VOTE!

[House Schubert]

7 minutes ago, exracer327 said:

I think it would work well as long as there are only two candidates (among all political parties, including independents).  Once you go beyond two candidates, if multiple candidates came in first or second in various states, the electoral college could end up split in such a way that here was no majority winner.  Then it would require a run-off between the top two.  God help us if we had to put up with another month of political adds *ugh*!

Ironically, if I use CA as an example, using Maine's system would have actually given Trump an even larger electoral college win.

Think about it this way, Trump's popular vote 2016 (nation wide) was under Hillary by only 2.86 million (only 2% difference).  (I was mistaken earlier re: CA votes, there were actually 13 mil+ votes cast in CA alone in 2016).  Hillary won CA 8,753,788 (61%) to Trump's 4,483,810 (31%) - (diff of 4.3 mil. votes - in other words, if you take out CA's popular vote, Trump won the popular vote nation-wide by over 1.5 mil. people).

Under Maine's system, Hillary would have lost 18 electoral votes to Trump.  Admittedly, there are a lot of states that they basically would have split the electoral delegates, but the majority always gets more than the minority so it would never be a tie.  Trump took 30 states while Hillary took only 20.  So in the end Trump's electoral collage win would have been even greater with a Maine type system used nation-wide.

 

So, I think you have it wrong... It isn't electoral college apportionment... If I recall correctly, you rank your choices, and if your first choice is in last place, then your vote is counted for the second place. So, for example, In 2000, I would have voted for Nader in first place, and Gore in second place, Then, if Nader comes in last, my vote for him goes switches to Gore... 

 

1 hour ago, Alpinemaps said:

Treading very close to the edge guys....

"Sometimes in order to find the line, you must first trip over it."   Ancient proverb

[Darth_Raichu]

4 hours ago, BricksBrotha said:

My state (ME) is the first to implement Ranked Choice voting even though the Repubs are hell bent on getting rid of it. All of our state elections have been this way since 2017, but this will be the first presidential election to use this system. I am starting to like this system better as it requires a candidate to receive at least 50% of the vote to be declared a winner. If no one receives 50% then the lowest candidate is removed and the votes recounted and repeated until there is a clear winner.

Under this system, voters rank each candidate based on preference. If only 3 candidates then you vote them by 1st choice, 2nd choice, and lastly 3rd choice.   

 

Speaking about parties, I have been a green party member ever since signing up Freshman year in college.  I am happy not be associated with the Dems or Repubs, but sadly, the green party will never be taken seriously on their current path.

As many have said before, all the other smaller parties do not have the funding or logical platforms needed for them to succeed.  

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

That may sound good in theory but would make vote counting terribly complicated and slow.  Plus if either party contests the result, you would have to redo the whole counting process all over again

Not to mention educating the voter base on a new way to vote.  I can see confusion galore and even fraud

[House Schubert]

 

10 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

That may sound good in theory but would make vote counting terribly complicated and slow.  Plus if either party contests the result, you would have to redo the whole counting process all over again

Not to mention educating the voter base on a new way to vote.  I can see confusion galore and even fraud

IDK... I suppose a reasonable amount of fear and suspicion should be considered, but I think we can handle this... it is fairly simple, and a much more democratic solution (if you are into that sort of thing...(that's not a dig, there is a reasonable argument to be made against each vote counting equally)... Slower isn't necessarily a bad thing. Quite a few other countries use it.  Here is a podcast that focuses on it... Super interesting.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/tweak-vote

[Darth_Raichu]

1 minute ago, House Schubert said:

 

IDK... I suppose a reasonable amount of fear and suspicion should be considered, but I think we can handle this... it is fairly simple, and a much more democratic solution (if you are into that sort of thing...(that's not a dig, there is a reasonable argument to be made against each vote counting equally)... Slower isn't necessarily a bad thing. Quite a few other countries use it.  Here is a podcast that focuses on it... Super interesting.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/tweak-vote

Nothing simple about asking Americans to change the way they do things.  Otherwise we would have been using the metrics system in 2020

 

[Alpinemaps]

Ironically, if I use CA as an example, using Maine's system would have actually given Trump an even larger electoral college win.
Think about it this way, Trump's popular vote 2016 (nation wide) was under Hillary by only 2.86 million (only 2% difference).  (I was mistaken earlier re: CA votes, there were actually 13 mil+ votes cast in CA alone in 2016).  Hillary won CA 8,753,788 (61%) to Trump's 4,483,810 (31%) - (diff of 4.3 mil. votes - in other words, if you take out CA's popular vote, Trump won the popular vote nation-wide by over 1.5 mil. people).

Since you bring up California, one discussion point I always bring up is how the electorate might have voted if popular vote were counted vs the Electoral College system.

As someone stated above, if you know how your state is likely to go, it feels a little like “why bother?” A Trump voter in California could feel disenfranchised because “Hilary will take the state.” If the state is pretty assuredly going to go one way or the other, how likely are you to vote? Or legitimately vote for your candidate? It goes both directions - why would a Biden voter bother to vote in their very red state?

Now flip that around to a popular vote, and you may have had a different result. Not saying it is right or wrong, or that we should change the system, but under that system, you might get a more true will of the people.

I have no great insight. But I do know people that stayed home because they felt that their vote didn’t matter in 2016.

[BricksBrotha]

9 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

That may sound good in theory but would make vote counting terribly complicated and slow.  Plus if either party contests the result, you would have to redo the whole counting process all over again

Not to mention educating the voter base on a new way to vote.  I can see confusion galore and even fraud

Its not just theory,  Maine has been using this system for 3.5 years. So there is actual evidence/data stating otherwise. Doesnt take months for a result. Other states could adapt and make the transition easier. Its actually not that complicated.  The current system is antiquated to the point of fraud and abuse as it stands so a change could be good for the people.   

Maine already split their electoral college for the first time in history in 2016 election, without RCV. 

[Darth_Raichu]

27 minutes ago, BricksBrotha said:

Its not just theory,  Maine has been using this system for 3.5 years. So there is actual evidence/data stating otherwise. Doesnt take months for a result. Other states could adapt and make the transition easier. Its actually not that complicated.  The current system is antiquated to the point of fraud and abuse as it stands so a change could be good for the people.   

Maine already split their electoral college for the first time in history in 2016 election, without RCV. 

It may not matter when the state is overwhelmingly blue or red.  My concern lays on the complication when the result is contested.  I can't help but imagine the whole "hanging chad" sh!t show with this voting system.  Not only do they need to figure out which vote goes to which candidate, they have to fight over the validity of voter's preference for every vote.  ie. Did the voter prefer 3rd party candidate, Biden, then Trump or was the vote for 3rd party, Trump, then Biden ?  

[LegoMan1212]

I fear all the believers that voting is "rigged" by the illusion of "faking it' or simple mistakes that were corrected or are being corrected.  There are what 200 million votes available to those 18+. There are bound to be mistakes here and there but nothing of "significant" scale.  

It is sad to see Trump, personally, to continue this rhetoric about how "fake" it is.  Yet it is the same voting systems that were used 2 years ago, 4 years ago, etc... with upgrades.

But this is his prerogative, to sew doubt into the system so it can be contested. 

PS: hats off to all the volunteers, that I don't doubt will be dragged through the mud. 

PPS: Let's get along a little too.  I'm tired of the left vs right BS.  It's so incredibly stupid and more destructive each and every day.

Edited October 7, 2020 by LegoMan1212

[Alpinemaps]

I fear all the believers that voting is "rigged" by the illusion of "faking it' or simple mistakes that were corrected or are being corrected.  There are what 200 million votes available to those 18+. There are bound to be mistakes here and there but nothing of "significant" scale.  
It is sad to see Trump, personally, to continue this rhetoric about how "fake" it is.  Yet it is the same voting systems that were used 2 years ago, 4 years ago, etc... with upgrades.
But this is his prerogative, to sew doubt into the system so it can be contested. 

I think one question is - what is significant?

Is a handful of ballots going to dead people or the wrong address significant? Or does that lead us down a road of thinking that the problem is much bigger?

Does every vote really count? Or do accept that some disenfranchisement occur because the system isn’t perfect. And at what point do we cross the line?

[Darth_Raichu]

7 minutes ago, LegoMan1212 said:

I fear all the believers that voting is "rigged" by the illusion of "faking it' or simple mistakes that were corrected or are being corrected.  There are what 200 million votes available to those 18+. There are bound to be mistakes here and there but nothing of "significant" scale.  

It is sad to see Trump, personally, to continue this rhetoric about how "fake" it is.  Yet it is the same voting systems that were used 2 years ago, 4 years ago, etc... with upgrades.

But this is his prerogative, to sew doubt into the system so it can be contested. 

PS: hats off to all the volunteers, that I don't doubt will be dragged through the mud. 

PPS: Let's get along a little too.  I'm tired of the left vs right BS.  It's so incredibly stupid and more destructive each and every day.

Technically not the same.  Four years ago I was not asked repeatedly by State Election Office to send my vote early by mail, NOW.  If I wanted to vote early by mail, I would have requested early ballot myself.  Thank you very much.

So something changed.  To what degree, I guess we will see in November

[Mark Twain]

I think one question is - what is significant?

Is a handful of ballots going to dead people or the wrong address significant? Or does that lead us down a road of thinking that the problem is much bigger?

Does every vote really count? Or do accept that some disenfranchisement occur because the system isn’t perfect. And at what point do we cross the line?

It’s not significant if what we’re talking about is some misplaced ballots through the postal system or someone not properly filing out a ballot—that’s user or system error not voter disenfranchisement.

If it targets a specific group of folks and is designed to hinder them from voting, like the understanding laws in the Jim Crow south, then its disenfranchisement.

[KvHulk]

4 hours ago, joneyyy1981 said:

Vote Trump. thanks

Vote Biden. thanks.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

2 hours ago, Darth_Raichu said:

That may sound good in theory but would make vote counting terribly complicated and slow.  Plus if either party contests the result, you would have to redo the whole counting process all over again

Not to mention educating the voter base on a new way to vote.  I can see confusion galore and even fraud

Just try it out for NFL and NBA MVP voting...once its accepted there then most of the nation should be familiar with it.  I think NBA MVP and Allstar votes this way already...right?

13 minutes ago, KvHulk said:

Vote Biden. thanks.

Just Vote. Thanks

[Mark Twain]

I think one question is - what is significant?

Is a handful of ballots going to dead people or the wrong address significant? Or does that lead us down a road of thinking that the problem is much bigger?

Does every vote really count? Or do accept that some disenfranchisement occur because the system isn’t perfect. And at what point do we cross the line?

[Alpinemaps]

It’s not significant if what we’re talking about is some misplaced ballots through the postal system or someone not properly filing out a ballot—that’s user or system error not voter disenfranchisement.

If it targets a specific group of folks and is designed to hinder them from voting, like the understanding laws in the Jim Crow south, then its disenfranchisement.

The definition of disenfranchise is depriving someone the right to vote. There’s no specification that it has to be a group of people, although obviously targeting a specific group is what we are more familiar with.

Regardless of the definition, the point remains - at what point do we say “a number of votes, whether intentional or accidental, are going to be subject to loss and we are ok with that” or so we say “every single vote counts?”

My own opinion agrees with you - there will be spoilage, it happens, it’s unavoidable. And you hope that the spoilage that happens is the “Act of God” kind where there is nothing that could have done to prevent it.

However, this election is certainly highlighting that the way we vote may be antiquated, that there needs to be some security and assurances, and trust in the system is definitely in question.

[Mark Twain]

1 hour ago, Alpinemaps said:

The definition of disenfranchise is depriving someone the right to vote. There’s no specification that it has to be a group of people, although obviously targeting a specific group is what we are more familiar with.

Regardless of the definition, the point remains - at what point do we say “a number of votes, whether intentional or accidental, are going to be subject to loss and we are ok with that” or so we say “every single vote counts?”

My own opinion agrees with you - there will be spoilage, it happens, it’s unavoidable. And you hope that the spoilage that happens is the “Act of God” kind where there is nothing that could have done to prevent it.

However, this election is certainly highlighting that the way we vote may be antiquated, that there needs to be some security and assurances, and trust in the system is definitely in question.

Yes, spoilage will happen. We agree. I also don't think there's any way around that. I disagree that losing a ballot or disqualifying a ballot because it was improperly filled out is voter disenfranchisement. 

[LegoMan1212]

2 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

I think one question is - what is significant?

Is a handful of ballots going to dead people or the wrong address significant? Or does that lead us down a road of thinking that the problem is much bigger?

Does every vote really count? Or do accept that some disenfranchisement occur because the system isn’t perfect. And at what point do we cross the line?

Ok, so if dead people get it, but a vote still shows up.  Then those people are found and prosecuted. This has happened in the past and those people have been tried and jailed or fined.  Same with wrong address, if I get someone else's voting package and fill it in and return it, then I can be tossed in jail if found out.  

People have been caught voting twice, or voting when they are not allowed to vote per laws, and they have been tried and jailed or fined.

I would like to believe that the vast majority of people would not want to "try their hand" at illegally voting and going to jail over it.  

Trump tweeted about a postal worker that threw away mail in NJ recently.  The mail was located, it had a handful of ballots (like under 10, maybe only 3 if I remember correctly) but the mail was delivered and that person now will probably be going to jail.  What was the point to tweet about it, to bust nuts about someone that was caught... no.... it was to give the appearance that this is occurring across the country, when it is not.  

Also, stories can be made up so easily.  I can throw my own mail on the ground and take a picture of it, or I can put it in the fire, or I can take my ballot, make copies and make it appear that I got 100 of them. 

But the mere fact that, to me, it appears that instead of accepting what an outcome may be, to already deny what the outcome may be, is a sad position to already be taking.  

[$20 on joe vs dan]

39 minutes ago, LegoMan1212 said:

But the mere fact that, to me, it appears that instead of accepting what an outcome may be, to already deny what the outcome may be, is a sad position to already be taking.  

it's strategy.  either side will accuse the other of "forcing their hand"...but the bar has been lowered probably going back decades....and all sense of decency and respect for the office (and the country) has all been given up since maybe Gore. 

[Darth_Raichu]

47 minutes ago, LegoMan1212 said:

But the mere fact that, to me, it appears that instead of accepting what an outcome may be, to already deny what the outcome may be, is a sad position to already be taking

Ironically, some people still have not accepted the result of 2016 election

[Shortbus311]

Personally, I don't have any problems with mail in voting and I am solidly on the Republican side of most issues. Actually I hope that every Democrat who wants to vote decides to vote by mail. I will be voting in person on 3 Nov though.

I do take issue with states that send unsolicited ballots out to every registered voter though. That is just asking for ballots to be sent to dead relatives opening up the possibility of fraud. If you want to vote by mail, what is so hard about going online and requesting a ballot be mailed?

I think that our country definitely needs widespread voting reform and the first thing that I would start with is gerrymandering. And why in this digital age we are in are we still arguing about mail-in voting when we should be arguing about online voting? Surely with the advances made in digital security such as block chains (not an expert, please don't flame me haha) we should be able to ensure the integrity of online voting.

[Shortbus311]

Ok, so if dead people get it, but a vote still shows up.  Then those people are found and prosecuted. This has happened in the past and those people have been tried and jailed or fined.  Same with wrong address, if I get someone else's voting package and fill it in and return it, then I can be tossed in jail if found out.  
People have been caught voting twice, or voting when they are not allowed to vote per laws, and they have been tried and jailed or fined.

So, just so I am understanding your point correctly. You believe that unlike every other crime committed, every single act of voter fraud is always discovered and prosecuted? People can get away with murder, but not voter fraud?

[TANV]

20 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

So, just so I am understanding your point correctly. You believe that unlike every other crime committed, every single act of voter fraud is always discovered and prosecuted? People can get away with murder, but not voter fraud?

Voter fraud is RARE in the US. Many mistakes that are considered fraud tend to be at the administrative level, often due to misreading instructions, missing information or confusion rather than outright maliciousness.

Furthemore, voting my mail tends to be safe and secure. Many states have required witness requirements, notary requirements, or enclosing ID requirements. Once a ballot is received, it is processed and tabulated. If the person appears to have voted twice, most jurisdiction invalidate the extra vote. Others notify the person in question.

The most prominent cases of mail fraud have tended to involve campaigns, not voters. For example,  North Carolina invalidated the results of a 2018 congressional election after state officials found that a Republican campaign operative had orchestrated a ballot fraud scheme.

 

[Alpinemaps]

Rare, but it happens.

So circling back to my question from earlier - what level of fraud do we find acceptable?

[MarleyMoose]

Voter ID should be the law of the land.

[ravenb99]

15 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

Rare, but it happens.

So circling back to my question from earlier - what level of fraud do we find acceptable?

head over to the ethics thread and find out!