What really gets me about this vote recount...

[BoberFett]

Is the fact that they're finding any differences at all. What does that say about the entire voting process when they're so careless as to have not counted several hundred votes for each side.

Forget about federal, what about local races? Elections where literally one or two votes can make the difference. Mayors and school boards, state reprentatives, and other offices where there may only be a few thousand votes total. And they just happen to miss a few hundred votes?

I think it's time the election process stepped out of the dark ages.



Edit: Woohoo! My first locked thread.

I double posted this one by accident and they locked the other one. It's not the same as having a troll thread locked, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[optoman]

I noticed that too. What about the election in Wisconsin? That was close and I think Iowa was too. They need to modernize the whole thing.

 

[IsOs]

The entire election process should be modernized. Electoral college is no longer the best way to have the people choose the president.

 

[SuperTool]

That's not going to happen. Small states will never ratify it. As it stands now, Montana has 3 times as many electoral votes per person as does California. Remember, you get one for each member of congress. It's all part of the great compromise.

 

[BoberFett]

Forget electoral college, that's just for the president. I'm talking about simply being able to trust the vote count. :|

 

[Genius]

The Electoral College is actually a good concept which makes mathematical errors such as what happened in Florida acceptable, except this time it was way too close. This puts the Electoral College in question, but could be easily fixed by refining the ballot system. I think they need touch screen kiosks.

 

[IBhacknU]

In the future, you'll be able to vote online (I predict.)

 

[Quickfingerz]

They should do a run-off in florida with just BUSH and GORE on the ballot. Then that would mean GORE would become president. Nader takes votes from GORE.

 

[Descend492]

I doubt voting will be online in the near future - currently hackers have so much skill that they could easily get into even the most secure servers and do whatever they want to. the Government wouldn't take that risk, and will therefore keep voting the way it is now for quite some time - until internet security can be heightened. Just think of all the hackers that would want to hack the voting mainframe....

 

[T2T III]

<< I think they need touch screen kiosks. >>


But then the NAACP would be whining that the smudges on the screen led some of the voters into voting for the wrong candidate.

 

[DefRef]

I don't think online voting will happen universally because, not everyone has computers and some people don't want them.

It is bad that the counts are off. So many races were so close, it makes you wonder what the result would be if they recounted ALL the votes again. Scary to contemplate.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Just a simple popular vote would do the trick &amp; make it optionally preferential, so a vote for a 3rd party isnt a wasted vote like it is now.

That the way it is in Australia, say there were 9 candidates, one has a choice of just ticking there favorite candidate or numbering the boxes from 1 to 9 in order of preverance. So if your number one preference goes to Nader, your other preferences would still effect the '2 party preferred vote', &amp; as long as you preferenced Gore before Bush, Gore would end up with your vote &amp; it therefore wouldn't have been wasted.

I useally vote for the 'Drug Law Reform Party' then give my 2nd preference to the Greens, then give my 3rd preference to the Labour party. That way Labour gets my vote if the other 2 parties don't get up. If you can't be bothered numbering the boxes in order of preferance, you can just tick your favorite candidate.

 

[AndrewR]

There is always going to be a certain amount of mistake involved in something as massive as a nationwide election. No one has even mentioned the issue of voting fraud, which undoubtedly has occurred somewhere in the country. I wouldn't put it past the labor unions in Pennsylvania worried about the gun lobby drawing away their membership to the Republican ticket. Since there have been allegations of significant fraud in Florida before (heard an interesting report yesterday about Janet Reno), who is to say that these &quot;new&quot; votes are not indicative of fraud? Hard to say.

In any event, since this is a human driven process, it is subject to human error. That being said, the errors go both ways and usually balance out. If people aren't intelligent or careful enough to ensure that they are voting for the proper candidate, then perhaps they shouldn't be deciding among the candidates anyway because they probably didn't bother to examine the issues either. Thousands of people were able to vote for Gore without screwing up their ballot, perhaps the mistake was between the ears of those who voted incorrectly (or who are changing their ballot now that the results are in).



<< They should do a run-off in florida with just BUSH and GORE on the ballot. >>

If they do that, then they need to have a run-off in the entire country. Why do they have the opportunity to choose the President in isolation?


<< I useally vote for the 'Drug Law Reform Party' >>

That explains a tremendous amount.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Ah, Andrew, (as its been shown in Switzerland) drug law reform means less tax, as govts save bullions, also insurance premiums go down to (in some parts of Switzerland by as much as 20%), because junkies just have to pay $5 a day at the local pharmacy to support their habit (as prescription heroin is as cheap to make as instant coffee powder), consequently they no longer have to spend their days climbing out of windows with VCRs under their arms to support their habit. To be quite frank, anyone who doesnt support Drug law reform is an idiot.

Anyway its a preferential system, so 90% of the time labour ends up with my vote

 

[Moonbeam]

wje, maybe you should clarify if you're saying that black people in particular are inept, stupid, etc. or is it just those running the NAACP don't meet with your approval. Your concept seems a little smudgey.