Asymmetrical Information

I think taking votes from the politically active old and giving them to the non-voting 18 year olds is a fine, fine idea. But then maybe I just need lunch.

Do they do webcasts?

I was planning on moving away from California at the end of this year. The 9th Circuit has robbed me of the opportunity to take one last swing at the state government.

As far as I can tell -- and I'm no legal scholar -- the court couldn't give a rat's ass about people being "disenfranchised". If it did, it would have to ban all elections with anything-less-than-perfect voting systems. Rather, the court cares only that equally good (or equally lousy) voting systems be used everywhere. If any precinct improves its system, that's an equal protection violation, bam!, until all the other precincts catch up.

In any case, whether the new system will be more or less accurate is more or less completely irrelevant to the court's reasoning.
--G

Great point. Perhaps they should allow the seasoned citizens to absentee vote now for the March election.

this could all be solved with the use of paper ballots..simple, hacker-resistant, leaves a paper train, equal enfranchisement for all.

The argument would be more persuasive if it could be shown that these 100,000 people were concentrated in particular voting areas. I rather suspect they are randomly distributed around the state.

The relevant point is not that some voters are disenfranchised, but rather that an easily identifiable grouop of voters is systematically disenfranchised with malice aforethought.

As before, a simple solution to this problem is to hold the election as scheduled while randomly discarding the appropriate number of ballots cast on the non-punchcard machines.

The 100,000 will probably vote after their deaths, if they're Democrats.

The relevant point is not that some voters are disenfranchised, but rather that an easily identifiable grouop of voters is systematically disenfranchised with malice aforethought.

Eh? The governor's a Democrat, the Legislature is controlled by Democrats, the "disenfranchised" counties are controlled by Democrats, as are the election officials, and the people who will allegedly be "disenfranchised" are mostly Democrats.

So where's the "malice aforethought" coming from? Democrats are maliciously conspiring to trick other Democrats into using "confusing" voting machines, causing them to accidentally vote for the Intergalactic Pasta Party or some other third-party candidate?

The counties in question lack modern voting machines because they didn't want to pay for them until the last possible minute, and got caught off-guard by the election. These people "disenfranchined" themselves -- if you can call "being forced to use a voting machine that the average 8-year-old could easily figure out" the same thing as "being disenfranchised", that is. :)

boban

You say:

"The relevant point is not that some voters are disenfranchised, but rather that an easily identifiable grouop [sic] of voters is systematically disenfranchised with malice aforethought."

Gee, then how come they weren't disenfranchised last Nov.? The malicious thinkers were asleep, I guess. Or, the malice system just isn't "systematically" sound! Repeal that election itself!

Where was the ACLU before that election since this systematic malice is so easy to see?

Where were you?

This is going to backfire badly on Davis and the Democrats.

They wanted a March election because the Democratic nominee is in doubt, while the Republican nominee will be Bush. Under normal cicumstances, this would reduce the number of Republicans at the polls and therefore give the advantage to Davis, or Bustemante.

But with the 9th stepping in to bring that about, it has cheesed off the Republicans and a lot of independents. Even if this ruling does not get tossed out, that anger is going to get directed at Davis and the Democrats for stopping an election, one in accordance with and required by, the California Constitution.

It is silly to male a big deal over the type of machine used during an election. This has practically no bearing whatsoever regarding the final results. The problem in Florida was almost entirely due to the marginal to functional illiteracy of many Democrat voters. You can only do so much to assist those who can barely read at a 5th grade level. Do I sound cruel and “insensitive?” Hey, I only have an obligation to tell the truth. We must not allow the politically correct to demagogue this issue.

Dead democrats vote more than once. So this is obviously a cover up!

I have taken my daughter to the polls with me at each of the last several elections I voted in. In the 2000 election, she wanted to run the "machine". So I handed her my punch cards, told her to put each one in the little tray, with the "This end up" label facing up. Then I told her who I wanted to vote for and let her push the device that punches the card.

I had to slowly spell out most of the names for her since she was only 8 at the time. But she managed to get through all five two-sided cards, with no mistakes.

Yes, we live in California and use a punch card ballot system.

My daughter is being educated in a private school and has been told for years that we expect her to be able to think for herself and use her brains for something other than keeping her head from imploding.

So if the dimo-crats think that the rank and file of this state are too stupid to accurately use a punch card ballot, don't delay the election, just require everyone to bring a private school third grader to the polls with them.

Make sure it's not a public school third grader though, at least one of the two people involved need to be able to read.

Is there any way that Democrats can claim that their voters are being “disenfranchised” by either the butterfly ballot or punch card system (forget that both were ultimately chosen by Democratic officials) without first having to admit that they regard their own voters are being incompetent?

Is there any way that Democrats can claim that their voters are being “disenfranchised” by either the butterfly ballot or punch card system (forget that both were ultimately chosen by Democratic officials) without first having to admit that they regard their own voters as being incompetent?

how can you postpone an election for possible counting difficulties when there's nothing to count yet?

Surely forwarned is forarmed.

Perhaps it is less the problems in counting the votes and more what the count will reveal that the 8th Circuit wants to delay...

9th Circuit.....d'oh

From So Far, So Left:

"Shorter, shorter, shorter.
Shorter Bush v. Gore: The different vote-counting methods in Florida would violate the equal protection right of the Florida voter. The time required to establish methods that would not violate this right would exceed the time remaining to determine electors, so the original count, which also employed those methods, shall be used to determine electors.

Shorter Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley: The different vote-casting methods in California would violate the equal protection right of the California voter. The time required to establish methods that would not violate this right would exceed the time remaining before the vote, so the vote shall be delayed until those methods are established.

Shorter Righty: While the former is acceptable, the latter is exceedingly unfair."

That pretty much sums up this string.

Well, Kate, that's not quite right.

The equal protection violation in the 2000 election came from the counting mechanism, not the tabulation mechanism. The Supreme Court didn't say that punch cards violated equal protection; they said that using different standards to count the votes on punch cards was an equal protection violation, because it afforded different weights to two people who cast the same vote. Now, unless California is prepared to force every precinct to use the same machine (it isn't), then it can't be an equal protection violation merely to have a different tabulation mechanism in different precincts.

There is some justifiable outrage on the right that the exact same mechanism which was good enough to elect Dear Gray is not good enough to recall him. Where was the ACLU in November? It's hard for either side in the 2000 race to work up much justifiable outrage that the other side was somehow playing unfair, while their guy was the paragon of all that is straight and true. Oh, I've heard Democrats scream that Gore just wanted to count every vote. But given that what he really wanted was to count every vote in four heavily Democratic counties, not even they can believe it.

As I say, I have no legal opinion about this. But politically, I have to hand it to the Democratic courts -- they really know how to turn out that Republican base. What Lautenberg did for marginal republican candidates in 2003, now Gray can do for Arnie.

Back when King County, WA, used punch cards, I regularly voted as an absentee with these cards.

That meant I had to look through the little book and figure out the number of the chad which corresponded to my preferred candidate, then find that chad through the miniscule numbers printed on the card, and then punch it out without punching out any extra chads, which would invalidate my votes.

I accomplished all of this without assistance from the "machines" they had at polling places.

Accordingly: I have absoulutly ZERO sympathy for morons who can't figure it out. None. Not even a little bit.

And Kate, it would be more accurate to say this:

BvG: Two people with the exact same (improperly cast) ballots might or might not have their votes couted the same way, even within the same precinct. Therefore, the results of a uniform but imperfect system, which is known to count proper ballots correctly (machine counting) should be used.

Shelley: Two people in entirely different parts of the state might, if they are so incompetent that they can't fill out ballots correctly (see above) experience different probablities of error. Therefore, the election must be postponed so that brand-new, untested systems with as-yet unknown rates of error and practical problems can be installed.

I saw an argument on another site yesterday that punch card machines produce different error rates among different groups, with blacks, the elderly and the poor getting worst results on those machines. This person thought that was an equal protection violation.

My response was going to be that machines can't produce differing error rates, only people can, but I think I gave up on responding at all. Besides, I'm not sure how they even know this. Testing different groups on the machines? And then there is the question of remedy? Throw out yuppie votes to even it out?

More likely is that there is a correlation between the population of an area and the number of a minorities in it.

And we already know that the punch card machines have an error rate that is strongly dependant on how well it is mantained. And even more strongly dependant on how many people use it on election day. (When the container for chads gets full, it becomes impossible to punch cleanly through the ballot anymore because there is no way for the chad to go when punched).

In high-traffic votings areas, this is far more likely to occur in a single day, and thus the voters in high-traffic areas will experience higher error rates through no fault of their own.

One would have to control for this in order to make any conclusions about minority voter error rates. I doubt that you have done this.

What of the 1.3 million actual voters who signed the recall petition? They are due a special election 60-80 days after certification of the recall petition. Do their voting rights mean nothing?

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

It's late 2004. The Bush/Cheney ticket is trailing the Dean/Clark ticket in the polls, 41% to 53% with 6% undecided.

The Christian Coalition files a lawsuit in federal court. "Some districts are still using punch cards", they say, "but others are using electronic voting machines. This violates equal protection under the law." The case winds its way through the courts, until it reaches the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, citing the 9th Circuit's decision in SVREP v. Shelley (noting that the circumstances of the two cases are identical) orders the Presidential election postponed until such time as all voting districts have the same kinds of voting machines. A few (coincidentally solidly Republican) districts say that this will taken them at least until April of 2006, so the SC sets the election for May 2006.

What grounds would the Democrats have for complaining about this decision? For that matter, what's to stop Republican districts from conspiring to keep their voting machines out of sync indefinitely?

In 2000, everybody voted. The votes were counted. Bush won. The Supreme Court prevented a recount from happening, so Bush's initial win became the final result.

In 2003, nobody's allowed to vote, because the Democrat looks like he might lose. Is this really a path Democrats want to go down, in a nation where the Presidency, the Congress, the Court, and most of the governor's offices are controlled by the opposing party? Deeply stupid thinking, if you ask me. If this ruling stands, it gives the courts carte blanche to indefinitely cancel any elections they wish to.

So if the idea of Scalia and Thomas deciding when you get to vote and when you don't appeals to you, by all means keep supporting the Ninth Circuit.

Dan, you are an Evil Genius™.

For the panic of doomed CA democrats unintentionally to lock in a permanent Bush presidency would be sublime poetry.

Only 57 years old today, GWB could be expected to stay at least until 2020. Then with careful staging of replacements (VP, SecState, etc.) under the XXV amendment we could lock in Bushies throughout the first half of the 21st century.

Indeed, Fairness and True Democracy™ require that we do so!

And we have you to thank, Gray Davis. Once again, where CA leads, America follows.

Dan

You say:

"So if the idea of Scalia and Thomas deciding when you get to vote and when you don't appeals to you, by all means keep supporting the Ninth Circuit."

Where've you been for the last 50+ years? The idea of any judge acting at any time as a super legislator or administrator - it's called "judicial activism" - doesn't appeal to a lot of us who, for some reason are called members of the VWRC for so voicing our objections. We're called that 'cause, ya see, the judges are generally progressive (except once in a while as in Bush v. Gore, Boo, Hiss) & they apply the law as if it were a living document; they're not constrained by the actual words of a statute, rule, or regulation. They may apply their deeply held beliefs, so long as there is no religious basis for such beliefs. Got it?

In fact, we don't really need elections, so there.

And it's not necessary to study judges' decisions & what they say; you just oversimplify 'em as does Kate. Works for her; works for activist judges.

BTW Kate: McDonald's hamburgers have the same nutritional value as the ones in the Stanhope which charges 4-5 times as much. Seeing that similarity, I assume that you wouldn't sit under the awning on 5th Ave on a lovely Fall day enjoying a Stanhope one. That's the trouble with oversimplification; ya miss a lot.

well if 100,000 people in cali are going to pass away between Oct. 7th and March, well who cares what their vote will be? it's not like they are going to be around to benefit from the outcome.

jjj beat me to it. How can you "disenfranchise" dead people? (I'm assuming Jane included this quote for the daily recommended irony content).

I know! we should immediately institute a policy that all voters must qualify as having an expected life span of not less than 23 months from the date of ballot initiation. Physician certification will be documented (either electronically or via duly witnessed notary public documentation)...this could revolutionalize the health care industry! Better yet: microchips! Yeah, that's the ticket! No vote if you're not going to be around to wallow in the results. Of course, we'll have weighting factors for: gun ownership, drug use, smoking, obesity, automotive usage, vegetarianism...uhm, a bit of a problem for qualifying DUMBSH*T status (based on either genetics or nuturing).

You laugh, but, we're talking California, here....

Could it get any more ridiculous?

You vote. It is either quantifiable, or it is discarded. As has been the history of this great republic for centuries. Once you open votes to interpretation of "intent" (i.e., hanging chads), you've pretty much demolished voting rights in lieu of political prowess: "who is to be given the right to interpret."

That way lies madness.

It is silly to male a big deal over the type of machine used during an election. This has practically no bearing whatsoever regarding the final results.

This is simply untrue. Survey design can -- and does -- have an enormous impact on final results, and the type of machine used, and the type of ballot used on it, is a function of survey design. This is a simple matter known by anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of statistics and survey tools.

The problem in Florida was almost entirely due to the marginal to functional illiteracy of many Democrat voters. You can only do so much to assist those who can barely read at a 5th grade level.

I'm sure you have tons of scholarly sources on this, so I'll be happy to read them as soon as you provide them, which will be soon. Nobody would make such an assertion without evidence.

You do understand that the states most likely to have high illiteracy rates are the states that trend Republican, right? And I'm pretty sure that even county-level data show this trend.

Comments are Closed.