Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Voter disenfranchisement contd.

  1. Oct 19, 2004 #1

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the Columbus Dispatch :
    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/ele...story=dispatch/2004/09/25/20040925-A1-02.html

    From the Dayton Daily News :

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092904W.shtml

    More recently, from the Dispatch :

    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/ele...tory=dispatch/2004/10/15/20041015-A1-04.html



    I can smell the lawsuits already...can you ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 19, 2004 #2
    Jeez, they've known they've had a huge problem for at least four years and they STILL can't get this right.

    Anyone else think that a federal election should have the same standard across the nation?
     
  4. Oct 19, 2004 #3
    with private voter registration, how could anything go wrong? :rofl:
     
  5. Oct 19, 2004 #4

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  6. Oct 19, 2004 #5

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    And in Michigan:
     
  7. Oct 21, 2004 #6

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Oct 21, 2004 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Most of the issues presented here really are disturbing, but there's one I've heard over and over as an OH issue that I don't understand what the problem is. The requirement that voters have to show up to the right polling location doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Why would people go to the wrong location? I just got a card in the mail today reminding me of that location in the event I've somehow forgotten since the last election. If someone is going to the wrong location, they aren't getting the right ballot. There are local issues on each ballot, so you need to go to the right place, or else you're voting on the wrong issues. I thought the reason for provisional ballots was for situations where some snafu left their name off the register at the polling location even though they were registered and were in the right place. The other reason for expecting someone to go to a specific location where their name is recorded is to prevent people from voting multiple times in multiple locations.

    The 80 lb paper issue is insane though. I read that even some Secretary of State's offices had lighter stock paper used than that, so people registering in the correct location and giving their registration to the right person still might not have qualified by that rule.
     
  9. Oct 21, 2004 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do local issues on the ballot change from one precinct to another, within a county ?

    I think the 80lb paper rule is more of a problem (than it appears to be) because of the large number of young voters than are printing registration forms off of a website. I know someone that printed his from MTV.com. I'm not sure if it was accepted.
     
  10. Oct 21, 2004 #9

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Annexation issues are precinct driven, I believe. Possibly some water and sewer projects as well. Then there are city and county bonds and measures... I DO love elections. :biggrin:
     
  11. Oct 21, 2004 #10

    kat

    User Avatar

    School board members are also precinct issues.
     
  12. Oct 21, 2004 #11
    if we must have this silly outdated electoral college vote
    why must we use a winner take all system in each state
    even if no one gets 50%+1?

    the votes are by district for congress
    why should not the electoral college reps be by district too?
    with the extra 2 for the senators ONLY by state winner

    BUT ONE MAN ONE VOTE IS A BETTER SYSTEM
    and add a run off like in most other elections
    so the people's votes pick the winner
    not a silly outdated system that is unfair and unequal
    and allows a winner to lose and a loser to win???
     
  13. Oct 21, 2004 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Can't say I really disagree...I too think a "winner takes all" system is simply another term for "ridiculous approximation".

    Can someone enlighten me on the benefits of this system (except for picking senators, for which it may be used) ?
     
  14. Oct 21, 2004 #13
    Gladly. Let me first say, before disagreeing w/ ray b, that I liked his comments in the Gibson thread.

    The Electoral College serves two key purposes. First, our founding fathers recognized the trend of growing cities and diminishing farmlands. I suspect they also saw the trend of technology yielding better crop returns. In their planning for our country, they took those factors into account.

    The problem the popular vote has is that it isn't fair. While it may seem more fair, what it does is create a system which favors those living in cities and diminishes the value of rural areas. A good example is the 2000 elecetion.

    In the 2000 presidential election, Gore won the popular vote by 5000 votes. If you exclude all votes cast in New York City & Los Angeles, regardless of whom they voted for, Bush would have had the poppular vote by 1,000,000 (yes, Million) votes. The result is that laws would favor cities an urban populations, as polititians sought to gain the popular vote.

    Further more, states who have the minimum 2 electoral college votes, would be deemed unimportant by politicians. As a result, smaller population states would be disregarded by the government. Something like 90% of our population lives in 10% of the land. The Electoral College balances the importance of population with the importance of land.

    That's the first important part, the second is:

    We already have a popular vote for the control of the country, it's called the US Senate. Our system is designed such that the Senate, the more pure representatives of the people, are choosen by popular vote. The president, who represents more than just the people, is elected by an electoral college, capable of being affected by like-minded, intelligent people. This is an established counter balance to the US Senate.

    The founding fathers knew that the average person was not a learned intellectual and follower of politics and events, both locally and globally. Thus, the system was created to balance the representation of individuals, with a need for a strong and capable government not completely beholden to the wants of individuals, but instead the needs of the whole.
     
  15. Oct 21, 2004 #14
    To address the actual topic of this thread, here's a little more info for you:

    Bush Campaign: Hired Lawyers for Recounts, $6 Million raised for recounts.

    Kerry Campaign: Hired Lawyers for Recounts, $3.5 Million raised for recounts.

    Also, Kerry made an inquiry w/ the FEC regarding the allocation and sources of funding for federal election recounts.

    Also, each individual provisional ballot is concidered a separate legal case, once it has been cast, even though counting methodology can be addressed in individual lawsuits, covering more than one ballot, but will likely be one county at a time.


    As for a good replacement system:
    Same Day Registration - increases voter turn out.
    Photo ID Required - reduces fraud.
    Free state photo ID at age 18 - avoids the ID=discrimination arguement.

    I would also like to see the inclusion of, in addition to photo ID, a requirement of a piece of mail, addressed to the voter, postmarked within 30 days, and from the precinct you're voting in, as a requirement.

    Me personally, I live in a state w/ same day registration. I take with me:
    Driver's License
    Passport
    Social Security Card
    Piece of Mail (as defined above)

    Usually I'm already registered, now that I'm not moving eavery year or two, but I prefer to be safe and like my vote to count.

    I wish others took it this seriously.
     
  16. Oct 21, 2004 #15
    I always thought it was because the founding fathers never actually completely trusted the people to chose their government. :tongue2:
     
  17. Oct 21, 2004 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for the background, beerglass.

    And for the homeless ?
     
  18. Oct 21, 2004 #17
    In order to vote you must have residency, that's already the law in most states.

    Ironically, our precinct voting set up already penalizes the homeless right to vote.

    I'm not really worried about the homeless vote anyways. While technically a right, you know the homeless would simply be used to sway the vote anyways, so why make it easy.

    Oh, and in case that's not good enough:

    In most populoous areas, you can claim residence and recieve mail at a shelter. With a free ID and mail sent to a shelter, you would have the ability to vote within that system.

    It would also allow us to track how many homeless people voted, and that could also be considered a valuable statistic, especially in questionables elections on matters of voter fraud.
     
  19. Oct 21, 2004 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, the issues on the ballot are different from precinct to precinct. There are ballot issues specifically relating to the different towns and cities in each county, such as referendums that will affect property taxes.

    I'm worried about that 80lb paper rule preventing the young voters who would be more likely to vote for Kerry from being allowed to vote. If they put the registration form on a website, then they shouldn't be picky about what paper you use to print it on.
     
  20. Oct 22, 2004 #19

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I just heard that Taft's rescinded the 80 lb paper rule (I hope that's right)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Voter disenfranchisement contd.
  1. Voter Turnout Question (Replies: 5)

Loading...