US Election eve

1235

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I've heard of "faithless electors". I knew it was a term of disapproval (unless, of course, they choose to vote *your* way ;) ). But I didn't know about penalties.

    Somewhere along the line, I came across or was taught the idea that we only had Lincoln because some electors didn't do as they were told. That was the main point in favor of the electoral college, ISTM.

    However, I mentioned this once on the Ship, and someone told me it isn't true.

    It isn't true. The 1860 presidential election is more of an object lesson in the dangers of vote-splitting in a winner-take-all electoral system. Pro-slavery candidates took more than 60% of the popular vote but because there were three of them Abraham Lincoln prevailed in the electoral college.

    It should also be mentioned that the non-Lincoln states had their electoral vote count amplified by 3,948,713 non-voting slaves according to the 1860 census, which counted as 2,369,228 people under the 3/5ths Compromise. (1,816 slaves lived in the Lincoln-voting states, mostly in Connecticut.) The free population of the United States in 1860 was 18,943,416 people. You can divide those numbers in half if you want to take into account the fact that women (free or slave) couldn't vote in 1860.
  • Telford wrote: »
    The other states could learn from this. All postal votes should be in by a date before election day.

    This is an unreasonable rule, because it places the question of whether a vote counts outside the power of the voter, and on to the ability of the postal system. For a sensible, functional voting system, a voter needs to have pretty much absolute assurance that their vote will be counted as long as they do their bit correctly. I can control when I put my vote in a mailbox. I can't control how long the post office takes to deliver it.

    It's even worse when you introduce overseas voters in to the mix (military & diplomats on deployment, ex-pats) as the challenge of postal delays becomes greater. I applied for a postal vote whilst living in the US for every UK election I was eligible to vote in. I was never actually able to vote, because of the postal delay. Usually I didn't even get the ballot until after the election. That still pisses me off.
    I'm sorry you think it's unreasonable. It's the system we have in the UK. We are given plenty of time to vote and send the vote in.
  • It does result in people being disenfranchised though, probably not in large numbers.

    I used to think online voting might be the solution, but nowadays I think the hacking risks are too high.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I also thought online voting may be a solution. Certainly it won’t be many years before a ballot paper is a thing of the past. Voting machines in booths.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    The the presidential election should be separate from the others to simplify matters.
  • It does result in people being disenfranchised though, probably not in large numbers.

    I used to think online voting might be the solution, but nowadays I think the hacking risks are too high.

    We have online banking, any dodgy activity is very quickly discovered. I don’t see why online voting couldn’t be as secure.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The other states could learn from this. All postal votes should be in by a date before election day.

    This is an unreasonable rule, because it places the question of whether a vote counts outside the power of the voter, and on to the ability of the postal system. For a sensible, functional voting system, a voter needs to have pretty much absolute assurance that their vote will be counted as long as they do their bit correctly. I can control when I put my vote in a mailbox. I can't control how long the post office takes to deliver it.

    It's even worse when you introduce overseas voters in to the mix (military & diplomats on deployment, ex-pats) as the challenge of postal delays becomes greater. I applied for a postal vote whilst living in the US for every UK election I was eligible to vote in. I was never actually able to vote, because of the postal delay. Usually I didn't even get the ballot until after the election. That still pisses me off.
    I'm sorry you think it's unreasonable. It's the system we have in the UK. We are given plenty of time to vote and send the vote in.
    Aye, it's the system we have. That doesn't make it perfect. I've registered for a postal ballot on three occasions. Two of them resulted in the only time in my life when I haven't cast a legal vote - on one occasion (2015 general election) the ballot papers were never delivered to me in the first place, on another (2014 referendum) they were delivered on the Tuesday leaving me waiting for the post office to open on Wednesday morning to negotiate to price of the stamp needed fully aware that there wasn't going to be enough time for it to get to the counting office (I worked out that if it could be on a train to Tokyo around lunch time it could just about get on the last flight to London to arrive late Wed evening, giving it time to get up to Hamilton .... but more realistically it wouldn't arrive in London until lunchtime on Thursday with just a couple of hours to get to Hamilton). The 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election the ballot papers arrived almost two weeks in advance, and so should have got back in time (though there's no way to verify if a postal ballot has arrived and been counted).

    I knew that that late ballot wasn't going to be counted, and was somewhat upset with the system which kept sending me automated emails along the lines of "we're very busy and will respond to your request after the referendum" when I submitted requests for updates on when the papers would be delivered a couple of weeks before election day. It doesn't seem fair that people are denied a vote through no fault of their own, but it's the system and the rules need to be followed.

    For those States where the requirement is to post the ballot on or before voting day then those are the rules, they need to be respected an no one who follows those rules should be penalised by a change of those rules after they've voted. If there's a sufficient groundswell of opinion from the people who live in that State that there should be a change, eg: to limit postal ballot counts to those received by close of polls, then I assume there would be processes available for both changing those rules and informing voters about these changes well in advance ... but that won't be done until (at the earliest) the next election. I'd be surprised if many States make that change, as it'll be a big change from long standing practice, and so for future elections we'll still have to wait until several days after polling day before all legal votes are received, let alone counted.

  • Boogie--

    This may help:

    Blackboxvoting.org

    "5 Methods Hackers Use to Break Into Your Bank Account: The risk to your bank account from hackers is real. Here are the ways hackers can gain access to your savings and clear you out." (Make Use Of)

    "ID Thieves Are Targeting Your Bank Accounts: Criminals stealing your existing funds is the fastest growing type of identity fraud." (AARP)

    What is especially scary: I got this info by searching Duck Duck Go for "online banking hacked". The very first page of hits had a site telling you how to do it, and another selling banking log-ins. Not some place on the Dark Web, but in the regular part--where anyone can find it.
    :fearful:
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It does result in people being disenfranchised though, probably not in large numbers.

    I used to think online voting might be the solution, but nowadays I think the hacking risks are too high.

    We have online banking, any dodgy activity is very quickly discovered. I don’t see why online voting couldn’t be as secure.

    National governments are less interested in fiddling your bank account, given the abuses of Cambridge Analytic - I wouldn't be confident with online voting now.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    One of the problems in the US is that the elections for the national Congress and for the President are completely mixed up in State and local matters.

    Maybe someone felt it was more efficient to hammer the populace with all of these issues at once, but one of the effects is that there is so much inconsistency in how the 'national' election is conducted. I don't know if it's the same now, but certainly back in the 2000 election it became apparent that the process would vary from county to county within the same State.

    That can't be good.

    I happened to listen today to a podcast episode from back in July that talked about all the extra challenges presented by the pandemic, as well as other concerns like Russian interference, and how there was a real need to spend money to improve the operation of the election. The person being interviewed was of the view that money really needed to come from Congress. I don't know to what extent it did.

    Getting nearly 150 million people to vote in an election takes a lot of infrastructure, and it's not clear that the whole of the country has invested in enough infrastructure or has the capacity to invest in it.

    In addition, I believe only a small number of States have gone the way of having independent electoral commissions to run and oversee the process.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It does result in people being disenfranchised though, probably not in large numbers.

    I used to think online voting might be the solution, but nowadays I think the hacking risks are too high.

    We have online banking, any dodgy activity is very quickly discovered. I don’t see why online voting couldn’t be as secure.

    South Korean banks have been hacked, allegedly by North Korea, a number of times, the most recent in 2013. I believe they were able to wipe out records and stuff in that last one.
  • When I was a young bon vivant in 1990, I was in Europe for the election but wanted to vote. We worked out that we could vote at the embassy at Den Haag, and organised our schedule so that we would be in Amsterdam and catch the train up there to vote. Unfortunately, somebody discovered the space cake the day before, and, well, best laid plans and all that.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I'm sorry you think it's unreasonable. It's the system we have in the UK. We are given plenty of time to vote and send the vote in.

    I know it's the system we have in the UK, and if you read my last paragraph, you'll see that your statement is false: For almost all postal ballots I applied for, I didn't receive the ballot paper until after election day. For the remaining one, I received it the day before election day, which didn't leave time for it to make it back from the US. I seem to remember @Alan Cresswell having a similar experience when he was in Japan.

    It's nice to be able to have certainty in the result the morning after, and the UK system, where the new PM is summoned in to the royal presence the next day, rather relies on having all the votes available on election day. The US system has plenty of time to determine who won - it's not necessary to have the result immediately available.

    If you want to have all ballots in by election day, you need to produce the ballot papers and send them out early enough (two weeks seems like about the absolute minimum reasonable number), which means you have to finalize your list of candidates and have ballot papers printed in advance of that.
  • There's a clear metric for a decent voting system: Every voter who wishes to express a preference has an opportunity to do so, and has their vote counted. No votes are counted from non-voters.

    Any deviation from this is a flaw in the system.
  • One trick the Trump campaign is trying to use is there is a provision in some of the state constitutions that says it is up to the state legislature to determine the final slate of electors for that state. It appears he is demanding the Republican-controlled legislatures of Arizona, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georga to exercise that provision.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    There's a clear metric for a decent voting system: Every voter who wishes to express a preference has an opportunity to do so, and has their vote counted. No votes are counted from non-voters.

    Any deviation from this is a flaw in the system.
    I think it's at least as important that no additional votes are counted from some voters.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    One of the problems in the US is that the elections for the national Congress and for the President are completely mixed up in State and local matters.

    A few states hold state-level elections in odd-numbered years for exactly this reason.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I'm sorry you think it's unreasonable. It's the system we have in the UK. We are given plenty of time to vote and send the vote in.

    I know it's the system we have in the UK, and if you read my last paragraph, you'll see that your statement is false: For almost all postal ballots I applied for, I didn't receive the ballot paper until after election day. For the remaining one, I received it the day before election day, which didn't leave time for it to make it back from the US. I seem to remember @Alan Cresswell having a similar experience when he was in Japan.

    It's nice to be able to have certainty in the result the morning after, and the UK system, where the new PM is summoned in to the royal presence the next day, rather relies on having all the votes available on election day. The US system has plenty of time to determine who won - it's not necessary to have the result immediately available.

    If you want to have all ballots in by election day, you need to produce the ballot papers and send them out early enough (two weeks seems like about the absolute minimum reasonable number), which means you have to finalize your list of candidates and have ballot papers printed in advance of that.

    Personally, I have never had a problem with it.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    How would you know if your postal ballot wasn’t received in time to be counted ?

    Perhaps returns officers should be mandated by law to tell the new parliaments how many late ballots were uncounted for each constituency.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Personally, I have never had a problem with it.

    That's nice. But whilst a single case of someone wanting to vote but not being able to indicates a problem with the system, a single case of someone successfully voting doesn't tell you very much. It proves that the system doesn't have a failure rate of 100%, but that's not really interesting.

    If the system prevents one person in 20, or one person in 100, from voting, then it's still a problem, although an individual voter probably won't have an issue. If those people are randomly selected from all voters, then it probably doesn't affect the outcome of the vote (although you'd still want to address it). If the people are not selected at random, then you introduce potential systematic bias in your election result.

    It is not unreasonable to guess that people who request to vote by mail might be more similar to each other than the whole ensemble of voters, and so the mail votes might look different from the in-person votes. (This was very much the case in the US, where Trump actively encouraged his supporters to vote in person and distrust the mail, whereas Biden's camp were encouraging mail votes.)
  • How would you know if your postal ballot wasn’t received in time to be counted ?

    Perhaps returns officers should be mandated by law to tell the new parliaments how many late ballots were uncounted for each constituency.

    I live in Massachusetts. I was able to verify on-line that my mail-in ballot was received and accepted for processing (the proper signatures existed on the envelope and were validated by the town clerk's office.) I expect that a similar system would work in other countries. Of course, you need to return your ballot early enough that you can see that it has been accepted for processing or that you need to get down to town hall and correct whatever the problem was (You can also go to the poll on election day and cast an in-person ballot. I don't know whether that would be received as a provisional ballot or, by having been rejected, the mail-in ballot is treated as a no-op by the state.) FWIW
  • In the UK you can also appoint someone to vote on your behalf. I did this in the 2017 general election, as I was out of the country for over 3 weeks beginning 13 days before the election (I heard the result while on a train crossing the deserts of Nevada, as it happens) and couldn't be sure of getting the ballot paper for a postal vote before I left. I appointed a colleague who lives near enough to me that he was due to be going to the same polling station anyway, but you can appoint anyone, and if they can't get to your polling station they can vote for you by post.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Same here. AIUI voting by mail does exist here, but if you can't make it to your polling station on the day, it's much more common to appoint someone to vote by proxy.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It does result in people being disenfranchised though, probably not in large numbers.

    I used to think online voting might be the solution, but nowadays I think the hacking risks are too high.

    We have online banking, any dodgy activity is very quickly discovered. I don’t see why online voting couldn’t be as secure.

    In online banking they don't need to keep your transaction strictly unlinkable to your identity.
  • I would like to see ALL voting done on paper. Paper ballots can be counted and recounted; they can't be hacked by remote software; they can't be programmed to change votes. I would prefer that they all be counted by hand.
  • Vote by proxy??? No offense, but having trouble wrapping my mind about that.

    I searched a couple of ways for info. All I saw was about whether members of Congress could do their work-voting by proxy; and also about shareholders voting by proxy.

    The closest think I know of here is getting assistance with physically filling out a ballot if you're unable due to health/disability. I think that's for either mail or in-person voting. IIRC, the helper has to fill out contact info on the return envelope, and sign it.
  • They're all paper here. Voted in the provincial election in Oct, next Tues is city. The paper ballots are read by machine for city. But any not readable are read by hand. Federal and provincial are hand counted as far as I know. We voted by mail for both. Advance polls ran for a week for both. Free bus service voting days is usual. Though voting places in towns and cities are invariably within walking distance of home. Bus is for going to and from work. 4 hours of time off on voting days with pay is usual.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I would like to see ALL voting done on paper. Paper ballots can be counted and recounted; they can't be hacked by remote software; they can't be programmed to change votes. I would prefer that they all be counted by hand.

    Although for fans of sensible ranked-voting schemes, it's rather time-consuming to score them by hand. If you insist on hand-scoring a ranked-voting scheme, you end up doing IRV, which is about the worst ranked-voting scheme.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I would like to see ALL voting done on paper. Paper ballots can be counted and recounted; they can't be hacked by remote software; they can't be programmed to change votes. I would prefer that they all be counted by hand.

    Although for fans of sensible ranked-voting schemes, it's rather time-consuming to score them by hand. If you insist on hand-scoring a ranked-voting scheme, you end up doing IRV, which is about the worst ranked-voting scheme.

    I don't really understand your last sentence. All voting here is by hand and AFAIK all elections for Federal and State parliaments (and possibly also for local government, I've no idea) are by either the preferential or proportional systems and counting is by hand. Preferences are only counted after all primary votes have been, as it may not be necessary to distribute them. It would almost* always be necessary to go beyond the first choice in a proportional ballot.

    *The almost is theoretical, in practice it is just always.
  • Gee D , we have a much smaller population. Counting by hand would be really time consuming with the number of votes for the US or UK elections.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited November 2020
    UK votes are counted by hand, but there’s only one question on the voting paper.

    Here’s an example of a US voting paper.
  • The UK practice of only having one or two elections at the same time ha advantages - faster conclusion of counting being an obvious one, and as we noted earlier much shorter time required to make your mark at the polling station and hence few queues. Also, proxy voting is much easier - all you need to do is find someone you trust to put the mark in the box you want (and, to not tell everyone how you voted) ... they don't need to remember 30+ different choices when they get to the polling station.

    re: preferential voting, there's nothing stopping the votes being counted by hand with that data then being entered into a computer to do the calculations.. Our local authority elections are currently counted by hand, although there's a tender put out by the government for an electronic counting system for the 2022 elections.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Athrawes wrote: »
    Gee D , we have a much smaller population. Counting by hand would be really time consuming with the number of votes for the US or UK elections.

    They employ enough staff - not the numbers we do, but proportionally more
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    UK votes are counted by hand, but there’s only one question on the voting paper.

    Here’s an example of a US voting paper.

    Looks like our Senate paper, which sometimes is a bit larger
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Vote by proxy??? No offense, but having trouble wrapping my mind about that.

    I searched a couple of ways for info. All I saw was about whether members of Congress could do their work-voting by proxy; and also about shareholders voting by proxy.

    The closest think I know of here is getting assistance with physically filling out a ballot if you're unable due to health/disability. I think that's for either mail or in-person voting. IIRC, the helper has to fill out contact info on the return envelope, and sign it.

    The 7 years I lived in the States I opted for voting by proxy as being the only way to be sure my vote would be in North East Fife on Election Day. I filled out a form nominating my mother to vote for me and, knowing her politics, often instructed her to cancel out her vote with mine. I knew I could trust her. Voting by proxy has to be done by someone in your home constituency. And of course you do have to trust them! The proxy takes the paperwork to the polling place and is given two forms to fill in.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Voting by proxy has to be done by someone in your home constituency.

    That's not how I understood the information, although the question didn't arise in my case, so I could be wrong -- or it could have changed in recent years.

    On gov.uk it says:

    'You can ask anyone to act as your proxy - as long as they:

    are registered to vote
    are allowed to vote in the type of election taking place
    can vote in the polling station stated on your poll card

    If they cannot get to your polling station, they will need to contact your local electoral registration office to arrange to cast their proxy vote by post.
    '

    It doesn't mention the constituency, and although 'can vote in the polling station stated on your poll card' might imply that they have to be not only in the same constituency but in the 'catchment area' of the same polling station (or polling place as I believe they're called in Scotland), the last sentence suggests to me that 'can vote' refers to whether it's physically possible, with a postal vote as an option if it isn't.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    UK votes are counted by hand, but there’s only one question on the voting paper.

    Here’s an example of a US voting paper.

    On each paper. having two or three concurrent elections (town council, county, parliament, referenda, europe) is semi normal.

    That definitely overwhelms the eyes. 12 elections in total, and at that point presumably relevant in a very small (school) area?
  • jay_emm wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    UK votes are counted by hand, but there’s only one question on the voting paper.

    Here’s an example of a US voting paper.

    . . .

    That definitely overwhelms the eyes. 12 elections in total, and at that point presumably relevant in a very small (school) area?
    While I thought, “Hmmm, that’s a pretty short ballot.” I had over 30 elections on my ballot, plus a local bond referendum.

    It’s all about what you’re used to. Where I live, in a presidential year with a US Senate race, we have president, senate, member of Congress, 10 statewide offices (the Council of State), member of the state Senate and member of the state House of Representatives, plus county commissioners, school board and varying numbers of statewide and local judicial offices.

    We’re quite used to it, and I rarely if ever hear anyone suggest it’s overwhelming, though I have on a few occasions heard suggestions of moving Council of State elections to non-presidential even-numbered years. That never goes anywhere, though. I think most people prefer dealing with everything in one fell swoop.

  • I don’t know about you all, but suddenly I’ve developed very strong feelings about who should be the Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor for District 3.
  • Not surprised, it's what your used to, once I'd started to parse it, I did wonder if it would come out the same.

    A lot of our appointment s are derived second hand (including the pm, and now the 'lords', probably translatable as a senate function with supreme appointment).
    Some of which makes sense, some not (pm)

    I presume that ballot is Machinw scanned?
    I'd be curious as to what the differences are as it definitely seems like we hand count much much faster (our country full counts end about 18 hours).
    But I'm guessing a lot of it's illusionary (two lots of time zone difference, comparing like for like, the all or nothing of presidential elections)
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dave W wrote: »
    I don’t know about you all, but suddenly I’ve developed very strong feelings about who should be the Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor for District 3.
    :lol:

    Actually, this year that was maybe the office I spent the most time researching just prior to voting. All the other races are familiar and I knew how I wanted to vote and had known for some time. But yeah, many of us wonder why that one is still elected instead of appointed.

    jay_emm wrote: »
    I presume that ballot is Machinw scanned?
    Ours is, yes. As for speed, all of our early voting and Election Day voting was completed by around midnight Election Day night, so within 5 hours or so. But we allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a prescribed time afterwards—usually 3 days but this year 9 days. Those mail-in ballots and provisional ballots are what’re still being counted.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Back in New York, when Miss Amanda was a young slip of a thing, most voting was done via a mechanical machine. The Wikipedia entry is instructive. Quoting from same:
    Commonly, a voter enters the machine and pulls a lever to close the curtain, thus unlocking the voting levers. The voter then makes his or her selection from an array of small voting levers denoting the appropriate candidates or measures. The machine is configured to prevent overvotes by locking out other candidates when one candidate's lever is turned down. When the voter is finished, a lever is pulled which opens the curtain and increments the appropriate counters for each candidate and measure. At the close of the election, the results are hand copied by the precinct officer, although some machines could automatically print the totals. New York was the last state to stop using these machines, under court order, by the fall of 2009.

    I have no idea why they were court-ordered out of existence. They always seemed to me to be efficient and reliable.
  • @Amanda B Reckondwyth

    Those voting machines were the standard way to portray American elections in popular culture. There's an old McGovern '72 ad on YouTube showing a guy getting ready to use one.
  • How do people campaign when there are multiple elections so close together? How do you avoid the national elections swamping the local issues? How does someone campaign for election to the local government with issues about the collection of bins and cutting the grass when the media is wall-to-wall Presidential elections?

    Actually voting on many issues is just a matter of logistics and making sure you remember what each bit of paper is for. Campaigning would seem to be almost impossible under those circumstances.
  • How do people campaign when there are multiple elections so close together? How do you avoid the national elections swamping the local issues? How does someone campaign for election to the local government with issues about the collection of bins and cutting the grass when the media is wall-to-wall Presidential elections?
    A variety of ways. Local media, particularly local newspapers, will give a fair amount of coverage to local races—including publishing responses to questionnaires sent to all candidates. There will be candidate forums and candidates speaking to local civic groups. A lot of grassroots campaigning.

    We have county commissioner and local school board races in even-numbered years and municipal (city/town council) races in odd-numbered years. I see little difference in how campaigning happens or in media coverage. There is usually, however, a significant difference in voter turnout. It actually sometimes seems harder to get people to pay attention when they’re aren’t the “big” races going on at the same time.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    I don't really understand your last sentence. All voting here is by hand and AFAIK all elections for Federal and State parliaments (and possibly also for local government, I've no idea) are by either the preferential or proportional systems and counting is by hand. Preferences are only counted after all primary votes have been, as it may not be necessary to distribute them. It would almost* always be necessary to go beyond the first choice in a proportional ballot.

    The thing you're talking about here "distributing preferences" is how IRV works, which you can reasonably count by hand. But of the ranked-preference voting schemes, I consider IRV to be about the worst. My preference is the Tideman method (Ranked Pairs), although I could go for several other Condorcet methods.

    But a feature of basically every ranked-choice system I like is that to compute the winner, you have to make pairwise comparisons between each pair of candidates, which whilst you can do it on paper, it's significantly more computation than IRV, and people would be unlikely to want to do it on paper.
  • I have no idea why [ lever and gear voting machines ] were court-ordered out of existence. They always seemed to me to be efficient and reliable.

    They're very reliable . . . when they work properly and no one has fiddled with them. The big drawback is that if there is a mechanical failure (let's say the gearing for one particular candidate didn't engage) there's no way to recover those votes.

    I remember someone telling a story about his grandparents, who were precinct captains for the Democratic party in Chicago in the middle parts of the twentieth century. They'd go around knocking on doors in their heavily Democratic neighborhood making sure everyone was going to turn out on Election Day. Then on Election Day they'd both go and vote a straight Republican ticket. This is because if zero votes were tabulated for the Republican candidate on that lever and gear voting machine it would be argued that there was a mechanical failure and the votes from that machine would be thrown out. According to the anecdote, there were some years where his grandparents' votes were the only two votes for a Republican in their precinct.
  • How would you know if your postal ballot wasn’t received in time to be counted ?

    Perhaps returns officers should be mandated by law to tell the new parliaments how many late ballots were uncounted for each constituency.

    I always post it back the day after I receive it.
    Telford wrote: »
    Personally, I have never had a problem with it.

    That's nice. But whilst a single case of someone wanting to vote but not being able to indicates a problem with the system, a single case of someone successfully voting doesn't tell you very much. It proves that the system doesn't have a failure rate of 100%, but that's not really interesting.

    If the system prevents one person in 20, or one person in 100, from voting, then it's still a problem, although an individual voter probably won't have an issue. If those people are randomly selected from all voters, then it probably doesn't affect the outcome of the vote (although you'd still want to address it). If the people are not selected at random, then you introduce potential systematic bias in your election result.

    It is not unreasonable to guess that people who request to vote by mail might be more similar to each other than the whole ensemble of voters, and so the mail votes might look different from the in-person votes. (This was very much the case in the US, where Trump actively encouraged his supporters to vote in person and distrust the mail, whereas Biden's camp were encouraging mail votes.)

    For those who are unable to get to vote in he traditional way, the postal vote allows them to vote. It does not prevent them from voting.

  • Telford wrote: »
    For those who are unable to get to vote in he traditional way, the postal vote allows them to vote. It does not prevent them from voting.

    Alan and I have both told you that we were prevented from voting by the fact that the postal ballots were not distributed early enough. That is a system failure.
  • Telford wrote: »
    For those who are unable to get to vote in he traditional way, the postal vote allows them to vote. It does not prevent them from voting.

    Alan and I have both told you that we were prevented from voting by the fact that the postal ballots were not distributed early enough. That is a system failure.
    At present there needs to be a change if the aim is to allow everyone entitled to vote to have the opportunity to do so by post.

    1. Change the deadline for candidates to submit their nomination papers, at present 19 days before the election (at least, for general elections ... there may be variations on this for by-elections, local elections etc). This only allows a couple of weeks to get postal ballots out and back, and a week or more for delivery of post isn't unusual if sending overseas - in Japan it typically took 3-4 days for letters I sent to get to their destination, and not all postal services are as efficient as the Japanese. You probably need to allow at least three weeks, probably four, to get ballots to people and have them back on time - which means closing nominations much earlier (probably about 40 days in advance).

    2. Or, change the deadline for receiving postal ballots. The two weeks currently available is probably long enough for ballots to get to everyone who requests one, but not long enough for everyone to return it. A change to allowing any votes cast on or before the day of the election to be counted, evidenced by postal marks, would give the extra time needed ... though that would mean that a final count for the election wouldn't be known within a day or two of the election, and the current practice of announcing the winner on the night with all votes counted would need to be abandoned (there could be announcements of winners once the difference in counts between 1st and 2nd exceeds the number of postal ballots outstanding, which keeps the on the night announcement but sacrifices the all votes counted).

    I think the media prefer the drama of the on the night results (and, actually activists and candidates quite enjoy it too). But, parties might need to change procedures for nominations if they need to be in that much earlier - especially for by-elections or other elections called at unusual times with short notice.
Sign In or Register to comment.