Time for voting

[AKiss20]

Not necessarily. I looked it up once, and of the five times in our history that the electoral college went the opposite way of the popular vote, in every case it was the Democratic candidate who failed to gain the presidency as a result.

I believe his, somewhat cynical, point was that if/when the coin were flipped and the Dem candidate were to lose the popular vote but win the EC (were it not operating under the NPVIC), then these states would repeal the NPVIC because "they lost". This is a quite unlikely scenario (the Dems losing the popular vote but winning the EC) in the near future given current demographics and the resultant EC disadvantage they have. Whether you want to believe that the NPVIC is borne out of a true desire to abolish the EC for ideological reasons (equalizing the effective power of every voter) or a partisan desire by one party which is disadvantaged by it is up to you.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm pretty too busy for watching videos now. How about you read this and let me know where they are wrong?
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice

You're too busy to watch the videos, but not too busy to look up links supporting your position.

As someone who lives in a location where they have ranked choice voting, I'll say that it takes some education of the electorate. I don't think that some understand that they don't need to fill out all the slots. In other words, even if you are allowed to rank 4 candidates, it doesn't mean you are required to do so. If you only like one candidate, you only need to vote for that one. You can leave the other ones blank. Also, the person who has the most votes after the first count does not necessarily win. This has produced some unexpected results. Tabulation also takes a looong time. You wouldn't think so in the computer age, but it does.

 

[AKiss20]

You're too busy to watch the videos, but not too busy to look up links supporting your position.

As someone who lives in a location where they have ranked choice voting, I'll say that it takes some education of the electorate. I don't think that some understand that they don't need to fill out all the slots. In other words, even if you are allowed to rank 4 candidates, it doesn't mean you are required to do so. If you only like one candidate, you only need to vote for that one.

It definitely does take some education of the voting population, but many other countries have been able to implement non-FPTP systems so I have some faith that we in the USA can handle it. We have had RCV in Cambridge for decades and I came to here from a non-RCV area and had no issues learning it...

If you only like one candidate, you only need to vote for that one.

Correct. By not filling out the ballot past a certain number of candidates you are essentially saying "if these X people do not win, I don't care who the winner is." Not advisable IMO but a choice one can make. Note I believe there are variants of ranked voting methods that do actually require all candidates to be ranked, but bog-standard RCV/IRV does not.

Also, the person who has the most votes after the first count does not necessarily win. This has produced some unexpected results.

That is in fact the whole point, if the person with the most votes after the first count doesn't reach a majority, votes are re-allocated (again I encourage people to watch the videos). It may be unexpected if you are used to a FPTP system, but the system is easy to understand. It probably looks stranger if the first round winner gets 48% of the vote than if they receive 25% of the vote, but fundamentally the issue is still the same regardless of how close the first round winner gets to, but does not reach, 50%. (I know you know this, just making the point for others).

 

[Daleandee]

I believe this falls under the part of the serenity prayer that says:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change"

 

[denverpilot]

MY vote goes to the guy that wants a US State web page enter with a US secure pass code. 1 vote 1 person.
It work with Amazon

I’m currently working not just in IT security but IT elections security, and I can unequivocally say without a single shadow of doubt that you nor anyone else should EVER trust a fully electronic election system, EVER.

There literally is no possible way to secure it.

Paper has problems. Computers have those multipled by thousands of times. Networked computers, tens of thousands.

There’s no operating system secure enough, and layering the rest of even lower quality software on top of an already completely insecure foundation, is nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

Our stuff is nearly zero risk to anybody and we are in endless meetings with numerous overlapping agencies. There’s even a few States who’ve already been burned by hackers so bad (non-election related) that they feel joining money grubbing private “security” orgs who literally ONLY publish what to do AFTER you’re hacked, is somehow saving them from harm.

Until the software industry has regulatory standards as strong as building codes with deep fines for ignoring them, it’s not engineering. It’s crap. We are decades away from that if ever. Nobody writing code in the landscape that shifts as much as the languages do daily, wants to be forced into any form of security discipline or rigidity. It would mean the code was never completed in time. Take ten plus years to write secure elections code that would still sit on top of insecure OSes and networks.

Let alone that 80% of losses are estimated to be inside jobs by people with legitimate access to the data... bribes and USB sticks are way cheaper than hacking. And the vast majority of businesses, someone with a clipboard and a fake badge will walk right in behind everyone else during the lunch rush.

My fave is the guy who repeatedly successfully attacks multi-national companies (he’s hired for testing their security, not a bad guy) by walking into their smaller locations pretending he’s there to fix the printer.

There almost isn’t a business on the planet that doesn’t drop their guard when someone says they’ll get the mother-effing printers working right. LOL. Printers are the true spawn of hell in IT.

No no no fully electronic voting EVER. It should send shivers up your spine.

 

[Palmpilot]

I believe his, somewhat cynical, point was that if/when the coin were flipped and the Dem candidate were to lose the popular vote but win the EC (were it not operating under the NPVIC), then these states would repeal the NPVIC because "they lost". This is a quite unlikely scenario (the Dems losing the popular vote but winning the EC) in the near future given current demographics and the resultant EC disadvantage they have. Whether you want to believe that the NPVIC is borne out of a true desire to abolish the EC for ideological reasons (equalizing the effective power of every voter) or a partisan desire by one party which is disadvantaged by it is up to you.

I don't have an opinion on that. I felt that the fact that the EC had only prevented Democrats from being elected over the course of 200 or so years suggested that the converse was unlikely to occur, which you seem to agree with, although for different reasons.

 

[bflynn]

But of course you went and made it partisan.

I made an observation. Politically, I’m independent, I don’t have a dog in the fight.

my assertion is still that the NPVIC removes any value from campaigning in those states because other than gaining some marginal popular vote, there is nothing to be won. The ECs for those states are given out based largely on how other people vote and the voters are disenfranchised. At least in Wyoming and Rhode Island, one could argue that there might be chance to influence the state to your side, although both have a pretty heavy partisan lean.

 

[AKiss20]

my assertion is still that the NPVIC removes any value from campaigning in those states because other than gaining some marginal popular vote, there is nothing to be won. The ECs for those states are given out based largely on how other people vote and the voters are disenfranchised. At least in Wyoming and Rhode Island, one could argue that there might be chance to influence the state to your side, although both have a pretty heavy partisan lean.

Let's make this clear, the NPVIC functionally removes the electoral college, it just does so without amending the constitution. Whether you agree with this path or not is up to you, just clarifying what it does.

So the real question is, does the electoral college protect small states from big states and force candidates to care about them? I have seen no evidence that this is the case. Even with the EC and it's weighting of small state votes over big state votes (EC votes per population in WY or DC is ~5x that of CA or TX), a candidate only needs 10 of the 50 states to win 270 electoral votes (CA, TX, FL, NC, PA, NJ, NY, OH, IL, MI = 270). So candidates still don't have to care about small states to win the EC. And as said before, with the voices of minority parties in safe states functionally irrelevant due to winner take all, big safe states are also ignored. Below is a map of the US showing campaign stops by both the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2016

https://www.fairvote.org/tracking_t...al_campaign_push_lots_of_stops_but_few_states

Essentially none of the low population states got any attention. Glaringly, most of the big states didn't get any attention either. As I said before, the majority of the attention is in 4-5 swing states. So again, I am not seeing your argument that the EC with winner take all somehow helps small states or big states that happen to be safe. EC with proportional representation would force candidates to care more about formerly safe states as all their EC votes are not guaranteed anymore and minority voices have some sway.* At that point you're approaching a national popular vote, just with extra steps. EC with proportional allocation within states is functionally a national popular vote, but with some votes counting more than others. Whether you believe some people's vote should count more than others is a philosophical question on governance and representative democracy.

*Note when I say proportional representation, I actually mean proportional, not via some method that is subject to gerrymandering or other non-proportionality problems. The two non-winner take all states, ME and NE, currently do a hybrid model where 2 of the electoral votes go to the statewide popular vote winner and the remainder are allocated based on popular votes within congressional districts. Congressional districting as we all know is highly subject to gerrymandering and other issues, potentially introducing non-proportionality. I am not sure what the rational of these states for using congressional districts as an EC elector in no way is supposed to be a local representative.

I am trying extremely hard to talk about the system in general and not the implications for any particular party or side. I hope I am achieving this in having a discussion of the system, not partisanship.

 

[dtuuri]

You're too busy to watch the videos, but not too busy to look up links supporting your position.

I didn't read that article either, FYI. Figured I'd wait for the analysis to save time. Bye-bye.

 

[Ravioli]

Whats wrong with asking that?

It's against the ROC's to discuss bans and locks.

 

[luvflyin]

It's against the ROC's to discuss bans and locks.

Ah.

 

[Bill]

It's against the ROC's to discuss bans and locks.

Discuss!

 

[eman1200]

Discuss!

may man Bill, stirring sht up! I love it!

 

[luvflyin]

I find it incomprehensible that a state legislature would vote to throw their EC votes to the popular vote winner. It effectively renders the voter of their state mostly irrelevant. Nobody should spend an ounce of effort campaigning in their state or trying to woo their voters.

On the second point, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a State may punish faithless electors. Some of the various punishments include fines and jail time, plus an elector can be removed and their vote nullified. I don't believe that's the way it was intended, but the Court disagrees me with a lot

The Federalist Papers are the source of what the intents of the Constitution were. Federalist 68 has a lot about voting.

 

[luvflyin]

Discuss!

 

[Half Fast]

Discuss!

Reported.

 

[wsuffa]

I’m currently working not just in IT security but IT elections security, and I can unequivocally say without a single shadow of doubt that you nor anyone else should EVER trust a fully electronic election system, EVER.

There literally is no possible way to secure it.

Paper has problems. Computers have those multipled by thousands of times. Networked computers, tens of thousands.

There’s no operating system secure enough, and layering the rest of even lower quality software on top of an already completely insecure foundation, is nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

Our stuff is nearly zero risk to anybody and we are in endless meetings with numerous overlapping agencies. There’s even a few States who’ve already been burned by hackers so bad (non-election related) that they feel joining money grubbing private “security” orgs who literally ONLY publish what to do AFTER you’re hacked, is somehow saving them from harm.

Until the software industry has regulatory standards as strong as building codes with deep fines for ignoring them, it’s not engineering. It’s crap. We are decades away from that if ever. Nobody writing code in the landscape that shifts as much as the languages do daily, wants to be forced into any form of security discipline or rigidity. It would mean the code was never completed in time. Take ten plus years to write secure elections code that would still sit on top of insecure OSes and networks.

Let alone that 80% of losses are estimated to be inside jobs by people with legitimate access to the data... bribes and USB sticks are way cheaper than hacking. And the vast majority of businesses, someone with a clipboard and a fake badge will walk right in behind everyone else during the lunch rush.

My fave is the guy who repeatedly successfully attacks multi-national companies (he’s hired for testing their security, not a bad guy) by walking into their smaller locations pretending he’s there to fix the printer.

There almost isn’t a business on the planet that doesn’t drop their guard when someone says they’ll get the mother-effing printers working right. LOL. Printers are the true spawn of hell in IT.

No no no fully electronic voting EVER. It should send shivers up your spine.

Nate, it might be able to work if everyone had to have a microchip implanted. Just do it along with a vaccine...

 

[dtuuri]

Ok, so Palin lost in Alaska even though the Republicans got more votes in the first round. Why? Did this election truly reflect the people's wishes? It seems like the voting system divides and conquers any party with more than one strong candidate — the final winner had finished fourth in the open primary.

 

[EdFred]

Ok, so Palin lost in Alaska even though the Republicans got more votes in the first round. Why? Did this election truly reflect the people's wishes? It seems like the voting system divides and conquers any party with more than one strong candidate — the final winner had finished fourth in the open primary.

I don't know how the primaries work in other states but in MI, you don't (didn't?) have to be registered with that party to vote in those primaries, so you can get people across the aisle voting to put the weakest candidate up come November.

 

[Morgan3820]

Let's see if people are able to control themselves this time.

As far as only one month of campaigning, totally agree. I remember them having a limited time frame in Canada also.

And still made poor choices

 

[Matthew]

Ok, so Palin lost in Alaska even though the Republicans got more votes in the first round. Why? Did this election truly reflect the people's wishes? It seems like the voting system divides and conquers any party with more than one strong candidate — the final winner had finished fourth in the open primary.

I’ve never been a fan of the Ranked Choice Voting thing.

I don't know how the primaries work in other states but in MI, you don't (didn't?) have to be registered with that party to vote in those primaries, so you can get people across the aisle voting to put the weakest candidate up come November.

In KS we have similar. You can only vote for the primary for the party in which you register. This year there was a State constitution amendment on the ballot, so nobody was allowed to be turned away. At the voting location they had multiple ballots printed. You got the one with the candidates for your party plus the amendment. If you weren’t affiliated then your ballot only had the amendment and any non-affiliated races, like city council chair.

 

[Bob Noel]

I'm surprised no one has suggested the British approach - one month of campaigning and that's it. Think of all the money saved on advertising. Think of all saved time and mental health because we only have to suffer for a month.

(yes, I realize that this is an old thread...)

hey, I'd be happy if the campaigning for the next election wasn't happening until the current one was over.

sort of like having the Christmas decorations and Christmas candy out in the stores before Labor Day. :-/

 

[Morgan3820]

I support the next thing.

 

[luvflyin]

Ok, so Palin lost in Alaska even though the Republicans got more votes in the first round. Why? Did this election truly reflect the people's wishes? It seems like the voting system divides and conquers any party with more than one strong candidate — the final winner had finished fourth in the open primary.

???