Asymmetrical Information

Anyone who can't create a valid ballot on thier own. So even children should be able to vote, if they can figure out the ballot. The corollary to this is that the ballots need to be made as simple as possible...

Sure, kids voting seems like a bad idea, but there aren't that many of them, and it might get other people out to vote, if only to avoid the consequences of a government that was selected by pimply faced junior high students.

Think about it: no literacy test is required for voting. That means people are voting who have never in their lives read a book or even a newspaper. What kind of sense does this make? Of course, when you consider that individual votes have no value at all, you can only come to the conclusion that the electoral game is intended only as a palliative, not a real mechanism for better government.

In an ideal world, only voters who had educated themselves about the issues and candidates would vote. (And, as long as we are making the world ideal, everyone would do just that.) So, absent the ability to abuse or game the system, I would support some form testing about our form of government, current affairs, etc. in order to qualify people to vote. (But, I don't think you could devise such a system. AND, I think the risks from gaming the system are far greater than those posed by our current system.) All I am saying is that I don't think high voting rates, in and of themselves, are a good. High voting rates only lead to better government if voters are making informed, rational, educated decisions.

With that introduction, does it surprise you to learn I'd support restricting the right to vote of incompetents? If they can't be trusted to buy groceries, they can't be trusted to vote.

There was a report on election day in 2000 that state workers from a Pennsylvania nursing home were bringing in patients and voting for them. Don't know who made the report, so who knows if it is even credible.

But it brings up another point. Who is doing the helping? It doesn't bother me all that much that the wife of the man essentially voted for him. Yes, she got 2 votes, but she likely voted the same way her husband would have voted if he could.

Having a social worker help is a very different thing indeed. That brings in the possibility of serious fraud. I don't like the idea of a social worker getting to vote 25 times in an election.

The right to vote should be available broadly, but the government should cease its attempts to 'improve' voter turnout. This would provide a system much like Mr Walser describes, but in a self policing form. If you're motivated enough to feel strongly about an issue or candidate, then you should be motivated to do what's necessary (basically, register to vote legally) to get to the polls.

In the specific case mentioned above, I think Max is right. His wife (or other interested party) shouldn't have been allowed in the booth. It should have been two poll workers (Democrat and Republican) with clear instructions that if he doesn't clearly select a name from the ballot, his vote doesn't count.

Slightly OT.. if Gore had won Florida by 537 votes, would this article have the same alarmist tone?

This has been a huge problem in Alabama (and for all I know, all over) for many years. Canvassers walk into nursing homes and fill out absentee ballots for the stroke and Alzheimer's patients, get a mumble that they claim as assent, then mail in the invented "votes." Nothing but outright fraud.

David Walser said:
"In an ideal world, only voters who had educated themselves about the issues and candidates would vote."

Given the random-walk nature of the short-term event time-line, I see no reason why this should be thought of as ideal. At best it would have no effect because you can't predict the future, even if you "educate" yourself. Therefore, I think a certain percentage of coin-flipping is perfectly fine, along with non-voting by people who don't want to vote, as long as *systematic* corruption is minimized.

And allowing someone who thinks FDR is president to vote isn't what I'd call systematic corruption. He probably still pays taxes, and I notice nobody's upset about that.

Chris B:
"Slightly OT.. if Gore had won Florida by 537 votes, would this article have the same alarmist tone?"

Yes, I think it would. It's not about who won Florida, but about the fact that someone essentially voted twice in a very close election.

The question is, are any of the cures for this better than the actual problem? I don't think so. Literacy tests, competency hearings and the like scare the bejesus out of me because they allow for much worse levels of abuse and are expensive to maintain and enforce.

I can't imagine this type of voter fraud happens all that often (that someone essentially votes for their demented or incompetent spouse). I think it's just one of those natural flaws in the system we have to live with.

Only citizens who filed a 1040 for the previous year (as taxpayer or spouse), and had a net tax liability greater than 0, should be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation.

Found this legal round-up of the issue in a paper (pp. 26-27) by Jim Gardner entitled Voting and Elections on the web site of the Rutgers Center for State Constitutional Studies:

Disqualification for Mental Incompetence.

Thirty-five state constitutions expressly disqualify from voting persons suffering from a serious mental disability. Most affirmatively require disqualification on this ground, although four states merely authorize disqualification by the legislature. As with the disqualification of minors, such provisions reflect a commonplace and fundamentally sound belief that popular political decisions should be well-considered and rational, and that meaningful, rational participation in politics requires some minimal level of mental competence.

Defining the relevant mental disability is a complex task, and no state constitution attempts to do so. Most implicitly leave further definition of the conditions of ineligibility to the legislature by incorporating by reference standard legal concepts of mental disability (e.g., Ainsane,@Anon compos mentis@) that are within the province of the legislature to define. Oregon's unique provision combines disqualification for mental incompetence with an extension of protection against disqualification to the merely disabled: A person suffering from a mental handicap is entitled to the full rights of an elector, if otherwise qualified, unless the person has been adjudicated incompetent to vote as provided by law.

Note that the paper appears to have been written in 2003 or 2004 since a sentence (on p. 26) starts, "As of 2003..."

Correction to the preceding comment: The excerpt came from pp. 13-14 of the Gardner paper.

I am an inspector at our polling place in PA (read: chad counter). The problem is a lot worse than what Jane mentioned in the article. I have 90-year-olds in wheelchairs who can't sign the registration book. It's supposedly illegal for *anyone* in PA to be in the same voting booth as another person; an election worker can show them how to use then, then leave before they actually vote. Voters abuse this violently.

BUt to me, that's not the biggest problem. I've had people threated lawsuits because they weren't allowed to vote in a primary (they were registered independent; PA has closed priamries); I once had a women give a very nice speech about how everyone should exercise their right to vote because she came from Germany at a time when she wasn't allowed to...then proceeded to announce that stepping into the voting both would be the first time she saw any of the names up for election, apparently going to guess at the positions of the candidates, etc.

I, personally, would like to see a "Political IQ" test required for voting; maybe even forcing you to write in the name of the candidate you are voting for, so at least you have to do *that* much research. But that's tantamount to a literacy test, which in the US has historically racist overtones. I'm not even sure that's a very elegant solution. I guess we have to assume that every election is going to have a sizable percentage (10%?) of votes that are largely random or erroneously chosen...which, hopefully, cancels each other out.

Hmmmm. Seems like you're warming to the idea of a National Identity card. Doesn't that clash with your Libertarian ideals Jane?

As I recall there was a recent report that 46,000 people were simultaneously registered to vote in both New York and Florida. 68% were Democrats; 12% Republicans and 16% list no party affiliation.

Perhaps we need go no further than checking the rolls of registered Democrats in New York, Miami and Chicago.

While I sympathize with the desire to cut down on this gray area of voter fraud, I'm reminded of the traditional maxim of the criminal courts: it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be condemned. Considering the price that has been paid for our right to vote, I'm inclined to err on the side of voter rights, even if that means some of these disqualified voters get to vote -- or that their caretakers vote twice by proxy.

Dan:

But that also means that other people's votes count *less*. That's a different story than the guilty/innocent analogy: a free guilty man doesn't affect the jailed innocent.

Um, Mr. Leder, I have received money back from the IRS in all but one year of my employment history, owing to standard deductions being greater than my payouts. The one year I _did_ have a net tax liability, I was claiming Single +2. I've since changed to Single +0, with additional deductions, although I am married. Net at the end of the FY is in my favor.

Would I be able to vote under your plan?

Can't speak for Mr. Leder, Sal, but under my interpretation, if line 38 on your 1040A (or equivalent tax form)- the one labeled 'total tax' - is greater than zero, then you get to vote.

Sal, the answer is yes, you would get to vote under my plan. Tax liability is the total amount you have to pay the gov't for a given year. This is not the same as the balance due with your return, which is related not only to tax liability but to how much you've already funded through withholding and/or quarterly estimated payments.

Mr. Leder:
I'll see ya and raise ya. I would define net taxpayer as one whose taxes (gross) exceed their income from the government. Exceptions would be allowed for soldiers and first responders (EMTs, cops, firemen). If you want to vote, get off of the dole.

A Dallas journalist has made something of a career following the local political machine's manipulation of elderly voters' ballots.

Sample lede:
"For less than $12,000 paid to the right people, you can buy the early and absentee ballot vote in eight precincts in Southern Dallas--just enough votes, it turns out, to win you a $125 million taxpayer subsidy for your new sports arena ..."

Sampling of articles:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-06-14/news/schutze.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-08-30/news/feature.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-02-21/news/news.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-05-02/news/schutze.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-05-30/news/schutze.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-04-11/schutze.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-04-24/news/schutze.html
====

It may not be a good idea to disenfranchise a class of voters by age, or due to institutional residence, or even by written competency testing. But it is certainly worthwhile to take steps to protect the election, and certain "fragile" classes of voters, from organized fraud.

If you start where the Founders were you see that a lot of this discussion is moot. They studied democracy very closely and decided they didn't want anything to do with it. One man, one vote is a total perversion of what the founders believed. State legislatures voted for Senators, only propertied people were allowed to vote and the EC made sure that the popular vote for President had some balance. Please, don't write that slavery and no rights for women completely invalidated the Founder's ideas. That's too weak for words.

If a person is can make his voting preference known to a third-party then they should be allowed to vote. Normally this is nothing more than returning the ballot with holes in it. If the person requires assistance because of a some handicap, then it gets trickier.

When I ran a polling place, I would insist the person voting be able to indicate they were aware of where they were and what they were about to do. If they were unable to deomstrate this, I'd have them vote provisionally and that would be that.

I never had a close call nor did anyone become upset the two times I actually had to discuss the issue. I did hear stories from other poll workers though about people being brougt in who were clearly in a vegitative state and totally unware of what was going on. I'm happy this never happened to me as I'm kind of anal about these things and would not have backed down.

This was in San Jose, CA.

Pender: "It's supposedly illegal for *anyone* in PA to be in the same voting booth as another person; an election worker can show them how to use then, then leave before they actually vote."

No exceptions for blind people? What about those with physical disabilities like ALS?

An exceedingly pleasing mental exercise, for
that I thank you.

A paradox to be sure. If one is required to pass
some sort of evaluation inorder to vote, then the
party in power would simply manipulate the bar to
facilitate their own power.

Which negates the whole concept of a vote.

One could ask how many does this demographic
REALLY represent? Based on the last election,
ENOUGH.

When one obtains a driver's license, one must
take an vision test. Take a written test. And
every once in a while ... a 'driving' test.

An ID should not be too far from that.

The first impulse as regards that is ...
to argue that there would be a data base and
'the government' would know too much.

Not anymore than it does already. There is
a plethora of information that is mandated
to be kept about individuals.

An example would be venereal disease. The
county health department, upon receiving
mandated notification from a physician, will
attempt to notify possible sexual contacts
to alert them to that fact.

THAT doesn't seem too large a price to pay.

Hemophillia is a condition which warrants
a mention on ANY form of ID.

These are examples of information that should
and must be noted for the benefit of the ID
holder. AND society at large.

Given that, yes, there should be some sort
of mechanism to insure the safety of the ...
individual and society.

That mechanism would necessarily have to be
an ID of some sort. In time, perhaps another
way will be found to enclose the information
needed to:

a) Protect the individual.
b) Protect the society within which that
individual resides.

So yes, there are some criteria that must be
calculated, standardized and employed to insure
the health of both. And all.

The governance of issuing such an instrument
is a topic best left to an open and popular
debate in the confines of our constitution.

Now, my head hurts from all that thinkin'.

Seems to me, it's just plain ole common sense.

Ya can't no more have a ... person that's
touched votin' than ya can some illegal.

Makes sense don't it?

Steel Turman
Reno NV

Imo the governments role in voting is only to eliminate fraud, not to verify literacy or competance. Imo you should only be able to vote where you live, with photo ID, and absentee ballots should be limited to those in government service. My biggest complaint is the electoral colleges existance. We should have morphed from a representitive republic into a liberal democracy by now, its completely ridiculous that you can win the popular vote, but lose the election. In Civics class the chance of this happening was always presented as minimal, but it seems theres a good chance it happens two elections in a row, and that devastates the peoples faith in government.

Hmmmm. Seems like you're warming to the idea of a National Identity card. Doesn't that clash with your Libertarian ideals Jane?

Huh? She referred to a state-issued drivers' license/ID, which would not be mandatory unless you voted. Not exactly a direct comparison there...

Begbee,
If there were no electoral college then it would
be possible for areas of great population to have
complete control over ALL the rest. NY and CA and
TX would define ALL elections. Fuck that. There's
some other folks out there in the rest of the
nation that gotta say too. What I just described
almost happens NOW. AND may happen for sure soon.
The only thing standing between a few large
metropolis' control over everything is the ...
electoral college.

We don't need no stinking 'liberal' democracy.

And THAT is exactly what would be if it wasn't
for the electoral college.

Think about it and get back to me in the morning.

Steel

I have long said that there needs to be SOME kind of IQ testing for voters. Not saying the bar has to be incredibly high, but this idiot obviously would not have made it. Of course it would probably require a constitutional amendment and would invite all kinds of "cultural" and "pc" tests and challenges. But I'm with you that it just doesn't make sense to trust the future of our country to people who are certifiable.

Don't we have a concept of power of attorney for similar concerns?

No one gets to vote for you unless they have established a power of attorney. Citizens declared incompetent in the absence of a designated POA forfeit their vote. No one else gets to make the vote in their place, the vote is no longer possible.

I reject the concept of a power of attorney for voting. The right to vote should be PERSONAL and NOT something we should allow to be delegated. Government gains its authority from the consent of the governed. If someone nolonger has the ability to "consent" -- because they are incapacitated (or, in theory, because they are so unwilling to pay attention to what's going on they are clueless about who or what to vote for), there vote should not be allowed to be used by anyone else. If not, why don't we allow children to cast votes on behalf of their under-age children?

In the prior post, that should have been "parents to cast votes on behalf of their under-age children" not "children to cast votes on behalf of their under-age children."

Sorry. Please ignore the other typos as well.

How about making registration like a congressional term --you have to register every two years? No tests required, but no one can register on your behalf. If you've gone vegetative since the last election, your vote quietly expires.

Jack, you're right! That the Founding Fathers accepted slavery and no rights for women really proves your point: they wanted nothing to do with democracy.

And m: why should soldiers and first responders be exempt from the "no representation without taxation" rule? Because, in a fit of post 9/11 sentiment, we've decided they're all heroes? Won't they just become a special interest group like all the others, lining their pockets at taxpayers' expense?

Come on, people, if we're ever gonna roll back 200 years of creeping statism and put this country into the hands of the people who ought to be running it, we need a sound plan to limit the vote, and I have it: no one gets to vote unless I say so.

You all miss one important aspect of the voting process. Aspect one is: having the voters select the best candidate - for this you need competent voters.

But aspect two is: having a peaceful succession to power, i.e. no wars of succession each time the monarch dies, no blood shed and fraticide at when government changes. To achieve this any process is good, as long as it is accepted by all. Even tossing a coin (which is what happened in 2000 in Florida).
So it doesn't matter that some voters suffer from dementia, while others are mere fools. It's the process that matters, and it seems to work ok so far (except when your favorite candidate loses).

Personally, I think "shell" may have something.

Think about it. You have to periodically revalidate your licence plates and driver's license to continue to drive. Why not your voter registration?

Voter registration should NOT be effectively permanent. Periodic personal appearance required for voter registration, with said registration to be valid for a period of not more than n years, is a good idea. (We can debate what value is appropriate for n; IMO, any number between 2 and 5 would be tolerable.)

Couple this with Jane's idea of the requirement to prove identity by producing a tamper-resistant, government-issued photo ID, and you've gone a long way towards solving both the issue Jane raised (incompetent voters) and the larger issue of voting fraud. Persons who were not mentally competent or who were otherwise ineligible to vote would simply not be able to periodically re-register.

Periodic registration and government-issued, tamper resistant photo ID aren't the complete solution, however. This combination doesn't address the issues of nationality and franchise forfiture (some states bar convicted felons from voting). For federal elections, I hold that some mechanism of proof of citizenship is also needed, as many states will issue drivers licences to some who are not US citizens and are therefore not entitled to vote in federal elections. This could be incorporated into the mechanism for issuing IDs, or could be done separately. Franchise forfiture is trickier, but could be handled at registration locations (via rosters/databases of disenfranchised voters), polling stations (also via rosters/databases of disenfranchised voters) and/or by casting provisional or disputed ballots subject to post-election validation.

Please spare me any "registration in person is just too hard or expensive" complaints. If you don't care enough about voting to register in person every few years than IMO you don't deserve to vote. Not everything worthwhile is easy or free. If someone cares so little about voting that they find it too much trouble to make a trip downtown (or to the county seat) every few years to register - well, frankly I'd feel better if they didn't vote.

As to the literacy, intelligence, and tax tests various people have proposed above - good luck. I'm inclined favor a requirement to demonstrate literacy, a basic level of intellegence, and tax currency as conditions to vote. However, I don't see the first two flying for political reasons. (The possibility of abuse inherent in each of these also worries me, but IMO is manageable.)
The third is flatly forbidden by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.

This is a "problem" that's going to go absolutely nowhere (and properly so).

If a political precinct can manage to keep dead people off the voting rolls (often no small accomplishment), then we should be grateful.

But introducing tests for "intelligence" or cognitive competence? -- oh please! (AARP, call your office!)

I also like the idea of a very low, but not inexistent, barrier to voting. If you care enough to register every four years, and you're capable of signing the form, you get to vote. Otherwise you don't. It probably wouldn't have stopped the guy who thought FDR was president, but the real problem there was that his wife did the voting. If she hadn't been allowed in the booth, he would either have found the "Democrat" line and punched a hole, or cast an invalid ballot. No big deal either way. It's the idea of a caretaker voting en masse that bothers me. Expiring registration would take care of that kind of thing.

I think only those who own property, free and clear, should be allowed to vote. They are the ones providing the capital behind the capitalism which makes life better for all of us. They are the ones with the most at stake and they are the ones who provide most of the taxes. I think THEY are the breadmakers deciding how to best to run the country -- not those who claim that hunger gives them a right to bread.

All the world is crazy, except for thee and me....and sometimes I wonder about thee:-)

If you start where the Founders were you see that a lot of this discussion is moot.

Why bar the incompetent from voting? We don't bar them from running for office. So what is the difference?

I think only those who own property, free and clear, should be allowed to vote.

Well, that would leave out (among many others) we homeowners who have a mortgage loan.

But don't you really think that taxpayers (property or no) should be permitted to vote? Just curious.

But don't you really think that taxpayers (property or no) should be permitted to vote? Just curious.

The people who pay the majority of the taxes have surplus capital and invariably own their own property. (it's cheaper that way)

In fact, they may have loaned that surplus capital to you or me so we might own property free and clear ourselves.

I think the folks doing the majority of the taxpaying should do the majority of the voting.

Excluding those who don't own property free and clear is a simple and effective way of isolating that population.

I'm not sure what the big difference is between someone who thinks FDR is president, and someone who thinks the Killian memos are legit. Both have reality testing that has broken down utterly, and both are objects of pity by people still in possession of their wits.

Excuse me for being, well...an advocate of CIVIL RIGHTS, but I think some of you need a refresher course on voter disenfranchisement.

http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm

Now, I take special alarm to this chatter on bringing back a Jim Crow voting system, because it affected my African American ancestors so stridently.
I'm also not surprised that it's my CONSERVATIVE friends who are bringing up this nonsense.

--Cobra

Cobra - I think you need to read a little more carefully. Most who have advocated some sort of "political IQ test" for voters have premised the idea with the caveat that the test be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. (Since none of us can conceive of such a test that would not be subject to manipulation, this is just a theoretical discussion.) Now then, if you could impose a test that would separate those who had seriously considered the issues from those who have not (without punishing any other demographic group), would you impose such a test? I think such a test would lead to better candidates (because the voters, would, as a group, be better informed) and would lead to better government. Having said that, I don't think these potential benefits are worth the risks that such a test would be used to discriminate.

What do you think? As one of your conservative friends, I'd like to know.

Steel what Im saying is one person should equal one vote in Presidential elections, so there would be no electoral college and no delegates to vote on your behalf. I dont see how that would throw power to the highly populated states, unless you mean the pols will cater policy initatives to the most highly populated areas. That very same problem exists today with the battle ground states. Both Kerry and Bush are going to make alot of promises to Ohio, Pa, Michigan, etc, and its mostly the same states every year. Promises that will likely be broken anyway. I live in SC, my vote is so overwhelmed by reps at every level I would at least like a voice in the Presidential election. I think if we do have another popular election offset by the electoral college the Presidency itself will be damaged. Further, when the Supreme Court determines the winner, it doesnt matter if a dem or rep wins, its ugly and its places the Judiciary above the Executive.

The risk has always been with us. If a domineering man wants to dictate his wife's votes, and if she uses an absentee ballot, with him simply dictating her vote to her, who would ever know?

We can't have any kind of knowledge test for voting for the simple reason that whoever controlled the testing procedure would have too much power. Keep it simple. Prove to me that you're alive and want to vote.

Jacob has a good point. We've had peaceful transfers of power for over two hundred years, and that's a pretty amazing thing in human history. In all the worst of the Florida debacle, Clinton didn't declare himself President for life, Gore and Bush didn't rush to DC with their followers to seize the White House, and Gore wasn't imprisoned, exiled, or executed. We might all wish for better ballots, smarter voters, and clear counting procedures, but we've got to admit: as a country, we're damn good at transitions.

Begbee - The electoral college was designed to give the more rural states a little more say in who would be president. It's a compromise, but I think the Founders got it about right. The concerns of Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona could be safely ignored by candidates for President without the electoral college. Without the electoral college, it might be smarter for the candidates to concentrate solely on the two coasts and the Great Lakes. As it is, fly over country doesn't get a lot of attention, but it does get some.

If that argument does not persuade you, look at it in more practical terms: While Gore won the popular vote in 2000 (and we have no idea how the popular vote would have turned out had the two campaigns been based solely on the popular vote), the vote was close. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if the popular vote were ever contested the way the Florida vote was in 2000? We'd be hand counting every ballot in the entire country! At least the Electoral College system gives us a more certain result -- and less chance for controversy.

Who would squawk most at having time-limited registration with photo ID required?

Why is the idea of presenting photo identification prior to casting a ballot even open to question?

The extra votes given to less populous states in the Electoral College are outweighed and then some by "winner-takes-all" laws in 48 states.
Giving all of a state's E.C. votes to the candidate who wins the state's popular vote makes the most populous states huge prizes in the Presidential election, and the fact that Wyoming has three times more E.C. votes than its population alone could justify means diddley-squat.
In 2000 Florida wasn't the only state that saw its vote count contested, but New Mexico is smaller and its E.C. votes didn't make a difference either way, so most people forgot about it. A contested count in Wyoming, under our present system, would matter even less.
There is no way the most populous states will make a change in their election laws that would dilute their power in Presidential elections, and no chance that a constitutional amendment banning "winner-takes-all" could be adopted, so the most populous states will continue to have an undue influence in choosing the President until people come to understand that the compromise that worked in 1784 doesn't work in 2004.

The country may have "moved on" since the Founders but I doubt that in every respect this movement has been in a positive direction.

How about this for the "IQ test"?

Select the name of the current president from this list:
Albert Gore
George Washington
George W Bush
John Wayne
Ronald Reagan

If you present proof of legal blindness, the list may be read to you.

Can anyone come up with a coherent reason why this test would be unfair?

Can anyone come up with a coherent reason why this test would be unfair?

Of course not. Everyone knows Al Gore is president.

Can anyone come up with a coherent reason why this test would be unfair?

No comprendo.

In 2000 Florida wasn't the only state that saw its vote count contested, but New Mexico is smaller and its E.C. votes didn't make a difference either way, so most people forgot about it. A contested count in Wyoming, under our present system, would matter even less. There is no way the most populous states will make a change in their election laws that would dilute their power in Presidential elections, and no chance that a constitutional amendment banning "winner-takes-all" could be adopted, so the most populous states will continue to have an undue influence in choosing the President until people come to understand that the compromise that worked in 1784 doesn't work in 2004.

But that "undue influence" doesn't exactly go away if you delete the electoral college, since areas with larger populations will still be the pristine campaign targets, AND you get the dubious bonus that small-population states can matter significantly in a close race, making a multiple-state recount fiasco possible.

I saw the idea floated (was it on an earlier thread here? or where?) of a Constitutional amendment that would pretty much do the following:

(1) Make the vote winner-take-all in each Congressional district, one electoral vote apiece;

(2) Throw in an extra two for the candidate who wins the most districts in each state. (I suppose if there are an even number of districts, and a tie between candidates, you would add one extra vote for each. Three-way, four-way, &c. ties would need to be addressed at least theoretically in the language, but the chances of that are basically zero.)

Add to that that the role of actual, named "electors" should be abolished (there goes the "faithless elector" problem), and I think that works pretty well: it limits the potential recount chaos in a close election, preserves the small-state edge just a bit (actually, for the smallest states it would be exactly the same as the current system, of course), and yet gives candidates a much bigger incentive to campaign all over the country.

Of course, it still means that effectively one-party districts, like the one I live in, aren't going to get much attention from any candidate. But there's a big difference between a "safe district" and a whole "safe state."

I faced this same dilemma a couple of days ago while canvassing voters for a primary. One of our ID'd supporters (we found them over the phone or by going door-to-door) was home when I stopped by in the mid-afternoon. He was obviously mentally disabled. Not severely so--I can easily see how he could have sounded bored on the phone and offered us his support because he wanted to say yes to us, and then got listed as a guy to follow up with--but he obviously didn't have any idea why he should vote for our candidate over the incumbent.

This was Election Day and our opponent was really turning out his voters. I thought what it would mean to give this guy a ride to the polls and escort him into the voting station, and it was obvious that I had to cross him off our list. Maybe his parents took him to vote later that day. Who knows. I didn't want any part of it.

Comments are Closed.