News Real Election Reform: Every Vote Counts

[Evo]

I think we need to define "election reform". It seems we have too many different ideas floating around.

 

[turbo]

You're against letting a dying vote count?

You would then be in favor of holding aside the vote from all service people in Iraq and Afghanistan pending proof of their survival until election day?

It's not just an idle question. I voted early via absentee ballot. What happens if I get hit by a truck tomorrow? Is my ballot invalidated?

I certainly don't advocate registering voters from cemeteries, but if early voting is allowed, and a registered person votes and subsequently dies, why should their vote be invalidated?

 

[Hurkyl]

I certainly don't advocate registering voters from cemeteries, but if early voting is allowed, and a registered person votes and subsequently dies, why should their vote be invalidated?

Similarly, why should their vote be valid?

 

[Moonbear]

You're against letting a dying vote count?

You would then be in favor of holding aside the vote from all service people in Iraq and Afghanistan pending proof of their survival until election day?

Yes and yes. Dead people should NOT be allowed to vote. I'm really against this whole early voting nonsense, because it just seems to favor abuse. National elections should all be on the same day. People are already abusing it, trying to sway elections by claiming there's already a leader. It's bad enough that elections on the west coast are influenced by earlier returns coming in on east coast voting; having a week or more of early voting while last minute details are still coming in on both parties is insane!

 

[Evo]

They aren't reporting who the early votes are for, to my knowledge. We will have to wait until after the election for that. Unless I have really missed something.

What I can't believe is that a national election, and how ballots are prepared and printed vary widely. How can we not have a single, uniform ballot?

 

[Moonbear]

They aren't reporting who the early votes are for, to my knowledge. We will have to wait until after the election for that. Unless I have really missed something.

Really? You haven't been getting the news of how far ahead Obama is already? It might just be exit polling...actually, I'm sure it must be...but that's not how it's being reported. The media is making it sound like Obama already has the election in the bag in several states. Maybe it's because I'm in a state unlikely to vote for Obama and they're trying to motivate McCain's supporters to the polls?

What I can't believe is that a national election, and how ballots are prepared and printed vary widely. How can we not have a single, uniform ballot?

Now, that aspect I can agree is an issue. While voting is a state's rights issues, it's unfortunate that it doesn't fall under the same category as other things that affect people across state lines to have some sort of uniform act to ensure everyone gets the same sort of ballot, especially if some are known to be more prone to errors than others.

 

[turbo]

They aren't reporting who the early votes are for, to my knowledge. We will have to wait until after the election for that. Unless I have really missed something.

What I can't believe is that a national election, and how ballots are prepared and printed vary widely. How can we not have a single, uniform ballot?

The early-vote projection is probably based on WHO is voting. In many districts, working-class black voters have taken advantage of early voting because they may not have hours to spare waiting in line on election day.

And you're right-on about the lack of a uniform national ballot. A ballot that is well-designed, simple, and unambiguous would have prevented all that "butterfly-ballot" crap in 2000 that gave Pat Buchanan thousands of votes from elderly Jews. In addition, challenges to the election results could be handled in a more uniform manner if the ballots were the same everywhere.

 

[Evo]

I don't listen to reports of who the media think people are voting for. Especially with Obama, we know how skewed the exit polls have been in the primaries. Like the article I posted said, Obama supporters are more enthusiastic and more likely to seek out the exit poll takers than someone voting for McCain, and that can really skew numbers.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't listen to reports of who the media think people are voting for. Especially with Obama, we know how skewed the exit polls have been in the primaries. Like the article I posted said, Obama supporters are more enthusiastic and more likely to seek out the exit poll takers than someone voting for McCain, and that can really skew numbers.

True, but it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other people who ARE listening to it. I've found it hard to avoid, actually. Though, as I keep reminding people, if polls were accurate, John Kerry would have been president the last four years.

 

[Evo]

True, but it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other people who ARE listening to it. I've found it hard to avoid, actually. Though, as I keep reminding people, if polls were accurate, John Kerry would have been president the last four years.

I wonder though, does saying Obama is ahead in the polls help or hurt Obama? I think it would hurt him by riling up McCain supporters to get out and vote and make someone that would have voted for Obama decide his vote isn't needed.

 

[turbo]

I wonder though, does saying Obama is ahead in the polls help or hurt Obama? I think it would hurt him by riling up McCain supporters to get out and vote and make someone that would have voted for Obama decide his vote isn't needed.

Obama's campaign is concerned about these effects, and is urging against complacency. Complacency could hurt Obama badly if voter turnout is heavy in districts he needs, and voters walk away instead of waiting many hours in lines to try to vote.

 

[turbo]

The new poll tax - your time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27508339#27508339

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe it's because I'm in a state unlikely to vote for Obama and they're trying to motivate McCain's supporters to the polls?

It seems that fear is what the McCain camp is dishing now. And scaring up the vote would likely be the strategy. The Reverend Wright ads, the Bushies releasing info about Obama's aunt, Palin's appeals to God loving people, Joe the anti-Socialist, bankrupting coal companies, etc. anything to divert people from the scariest thought of all - McCain and Bush - cheek to cheek - coming up in the rear view mirror.

 

[Office_Shredder]

True, but it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other people who ARE listening to it. I've found it hard to avoid, actually. Though, as I keep reminding people, if polls were accurate, John Kerry would have been president the last four years.

In third world countries polls are used to see if elections are fair... in America elections are used to see if polls are accurate

 

[edward]

Voter caging, the practice of sending mail to a registered voters home address was used in the 04 election. If the mail came back as undeliverable the voter was removed from the polls. Most of the mail was sent to low income areas.

It appears that it will be used again in a new way in 08.

While hardly a new practice, “caging” became an election issue earlier this month when a Republican official in Michigan allegedly told the Michigan Messenger that GOP representatives would be present at polling places with lists of foreclosed home owners.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news...Allegations-of-Planned-Voter-Suppression.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

Can someone actually clarify what the law is regarding people whose houses have been foreclosed?

 

[edward]

In third world countries polls are used to see if elections are fair... in America elections are used to see if polls are accurate

Granted the pre election polls leave a lot of room for error.

On the other hand exit polls have historically been accurate.

http://www.exitpollz.org/cnn2004epolls/Pres_epolls/OH_P.html

That is why there was a controversy in Ohio in 04. Kerry appeared to be the winner

Exit polls were so accurate that in years past the outcome of elections in the western states were being broadcast before the polls were even closed. Those results can no long be broadcast until the polls are closed.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Granted the pre election polls leave a lot of room for error.

On the other hand exit polls have historically been accurate.

http://www.exitpollz.org/cnn2004epolls/Pres_epolls/OH_P.html

That is why there was a controversy in Ohio in 04. Kerry appeared to be the winner

Exit polls were so accurate that in years past the outcome of elections in the western states were being broadcast before the polls were even closed. Those results can no long be broadcast until the polls are closed.

I was referencing exit polls in particular... I probably shouldn't be too lazy to type the word exit

 

[turbo]

Exit polls were so accurate that in years past the outcome of elections in the western states were being broadcast before the polls were even closed. Those results can no long be broadcast until the polls are closed.

Exit polls are generally very accurate, which is why great discrepancies between how people said they voted, and the tallies of the counted votes should trigger investigations into potential vote-rigging.

In addition to tallies not matching exit polls in Ohio in 2004, tens of thousands of people did not get to vote because the lines were so long that they couldn't spare the time, and simply left. This election's results are going to be skewed by understaffed, inadequately provisioned polling places and by GOP operatives mounting as many voter challenges as possible to further slow the lines.

 

[russ_watters]

Exit polls are generally very accurate, which is why great discrepancies between how people said they voted, and the tallies of the counted votes should trigger investigations into potential vote-rigging.

Exit polls are accurate because they are corrected for the demographics of the people who voted. They are not intended to be used for predictive purposes because the "raw" data is not properly controlled. Thus, they are not a reason to trigger an investigation.

In addition, changing votor patterns over the last few elections (and this one will be no different) have made them increasingly inaccurate.

The CEO of the company who runs the polls made this quite clear after the crap that people spewed about the 2004 election. Those charges of fraud or tampering based on nothing more than inaccurate data were just plain wrong.

...tens of thousands of people did not get to vote because the lines were so long that they couldn't spare the time, and simply left.

Now that is a real issue.

 

[russ_watters]

On the other hand exit polls have historically been accurate.

Stated as a fact by you, but it quite simply isn't true. Exit polls - raw exit polls - are not very accurate and have to be corrected for demographics (just like ordinary polls) after the fact in order to make them more accurate. In addition, the accuracy has decreased lately for several reasons, including demographics participation rates. These specifically benefit democrats.

In short, Mitofsky and Lenski [the owners of the company who run the exit polls] have reported Democratic overstatements to some degree in every election since 1990.

[from their report]

Exit polling is extremely valuable as a source of post-election information about the electorate. But it has lost much of the value it had for projecting election results in close elections...[Their recommendation to CNN:]

The exit poll is a blunt instrument," and Lenski to add, "the polls are getting less accurate"

"Cease the use of exit polling to project or call winners of states. The 2000 election demonstrates the faults and dangers in exit polling. Even if exit polling is made more accurate, it will never be as accurate as a properly conducted actual vote count."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

You guys have fallen for a conspiracyless conspiracy theory.

Also:

Exit polls were so accurate that in years past the outcome of elections in the western states were being broadcast before the polls were even closed.

Part of that was, of course, because the elections were not as close as the last two. When someone wins by a lot, there is less risk in the predictions.