One In A Million Votes

by pyrrho

My standard is that no more than one in a million votes should be miscounted in any country and that we should do something about it in America.  This is not a partisan issue, I bear none of the typical grudges, e.g. about 2000, which I think showed that the system worked even though I disagreed with the Supreme Court of the US. The purpose of clean elections with rational processes for adjudication is to prevent civil war, so the system worked.

There should be a national mission to achieve that sort of nationwide accuracy, no more than one miscounted vote per million.

Comments

[Winston Smith]

Nice to have you back, DH. You probably already know this, but the thread on Guantanamo and force-feeding remains available http://hubris.typepad.com/cabal/2006/01/woo_hoo_is_this.html#comments> here.

[pyrrho]

darkhorse...

I think that is "more serious" but that these are orthogonal, unrelated, issues. Accuracy of counting votes applies to any democracy (and there are infinite many possible forms of "democracy" by my calculations), while the noise of both aspects do combine in an end result, the engineering of counting on one hand, the political philosophy embedded in the specific form of democracy, the fact is reducing one does not affect the other.

They are independent, and I believe it's a totally different argument to deal with the Electoral College, and the advantage to sound counting as a solitary issue is that it's all about engineering, there really are not political philosophical debates except "is counting votes important in a democracy?"

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "Computers are VERY GOOD at counting."

>>And yet they make lousy clocks.

pyrrho: "a century during which by all rights democracy should take root throughout the rest of the world."

>>Ah, you ARE a closet bush supporter! Do you also think we should "bear any burden, endure any hardship" and the rest?

pyrrho: "I don't believe you about the chip."

>>What can i say? You are simply calling me a liar. Why would i lie about it? It just seems so reasonable to me.

So, I think you are being disengenuous about this topic as well. You are a partisan Democrat, although you like to say you are progressive (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, word to the wise). The Dems, where most of your votes and supportings fall, are past masters of stuffing ballot boxes, voting the dead, and generally stealing elections. They are the inventors and hardy practicioners of machine politics. Certainly you aren't REALLY proposing measures which would take an advantage away from progressive candidates.

I mean, you have all the seriousness of an oil refiner who proposes that we use less gasoline.

[Averroes]

Brooke, good to "see" you again.

In my state, the poll worker's job is to watch you drop your hand marked ballot into the box. It is not a hard job, since most people mail their ballots in. My polling place is the water department! the only reason i use it is that inever mark my ballots or make my final decision until an hour before the polls close. (I just know that if mailed in my ballot, some democrat i voted for wouod be found to have raided the treasury a day before election day.)

Yes, i have votred for Democrats. for instance, the rep from this district got my vote 3 times. But the rep was re-elected this last time without my vote, because the rep cast a vote FOR the war authorization. i expect that anyone who was against the war will follow me and never vote for anyone who voted for that resolution for any office 3ever again. If you are not willing to make that commitment, you should just shut upp about being against the war. (Little digression.)

Our counting is done by teams that incude both a Republican and a
Democrat. counting cannot proceed without them. The parties themselves make sure that they have a representatoive at each counting place. The ballots are elctronically counted.

Your account reminds us that while New York may no longer have Tamany Hall, its tentacles still exist.

As for ease of counting, accuracy, and less of a reliance on the voter to accurately mark his ballot, I am reminded fondly of the days when party operatives stood outside the polling place handing out colour-coded, premarked ballots. The voter simply took them inside, and when his name was cleared, he dropped it in the box. The colour coding made the counting easier, since any, say, red ballot would be a vote for all the Republican candidates in the election, and a blue one for all the Democrats. Non-coulourcoded ballots would be easily identified for separate counting. in those days, 80% or more of the ballots would have been colour coded.

And you can bet that the party operatives in each precinct would know who picked up a ballot from them. And you can guess who had first and best access to serices if a party won.

We look askance at this now, but it certainly was goivernment in service to the voters. Of course, Boss Tweed (or Mayor Daly) had to make a little something for himself and all.

Brooke: "come to find on election day that the polls are filled with genuine Democrats who have been ASSIGNED to be Republicans."

>>See, some things never change.

Brooke: "I had a hard time not laughing at people that year who were scared that the Republicans (this is NYC, mind you) were going to be messing around with the election."

>>Since the NCAA finals were on earlier, maybe a basketball analogy is in order. Great coaches tell you that your team should never play the other team's game, the one they are good at. Surely the republicas understand that also.

Brooke, you've seen the seaty underbelly of the political system. As i've related, my grandfather was on the periphery of local politics, attending about 4 meetings a year. After each one, he wouod return home, go directly to the kitchen sink, roll up his sleeves, make a great show of washing his hands up to the elbow, and declare, "Politics is dirty business."

Some people would like it to be like pheasant under glass. We are a people used to end-user comfort. we use computers blithely without any notion of the dirty spagghetti code that keeps them running, most of the time. We have a love-hate relationship with science, often damning it in practice (GMO foods) while assuming that it can solve all of our problems, put them behind the glass, you might say, where we cannot see them.

The truth is that politics is what we are talking about here. To use a different car analogy, an engineering solution would be like (oet me think one up) putting a mercedes grill on a Volkswagen. it looks good, but it doesn't filter the air any better, and it is still a Volkswagen. but people still smile at what it looks like.

Personally, i don't think we should hide it. anyone participating in politics, even the vote counters, should be required to wear a uniform. this wold consist of a pinstriped suit (skirt optional for women) with a vest and suspenders. Hair must be kept in place by bear grease. The politicians or political worker must smpoke a cigar and drink whiskey whenever participation in political activities.

I believe this would makle both politics and C-SPAN more interesting.

[Averroes]

Some think that a party representative sytem is fairer. the point is that voters in a district, which are always multiply represented, will not "lose" their vote by voting for a losing candidate, like in our system.

Germany is proud of their system. they love to tell your that they hired mathematicians to design it. It adds to the straight party system, a little like the iraqi system, by also having district representatives.

The actual total number of representatives may change from election to election to make sure that the distribution is fair.

Here is a simple description of that system. tell me what you think.

Voting system in Germany

Candidates may be nominated by any party which has (i) had at least five representatives in the Bundestag or a state (Land) parliament throughout the time since the last election of such parliament or (ii) given formal notice that it intends to take part in the election and been officially recognised as a party by the Federal Electoral Committee. Nominations of constituency candidates must be personally signed in writing by at least 200 persons eligible to vote. If a new party wishes to register a state list of candidates, the signature of one per thousand persons of such state eligible to vote in the last Bundestagelection is required, subject to a maximum requirement of 2000 such signatures.

The candidates on constituency and state lists differ from state to state.

Each constituency elects one representative to the Bundestag on a first-past-the-post basis. Each voter has two votes: one for the election of the constituency representative, and a second based on the state list of candidates. In the event of a tied vote, the chief electoral officer draws a lot.

Under an amendment to the Federal Election Act of 8 March 1985, the d/Hondt electoral system was replaced by the Hare‑Niemeyer system. Under the latter, the total number of seats in the Bundestag is multiplied by the number of votes cast for each party and the resulting number is divided by the total number of votes cast for all the parties elected to the Bundestag; seats are then allocated to each party on the basis of the resulting whole number. Any remaining seats are then allocated in the order of the highest fractions. From the resulting number of seats for each party the number of constituency seats won by it is then subtracted. The remaining number of seats is then filled by each party from its state list according to the numerical order of candidates on that list (disregarding any candidates who have been elected as constituency representatives). If a party does not have enough candidates on its state list to fill the number of seats to which it is entitled, these seats remain vacant. All constituency seats won by a party are retained by that party even if the number of these is greater than the total number to which it is entitled under the

First Chamber of the German Parliament proportional system ("extra-proportional seats"); in this case, the total number of seats in the Bundestag isincreased accordingly.

In order to vote in an election, it is necessary to be registered in an electoral register or in possession of a voting certificate. For the purpose of your participation in the election to the Bundestag, the relevant constituency would be the one in which you have resided uninterruptedly for at least three months since your departure. The voting slips are uniform.

............Got that?

[Averroes]

Darkhorse:

I thank you for recognizing my efforts to get that material, and I'm glad you appreciated it. it is important.

i tale back all the mean things i've said about you!

Darkhorse: "The presidential vote should be a straight up and down count, not filtered through a bunch of yahoos wearing hats at a convention."

That's party politics. of course, the conventions don't amount to much anymore. just a show for TV.

but like the German system above (and, btw, the little gap in there is actually in the original), the state does not presume to tell a political party how to determine who to put up for office.

Perhaps you are proposing a no party system for electing presidents, with no funneling and a wide open field where a candidate may only have to meet some minimum number of niomination signatures to be on the ballot. We could run Ficus for president. (this is a reference to, well, you Democrats know....) then you would have a straight, popular vote.

All i know is that on 9-11-01, i gained a new apprecieqtion of the electoral college. I was thinking about things that happened that day, and it suddenly occured to me that Al gore could have been president. an invooluntary shudder went up and down my spine, and up again. i suddenly pictured him in fetal position under the stairs. he is just so sensitive. Up until that day, i had no particular preference for either bush or gore, having voted for another candidate because when i asked the usual question i always ask when considering major party candidates, I could not answer it affirmatively for either one. the question:

If the cadidiate you vote for is elected, would you feel proud to go out in the street among your neighbors, or into the local watering hole, and, mentioning that winner's name, be able to honestly proclaim, "Yep, i voted for him, I'm proud to be one of those who got him elected. I'll buy you a drink!"

thinking of gore on 911, i felt like someone who wakes up in the road, and realizes that that car receding in the distance almost ran him down.

there is a reason for the electoral college. i even think it would be interesting if there was more room for the delegates to deviate from their supposed vote. but the reason for the college is that the Founders distrusted the raw popular vote. And, of course, they wanted a federal system.

Of course, we barely have a federal system any more, and liberals from FDR have favored a centralization of power.

I'm agin' it.

[Averroes]

I befinden another exoplanation of the German system. It is perhaps a little clearer, and has criticism and links. one can find out how "votes of negative weight" arise.

Hier">http://www.wahlrecht.de/english/bundestag.htm">Hier it is.

Note that in a parliamentary system with no direct vote for PM, the counting problems are the same for any candidate.

Now is the time for every good man to come to the aid of his party.

[pyrrho]

>>>>pyrrho: "Computers are VERY GOOD at counting."

>>And yet they make lousy clocks.

I guess you have no point, but I'd add "computers make terrible pears, too crunchy"

>>>>pyrrho: "a century during which by all rights democracy should take root throughout the rest of the world."

>>Ah, you ARE a closet bush supporter! Do you also think we should "bear any burden, endure any hardship" and the rest?

sad, your lack of imagination, are you against the natural spread of democracy? You are limited to Bushs supposed "theories" about it.

>>>>pyrrho: "I don't believe you about the chip."

>>What can i say? You are simply calling me a liar. Why would i lie about it? It just seems so reasonable to me.

I don't think you find a ubiquitous ID chip "reasonable". You see, I've been reading your ideas for some time. Lie? Self delusion? Mere rhetorical trick and atmosphere music? Who knows.

>>>>So, I think you are being disengenuous about this topic as well. You are a partisan Democrat, although you like to say you are progressive (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, word to the wise).

I'm not a partisan democrat, you've always assumed that.

>>>>The Dems, where most of your votes and supportings fall,

"most"... that doesn't sound partisan, "all" sounds more partisan. You're off message. (!)

>> [Dems] are past masters of stuffing ballot boxes, voting the dead, and generally stealing elections. They are the inventors and hardy practicioners of machine politics. Certainly you aren't REALLY proposing measures which would take an advantage away from progressive candidates.

Nope I specifically do and have used that to try to sell my ideas to conservatives as well, because they know that fair elections are NOT a partisan issue.

I think differently than you Av, I don't support corruption in any party I belong too as you seem to assume. In fact, I believe corruption in my own house is my first priority. I believe it's even more dangerous than corruption in other parties.

But also, I don't have a party, I have ideology, philosophy, and personal positions.

I mean, you have all the seriousness of an oil refiner who proposes that we use less gasoline.

[pyrrho]

av,

I would like if you spent more time exposing your own ideas than you obsessive compullsion of trying to disabuse everyone else of their ideas.

Don't you see how flat that falls? You are so desperate you accuse us all of simple things we actually have mastered. Yet you are obviously intelligent. Analysis of the topic IS an option.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "I would like if you spent more time exposing your own ideas than you obsessive compullsion of trying to disabuse everyone else of their ideas."

>>Why should I? You seem to know my ideqas beter than i do. Above, I gave you my idea and prediction that ipersonal ID rft's (or something like them) will be ubiquitous in the futre, and also that they will be benficial. I also have many qualms about them. I also had qualms about using a device that is connected to millions of othersuch devices in such a way that any one of those other devices could effect or destroy my device. these concerns were real, based on actual examples. But thius connection turned out to be so beneficial that entrepeneurs came up with ways to lesson the risk.

I predict that this will happen with embedded chips.

But I am just relating what is in my mind. You know better what's in there, so why don't you just tell me.

In the future, when you write one of your essays, plese follow it with a comment containing what i think. Feel free to use my name. It will save me the trouble of telling everyone what i think, and being told by you that i don't really think that.

I also think it is preferable to examine someone's points and suggest flaws in the argument, or to sommply make cpomments than to ignore the point and th4 need to meet it by asserting that the commenter doesn't really think that way.

"No, Winston, you see three fingers, not four." You are the people that orwell warned us about!

"You are so desperate you accuse us all of simple things we actually have mastered."

>>My god, you are full of yourself! i bet you lose shirt buttons every day, and have trouble finding a headband that fits your gigantic skull.

The truth is, pyrrho, that I often converse with you amiably even when it is obvious that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of the topic. I myself don't know everything. in fact, i know very little.

"I guess you have no point, but I'd add "computers make terrible pears, too crunchy""

>>Teme keeping is a counting function. i like my pears crunchy.

"sad, your lack of imagination, are you against the natural spread of democracy? You are limited to Bushs supposed "theories" about it."

>>What i am not limited to is a faith in progress, which, in this case, i'm guessing, enjoins a faith in something called "the natural spread of democracy." I'm guessing that YOU have made a judgment that the spread of democracy would be "progress." Mr. Bush has made the same judgment. Mr. bush has also made the judgment that we should do what we can to encourage this thing he sees as good. He's not so smug as you about a natural process reliably doing the spreading.

btw, if you break your leg, let it heal naturally. Save the money for a doctor.

"I'm not a partisan democrat, you've always assumed that."

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, chances are it's a duck. You may try to define your way out of it, and i noted that you don't self-identify as a Democrat. In fact, you resist the label. So, let me say, as i did, that you may not be a registered Democrat, but your ideas communicated here are more in line with the Democratic party than the republicans, and you espouse their causes more often than not. We have a secret ballot, but my guess is that in the big races, you vote for Democrats more often than Republicans.

My dictionary defines a partisan as "Onewho takes the part of another: A SUPPORTER." (Caps in original to indicate where to look for synonyms). this is how I use it. 'Partisna' is distinguished from 'follower,' 'adherent,' 'disciple,' and 'sattelite.' 'Partsan' suggest a zealous often prejudiced attachment. (Ths is all I mean by it. The attachment is to the causes and ideas. it need not be 100%) I am not caliming that you are an adherent: suggests a close and persistant attachment.

My evidence issimple: if I hear a Democrat saying something in the morning, oif the subject comes up here, more likely than not, by a large margin, you will be zealously parroting the Demmocratic line. Not always, certainly, but usually.

If you have a different word you would like to use to describe your relationship to the Democrats, i will be glad to entertain it.

"I think differently than you Av, I don't support corruption in any party I belong too as you seem to assume."

>>I don't think you do, directly. But politics is a dirty business, and you support winning. My bet, without reviewing any conversations you might have recorded on the matter, is that you were against the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that struck down the intention of the Gore camp to pursue a corrupt vote count. (They didn't want a complete recount, just four counties.)

One imagines old Mayor Daly, on being told that another than his candidate won the election, saying, "Have 'em recount the fifth, sixth, eoighteenth, and twenty-fifth precincts and see if that solves the problem." Gore remained true to the traditions of the party.

"I have ideology, philosophy, and personal positions."

>>You certainly have ideology, and where there is a crack in that, you might have a "personal philosophy," amnd you have personal positions. All of that is likely to be found among the Democrats. If we drew ven diagrams, yours would overlap to a large degree with the Democrats, much less with the Republicans.

"I think differently than you Av, I don't support corruption in any party I belong too as you seem to assume."

>>the first part of the statement is undoubtably true.

I don't support corruption either. I try to see it, without attchment, like i see the cypress tree in the courtyard.

As a matter of personal preference, I sometimes water the cypress tree. i don't water the tree of corruption.

[Averroes]

Chips, son:

First of all, please realize that these chips are here. Generqally referred to as rft chips (radio frequency transmitting) chips, the are powered by the same device that reads them. They are often refferred to as "RFRID" chips, especially when ID is their function.

They are currendly 8implanted in your shirt and many other products. Those containoers at the dockis are scqanned for these chips.

They have been used as ID tags in animals for some time, and as i mentioned, at least one company has had them implnted initys workers for security purposes.

I DID find a site which questioned whether or not these chips were the famous "mark of the beast," to be exploited by the one world government.

Vheeck this:

A Korean company has begun embedding RFID tags into casino chips. This technology will make getting chip counts a whole lot easier. The range on the RFID chips will be around 3 meters, perfect for the average poker table. The RFID tags will communicate with an RFID compatible handheld and this technology will aid in player-to-player gambling interactions as well as dealer-to-player interactions.

Here is a newsarticle from a year and a half ago about human implantation. contains this:

the chip has been used for pure whimsy: Club hoppers in Barcelona, Spain, now use the microchip to enter a VIP area and, through links to a different database, speed payment much like a smartcard.

[Averroes]

It's what the kids are doing. don't be an old fogey.

This seems right up your alley.

"Take charge of the technology, don't run from it."

I thought it was us old folk who couldn't adapt to new technology.