that gave him power. And the current youth and the internet? Oh, you might get a billion friends on facebook with such a party, and then when it came time to vote, the wave of apathy would knock earth out of orbit.

Yes, your proposal might work... it might work all to well. And then?

Re:I have thought of this

[vertinox]

So... if neither right nor left can provide a decent alternative. What could be done? What about a party that ISN'T a party. What about a party leader, who is NOT going to be running the country? What about a party that ends the party system?

The US has referendums, they have forced some intresting politics because people could vote for a candidate of party X and then force a series of policies on him that totally disagreed with the party line. California's drug laws for instance.

What if in Holland instead of voting for a party, we got a 100% referendum system. No more prime-minister, no more backroom deals, no whips (they are called that because they keep the party in line, with the new government having a very small majority, they became far more important because if a single person from the 3 parties votes against, the opposition wins. This means elected officials don't vote according to what their voters want but as the party orders them. This is actually highly illegal in dutch law. Every elected official must be able to vote without fear of consequence).

A couple of points as you may not be exactly familiar with the US system.

The US on the Federal level does not have referendums. We do have constitutional amendments but they have to be voted on by the state legislators.

States on an individual levels do have the ability to have referendums (see Proposition 19.

But not all states have this ability...

Also it is noted that California (because of its referendum system) is the state with the highest debt as it cannot pass a budget without a super majority.

And lastly... It is illegal in Germany to have referendums as it was the method that Hitler would pass the laws to absolve the German democracy (so keep that in mind... might not be the best resolution to a functioning democracy).

That said... You should take a look at Proportional Representation where if handled properly gives many 3rd parties to the government.

Most notable are Sweden and Israel. Which the Pirate party got seats in Sweden and in Israel a 3rd party that was started and within one year had a majority in Parliament as protest of the existing.

Any first past the post or weighted, simply do not work.

The UK is currently working on a more proportional system as of now I think, but it might not be enough.

Re:I have thought of this

[vertinox]

actually one minor correction... the Pirate party did not get seats on the Swedish parliment but rather the EU one... The are coming very close to getting seats tho.

Re:I have thought of this

[Shotgun]

I'd mod you up if I had points today. But I don't, so I'll just add a little support.

Have you ever seen candidates squirm when asked what program they will cut? Every add they pay for will talk about cutting "wasteful spending", but when asked directly what they would cut, they will refuse to define wasteful. Our President, the jokester that he is, claimed he would look at every federal program and surgically remove any that are not living up to their goals. Two years in, he hasn't proposed eliminating ANYTHING, and instead has worked to install the most massive increase in Federal bureaucracy ever.

The truth is, you can't ever cut anything, because everything has a constituency. If one person looses their "waste widget sorting" job, the media will post a 24 hour circus on their doorstep and run the traditional "mean ol' government took their JOOOBBB!" line. (See how gaunt the poor starving children are.) Doesn't matter on whit that there is no money to pay them. We can just "tax the rich". (Rich is ALWAYS defined as "the person that has more than me".)

Re:I have thought of this

[turbidostato]

"But he seems to have gotten elected by some right wing promises (kick out the muslims) but ALSO (and this is often overlooked) with a LOT (far more) LEFT wing promisises like no extension of pension age, fewer cuts in social spending etc etc."

Humm... Do you mean he is about xenophobic and social policies? I thought every German would know about, you know, National Socialism.

"What about a party that ends the party system?"

Humm... Do you mean kind of a party that would use the legal system to reach power and then would sanitize it from within? I thought every German would know about, you know, National Socialism.

"We might not like the system, but are we capable of going to a system that DOES work? Is the average voter for ready for REAL democracy?"

Do you know who else thought about that? I thought every German would know about, you know, some National Socialist leader.

Now, we don't want again neither the Spanish Inquisition nor the National Socialist party, do we?

Re:I have thought of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Claim doesn't align with the facts.. but that's par for the course.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/ExecBranch.asp

http://wiredworkplace.nextgov.com/2010/09/too_many_federal_workers.php

Re:I have thought of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great, but the parent poster was Dutch.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago.

Not to be too conspiracy theorist here, but an illegal ballot (and confusing one) that just happens to have a design that gives votes to the Governor's brother.

The thing that pissed me off in the whole hanging chad mess was the fact the ballot was illegal based on Florida rules was almost never brought up. And why wasn't the election committee investigated for allowing an illegal ballot in a national election? Whose ass was canned for the mess? I'd love to do the 'never ascribe to malice what can be given to stupidity or apathy' but that one never sat well with me.

Can't we get competent people to design these things?

It may have functioned as designed.

UI Fail

[twmcneil]

I'm pretty certain that this epic of a UI fail would have never occurred or been quickly fixed if the software were open source.

Las Vegas?

[British]

Funny how this is in Las Vegas. Insert comment here how the slot machines have better auditing & reliability than the ballot machines do. Why? Money!

Re:Las Vegas?

[benjamindees]

I submit the reason is that, when a person places money in a slot machine, she expects at least some small chance of getting something back.

Lol, you are joking right?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Fox is right wing, but not all of it is as insane as Beck. With the simpsons, they can show they got a humor but also make Homer into a kinda reverse hero. Left wingers might see him as an idiot and an example of everything that is wrong with people who vote against healthcare until they need it but he ALSO survives all his mistakes. He never dies in the unsafe work environment and has his widow screwed out of compensation. He hasn't undergone forced sterilization and this is NEVER ever mentioned despite this really have happened in nuclear facilities in the US.

Somehow despite all the jokes, the stabs and parodies, the right-wing dumb guy wins through. Same with all the other shows.

"You might be a redneck if..." how many rednecks proudly proclaim to be a redneck? It is not degrading when beat yourself on the chest. Homer is not a pititful figure to many, but a hero. It is a very good bit of propoganda. Remember that Goebels most beloved movie had a Jew as the hero. Propoganda is best when it doesn't label it on.

Perhaps this is impossible to see for an American. You might be so entrenched in the American way of life that you can't see just how much these shows celebrate this. Its battle cry is NOT "We are the best and everything is perfect" but "Things might suck, but we are still the best". It works. It takes the wind out of everyone who might dare to question the status quo.

No, if you think these shows are somehow left-wing, you got a very distorded view of the left. But what do you expect from someone who watches so many cartoons :P

you don't always have to be a citizen to vote

[cwgmpls]

Voting requirements are typically established by local and state government, not by the Feds. I assume small-government types would like it that way. Historically, non-citizens have been able to vote in local, state and federal elections in over 40 states and territories. It is more recent, anti-immigrant sentiment that has started to restrict voting to citizens only.

Historically, voting has been considered a right of anyone who pays taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the rally cry of the original Tea Party. The current "tea party" seems to have an altogether different agenda.

There are tens of millions of workers in the U.S. who are not citizens but pay taxes. According to the principles of the founders the U.S., their payment of taxes entitles them to vote.

Re:you don't always have to be a citizen to vote

[cwgmpls]

Um, your logic is a little off. I didn't say anything about what to do with those that don't pay taxes. And I didn't say anything about Federal income tax -- there are many more taxes and "government fees" besides the Federal income tax.

A case could be made that people who don't pay any taxes at all should still have a right to vote, but I never said they didn't -- and that is a little off topic anyway.

Mhmm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some voters in Las Vegas have noticed that Democrat Harry Reid's name is checked by default on their electronic voting machines. By way of explanation, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, has her name checked by default."

      Excuse me, but for a voting machine, to be used in a supposedly free and fair election, unencumbered by bias, why is there even ANY "default" setting, let alone one that engages in racial profiling? And considering WHERE this is occurring (and given the hostility towards Spanish speakers in that part of the country, generally), how likely is it that the results are invariably going to mark this as a Republican district once the votes are tallied?

Not to say Democrats are any better, for they seem to have a peculiar affinity towards obtaining posthumous voting in some regions of the country.

REALLY wish there was a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" selection on the ballots around here, a win on THAT choice might shake things up a bit where it's needed.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[amRadioHed]

In this case voters who choose English as their language (i.e. the majority of voters) end up with Angle as the default pick. Only Spanish speakers get Reid picked for them. So although this isn't an example of Republican election rigging, it does fit the mold.

Deseperation

[BCW2]

The Demonrats want their power and can't believe the voter won't agree. In New Bern, NC a woman tried to vote a straight R ticket and all the D's got checked, she cleared it and tried again, same result. Two more tries with poll workers in attendance, same thing, finally on the 5th try it recorded correctly. The people trying to rig this election should be tied to a tree, upside down, and fed Ex-Lax for a month!

This progressive

[pkbarbiedoll]

agrees with your comment.

Unrelated...but not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Registered on the State site for absentee voting....nice site with default SSL (128-bit RC4) etc.. Fairly user-friendly.
Then I had to try several times because my password did not match their complexity rules (at least 1 upper case, at least 1 number, at least one special character, at least 8 characters long overall up to 32 chars). The typical crap. So I gave in and pasted the pwgen -s -y 32 1 output into it just for fun. Little prepared me for the shock I received, when I opened my e-mail box and saw a confirmation e-mail about the registration. It had both my username AND password in plain-text right in it! To make matters worse, the page to change the password didn't even work. So I now have a pw I can't change and that flew around somewhere in the world for everyone interested to see. I wonder, who's gonna vote in my place...
Wow...just wow.
(Am not even gonna get into the "Best viewed with Internet Explorer part...)

Sometimes spoofs get it right:

[Tablizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PLTZxLNTUk

On the bright side

[ThatsNotPudding]

think of all the money they saved by going with the lowest bidder!

Why is it

[brillow]

That when it comes to electronic voting technology, incompetence seems to be the rule? Poor UI design, failure to properly user-test, poor or no encryption, lack of audit trails, etc. Why are we/they so bad at this? I understand the malice vs incompetence argument, though I find it overly optimistic in many cases, but these scenarios lead me to believe its malice disguised as incompetence.

Something tells me

[pkbarbiedoll]

the GOP might be expecting a big surprise on Nov. 2nd. The electorate may have just had enough of the shrill, deregulatory, extremist robber barons filling the GOP ranks this cycle.

So what better way to try and neutralize a potentially negative outcome than screech "Desperation" and accuse voters of committing fraud by voting non-GOP. God forbid, you guys spent so much MONEY on this election. I'd be worried too!

Re:Something tells me

[sumdumass]

That would make sense if it wasn't for all the poles claiming that the GOP, primarily with tea party candidates that took the primaries, are expected to oust the dems.

What people seem to miss with all this is that it won't necessarily be a GOP success regardless of how many seats they picked up. People are upset with the career politicians and the parties ignoring what the constituents think is best by forcing the party members to march in lockstep with them and are basically voting incumbents out. It's not like they will march in lockstep with the GOP anymore. And it's not just the GOP they are pissed with, it seems it's the dems too which is why the GOP is expected to pick up seats.

Re:Something tells me

[BCW2]

Newsflash, the electorate is more worried about the socialist policies of this administration. We don't want and will never accept a Marxist Govt. in the U.S.
The so called health care bill was about control not health care. Now we get to pay another tax if we sell a house? WTF does that have to do with making health care cheaper? Just more money for the Thundering Herd of Dumbass formerly known as Congress to waste.
Spendulous created no jobs and the debt is killing jobs.
Failed policies are not the way to win an election and Marxist/socialism has failed every time it has been tried.

Or

[ThatsNotPudding]

they didn't show up because flyers distributed in their neighborhoods listed the wrong date. Or a whisper campaign that the INS/FBI/TrafficCops/Creditors will be patrolling the polling stations.

If I've missed any other tricks, just read a bio about Lee Atwater or Karl Rove.

Really?

[WindBourne]

In what part of the USA is there a public school or private school that does not teach English as primary language? In fact, I can not think of any schools, public or private in which they do not teach English, as primary language. Even in the international schools, it is assumed that student will have to stay here. Even here in the west and in the bayou, ALL SCHOOLS teach English as primary language (though a few are bi-lingual).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the suburbs of Chicago, there are schools that do not have English as the primary language. I know because my son was attending one that they didn't have enough students speaking English to fill the classroom, so he was going to have to be shipped to another school instead. We decided it was time to move instead.

Re:Really?

[LurkerXXX]

All the Amish schools I know of around here teach German as their primary language.

The fact that you can't think of one has no bearing on what actually exists.

Re:Really?

[sirambrose]

Schools in Puerto Rico often teach Spanish as the primary language. Children born there are still citizens and have a constitutional right to vote even if they move out of Puerto Rico.

Re:Really?

[Nazlfrag]

AFAIK they can't vote for the president though unless they move to one of the 50 states. They get to vote for their local government and one non-voting seat in Congress.

Re:Really?

[sirambrose]

Correct. But if they did move to Nevada, for example, they could legally demand a spanish ballot.

Re:That is not what the Clark County Registrar sai

[russ1337]

My interpretation is the voting machines there need retired they have faulty mechanisms.

The manufacturer will be working fairly hard to meet their contracted reliability quota, so will do as much as they can to say the item still works.

Unfortunately things like this often come down to a poorly written Contract.

But people like electronic voting!

[Kaenneth]

Diebold even ran a poll to determine which voting method people prefer, out of 100 people 65 preferred electronic voting, 45 preferred paper, and 5 George W. Bush.

Not Rocket Science

[sycodon]

Here's what they should do:

The application records the votes electronically should print a paper ballot in clear language enumerating the voter's selections. the paper ballot should be tagged with a bar code linking it with the electronic vote (NOT the voter). The voter compares the screen with the paper ballot and when satisfied, submits the electronic vote AND the paper vote.

Paper ballots are counted separately from the electronic votes. There should be the same number of paper ballots as electronic votes AND the selections on each should match when linked via the bar code.

This kind of thing is basic to batch processing environments, count the records, match the records, confirm the counts.

As far as the selections coming up preselected - that is second year CS level programming AND a primary QA metric. They must have idiots creating these things.

Welcome to the future.

[otopico]

We sent people to the moon with magnetic core memory, but we cannot build a secure system they doesn't screw up something as simple as putting a check next to someone's name. Here is an idea. If you build electronic vote machines and a bug this big comes out after voting begins, you have to close your business and stop working on electronic voting forever. How low is the bar set on electronic voting? Are they trying to be this pathetic and useless?

Google has a car that can drive itself. Arizona has voting machines that can't set a default vote state that doesn't check a candidate's name. How are we as a species still alive with this level of stupidity?

As a previous poster has said, this has to be deliberate failure. Maybe the paper ballot lobby is funding all of the electronic voting companies and paying them to screw up so badly that the public will demand dead tree ballots for the rest of human history. Meanwhile, robots and computers will drive cars, perform surgeries, and pilot our space craft, but never will we trust them to record our vote. No, that is far too complex.

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Antisyzygy]

1 person 1 vote.

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a flaw in the system: there is no reason that the ballot should be discarded in that case. Let them vote for all the candidates, if they want to."?

Do you even read what you type before you post it? The retardation factor here is fucking mind-blowing. And these fucking dunce mods cream over the stupidest shit and give it high grades.

Solution is simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a 'press to arm, release to detonate" type of system that doesn't go to the next screen until you release the button you are pushing.

You push the button, it goes to a screen that says "You have selected english/spanish, please pull your finger back to continue."

Re:OMFG TEH REPULIKINS IS TEH EBIL!

[DrVxD]

But, being Slashdot, no one is amazed you didn't RTFA.

But, being Slashdot, everyone is amazed that you RTFA...

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll go even further. Any ballot in which the straight-party ticket was checked should be considered spoiled, and to take the final step any ballot that lists party affiliation of the candidates should also be considered spoiled.

Extreme political polarization and rampant corporate lobbying have largely undermined the "for the people, by the people" core of our Constitution. I think we need to remove the easy ways for people to automatically click one button and think they have done their civic duty, when in reality they are the problem. If you don't know what party a given candidate for local, state, or federal government stands for then you have absolutely no business casting a vote in that race. Removing the straight-party button and affiliations from candidates would ensure that the uninformed votes cast average out into random noise. Thus nobody is disenfranchised, but if you don't know at MINIMUM the names of the people you want to vote for (not even issues!) statistics ensures you didn't significantly impact that race.

Absent significant change at the federal level, I think this is the only possible way to redeem the system. I would very, very much like to see this implemented.

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Alsee]

Can't we get competent people to design these things?

Getting competent programmers on voting machines would be Good.

Getting competent voters on voting machines would be Better.

Getting competent candidates on voting machines would be Best.

-

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Antisyzygy]

Capitalism let run rampant does not respect the work force because people are inherently motivated by selfish means. If you are upper management, why keep a long term skilled employee that requires double the pay of an equally educated (not experienced) young person when you can jack your salary up to more than you deserve? You will never have a work force with guaranteed work, respect for experience/skill, and fair pay unless you have A) A working Communism (possible, but not probable) B) A United States monopoly on industry or a commodity such as Oil or C) A highly educated, healthy work force capable of understanding larger or more abstract concepts when voting, and also capable of utilizing legal means of pressuring their government for favorable legislation. I may be leaving some things out, but all three of the things I mentioned we do not have in the United States. We have virtually no health care even with Obama's stupid health bill unless you have a good job or are well off. Its so bad you may as well take out a life insurance policy and die since the alternative is to leave your family in debt. We also have one of the shittiest education systems in the developed world, and tons of high school drop-outs getting pregnant or getting others pregnant through their own irresponsibility, and bleeding our government treasuries dry through welfare programs. To top it off, we have some of the most ridiculously biased one-item voters voting our politicians into office time and time again when these politicians spend more money than the US government even collects in taxes. It doesn't matter who you vote for anymore, most politicians today are fiscally irresponsible. Overall, our country is f***ed unless we have a minor political revolution, i.e. get most of the senators and representative out and replace them with some fresh blood from the pool of educated, average working class Americans.

Federal Law Does Not Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Federal Law only trumps State law if it is constitutional -- and the states have nearly plenary power in determining what qualifications you need to vote. The Federal government can only tell them who they can't deny the vote to, not who they must allow to vote.

E.g., you can't pass a state law saying that women can't vote. However, if you wanted to making the voting age 12 in your state, you damn well could.

As another example: many individual states allowed women to vote in state elections for years before women were constitutionally granted national suffrage. Hell, New Jersey allowed women to vote before 1800 -- although the waffled back and forth over the next 100+ years.

And please don't pull the lame "And that's why states suck, we need all national laws" bit. The point of states is that they're different. Do really think Californians, Alaskans, Texans, and New Yorkers agree on everything? Hardly. Different people, diverse culture; it's what makes America great. The Constitution and the national government get to develop broad, limited guidelines to establish a measure of fairness, but otherwise, it's left to the states. And there's beauty there. Don't like your laws? You get to move someplace else. Or vote to change them. Or run for public office.

Going back to the article, yes states can certainly allow non-citizens to vote in state/local elections if they really want to. It's been done before and is not, in fact, particularly controversial. Is it a good idea? Well, we can discuss that.

Public school, two primary languages.

[zooblethorpe]

Key School / Escuela Key, in Arlington VA, teaches a bilingual curriculum. According to the blurb linked here, it sounds like both English and Spanish are given equal weight.

I'm sure with some digging I could find at least a private school that teaches all classes not in English. They may be rare, but I'm reasonably sure they exist.

And your comment assumes that everyone goes to school -- my wife is a teacher, and has taught public school in CA, and is painfully aware that there are families for whom school simply isn't on the agenda, since earning enough money just to pay rent and eat is a much more pressing concern.

Cheers,

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Geoffrey.landis]

http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/voting/approval.htm
http://www.tursiops.cc/idhop/av/
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html

voting 4.0

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want proper electronic voting, you simply need to implement a mutating encryption algorithm. I know this because I do math-based security for a living (from my command center).

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to demonstrate your own rant using your own poor writing skills.

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Anonymous Coward]

Although, approval voting may be a good idea, if the election laws say the election is by plurality voting, then the election better be run by plurality voting. Please work to fix the voting laws (to use some system better than plurality voting). Don't try to get the officials to intentionally misinterpret the bad ones on the books.

wtfe

[Anonymous Coward]

If you refuse to participate in the process at all other than to

In other words, play the game, as it's set up, by it's own rules, or shut up. You give zero consideration for alternatives to the way the game itself is played.

Re:wtfe

[Americano]

Nice troll. You might try reading the full statement I made, which was:

If you refuse to participate in the process at all other than to show up on election day and check a box on the ballot, don't expect to have a large voice in shaping the political landscape.

In other words - if you refuse to play during the regular season, don't then start complaining that nobody will pass you the fucking ball during the championship game. There are plenty of ways to take part in the system, and in fact, change the system - none of them involve "making anonymous snarky comments on slashdot" as a major component of their strategy.

As far as me giving "zero consideration to alternatives," I'm willing to discuss them, and in fact in several responses to other folks above, you can see that I *have* asked what they feel would be a more sensible alternative system. So - what do you have to suggest as an alternative for me to give more than zero consideration to?

Or were you just trolling because you're like, upset with the system and stuff, man?

Vote for 'None of the Above'

[Anonymous Coward]

As in this clip of "Brewster's Millions". It's a great concept!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ8pgySec4

Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nationa

[zooblethorpe]

Diné bizaad doo nilh bééhózingo biniina, doo yánílhti' da.

(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)

And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies. Though written and not spoken, some choice examples (emphasis mine): Obama: Commander and Theif , Respect Are Country, Remember Descent the Highest Form of Patriotic, Politicians Are Like Dipers , Obama Lier In Chief...

Examples like these make me think that an awful lot of people protesting at Tea Party rallies would be disqualified by your criterion. Mind you, I'm not saying one way or the other whether you support the Tea Party -- I'm simply trying to point out that, even if we decide that English is the national language (which, at the moment, it is not in any official de jure capacity), many supposed native speakers do not seem to speak / write / understand the language all that well.

Cheers,

The Only Way

[Mr Bubble]

to make voting fair and reliable is to just use the voting machine as a good, adaptable user interface and require it to generate a machine- and human- readable chit that gets placed in the locked and secure ballot box. Then, do random checks with competing machine reading systems and occasional human-counts. It is the only way to get a "recount". Telling me your computer's tally one more time is not a recount - not with closed source software.

More U.S. government corruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. government is extremely corrupt.

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[ClimberPunk]

FYI, Nevada consists of more than Clark County (Las Vegas), and at least at my poling place outside of Clark County there were no preselected candidates.
As such it would be a stretch to say that all Nevada ballots are spoiled.

Sure recipe for controversy

[ananthap]

Sure recipes for controversy. (1) The default depending on the language I mean and not on any standard. (2) If the interface is not simple and precise, then a stressed out or exited voter may commit without selecting any candidate (thus forcing a default). Will this then reflect the voter's view? (3) Its not clear how the machine prevents a voter from voting more than once. OK

It should be a duty not a right

[dbIII]

I think the entire lot of you should turn up to vote - felons, mentally incompetant via a proxy - absolutely every adult.
For one thing the felon angle was obviously used to game the system in Florida a few years back so it's worth removing that unusual punishment just to simplify the voting system.
Also FFS have the elections on a weekend or holiday, ditch the stupid machines and get organised enough that you don't have lines stretching for hours. Your poll workers are mostly retirees and have the time to be trained in whatever system is used instead of the utter stupidity of them never seeing anything resembling the equipment (overly complicated computer systems with poorly thought out operating proceedures) until minutes before polling starts.

Re:It should be a duty not a right

[DavidTC]

I don't have a problem with felons not being allowed to vote.

I do have a very large problem with the fact jailed felons are counted in representation. You'll have a distinct with a jail holding 100,000 felons, and 20,000 staff of the jail, and 10,000 random people, and they get to elect someone worth 130,000 people.

I have the same problem with the fact visitors to this country, both legal and non-legal, are counted.

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that people who do not vote are not counted for purposes of representation. Sadly, I'm pretty sure that falls under the 'reduced representation' amendment exception, so all states with prisons would have to approve it.

If we're not going to do that, we should require that they can vote.

Also FFS have the elections on a weekend or holiday, ditch the stupid machines and get organised enough that you don't have lines stretching for hours.

Here in Georgia we have, for a month beforehand, early polling, from 9-5 every weekday.

This is possibly the stupidest schedule I've ever heard of. It's incomprehensibly stupid. It's 40 fucking hours entirely during the workday when people can't get there.

At the very least, run it 12-8. Although it would be a lot saner to vary on different days.

Yes, yes, people 'wouldn't want to look up the schedule' or some other nonsense. And you can't, for some reason, add more hours (Despite the fact we somehow went from 10 hours to 40 hours, we can't go to 60.)

So just make it two weeks, noon to eight every weekday, but also some days are 4am-noon also, and others add 8-4am. And be open on the weekends, of course. Could be the same number of hours, and a much better chance of people actually being able to go there.

Re:It should be a duty not a right

[riverat1]

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that people who do not vote are not counted for purposes of representation.

So are you saying children who are too young to vote should not be counted as well?

In Oregon felons are not allowed to vote while in custody but once they are released they are allowed to vote. That seems reasonable to me.

Re:It should be a duty not a right

[DavidTC]

So are you saying children who are too young to vote should not be counted as well?

I wouldn't have a problem with that change. I'm just not that worried about that either way, because proportionally, it doesn't do much. (Unlike the 'prisoner counties' which hold super prisons.)

I think we should recognize that representation is, or should be, due to eligible voters, not due to population.

Sadly, there's no way to actually change this. Constitutional amendments that reduce a state's representation require that state to authorize it, so to change this would require literally every state agreeing.

In Oregon felons are not allowed to vote while in custody but once they are released they are allowed to vote. That seems reasonable to me.

Like I said, I don't really care one way another, but as we can't reduce the representation of prisoners, we really should let them vote.

Consider our world-record prison population, perhaps it might be better if prisoners could actually vote and figure to a way to reduce said population. Right now, there are entire districts that run prisons, whose entire economy are based around said prison, and get represented based on said prison, so, of course, vote for anything to increase prison population!

Incidentally, if we'd based it on voters, we'd have had nowhere near the fight to get women the right to vote. Hell, we had to compromise the constitution about slavery over this exact issue. Perhaps it's time we stood firm and say 'In a representative democracy, places only get to claim as much people as they let vote, period.'

A fun idea might be to based it on registered or even actual votes cast. (That gets last tricky, though.) I don't see why people who don't vote get represented at all.

Re:It should be a duty not a right

[riverat1]

That's an intriguing idea to base representation on actual voters. We'd have a bit of an advantage here in Oregon because vote by mail increases the turnout a bit.

Sometimes I think Heinlein got it right in Starship Troopers. You have to earn your right to vote.

Citation neeeded - this is a *LIE*

[Eunuchswear]

Nowhere does the source claim what the slashdot submission claims.

Where the fuck is the quote about "default options" comimg from.

What the source actually says:

Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.

"Especially in a community with elderly citizens (they have) difficulty in (casting their) ballot," Lomax said. "Team leaders said there were complaints (and the) race filled in."

overThruster is a lying troll

[Eunuchswear]

What's upsetting is the idea that there would be defaults. Also that the defaults varied based on language, but the first thing is the main thing.

Well, it would be upsetting if it were true.

If fact it is upsetting because the whole slashdot article is a fucking lie.

Go check the source. Nowhere does it mention "default" votes, or language based defaults, or anything other than the screens being quite sensitive.

The slashdot article needs to be modded -99, TROLL.

And

[mahadiga]

Lesson learned:

Voting in elections != Democracy

But honestly...

[bobvious]

Who didn't see this kind of thing coming with with programmable voting machines? And who's gullible enough to think this is the extent of it?

So... Who allowed this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Web forms have solved this a long, long time ago. Start empty and ask at the end if empty was your intent. Obviously, at least one person decided to do this on purpose.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)

Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.

And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies ...

Honestly, I'd be open to a decent argument for taking away their vote.

On the other hand, your current example just plain sucks. You can't seriously be claiming that simple spelling mistakes are in any way equivalent to a complete inability to communicate in a given language. That's like arguing that calling the fire department to come put out a candle is completely rational since people call them to put out house fires on a regular basis.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.

No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in. Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.

T’áá ákódígo,

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in.

Um, no, I said that they shouldn't expect to get a vote if they can't speak the language. Which reminds me: do the Navajo have tribal elections? I know that the Ojibwe here in Canada do, and I don't get to vote in those.

Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy.

That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic. Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted. Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.

So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?

Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.

here's my response

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic.

No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.

Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted.

You might want to double-check your history on this one. The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.

Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.

Sounds suspiciously like a description of Europe. I fail to see why this history should be construed as somehow disqualifying the descendants of these people from speaking their own languages while engaging in participatory government.

So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?

I'm not sure anymore if you're trolling, or simply so emotionally invested in your point of view that conversation isn't really an option. For one, read up on history; European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. If it weren't for all the diseases the relatively dirty Europeans brought with them, history would have proceeded very differently. And again, the political situation in the Americas wasn't so very different from the political situation anywhere else on the globe: some empires, some smaller states, some fragmentary city-states, some nomads, shifting alliances, wars every few years.

I do not espouse regression. Nothing in my previous posts expresses any such regressionist view. I do espouse people not being conquering bellicose aggressors simply because they can. You either misunderstand me, or are deliberately putting words in my mouth. If your basic philosophy is that might makes right, that's fine, just please let me know so we can stop talking past each other.

As for your response about language and voting, why must everyone speak the same language? The Navajo can communicate well enough with the rest of the country via their own representatives and interpreters. Demanding that they all learn English or be disenfranchised is unreasonable, to put it lightly. Must every European citizen speak English to vote on EU matters?

Cheers,

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic.

No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.

Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted.

You might want to double-check your history on this one. The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.

Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.

Sounds suspiciously like a description of Europe. I fail to see why this history should be construed as somehow disqualifying the descendants of these people from speaking their own languages while engaging in participatory government.

So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?

I'm not sure anymore if you're trolling, or simply so emotionally invested in your point of view that conversation isn't really an option. For one, read up on history; European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. If it weren't for all the diseases the relatively dirty Europeans brought with them, history would have proceeded very differently. And again, the political situation in the Americas wasn't so very different from the political situation anywhere else on the globe: some empires, some smaller states, some fragmentary city-states, some nomads, shifting alliances, wars every few years.

I do not espouse regression. Nothing in my previous posts expresses any such regressionist view. I do espouse people not being conquering bellicose aggressors simply because they can. You either misunderstand me, or are deliberately putting words in my mouth. If your basic philosophy is that might makes right, that's fine, just please let me know so we can stop talking past each other.

As for your response about language and voting, why must everyone speak the same language? The Navajo can communicate well enough with the rest of the country via their own representatives and interpreters. Demanding that they all learn English or be disenfranchised is unreasonable, to put it lightly. Must every European citizen speak English to vote on EU matters?

Cheers,

(PS: Not sure how, but my previous post got unintentionally marked AC; reposting under my proper username.)

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.

That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.

The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.

Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.

European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think

lol. Now I know you're trolling :) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.

I could have explicated better, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase -- we have 1) European immigrants who overwhelmed local Native populations. I do not address whether or not these European people were hypocrites. Then we have 2) folks, nowadays, in the US, who are the anglophone descendants of these Europeans and who both a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English. These are the people that I claim are behaving hypocritically, due to the combination of points a) and b).

Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.

You stated, "since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted". I replied that the Salish and Iroquois did indeed have a concept of liberal democracy, which is nothing but relevant and refutes your point. You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness. Meanwhile, whether or not these tribes allowed white folk to participate in their governance is itself irrelevant to the core point addressed here, unless you wish to start a separate discussion. Commit many logical fallacies?

lol. Now I know you're trolling :) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.

Jackass is a jackass. Name calling is name calling. I would posit that the more obvious troller here is you, I'm afraid. 1492 is not the age of GPS and steam engines. Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty. The earliest known useful steam engine isn't documented until sometime in the late 1500s - early 1600s. I'll grant you medicine to an extent, though it's worth pointing out that just about every culture known throughout history, and many in prehistory, has exhibited some form of empiric knowledge of medical treatment, while many folks in Europe and the US as recently as the 1800s thought bathing was dangerously unhealthy (and some would argue that this is still the case in some places, c.f. Parisian bathing habits).

Besides which, you again put words in my mouth. I did not state that tech in the Americas was on par with European abilities. Quoting myself, I said European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. Not the same as what you seem to think I said. Spanish and English firearms, for instance, were much more useful for their psychological effects than for any capabilities as weapons. From page 64 of 1491:

Even for a crack shot, a seventeenth-century gun had fewer advantages over a longbow than may be supposed. Colonists in Jamestown taunted the Powhatan in 1607 with a target they believed impervious to an arrow shot. To the colonists' dismay, an Indian sank an arrow into it a foot deep, "which was strange, being that a Pis

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English.

*shrug* What such people do is of little relevance to me. Please address my arguments, rather than talking about a hypothetical "someone" who thinks "something".

You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness

No - I'm merely pointing out that these wonderful native tribes of yours also didn't allow foreigners to vote, so the question of whether or not we allow non-English speakers to vote in OUR elections has nothing to do with them. You could even say that their actions further reinforce my point, although I wouldn't take that tack, personally.

Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty.

Good on ya for acknowledging that I may not have been referring to GPS, because I certainly wasn't. Boo on you for claiming that the Polynesians managed to navigate anything whatsoever better than Europeans. What I WAS referring to were the concepts of longitude and latitude, and astral navigation - something that neither the American Indians nor the Polynesians ever managed to master.

I'm going to ignore your blather about the steam engine, etc, since the timelines are close, and the Indians wouldn't have figured it out even if we gave them another 2,000 years (steam requires decent metallurgy, and the indians weren't even close). You're missing the forest for the trees. But I do find it funny that you lump ALL the native people of both North and South America into one group, and then talk about their accomplishments as if they were one homogeneous organism. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I don't give a flying fuck what the Incas did when we're discussing North America, just like I wouldn't give a shit what the Ojibwa did if we were discussing South America. You're jumping all over the map in order to try and justify your little fantasy, and it's really quite sad. Stop flailing and stick to one topic and one area if you want to try and have a real discussion. Otherwise, don't bother.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

Something at the end of your post here makes me want to ask -- what do you think my "little fantasy" is? I'm honestly curious.

Cheers,

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

Something along the lines of "aboriginals" (including every single aboriginal people around the globe) "were SOOOOOOOOOO awesome, and the only reason they never got anywhere is because the EEEEVIL white man came along and took away all their land".

Which might have some merit to it - I'm fully willing to acknowledge that some aboriginal tribe somewhere may have managed to catch up to 19th century European achievements given another few thousand years - but to suggest that they were "close" in any meaningful sense of the word is sheer fantasy. The reality is that aboriginals today in (most of) North and South America are far better off than they would have been if they'd been left alone, and their conquest helped our entire species advance leaps and bounds ahead of where we would otherwise have been. Yet ignorant white folks still pine for the days of the Noble Savage. It's silly.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

Okay, that clears some things up, thanks for the response. I don't think folks in the Americas were all that, so there's one point of confusion. "Noble Savage" nothing; I don't think they were particularly noble or particularly savage; people are people, warts and all, is my personal view.

Speaking of people as people, though, and to come back to the initial point in TFA about ballots in multiple languages, are you of the opinion that everyone in a single polity must speak the same language to be granted suffrage? Reading your posts in this thread (the OP thread), it sounds like this is your stance. If so, what is your view of such polities as the EU, or Canada itself, where the voting public speaks multiple languages, but where any single member might only speak one? Do you view these polities as mistakes, experiments, something else?

Cheers,

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[c6gunner]

"people are people" is a little simplistic - people are a product of their society. There are outliers in every society, but the balance of the population will adhere to the beliefs and values they were raised with, and their education and abilities will reflect the level of their society.

My view of Canada - yeah, it was largely a mistake. The language divide causes massive problems within our nation. So far we've been able to work around them, but it continues to be a point of contention. As much as I enjoy the experience of visiting cities like Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec, I wish that the English - after winning the war - had told the french to learn english and adapt, or get the fuck out. It would have caused a lot less problems in the long run.

As for the EU - it's a stop-gap. The obvious long-term goal is a worldwide government, with all nation states taking the roles of the individual states in the USA. On a global scale, individual languages will persist for a long time. If we manage to invent some sort of "universal translator" (a-la Star Trek), languages may cease to be an issue, in which case my complaints would be irrelevant. In the meantime, though, the LEAST that we can expect of a new citizen is to learn the language of his/her host nation.

Re:Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nati

[zooblethorpe]

Sure, people are people is a simplification, because to some extent it has to be. That said, I've lived in numerous places around the world, and visited a fair few more, and while I agree that folks are to some extent the product of where they grow up, I see quite a bit of commonality -- probably because the bare-bones basics are the same for most human animals (excluding the outliers you mention). Then again, that might just be my perspective.

About Canada, the divide with Quebec -- how much of that do you view as purely linguistic, and how much is cultural? Or is that even quantifiable?

About the EU and world government, what do you mean by "obvious" and "goal" -- obvious to whom, and whose goal?

Cheers,