Voting in the New Millenium

[KevinFSI]

This is just something to think about. I'm really curious what some of you have in mind for a new voting method that takes advantage of the technology that is at our disposal these days.

Like many of you, I was disgusted by the way the vote was handled in Florida and other parts of the nation. My first instinct was to say that the places using some of these old technologies were backwards and resistant to chance. I don't really believe that's the case. Many of these counties don't have the funds to update their voting systems. Many don't have the know-how. Of course, there are those that don't have the desire. Something has to be done though.

What kind of system can be put in place? Here are some constraints that would have to be dealt with. There are many more, I'm sure, but these are the ones I could think of. Please let me know what you folks think:

1. Must be cost efficient - Probably the most important. In 2002 (mid-term elections) thousands of counties will be voting exactly the way they did this year if they can't realisticly afford a new system.

2. Must be easy to use - The elderly community cannot be ignored here. On average, most elderly folks know little about computers. Also, contrary to popular belief, millions of people in this country have no idea how to use a computer. Most people, however, can use an ATM machine. A new voting system must incorporate the simplicity of an ATM machine.

3. Are you sure you want to vote for this candidate? Are you sure? Are you really sure? - Sounds stupid, but allow zero room for error. Personally, when I vote, I make sure I'm marking the right candidate. I suppose I can see how people can get distracted though. Let them make a choice, show them their choice and make them verify it, then show them the choice they verified and make them submit it.

4. Give the customer (voter) a receipt. - I heard this from my boss. I don't think this is a bad idea. If there is ever any question about "voter intention" after the fact, collect receipts and count them. (With the system I've described in step three, I can't imagine how voter intent could be in question.)

5. Security, security, security - As with any system, the voter's information needs to be secure. The vote must be anonymous.

6. Marketing - Market the "product" to the public. Tell them how great it is. There must be a huge push to educate the public about the new system. Voters shouldn't walk into the polling place and be surprised.

7. Uniformity - Every county across the nation should have the exact same look and feel (interface) so that a voter who spent 20 years in Palm Beach County, FL could vote in Tulsa County, OK without any confusion.

I'm curious to hear what you all think.


Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com

 

[MasterRacker]

There's the "mechanical/technical" issues involved with simply making sure everyone can vote (only once) and each vote is counted. Here's a (long) article listing many current problems:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/latimes.votecount/index.html

There's also the issue of the voting system itself. Our current system lends itself to "single issue politics". Candidates run on many issues simultaneously, but our ballots only give you have a choice of A or B or C or D. You either have to pick the one and only one issue that's most important or pick the "least of all evils". A large fraction of all votes cast are against something rather than for something. There are other voting systems in use that allow you to rank your preferences thereby giving you a chance to express your views more clearly and vote for something. They are also much less prone to ties. Here's an article that describes alternative voting systems:

http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article=featbestman.html

Jeff
masterracker@hotmail.com

If everything seems to be going well: you don't have enough information.......

 

[KevinFSI]

That's extremely interesting. I'll read bot articles after work today and let you know. Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com

 

[KevinFSI]

Oops, I meant "both." Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com

 

[MasterRacker]

Be sure to follow this link

http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=907

at the end of the second article and read that as well.

The important point that's not being covered in the media is that what the votes mean is just as important as how an accurate count is achieved.
Jeff
masterracker@hotmail.com

If everything seems to be going well: you don't have enough information.......

 

[iza]

as jeff says, and also, an important point is that a vote has a meaning if everybody CAN vote, but not everybody has an access to the new technologies, or even want to have an access

 

[KevinFSI]

That's my point. I'm not talking about putting the ability to vote into the hands of individuals sitting in their homes. I think that's a terrible idea for a multitude of reasons. I think there ought to be a way to get this technology into already existing polling places. This would be the county's responsibility, perhaps with help from the state and federal government.

As far as people not wanting the technology. I would hope that the desire to vote would outweigh the opposition to the method. Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com

 

[iza]

"I would hope that the desire to vote would outweigh the opposition to the method. " ... i don't know about other countries, but "the desire to vote" is getting smaller and smaller every day here - especially amongst young people :-(
well maybe designing polling machines in order to make them looking like game playing machines will do the trick ;-)

 

[KevinFSI]

"well maybe designing polling machines in order to make them looking like game playing machines will do the trick"

You're probably right.

I think the desire to vote has indeed diminished over the years. I think it's kind of sad too. Think about the number of people who dedicated their lives to getting an amendment to the constitution that would allow their sex or race the right to vote, only to have today's generation piss that right away. (pardon my language)

I do, however, think that the importance of voting was clearly demonstrated this year. There are undoubtedly thousands upon thousands of people out there who did not vote this year thinking, "Gee, if I had only voted. Things might have turned out differently." I seriously think we're going to see a 15-20 percent increase in the number of votes in 2004. Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com

 

[iza]

i hope you're right ... really ... coz as you, i first find it very sad, then i find it quite dangerous, i mean the basics of democracy is that everyone has its word to say and it's what voting is about ... now if nobody cares about voting, that means they don't care about participating in public life, therefore that they accept whatever is decided (as they don't care !) ... and that really whatever can be decided - and it'll be to late to say "oh i should have voted"

(i write this and i still haven't declared where i live = still not allowed to vote where i live !!! shame shame shame ;-) )

 

[PhiloVance]

Hate to put a damper on all this, but with the ethics demonstrated by the politicos, many people have an intense distrust of 'elections' and view them as fixed. 'Motor Voter' and other hairbrained ideas about 'enfranchising' the voter have resulted in voters registering more than once and voting more than once, dead people voting, and other abuses. It struck me as silly the Florida maxim 'count all the votes', when they really meant 'count all the votes that count for us'. Someone mentioned young people as being turned off the most. That's probably true when they see what goes on today. Sorry, can't help but feel negative about the idea. I really feel that all the voter and election shenanigans only showed up due to the fact that the election was close. Had it been a rout, or what the politicos like to call and 'landslide', no one would have been the wiser.

PhiloVance
Other hobbies, interests: Travel, Model RR (HO Gauge), Genealogy.

 

[KevinFSI]

You are 100% correct. The problems with our voting methods have probably existed for the better part of 30 years. There hasn't been an election this close since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960. And we're probably still using the same machines that were used then!!! I think it's a real shame. Do I have the answer? Nope. Kevin
slanek@ssd.fsi.com