The problem here in the US that the democrats can only win if all the idiots vote for them and they can not afford losing any of them because he/she can not read/write/is-blind/is-mentally-ill etc.
This line of thinking force us to be as idiot-proof as possible i.e. computer program with big pictures of the candidates and so on.
If the vote was lost by less than 1000 votes it means it was more or less equal so both candidates are acceptable to the public.
The idea if popular vote still stands since the radical non acceptable candidates (Nadar, Buchanan ) were filtered out no matter how you count.
Voting machines are dangerous because they introduce a new risk - lost of anonymity.
In worst case scenario someone might trace what candidate was voted by each voter in a global scale.
The whole stupid idea of voting reform came from sour losers democrats who could not stand losing by few votes.
Think about it who can have the candidate voted by only 49.5% win instead of the one voted by 50.5%, but it doesn't matter, since basically the voters could stand either of them.
With the old system there was no chance someone like Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan could win with the few points of support, but with the new and improve they stand a real chance of winning
Slashdot Mirror
As I wrote they will be very reliable in making sure 99.99% of the vote go to Nadar
The problem here in the US that the democrats can only win if all the idiots vote for them and they can not afford losing any of them because he/she can not read/write/is-blind/is-mentally-ill etc. This line of thinking force us to be as idiot-proof as possible i.e. computer program with big pictures of the candidates and so on.
If the vote was lost by less than 1000 votes it means it was more or less equal so both candidates are acceptable to the public. The idea if popular vote still stands since the radical non acceptable candidates (Nadar, Buchanan ) were filtered out no matter how you count.
Voting machines are dangerous because they introduce a new risk - lost of anonymity. In worst case scenario someone might trace what candidate was voted by each voter in a global scale. The whole stupid idea of voting reform came from sour losers democrats who could not stand losing by few votes. Think about it who can have the candidate voted by only 49.5% win instead of the one voted by 50.5%, but it doesn't matter, since basically the voters could stand either of them. With the old system there was no chance someone like Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan could win with the few points of support, but with the new and improve they stand a real chance of winning
I'm sure the UN can send observers from IRAN/CUBA/CHINA etc. ensuring Ralph Nader gets the usual 99.9% of the votes