To vote, we simply had to color in the circle to the right of the name (no lining up arrows or lines with machine!)
I see. How did the machine differentiate between a person who had not darkened a circle enough for the machine to detect it, and a person who deliberately chose not to vote in one of the races?
I don't know if you know about this, but the smallest nation in the world is not the Vatican, it's an nation called Sealand that is actually a former British air base.
Um, sure it is. Can you identify a single legitimate country which has recognized Sealand?
I can declare my house to be an independent country, but that doesn't make it so.
Which is exactly why the Electorial College is not perfect.
When a state leans heavily to one party, it is a waste for the other party to campaign there. The original poster said "Small states and areas with low population density are not ignored". My homestate of Georgia was ignored. Texas was ignored. The E.C. focuses the campaigning to the states where the E.V. is up for grabs. Why should the residents of Texas (and other states) be ignored because the Electorial Vote in that state is a forgone conclusion?
Oh, I agree completely. I was just explaining that it's not that states are small that is the reason they are ignored. Indiana, being heavily Republican in presidential elections, was also ignored, despite having more electoral votes than Tennessee, where both candidates campaigned heavily.
However, regardless of whether we ought to get rid of the EC or not (and I think we should), it's not going to happen. Here's my earlier post on why not.
The Florida election site seems to be back up now, so I can give you the hard numbers. I'll concede for the sake of argument that what we commonly call the "Reform Party" is known as the "Independent Party" in Florida, although I still have my doubts. (Any Reform/Independent Party members from Florida here who can confirm/deny this?)
Numbers of registered voters is taken from this document. Number of votes cast for each candidate are here.
This table lists those Florida counties with 5000 or more registered Independent Party Members. Spaces had to be replaced with periods since/. doesn't allow <pre>:(
# Ind. = Number of voters registered as Independent Party members
% Ind. = Percentage of registered voters who are registered as Independent Party members
# Buch. = Number of votes cast for Buchanan
% Buch. = Percentage of all votes cast for president which were cast for Buchanan
OK, Volusia county is itself suspicious because there were no votes counted there for anyone other than Bush or Gore. But that's a separate issue. (Strange that no one has brought that up yet. I would have thought conspiracy theorists would be jumping all over that one.)
As jbridges says, decide for yourself. I've linked the primary sources. Check those out yourself if you don't believe me, or the NewsMax.com article.
Don't get me wrong--I do not advocate a revote. I just find it very hard to believe, given these numbers, that everyone who voted for Buchanan in Palm Beach County meant to do so. So does Buchanan.
What century, indeed.
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
Election results for one county in Michigan were held up for two hours because some volunteers with ballots were barricaded in the building by a bear. A bear! What century is this?
What century is this, where we can't tolerate a two-hour delay in learning the voting results, let alone one of several days??!! There's absolutely no reason, save the public's insatiable and irrational thirst for news, why we need to have voting results right away.
Could it have been our piddly 8 electors as opposed to Ohio (21) and Tennessee (11)? Why yes, that could be it.
Could it be that Gore knew that no matter how much campaigning he did there, he would never win Kentucky? And Bush knew that no matter how little campaigning he did there, he would never lose it? Why yes, that could be it.
. How many times did a candidate campaign in Alaska, Hawaii or Wyoming? A state has 3 out of 540 EV's or 600k out of 100 million voters, either way, the state is not that important in the overall scheme.
Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming are ignored not because they are small, but because they lean heavily to one party--Alaska and Wyoming are heavily Republican, and Hawaii is heavily democrat. No amount of campaigning will change that. Give me a small state with a close vote, and you'll see some campaigning done there.
Re:What Is He Talking About?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
Nope, the original poster is right. I live in Hamilton County, IN, and voted the same way the poster described. Granted, much of Hamilton County is higher-income suburbs of Indianapolis.
Buchanan is not conceding any votes. He admits that some people who may have meant to vote for Gore voted for him, but he said on MSNBC last night that the votes are still votes for him, even if cast by mistake.
Even with the argument that we commonly call the "Reform Party" is actually listed as the "Independent Party", the statements made here are still untrue. Look at the document itself (seems to be slashdotted at the moment) for the numbers.
In fact, it has the highest Independent registration in Florida.
Untrue. Other counties have even more members registered with the "Independent Party".
Buchanan received 1 percent of the vote in Palm Beach County. In all the counties in Florida where there is significant Independent Party membership, Buchanan got a similiar 1 percent.
Palm Beach County gave Buchanan no more support proportionally than any other county with high Independent Party registration
Again, demonstrably untrue. Other counties with greater "Independent Party" registrations had less than 1/3 the votes for Buchanan that Palm Beach County did.
I don't know much about NewsMax.com. Are they deliberately lying, or just stupid?
Put it this way - if it were unclear as to what the "right thing to do" was, who would you trust more to "do the right thing"? Your next-door neighbor who happens to be involved with your local branch of the [Republican|Democratic] party and was granted his/her nomination to the EC as a perk, or someone like [Newt Gingrich|Hillary Clinton]?
It's rarely "your next-door neighbor who happens to be involved with your local branch of the [Republican|Democratic] party." More often, it's the governor, members of the state legislature, campaign managers, state party chairs, etc.
No elector has ever voted against the candidate he was "supposed" to vote for when it would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.
Because they are (usually) easy to use, reliable, and can be quickly tallied with inexpensive equipment, saving on both volunteer time and equipment purchases. Granted, in Palm Beach they were used badly, but that isn't grounds to condemn the system as a whole.
Yes, it is. With punch cards, you can punch out the circles for more than one candidate for an office, and there is nothing to indicate to you that you have not cast a valid vote. If a punch-card system were modified to have some immediate, error-checking feedback, that would let a voter know right away if he had not cast a valid vote when he might have thought that he had, that would be OK.
Idiots have and should have the right to vote. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting system must be idiot-proof.
Also, what's wrong with using old technology for something important? Old technology permits you to pick techniques that are proven and reliable.
The punch-card system is not proven and reliable. There have always been problems with it (as there always have with any voting system, but some more than others)--it's just that most of the time, the irregularities don't make a difference in the election, so they are not reported in the national press. Here they do.
Many of these counties choose voting machines and stick with them for as many elections as is possible. This is known as fiscal responsibility.
Is it fiscally responsible to disenfranchise over nineteen thousand of your county's voters? When the reprecussions will involve court challenges, possible revotes, etc?
Many people have commented here that even idiots have the right to vote. I fully support that. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting method must be idiot-proof.
Where I voted, they used a push-button electronic system which would not allow you to cast more than one vote for each office (except for one local board where you were supposed to vote for three candidates, and there it did not let you vote for more than three). With this punch-card system, people can punch out more than one circle for a given office, and there's no error checking, nothing to tell them right then and there that they did not cast a valid vote. This is an unacceptable voting method.
Jeffrey says that it is "completely believable to me" that there were 3,000 Buchanan supporters again voting for their man in the Palm Beach area this Tuesday.
I have heard that the Reform Party in Florida is called the Independent Party, and sure enough on this form it says there are 14,551 registered voters in Palm Beach county who are considered members of the Independent party.
Even if that's correct, you have to apply it to all counties, not just Palm Beach County. Given that a number of counties have thousands of voters listed as "Independent Party" members, you can hardly say that in Palm Beach County, the "Independent Party" is really the Reform Party, but in all other counties, the Independent Party is some other party, and what is listed as the "Reform Party" is that same entity we know as the Reform Party.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say that what is listed as the "Independent Party" in this document is what we commonly call the Reform Party. Even then, your statement that Palm Beach County has more Reform Party members than the rest of the state combined is still incorrect. And Palm Beach County's 3407 votes for Buchanan is still suspiciously high, based on the results of the rest of the state.
Palm Beach has 15,000 registered Reform Party members and Broward County has less than 200 registered Reform Party members.
According to Florida's own documents (PDF, sorry) there were only 337 voters registered in Palm Beach County as Reform Party members, as of October 10 of this year.
3400 votes for Buchanan is directly in line with every other Florida county that has a similar number of registered Reform Party members.
This isn't gonna be decided by a team of lawyers or politicians or campaign strategists, it's gonna be decided by 25 ordinary schmoes.
The 25 electors are not "25 ordinary schmoes". What's more, the 25 electors haven't even been chosen yet. Republicans have their set of 25 electors already chosen from the Florida Republican Party's most faithful members. The Florida Democratic Party has their own set of 25 electors chosen and ready to go. Which set of 25 electors gets to vote depends on the outcome of the election. And when they vote, they're not about to defect and vote for the other candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely my point.
People have the right to use machines in order to exercise their freedom of speech.
This is not the same as "the UK recognizes Sealand as a sovereign nation."
I see. How did the machine differentiate between a person who had not darkened a circle enough for the machine to detect it, and a person who deliberately chose not to vote in one of the races?
Would you please identify a state which does not allow write-in votes?
"New Jerusalem" is an allusion to Revelation 21. It has little to do with today's Jerusalem.
It's an allusion to Revelation 21. The "new Jerusalem" has little to do with the Jerusalem we know.
Um, sure it is. Can you identify a single legitimate country which has recognized Sealand?
I can declare my house to be an independent country, but that doesn't make it so.
Oh, I agree completely. I was just explaining that it's not that states are small that is the reason they are ignored. Indiana, being heavily Republican in presidential elections, was also ignored, despite having more electoral votes than Tennessee, where both candidates campaigned heavily.
However, regardless of whether we ought to get rid of the EC or not (and I think we should), it's not going to happen. Here's my earlier post on why not.
Numbers of registered voters is taken from this document. Number of votes cast for each candidate are here.
This table lists those Florida counties with 5000 or more registered Independent Party Members. /. doesn't allow <pre> :(
Spaces had to be replaced with periods since
County.....#.Ind....%.Ind.....#.Buch.....%.Buch.
---------..------...------....------.....------
Brevard......6815.....2.40......570........0.26
Duval.......10298.....2.43......650........0.25
Hillsborough10939.....2.19......845........0.23
Orange.......7751.....1.92......446........0.16
Palm.Beach..16336.....2.49.....3407........0.79
Pinellas....17614.....3.06.....1012........0.25
Volusia......5229.....2.01........0........0.00
# Ind. = Number of voters registered as Independent Party members
% Ind. = Percentage of registered voters who are registered as Independent Party members
# Buch. = Number of votes cast for Buchanan
% Buch. = Percentage of all votes cast for president which were cast for Buchanan
OK, Volusia county is itself suspicious because there were no votes counted there for anyone other than Bush or Gore. But that's a separate issue. (Strange that no one has brought that up yet. I would have thought conspiracy theorists would be jumping all over that one.)
As jbridges says, decide for yourself. I've linked the primary sources. Check those out yourself if you don't believe me, or the NewsMax.com article.
Don't get me wrong--I do not advocate a revote. I just find it very hard to believe, given these numbers, that everyone who voted for Buchanan in Palm Beach County meant to do so. So does Buchanan.
What century is this, where we can't tolerate a two-hour delay in learning the voting results, let alone one of several days??!! There's absolutely no reason, save the public's insatiable and irrational thirst for news, why we need to have voting results right away.
Could it be that Gore knew that no matter how much campaigning he did there, he would never win Kentucky? And Bush knew that no matter how little campaigning he did there, he would never lose it? Why yes, that could be it.
Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming are ignored not because they are small, but because they lean heavily to one party--Alaska and Wyoming are heavily Republican, and Hawaii is heavily democrat. No amount of campaigning will change that. Give me a small state with a close vote, and you'll see some campaigning done there.
Nope, the original poster is right. I live in Hamilton County, IN, and voted the same way the poster described. Granted, much of Hamilton County is higher-income suburbs of Indianapolis.
Buchanan is not conceding any votes. He admits that some people who may have meant to vote for Gore voted for him, but he said on MSNBC last night that the votes are still votes for him, even if cast by mistake.
In fact, it has the highest Independent registration in Florida.
Untrue. Other counties have even more members registered with the "Independent Party".
Buchanan received 1 percent of the vote in Palm Beach County. In all the counties in Florida where there is significant Independent Party membership, Buchanan got a similiar 1 percent.
Palm Beach County gave Buchanan no more support proportionally than any other county with high Independent Party registration
Again, demonstrably untrue. Other counties with greater "Independent Party" registrations had less than 1/3 the votes for Buchanan that Palm Beach County did.
I don't know much about NewsMax.com. Are they deliberately lying, or just stupid?
It's rarely "your next-door neighbor who happens to be involved with your local branch of the [Republican|Democratic] party." More often, it's the governor, members of the state legislature, campaign managers, state party chairs, etc.
No elector has ever voted against the candidate he was "supposed" to vote for when it would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.
Yes, it is. With punch cards, you can punch out the circles for more than one candidate for an office, and there is nothing to indicate to you that you have not cast a valid vote. If a punch-card system were modified to have some immediate, error-checking feedback, that would let a voter know right away if he had not cast a valid vote when he might have thought that he had, that would be OK.
Idiots have and should have the right to vote. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting system must be idiot-proof.
Also, what's wrong with using old technology for something important? Old technology permits you to pick techniques that are proven and reliable.
The punch-card system is not proven and reliable. There have always been problems with it (as there always have with any voting system, but some more than others)--it's just that most of the time, the irregularities don't make a difference in the election, so they are not reported in the national press. Here they do.
Is it fiscally responsible to disenfranchise over nineteen thousand of your county's voters? When the reprecussions will involve court challenges, possible revotes, etc?
Many people have commented here that even idiots have the right to vote. I fully support that. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting method must be idiot-proof.
Where I voted, they used a push-button electronic system which would not allow you to cast more than one vote for each office (except for one local board where you were supposed to vote for three candidates, and there it did not let you vote for more than three). With this punch-card system, people can punch out more than one circle for a given office, and there's no error checking, nothing to tell them right then and there that they did not cast a valid vote. This is an unacceptable voting method.
Funny, then, that it's not believable to Buchanan himself.
Even if that's correct, you have to apply it to all counties, not just Palm Beach County. Given that a number of counties have thousands of voters listed as "Independent Party" members, you can hardly say that in Palm Beach County, the "Independent Party" is really the Reform Party, but in all other counties, the Independent Party is some other party, and what is listed as the "Reform Party" is that same entity we know as the Reform Party.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say that what is listed as the "Independent Party" in this document is what we commonly call the Reform Party. Even then, your statement that Palm Beach County has more Reform Party members than the rest of the state combined is still incorrect. And Palm Beach County's 3407 votes for Buchanan is still suspiciously high, based on the results of the rest of the state.
According to Florida's own documents (PDF, sorry) there were only 337 voters registered in Palm Beach County as Reform Party members, as of October 10 of this year.
3400 votes for Buchanan is directly in line with every other Florida county that has a similar number of registered Reform Party members.
What other Florida county? No other Florida county had even 1/3 as many votes for Buchanan.
The real voting irregularity here is the moderators who voted for these lies as "informative".
The 25 electors are not "25 ordinary schmoes". What's more, the 25 electors haven't even been chosen yet. Republicans have their set of 25 electors already chosen from the Florida Republican Party's most faithful members. The Florida Democratic Party has their own set of 25 electors chosen and ready to go. Which set of 25 electors gets to vote depends on the outcome of the election. And when they vote, they're not about to defect and vote for the other candidate.
No, you are exactly right.
Clinton won both his elections with a minority of votes. Were you complaining then?