• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

60min: programmers can make games like mmorpg, but a voting program is difficult?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Well this shouldn't get into a electoral college/pop vote discussion but do you have any idea why we don't go by popular vote? If you did, you wouldn't make such comments. Otherwise we would have NY, CA, and TX making all the decisions for the country. Those would be the only states people would care about.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that argument. It still comes down to those states anyway. Look what state it came down to last time. Florida. Another big state. On election night, what states are people most interested in? Yup, the big ones. Why? Because they still have the bulk of the electoral college votes. I don't see how that is any different that those states having the bulk of the individual voters. It has always bothered me that if you vote one way and your state as a whole votes for another candidate then your vote is essentially thrown out. Because once the winner in your state is determined then every single electoral vote goes to the winning candidate and your vote is now meaningless. If it was a true popular vote then your vote matters till the end. Just for the record... I do live in a small state.
Click to expand...

That is bunk. Yeah last time it came down to Florida but not because Florida is the biggest state. Simply because all the other states had been decided.

If you go with popular vote, you are limiting what states are important. Right now Kerry and Bush are fighting over "swing" states that aren't very big but are EXTREMELY important. If we went with popular vote then they would be actively ignoring those same states.

Now to your second argument. I think it is crap that the states have traditionally been all or nothing for electoral votes. It needs to be taken one step further down. If you have 4 EC votes then it should take that into account based on the popular vote in that state. So if you go 75% one canidate and 25% for the other. Then 3 votes should go to one of them and the other to the opponent.

But getting rid of EC will destroy the republic. I don't think you will find any intelligent canidate pushing for popular vote. I am libertarian so I want to see a approval voting system. That would really shake things up.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Well this shouldn't get into a electoral college/pop vote discussion but do you have any idea why we don't go by popular vote? If you did, you wouldn't make such comments. Otherwise we would have NY, CA, and TX making all the decisions for the country. Those would be the only states people would care about.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that argument. It still comes down to those states anyway. Look what state it came down to last time. Florida. Another big state. On election night, what states are people most interested in? Yup, the big ones. Why? Because they still have the bulk of the electoral college votes. I don't see how that is any different that those states having the bulk of the individual voters. It has always bothered me that if you vote one way and your state as a whole votes for another candidate then your vote is essentially thrown out. Because once the winner in your state is determined then every single electoral vote goes to the winning candidate and your vote is now meaningless. If it was a true popular vote then your vote matters till the end. Just for the record... I do live in a small state.
Click to expand...

That is bunk. Yeah last time it came down to Florida but not because Florida is the biggest state. Simply because all the other states had been decided.

If you go with popular vote, you are limiting what states are important. Right now Kerry and Bush are fighting over "swing" states that aren't very big but are EXTREMELY important. If we went with popular vote then they would be actively ignoring those same states.

Now to your second argument. I think it is crap that the states have traditionally been all or nothing for electoral votes. It needs to be taken one step further down. If you have 4 EC votes then it should take that into account based on the popular vote in that state. So if you go 75% one canidate and 25% for the other. Then 3 votes should go to one of them and the other to the opponent.

But getting rid of EC will destroy the republic. I don't think you will find any intelligent canidate pushing for popular vote. I am libertarian so I want to see a approval voting system. That would really shake things up.
Click to expand...
this issue here is that although kerry could have more total votes, bush could still win even though 60% of the population says kerry, bush could still win when that happens (if I'm not mistaken it's actually happend twice prior), it's not about which states vote, it's about which people vote, states have thier own elections for states rights (although they are limited because of the civil war, another topic altogether) I'm talking about voting for the things that affect all of us as a nation, I don't think the electoral college is necissary anymore, it was set up orginally because the communication systems of the day, and lack of reading/writing skills where poor, it made the most sense then than having to total out all of the votes across the union. I've studied the electoral voting system in pretty deep detail for a social studies class project in high school. the needs of the few outway the needs of the many in the electoral voting system. they should be balanced. the geographics would shift to where the people running for office would have to get thier message to the whole U.S. instead of picking states with the most electoral votes to lobby in.
 
I've studied the electoral voting system in pretty deep detail for a social studies class project in high school.
Click to expand...

Enough said. Let me know once you have some college courses under your belt.

It is a necessary evil.

the geographics would shift to where the people running for office would have to get thier message to the whole U.S. instead of picking states with the most electoral votes to lobby in.
Click to expand...

You are smoking something there. Going with popular vote will make EVERYONE's vote in states other than 5-6 states WORTHLESS. Why would people in SC, GA, NC, VA, VT, MA, Ohio, CO, etc.... even bother to vote when they know their vote won't count at all.

OH the people that care will go vote in the states that will matter. Yeah that makes perfect sense. What about the poor that want to have their vote heard?

You have much to learn young grasshopper.

EDIT: BTW if you want to continue the discussion, lets move this part into PM. No need to hijack this thread when it is irrelevent to the topic.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
I've studied the electoral voting system in pretty deep detail for a social studies class project in high school.
Click to expand...

Enough said. Let me know once you have some college courses under your belt.

It is a necessary evil.

the geographics would shift to where the people running for office would have to get thier message to the whole U.S. instead of picking states with the most electoral votes to lobby in.
Click to expand...

You are smoking something there. Going with popular vote will make EVERYONE's vote in states other than 5-6 states WORTHLESS. Why would people in SC, GA, NC, VA, VT, MA, Ohio, CO, etc.... even bother to vote when they know their vote won't count at all.

OH the people that care will go vote in the states that will matter. Yeah that makes perfect sense. What about the poor that want to have their vote heard?

You have much to learn young grasshopper.
Click to expand...

the same reason I don't vote now, bush will win texas (it's a given), so why do people keep pounding me to vote when my vote won't count for anything? I and if everyones vote counts the same, wtf are talking about saying those peoples votes won't count (EVERYONES VOTE WILL COUNT THROUGHOUT THE U.S., THATS THE FRIKIN' POINT) If you vote, your vote counts. In an elctoral vote if you vote, it doesn't count, every wonder why somany people don't vote? it's because it doesn't count.

scan your politcal college degree if you think your opinion is supperior to mine. or show actual valid proof where everyone's vote won't count in a popular vote. (it's impossible, but go ahead and try)

edit: insulting people is pointless, it just just shows off ignorence.

edit: props to waggy and Thraxen for getting my point. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Originally posted by: notfred
Here, I just spent 3 minutes and wrote a voting program
Click to expand...

no kidding, if they made it that simple and set the whole thing up on a private leased network using encription there shouldn't be any problems (I've been saying this for years) The Electoral voting system sucks, we have the tech for a secure digital voting system that would let the U.S. be a true popular voting nation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The key is Electronic does NOT mean Online. AN Online voting system is just asking for trouble. However, having it on a computer that is just connected to the other computers in the same building shouldn't be a big deal.

Right now someone has to get the tallys from each local polling place back to the main area anyway so it's better to have them separate. You could write somethign in any program that works with a database or even just use FLash or something to make it idiot proof.

This is not a complicated issue if you think of it as a whole bunch of mini networks that are NOT connected to each other online at all.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
I've studied the electoral voting system in pretty deep detail for a social studies class project in high school.
Click to expand...

Enough said. Let me know once you have some college courses under your belt.

It is a necessary evil.

the geographics would shift to where the people running for office would have to get thier message to the whole U.S. instead of picking states with the most electoral votes to lobby in.
Click to expand...

You are smoking something there. Going with popular vote will make EVERYONE's vote in states other than 5-6 states WORTHLESS. Why would people in SC, GA, NC, VA, VT, MA, Ohio, CO, etc.... even bother to vote when they know their vote won't count at all.

OH the people that care will go vote in the states that will matter. Yeah that makes perfect sense. What about the poor that want to have their vote heard?

You have much to learn young grasshopper.

EDIT: BTW if you want to continue the discussion, lets move this part into PM. No need to hijack this thread when it is irrelevent to the topic.
Click to expand...

you say that going by the popular vote would make it so many votes are worthless. uhm thats the trouble NOW. My vote does not matter the EC votes do. there never should be a time where the popular vote is not elected in.

the EC is wrong but you are right in the fact that they would only hit the big states. The whole process needs to be re-done.
 
You are smoking something there. Going with popular vote will make EVERYONE's vote in states other than 5-6 states WORTHLESS. Why would people in SC, GA, NC, VA, VT, MA, Ohio, CO, etc.... even bother to vote when they know their vote won't count at all.
Click to expand...

That's simply ludicrous. In a close election, like the last one, a candidate would need every vote they can get... and, yes, that includes people from smaller states. As I pointed out earlier, the only way anyone's vote is meaningless is under the current electoral college. A candidate could win every electoral vote in a state with less than 50% of the popular vote (taking into account votes less popular candidates). Which means that more than half of that state's voters got the shaft. How is that even remotely fair? Answer this... Why should anyone's vote matter more or less just because they are from a large or small state? A true popular vote is the only fair method.
 
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
the same reason I don't vote now, bush will win texas (it's a given), so why do people keep pounding me to vote when my vote won't count for anything? I and if everyones vote counts the same, wtf are talking about saying those peoples votes won't count (EVERYONES VOTE WILL COUNT THROUGHOUT THE U.S., THATS THE FRIKIN' POINT) If you vote, your vote counts. In an elctoral vote if you vote, it doesn't count, every wonder why somany people don't vote? it's because it doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Your vote only does not count because others in your state are negating your opinion. It still 'counts'.

The electoral college is a necessary evil. Pure democracy would mean absolute tyranny of the majority.

In another sense, it fits perfectly into the legislative sytem of government of the United States. It is an exact mirror of Congress, but with states as the actors. Now think about why Congress is set up the way it is - the Senate consists of two members per state, so that each state (no matter the size) has an equal say on legislation. The HoR is by population, to reflect the will of the majority. Each house must be consulted in all matters. This gives us balance.

When you don't have balance, bad stuff happens. States become fed up and leave unions. While you might think people in your state do not have a say in elections, I think most of those educated about their political process would disagree. States have a say. The state's peoples have a say. It might not be the say you're looking for, but it's a vote regardless.
 
Now come on PEOPLE. Where did I say the EC was PERFECT? It is just as imperfect as popular vote. Except that the EC serves a purpose. To allow smaller states to have a vote. Why do people insist on ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I am simply saying we shouldn't replace the EC with PV. The BEST approach is EC but take to the state level. So that your vote in TEXAS IS COUNTED. That way if 33% vote for Kerry in Texas he get 33% of the EC votes. This STILL allows the small states to have a voice and allows the individual have a vote that counts more.

 
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: notfred
Here, I just spent 3 minutes and wrote a voting program
Click to expand...

And I spent 15 seconds writing a script to spam-vote your program.
Click to expand...

To use my program on election day, you have to go to a specific voting location, sign your name, and then vote on a computer running the software that isn't connected to the internet.
Click to expand...

And that prevents voter fraud how? I can duplicate that easily and have the voting public think they are voting but actually the poll workers could be casting the vote.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
the same reason I don't vote now, bush will win texas (it's a given), so why do people keep pounding me to vote when my vote won't count for anything? I and if everyones vote counts the same, wtf are talking about saying those peoples votes won't count (EVERYONES VOTE WILL COUNT THROUGHOUT THE U.S., THATS THE FRIKIN' POINT) If you vote, your vote counts. In an elctoral vote if you vote, it doesn't count, every wonder why somany people don't vote? it's because it doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Your vote only does not count because others in your state are negating your opinion. It still 'counts'.

The electoral college is a necessary evil. Pure democracy would mean absolute tyranny of the majority.

In another sense, it fits perfectly into the legislative sytem of government of the United States. It is an exact mirror of Congress, but with states as the actors. Now think about why Congress is set up the way it is - the Senate consists of two members per state, so that each state (no matter the size) has an equal say on legislation. The HoR is by population, to reflect the will of the majority. Each house must be consulted in all matters. This gives us balance.

When you don't have balance, bad stuff happens. States become fed up and leave unions. While you might think people in your state do not have a say in elections, I think most of those educated about their political process would disagree. States have a say. The state's peoples have a say. It might not be the say you're looking for, but it's a vote regardless.
Click to expand...
I agree about the way congress is set up, I'm talking about the way the nation elects those who sit as the leaders of our nation/legislation. Checks and Balances can, must, and would still be maintained. (I don't want a popular vote on law making or anything like that, just on voting the poeple in who make the laws)
 

Smaller states were reluctant to ratify the constitution in order for the US to be... well the US. Stuff like the Electoral College where they had a bit of power despite being small helped win them over.

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Now come on PEOPLE. Where did I say the EC was PERFECT? It is just as imperfect as popular vote. Except that the EC serves a purpose. To allow smaller states to have a vote. Why do people insist on ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I am simply saying we shouldn't replace the EC with PV. The BEST approach is EC but take to the state level. So that your vote in TEXAS IS COUNTED. That way if 33% vote for Kerry in Texas he get 33% of the EC votes. This STILL allows the small states to have a voice and allows the individual have a vote that counts more.
Click to expand...


There's some name for the idea you pointed out above, I forget exactly what it was though. It's not winner take all, but proportional Electoral Vote or something.
 
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
I agree about the way congress is set up, I'm talking about the way the nation elects those who sit as the leaders of our nation/legislation. Checks and Balances can, must, and would still be maintained. (I don't want a popular vote on law making or anything like that, just on voting the poeple in who make the laws
Click to expand...
Ever since Lincoln, the executive branch of government has been very powerful. I see no reason why this branch should not be balanced the way the legistlative branch is.

Believe me as a Canadian - we've had 70 of the last 100 years with basically the same people in government up here and the amount of corruption is insane. You don't want a sitting party in the executive office, which is what you'd hand to the Democrats by going to pure democracy. I'm not trying to demonize the Dems, any party would grow fat and evil if removed from the fear of the people.
 
When you don't have balance, bad stuff happens. States become fed up and leave unions. While you might think people in your state do not have a say in elections, I think most of those educated about their political process would disagree. States have a say. The state's peoples have a say. It might not be the say you're looking for, but it's a vote regardless.
Click to expand...

But as you pointed out, we already have the Senate to protect smaller states, so there is really no need for such a system when voting for president. Everyone should have an equal say in determining the president. And, again, look how people complain every year about voter turn out. It's because of the EC that people don't vote. Why bother voting in a state where you know the majority opinion lies is in favor of one candidate and you want to vote for the another? The EC also prevents less popular candidates from getting any recognition at all. How can any smaller party ever build momentum when in every election they wind up with zero EC votes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top