russ_watters said:
I'll be honest - I did only skim your post and that's all that caught my eye. I've read it all now.
Thanks for taking the time.
I know. That was my point: If the tables had been turned, we'd still be in exactly the same situation we are today regarding the electoral process.
I know it was your point. The implication of your comment seemed to be that it
wasn't mine. I was just clarifying my position.
The rest of your post, plover, seemed to be saying that appearance=reality (in politics) and we should strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I agree on both points (in general).
These (more or less) are assumptions used in the argument, but are not the main point. The central idea is that the current set of appearances are more dangerously divisive than anything in recent memory, and that this is, in and of itself, a problem that needs addressing.
The problems in 2000, compunded by the perception that the attempts to fix them are politically compromised, make the issues surrounding voting procedures a likely flashpoint.
Votors, by and large, are swayed by appearances: but not me. I want reality.
I'm definitely in favor of reality too (when it's available
). But be careful with that word "reality": perceptions are not "more important than reality", they're simply a part of reality. In other words, one of things that's real is perceptions; perceptions are real enough to have real world consequences. If you've never been bitten in the ass by other people's perceptions, then you are one statistically freaky dude...
I expect it is usually the case that "Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out", and the sooner there's a real solution the better. However, there is the matter of timing. If the U.S. becomes seriously destabilized before "the perceptions work themselves out", then those who allow it to happen have the blood on their hands.
The current administration treats this problem with cavalier arrogance. As noted, there has already been a case where use of the new voting machines has led to an appearance of impropriety which was not properly resolved. Do you really want to see that repeated across the nation in a high stakes election? (At least the problem led California to cease using the machines.)
Voting, in a sense, is the ultimate national security issue: without fair and safe voting, the U.S. as we conceive it, ceases to exist. Voting machines need to be designed with the failure and error rates engineers use for any other application that people's lives depend on. Human error should be minimized, yes, but this is data that can be accumulated in a gross physical form, viewable by the human eye, which is still the standard for the interpretation of static visually accessible data.
When you complain about hanging chads, are you just arguing for a cleaner system? Or are you also ignoring the evidence that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts?
Given the problems that have been seen how would I design a voting system? Off the top of my head, here's some points that seem needed:
- Touch screens to make ballots easy to use and to solve language difficulties.
- Mechanically punched cards to prevent the whole chad problem.
- Larger holes punched in the cards to make checking them easier for voters.
- Some non-electronic means to allow voters to easily check that the card correctly reflects their choices. Election areas should be designed to make this step hard to skip without a conscious decision.
- Districts should have at least two different card reading machines, made by two different companies.
- Balloting machines and card reading machines must be built by different companies to independently established standards.
- Machine vetting must be independent of either type of machine manufacturer.
- No companies, company officers, or board members involved in this process may make political contributions.
- Those running for political office must divest themselves of all ties to such companies.
All of this is just the musing of someone with no real expertise. I imagine some of the ideas are silly or overkill. But the point is, this is an arena where both the mechanism and perceptions count a great deal, and both areas must be addressed. Unfortunately, I've heard nothing to convince me that the mechanical issues are being addressed well (if you can point me to any information at a source I'm likely to take seriously, i.e.
not the Heritage Foundation or some such, I'd be interested to see it), and as I've been saying, the approach to the appearances could hardly be worse.
The right wing press, far more often than not, also just adds fuel to the fire. Their response to 2000 is usually something like "We won, and Democrats are a bunch of whiny losers." which, as you may guess, does little to help the problem, especially as it reads any attempt to correct the problem as an attempt to retroactively alter what happened in 2000. The problem with 2000 was the fact of the controversy, and lack of a means to settle it with fairness, much more than the specific outcome.
It is sad that you, yourself, are providing an example of this problem by a rant that seems to have little to do with my point. The impression it gives is that anyone who expresses liberal views, but doesn't phrase things in a way that exactly suits you, is ok to caricature, whether you know that you're reading them correctly or not.
But in either case, I don't see how international observers will help that.
As I said, I don't know enough to have a decided opinion on this. I incline toward giving the idea the benefit of the doubt, as it has been a useful tool in other situations. But then, I'm not a belligerent isolationist...
What!? Electronic machines have been used in many places in the country for upwards of 20 years and there security/accuracy has never been in question.
Interesting -- I was not aware of that. But how is it relevant if the current models are the problem?
The newest crop add computerization, but there isn't any real problem with them: only perception.
You're an expert in computer security, and you've tested them? What do you base this on?
And in this case, the perception is being pushed for the sake of obfuscation:
You're losing me here. You appear to be wandering off into partisan land...
had there been electronic balloting in Florida, there would have been no opportunity for Gore to drag-out his challenge to the election.
While I'm sure this a finely honed interpretation, there are others.
No hanging chads = no opportunity for obfuscation
No paper trail = no meaningful checks of fairness. And when did I ever say that chads or obfuscation were a good idea?
and the Democrats want to be able to challenge the election. They want to increase the possibility of error. They want to increase the appearance of impropriety.
What was it you said about conspiracy theories?
People do crazy things because of flawed perceptions: my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then take separate planes because of the flawed perception that airplanes are dangerous. A lot of people have that perception. That's their problem, not mine.
Not a good analogy. The whole point of what I'm saying is that
is a case where people's misperceptions may end up affecting you.
This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.
Let's see. I suppose I have to assume that I'm being included as part of "you guys", this means that you've made some kind of deduction that
I don't actually want to fix the problems... Hmmm... I'll write this one off as temporary insanity...
[edit:continue rant] This is now and always has been my problem with the Democratic party.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic party? Sorry.
(No really, it's just the phrasing. And besides, you
said you were ranting here so I don't have to give rational responses...
)
It has always seemed to me that the Dems are the appearances party. They do things that sound good, feel good, give the perception of being good - but whether those things are, actually good is irrelevant.
That's ok, I've always thought of the GOP as the appearances party.
As long as they can get things to appear ok to the voters so that they won't be held accountable, then it doesn't matter who actually gets hurt by what they do.
Its no wonder the Democratic party is still led by Bill Clinton: govern by opinion poll and if it feels good, do it: Smoke pot, get your rocks off with an intern while on the phone conducting national business, lob a few cruise missiles (at most) in response to an attack on our country, but good God, don't ever actually get your hands dirty.
Sit and read children's books while the U.S. is under attack and the World Trade Center is in flames...
Damn, hippies piss me off.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
So to conclude:
Would it be better if voters stuck to facts in making their decisions? I expect so. But any quick glance at scientific history reveals that even people who care about factual evidence will disagree on what constitutes evidence.
And if you know for sure which of your opinions are based on fact and which based on appearance, then congratulations, you're the first person ever...
