posted on December 14, 2000 04:31:42 AM
Actually, donny, I think that you're the one skating on the bring of the literacy-test excuse: Since some folks might not have understood the instructions, maybe they didn't actually mean to mark their ballots the way they did. Hey, if they really understood what Candidate A said, they would've voted for Candidate B, so...No thanks.
katy, I wasn't using anecdotal evidence, but 1999 stats from INS and the Census bureau. However, having been almost the only Anglo in three different ethnic neighborhoods (Chinese, Lebanese, and Colombian), I can like you speak from some personal experience. And virtually all the older naturalized citizens I both had casual contact with and knew personally had English-speaking friends and family members whom they relied on for assistance. These are not, for the most part, lone individuals stranded in a sea of another language, but members of a community with many interfaces with English-speaking America. This is how, for example, they are able to go to Rite-Aid and buy antihistamine rather than antacid, receive treatment at the hospital, or find out how to become naturalized in the first place - OR find the polling place where they vote.
posted on December 14, 2000 06:54:16 AMFountainhouse what do you consider to be a "mis-vote"? In Miami-Dade County, an area of considerable discussion in these forums, there were 9,000 under votes out of over 653,000 ballots cast. That works out to %1.38.
As for the type of machinery used in these precincts the undervote would have dropped if voters that actually intended to vote had made certain that they had clearly punched the cards and/or removed the chads. What level of economic income or education is required to understand this requirement?
I am not saying that there isn't room for improvement. There should be better mechanisms for voting and I agree with you that there will be as a result of this contest.
posted on December 14, 2000 08:52:06 AM
A misvote is not only an undervote, but an overvote as well.
Literacy test - Let's make everyone take it, so we can be sure not only that they can read, but that they really understand how the election process works. This will promote good citizenship, and make sure that the electorate makes prudent choices!
HCQ, since you've asserted that people are stupid and said this:
"error based on not having a clue as to which candidate supports what policies.
I'd suggest THAT is a greater danger."
And then asked:
"How many voters can actually articulate anything about their candidates' positions"
You'll be happy to know that Alabama addressed your concerns and found the solution. Lobby for this, it's the answer to the danger of the stupid, ill-informed electorate:
posted on December 14, 2000 09:17:17 AM
It is quite common to have quite a few votes that have multiple punches or no punches for a particular office. Many voters simply didn't pick a Presidential candidate.
What a voter intends should be a clean or single punch through. Step 3 from the Palm Beach instructions says to do so. After voting, it also says to check your ballot for clear and clean punches and nothing hanging and if you made a mistake to request a new one.
It is a fact of elections all over the country to have many ballots voided because of voter error. They are simply not counted. This election could have gone either way depending on a handful of votes. It is a very good lesson on the importance of everyone getting out and voting regardless of whose candidate you wanted.
posted on December 14, 2000 10:09:39 AM
Hardly, donny. Unlike you, who seem to think that not is it only right, but NECESSARY for somebody (who? I wonder) to hold voters' hands through the electoral process, and that it is appropriate for another human being to intervene in that process by divining the voter's "intent," I believe that it is the individual's right to remain uninformed, either about the candidates' positions or how to properly cast a vote.
posted on December 14, 2000 02:00:18 PMDr. Beetle, according to CNN, the undervotes in Miami-Dade totaled 10,750 out of 654,150 ballots (1.6%).
If you look at over- and undervotes statewide in counties that used punch ballots, 3.8% of the ballots cast with archaic equipment were disqualified.
That compares to less than 1% (.075%) in the rest of the state reporting over/undervotes using more advanced optical equipment. IOW, people who used punch ballots were 5 times more likely to err when casting their ballot.
Far more egregious "disparate" treatment than counting their chads would've been, IMO.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:07:45 PM
I suggested (not here as far as I recall, but on another board) that one way to cut down on voting errors would be to have a card reading machine with an attached display that would present a "lit up" version of the ballot to the voter so they could verify that the ballot is not spoiled or unreadable before they actually cast the ballot.
The technology would not be very expensive.
On another note, how many places still use the voting machines where you flip the little mechanical tabs next to your choices? When you complete the "ballot" you swing a lever that records the choices and opens the curtain of the machine. We had them in New Jersey where I voted (at least through 1984).
I don't believe that overvotes are possible on these types of machines but undervotes are entirely possible. And there is no way to determine the voter's intent since there is no physical ballot to examine. Those machines are simply a series of counters.
Part of the punch card controversy is simply because a physical ballot exists. But deciphering the intent when the ballot was not properly cast can be a very dicey affair.
At least with punch card ballots folks have the opportunity to check that they have actually voted as they desired. That some folks don't check is obviously a matter that this election has brought to the forefront.
I hope the folks who feel disenfranchised spend the next four years working on ensuring a better system for voting; verifying your vote before it is cast; tabulating the vote; and handling challenges rather than complaining that the President "stole" the election.
posted on December 14, 2000 06:49:40 PM
Oh, I doubt we'll see a sweeping reform of voting systems. First off, all these guys who can implement these reforms are the guys who were successfully elected using these systems. Who wants to mess with success?
Also, most people probably don't know this, but attempts to make voting more accessible have, in the past, been pushed for by the Democratic party, and strongly resisted by the Republican party. The "Motor Voter" law, allowing voter registrations at the same time as signing up for a driver's license, was strenuously resisted by Republicans in Congress. The reason is that most people who aren't registered to vote, if they did vote, would vote Democratic.
The Democrats try to turn their push for more accessible voting into some kind of holy crusade to have each voice count, but it's only self-interest on their part. Republicans claim to resist it because of fear of voter fraud, but it's only self-interest on their part also. If the situations were reversed, it would be the Democratic Party that was concerned about fraud, and the Republican Party that wanted everyone to have a voice in government.
Also, overhaul of voting systems is going to cost money, and who's going to pay? The states? Not likely. The counties? Not likely. The federal government? Not likely.
What'll probably happen is there will be some Congressional committees. Some Congressman will get on TV talking about how important this all is, and how they're doing something. Maybe they'll be some kind of council on voting reform. They'll do some studies, they'll print up some reports. They'll send those reports to the states. The states will send them to the counties. Big waste of paper. Maybe a few places will replace their systems. Most probably won't.
We use lever-type voting machines here in my district in Georgia. I read an article online somehwere where a voter in New York said his district uses them too, machines 40 years old, and he pointed to them as being better than punch ballots because of the impossibility of casting an overvote.
This is true, you can't cast an overvote with one, though you can still make no choice, either through oversight or intention, of course.
But the lever machines aren't as good as people would think. A few years ago, there was an article in our paper discussing these machines. First off, they're very susceptible to being "fixed," fool around with the counters and a guy could win before the first vote was cast.
Then, even if no one fools around with the counters, those counters could stop working at any time during the process. If you got to the end of the day, and found that the counters had quit turning, and you knew that hundreds of people had voted in that machine, but no votes (or few votes, if the counters stopped and started again) were registered on the counters for anyone, there's no way to attempt to recreate what anyone's vote was.
HCQ -
"I believe that it is the individual's right to remain uninformed, either about the candidates' positions or how to properly cast a vote."
Every ballot casting system is an artificially created standard that a voter must meet to have their vote count. Some places have set that standard at placing a punch card properly in a holder, and punching the holes completely. Some places set it at pulling a certain number of levers in the correct succession. Any number of locations create their standard in any number of ways. Alabama, at one time, set the standard at being able to answer the question of what size the Constitution limits the size of the District of Columbia to.
If a person, for whatever reason, is unable to meet whatever standard he happens to encounter, your point of view makes the voter liable, and the result is that he loses his right to vote.
I, on the other hand, look to the standard. If I place a barrier which people must cross in order to excercise their right to vote, and 10 people come to cast their ballots, and 9 people succeed in crossing the barrier, and 1 person does not, I don't say it's the fault of the potential voter and so he must lose his vote as a consequence of his failure. I say the failure is in the barrier which prevents 1 voter out of 10, out of 100, out of 1,000, from casting his vote.
Several people have likened voting to obtaining a driver's license, and that's not a valid comparison. Obtaining a driver's license is a privlege, voting is a right.
You've compared an inability to cast a ballot to an inability to fill out an income tax form, and pointed to the fact that an inability to comprehend should not excuse people from their duty to pay taxes. That's right. And, conversely, an inability to comprehend instructions on how to vote should not abrogate a person's right to have his vote count.
A standard to vote that I can meet, or you can meet, is not the test of whether the standard is too high. The test is in how others meet it. To gauge it from the point of view of what "I" can do is wrong. It works great for me, my vote will count. Another guy, who has the same right to vote that I do, might get screwed. I don't accept that. Someday I might be that other guy.
Finally, if I never hear the phrase "divine the intent of the voter again," it'll be too soon. This was a brilliant piece of spin put out by the Republican Party. I suspect it was James Baker, he's a clever piece of work.
It makes people think of a ballot as being as mysterious as a pile of entrails. Mark Raciocot (sp? the Gov. of Montana?), even got to the point of calling it something like "bordering on the mystic."
In fact, I've searched through the Florida Statutes myself, and absoultely nowhere will you find instructions that ballots counters should "divine the intent of the voter." The word "divine" isn't in there at all.
I think this mischaracterization was the most brilliant piece of political persuasion in this whole thing, I'm in awe of whomever designed it.
posted on December 14, 2000 07:39:18 PM
Since it's the Dems who seem to have so much trouble figuring out how to vote, maybe pin the tail on the Donkey would work.
posted on December 14, 2000 07:57:38 PM
"Since it's the Dems who seem to have so much trouble figuring out how to vote, maybe pin the tail on the Donkey would work."
Good idea, asses certainly aren't in short supply.
posted on December 14, 2000 09:53:15 PMbut members of a community with many interfaces with English-speaking America. This is how, for example, they are able to go to Rite-Aid and buy antihistamine rather than antacid, receive treatment at the hospital, or find out how to become naturalized in the first place - OR find the polling place where they vote.
Could someone point out to quilt that voters are alone in the booth, thus rendering the above argument silly.
posted on December 15, 2000 12:30:39 AM
I don't believe voting should be a test, but the ballots and methods used in Florida have been used for many, many, years. After a close national election we find that the voting methods used were a civil rights violation, based on some news stories I'm seeing. There is something sad about this panic taking place to make voting 'idiot proof'. I can see the campaign slogan already. Vote for us, the people that brought you idiot proof voting
if 9,000 votes weren't counted, how do they know there are 9,000 votes?
posted on December 15, 2000 01:17:27 AM
It's only the news viewing public who has suddenly found out about these problems, people who study politics have known about all this stuff for a long time. The Democratic party has known about it for a long time. All of sudden, when they thought it would do them some good, they cared. They cared for about 5 weeks. Now that they've found out that caring about it didn't do them any good, they'll go back to not caring.
posted on December 15, 2000 06:41:08 AM
Read it again, krs, slowly:
101.051 Electors seeking assistance in casting ballots; oath to be executed; forms to be furnished.--
(1) Any elector applying to vote in any election who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may request the assistance of two election officials or some other person of the elector's own choice, other than the elector's employer, an agent of the employer, or an officer or agent of his or her union, to assist the elector in casting his or her vote. Any such elector, before retiring to the voting booth, may have one of such persons read over to him or her, without suggestion or interference, the titles of the offices to be filled and the candidates therefor and the issues on the ballot. After the elector requests the aid of the two election officials or the person of the elector's choice, they shall retire to the voting booth for the purpose of casting the elector's vote according to the elector's choice.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to be in the voting booth with any elector except as provided in subsection (1).
It would seem that California has worse problems than confused, elderly non-English-speaking registered voters somehow finding their way to the polls all by their lonesome.
Californai still does not require ANY identification whatsoever to vote - not even a signature comparison, such as in FL. All you do is say you're somebody on the registration list. This "honor system" that exists in a state where nobody EVER crosses the border into the US without a green card...right?
Combine that with a large illegal-alien population, and you get (as the Secretary of State admits) rampant vote-selling and ballot box stuffing, just as in the days of Tammany Hall. Although these problems have been noted since at least 1996, they STILL have not been addressed:
Although a bill was introduced in 1996 and 1998 requiring the most basic forms of identification, it was defeated. It's been reintroduced in the 2001 session.
posted on December 15, 2000 08:33:32 AMOh, I doubt we'll see a sweeping reform of voting systems.
I disagree, donny. Regardless of the federal legislature, the states and counties have already begun addressing the issue. In California alone, more than 100 bills have been or are being written. I believe local elections officials are acutely aware that what transpired in Florida could have easily happened in their own backyard.
Don't forget, during five weeks of twists, turns, ups and downs, Americans were certain of only one thing: that when the debacle finally ended, the PTB would make sure it NEVER happened again. Don't underestimate the will of the people.
As far as federal efforts, I agree there will likely be a commission created and public hearings staged. What comes out of them will remain to be seen. Like anything else they deal with, much will depend on the pressure they get and who's exerting it.
posted on December 15, 2000 08:38:23 AM
i heard on the radio yesterday that they are already establishing a commission to uniformly revise the voting system here in south Florida. they will assuredly have some lengthy debate before coming to an agreement,but one thing is certain- we will never see the chad system again. the big old mechanical voting booths are apparently very accurate but are also very difficult to store and transport. just a note-i have some close friends in Palm Beach who are unquestionably rather intelligent and not elderly or foreign-born. when they came back from voting the first thing they said was that there was going to be a problem with the ballots as they were very poorly designed!
I now see why you don't have to present any ID when voting. You don't have to provide any ID info (such as a state ID or driver's license number) when registering either.
Since (as in most states) you can register to vote by mail, anybody can register any number of nonexistent "voters" with nothing more than a mailing address. What we'll generously call "proxies" of these "voters" can then show up at the polls, and merely by stating that they're so-and-so on the registration list, place a vote. Better yet, this plan can be streamlined even further by voting by by absentee ballot, allowing one person to act as "proxy" for hundreds of voters without leaving his house. And without any ID number to check these ballots, at present there's virtually no way to trace fraud.
Couldn't happen? In 1996, Los Angeles resident Barbara Bordenave pleaded guilty to registering deceased persons and filing fictitious affidavits while working as a "bounty-hunter" for the "Ironing Board Project" run by the DNC.
But even messier and more recent, let's look at LA/Orange County's Hermandad Mexicana Nacional (HMN) (whose website is now "404 Not Found" ), which has been "assisting" with voter registration since 1971. A 1997 Secretary of State investigation found that sixty percent of the registrations made with HMN "assistance" were illegal, non-citizen registrations, and that 67% of those were in the one Congressional district, resulting in 305 known illegally-cast votes from this organization alone. (Nevertheless, for some reason I haven't been able to uncover, nobody was indicted.) Anyway, the incumbent - Bob Dornan - lost the election by 979 votes, and made a HUGE stink, which precipitated the SoS action. A U.S. House Oversight Committe investigation confirmed the allegations and found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens - not enough to overturn the election, but plenty to create a nasty contest that lasted 14 months and makes the accusations exchanged during the recent contest look like love notes.
Can somebody please explain to me why it's common practice in CA to require ID to cash a check at the Safeway, but not to register or cast a vote?
Edited to add that link and correct a wink.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 15, 2000 10:05 AM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 10:21:29 AM
I never give ID anywhere.
As to voting, they just cross the appropriate name off of the list at the polls after asking to verify the person's address. Seems to work like this: I was told by mail to go to one place, but my wife went to another place as similarly told.
The names and addresses are cross matched prior to mailing the notice of where to appear.
As if this smokescreen of yours matters a lick in this election.
posted on December 15, 2000 10:23:39 AM
HCQ - Sounds like something you need to take up with the California Legislature. Just like that clear intent and other garbage recently enacted in Florida will be taken up with the Florida Legislature.
I think we can generally accept that all 50 States have weird rules written into election law. Just that some rules have been around awhile. Others seem to have conveiently changed in the last 10 months before a national election. Who knew?
posted on December 15, 2000 10:40:26 AM
I also suggested (again, on another board) that the $ checkoff on one's tax return for funding presidential elections be changed to funding a country wide standard for national elections.
For those folks who prefer to do something other than complain about the past and bemoan the future, I suggest you contact anyone you know who has expressed an interest in campaign and election finance reform. McCain, Bradley and Nader might be some high profile advocates for reforms in the voting process.
posted on December 15, 2000 10:45:20 AM
Might I suggest...
Instead of posting a URL with an incredibly long name that forces folks to scroll right and left to read all posts on the page, remove the http:// and break up the remainder of the name?
If folks want to go to the URL they can cut and paste it in order to reconstruct it.
posted on December 15, 2000 02:52:57 PM
Sorry, codasaurus. The URL wasn't causing scrolling on my monitor, so it never occurred to me it'd cause problems with anybody else. I'll edit the post in question.
Unfortunately, krs, your optimistic assertion that names and addresses are "cross matched prior to mailing the notice of where to appear" is incorrect. No "cross matching" is done with anything more definitive than the USPS change-of-address list, the use of which is merely one of three options. The postcard sent to voters itself states that its purpose is to "correct the addresses of voters who have moved and have not reregistered", not to confirm that the registered voter does actually (or ever did) live at the address in question. And it certainly doesn't make the least effort to confirm that the person identifying himself at the polls as John Doe of Little Road in Orange County isn't Jack Smiley of LA County.
All California Elections Code 2220-2226 requires is that, 3 months before the primary election, the county may either:
(A) use the USPS change-of-address list to update the addresses of any voters who the have filed such a notice with the USPS. OR
(B) send postcards to voters who did NOT vote in the 6 months before the primary saying "if the addressee doesn't live here anymore, let us know. Otherwise, ignore this." OR
(C) just use the address on file when sending out the sample ballot.
If the postcard (or sample ballot) is returned as undeliverable, they drop the name from the list. If the postcard's returned with a new address, they update the list. If the postcard isn't returned at all, however, they do nothing. Never during the entire registration and voting process does anybody ever check to see that the voter is - or ever was, for that matter - alive, over 18, and a US citizen. As long as ever 4 years somebody saying he's John Smith shows up at the polls or sends in an absentee ballot, Mr. Smith remains on the list.
Using California's register-by-mail and absentee-ballot system, our entire flock of chickens could register and vote well into the next century.
Incidentally, my observations regarding CA election code weren't intended as a "smokescreen," since none is necessary. I ended up reading CA election code in researching katyd's assertions, and was surprised that a state so renowned for its propensity to regulate would not only have no checks in place regarding voting, but in the face of repeated incidents of error and fraud relating to that lack would repeatedly vote down an initiative addressing the problem.
posted on December 15, 2000 03:51:23 PM
No, you looked into it because you're hooked on bombastic posting as it gives you something to do.
What the law doesn't tell you is that the reason any reform act fails is that it would interfere with our ability to have our servants do the voting as they do the shopping, gardening, cleaning, and carrying out of the trash. With the servants voting, would you expect that they would vote themselves out of their jobs?
posted on December 15, 2000 07:59:07 PM
HCQ - Actually you are doing all of this IMHO to offset the reality that your State participated in the largest election scam of the modern era.
However if that gives you consolation. The rest of America takes pride that although it won't matter for this election. The events in Florida will in the near future cast a shame on Florida and its republican party. That is what I look forward to reading about.
