U.S. election - don't worry, nothing political

[gemfyre]

Wow. Just read a Snopes article about a ballot going screwy.

I didn't realise you voted using a computer system in the U.S.

Australia just uses paper ballots. You read it, and number your preferences. I'm not exactly sure how they are counted, but I think the straightforward paper ballot certainly removes the room for computer error.

Comments

[shirazz.livejournal.com]

Computer voting scares me - why don't we just flush the toilets or something (a-la Simpsons)? I love the paper ballot.

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

They are counted at locations by election officals - by hand- put into bundles of x number of votes (ie, there would be piles of votes that have the labor party as their first preference etc), then they are sent to a secondary venue and rechecked.

I worked in the recchecking centre at the last state election.

[pooxs.livejournal.com]

isnt the reason they had so many issues 4 years ago because of the paper balots with the holes poked through them at the wrong points?

[jassalol.livejournal.com]

The US voting system is completely and utterly retarded. I was talking to a friend of mine over there and she was telling me they are only allowed to vote at ONE polling booth - and many many people have not been informed which polling booth they have to vote at this election.

Also, in the US, the President is chosen by the number of states that he wins in - not the overall figure. So it's possible for a candidate to have a nation-wide majority vote, but not be elected President (apparently that's what happened in the last election). I'm no expert on the Australian political system, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works here.

Computer voting has it's advantages and disadvantages, just like every other system. I do think that paper voting is better overall though. With paper voting you get human error (which is probably more likely to occur than computer error), but as purrdence said, paper votes are counted and rechecked multiple times.

Anyway. I don't think people HAVE to vote by computer...

[jassalol.livejournal.com]

Oh, also - you may want to read this entry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/kuh/223236.html) of kuh's regarding the touchscreen computer voting...

[analise.livejournal.com]

Also, in the US, the President is chosen by the number of states that he wins in - not the overall figure. So it's possible for a candidate to have a nation-wide majority vote, but not be elected President (apparently that's what happened in the last election). I'm no expert on the Australian political system, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works here.

Actually, it's determined by how many electoral votes the candidate gets. If you get very technical, the popular vote means nothing. Because, you see, something like 220 years ago, the Founding Fathers weren't sure that the common man was well-educated enough to be able to make an informed decision on who would be President. Not to mention that communication over long distances back then was rather iffy and it would've been hard for Joe Podunk out in the backwoods of Georgia to really know much about them High Falutin' Fellers up there in Philadelphia and the like. So they came up with this system wherein the Common Man is actually voting for a representative (elector) to vote for him. Hence, we're called a "representative democracy", not a "popular democracy". Anyway, the elector can actually vote however he or she likes, think of the popular vote as a suggestion for how the people think the elector ought to vote. The state thing is simple in that generally, whatever the popular vote outcome in a state is, that's how all of the electors vote. Hence, "winning states".

And now that I'm done babbling before class, I'll toddle off TO class. :)

[jassalol.livejournal.com]

Ahh. I see where I misunderstood the aituation. Still, as you said, the outcome is still the same :-)

Cheers for the education :P

[jassalol.livejournal.com]

aituation = situation

stupid keyboard and/or fingers

[stefanina.livejournal.com]

Also, the popular vote does determine the political party alignment of the electoral college delegates. That is why the electoral college vote is usually the same as the popular vote.

And yes, improperly punched holes in ballots in my state (Florida) is what caused the whole election debacle in the 2000 election.
My county uses scantron sheets for voting, and the margin of error is 2% or less. Not bad, really.
And, if there's any discrepancies, it's easy enough to manually recount them.

[just-laura.livejournal.com]

I think I'd prefer computer error to human error, especially considering how biased humans tend to be. . .

I read that article, though, and it sucks. >.< I do hate our voting system.

[princesspooh.livejournal.com]

Computer error = human error. Computers don't make boobos on their own :P. So either way, both methods have their risk for errors, all of them stemming from humans. At least with computers, they would be consistent. With paper ballots, there's room for a wide range of errors and personal bias.

Since the Florida fiasco of the "hanging chad", California has switched to an ink ballot for paper ballots. You bubble in your choices with an ink pen.

Me the geek, I voted by computer :).

[marzipan9.livejournal.com]

i voted with a paper ballot.

i think it's just certain states that have computerized voting--florida's one of them.

[stefanina.livejournal.com]

Not all counties in Florida have computerized voting yet, the retirees don't like computers.

[marzipan9.livejournal.com]

lol

who would have figured? :)