US midterms: First results hours away as Biden's presidency faces change regardless of results

[Broomstick]

A type of race that has historically been large ignored but actually is very important in regards to running elections and their integrity are the Secretary of State races. Going to attempt to link to this as a gift link, it details that the election-deniers that attempted to run for these offices (and thereby control elections) all lost this time around.

Apparently you can't fool all of the people all the time: link

[Formless]

At this point, I think it's more important to try and get anyone running straight FPTP to do something to prevent the spoiler problem than complaining about one of the states which has solved it because it's too slow for you.

Ranked voting where you can fill out a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, nth choice prevents spoilers perfectly. You just keep removing the least popular candidate from the running and use that ballots next highest rank choice (that hasn't yet been eliminated) and repeat until somebody has a majority. Easy as.

Bear in mind that variations of ranked voting have been tried in parts of the US before and ran into legal problems due to contradiction with state constitutions. In Minnesota the problem notably was that you can't vote multiple times if other people are just voting for one candidate and express no other preference. In Oklahoma they made the mistake of throwing out ballots if the ballot didn't mark more than one candidate at all, and while that is only a problem with the manner in which it was done, you will notice that its exactly the opposite problem as the Minnesota ruling. Other states simply repealed their ranked preference voting methods before lawyers could challenge them.

Of course, the US constitution can override state constitutions. But this cannot simply be done at a state level without serious scrutiny of their constitutions to be sure a given ranked voting method doesn't violate their laws.

On the other hand, Cumulative Voting has sometimes been used as a legal remedy for violations of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (specifically, lawsuits against bloc voting). This is currently only done in some small city or county level elections, but it does show that changing elections methods is doable in America under the law. Don't expect Senators and the President to be elected by a fractional ballot any time soon, however. Not with the Republicans admitting they can't win elections that aren't done FPTP.

[bilateralrope]

At this point, I think it's more important to try and get anyone running straight FPTP to do something to prevent the spoiler problem than complaining about one of the states which has solved it because it's too slow for you.

Ranked voting where you can fill out a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, nth choice prevents spoilers perfectly. You just keep removing the least popular candidate from the running and use that ballots next highest rank choice (that hasn't yet been eliminated) and repeat until somebody has a majority. Easy as.

I took part in a ranked voting election this year for the city council.

I agree that ranked voting is better system than a runoff in any case I can think of. But when it comes to improving elections to make them better represent the will of the voters, runoff elections work well enough that it's better to spend the effort on the places still running straight FPTP or worse. Especially with the legal issues Formless mentioned.

[bilateralrope]

I've heard a bit about a signature matching process that some US ballots go through. I'm not sure about the details, but it sounds time consuming.

Then there is curing ballots, which seems to be getting someone who had their signature not match to correct their ballot so that it counts. Which sounds even more time consuming, but necessary.

[Jub]

I've heard a bit about a signature matching process that some US ballots go through. I'm not sure about the details, but it sounds time consuming.

Then there is curing ballots, which seems to be getting someone who had their signature not match to correct their ballot so that it counts. Which sounds even more time consuming, but necessary.

Why sign ballots at all? When I vote I sign in at the registration desk, am given a ballot, mark it with a simple x in a circle, and drop it in the ballot box. Done.

If they changed to ranked voting I'd expect to either write a number or to be presented with a grid of places to mark with an x. Again, no signature.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Why sign ballots at all? When I vote I sign in at the registration desk, am given a ballot, mark it with a simple x in a circle, and drop it in the ballot box. Done.

If they changed to ranked voting I'd expect to either write a number or to be presented with a grid of places to mark with an x. Again, no signature.

For absentee ballots( or mail in ballots) in Utah you need to sign a statement saying you are who you say you are, and then election workers compare that with a signature on file. I thought this was the most common practice for mail in verification

[Broomstick]

Why sign ballots at all? When I vote I sign in at the registration desk, am given a ballot, mark it with a simple x in a circle, and drop it in the ballot box. Done.

That's largely the process here for voting IN PERSON - the signature matching is a thing for mail-in ballots, to establish the person is who they say they are. As already noted.

Also keep in mind that American ballots are hella long - I think this time around I had more than 20 races/judges/referendums to vote on. This was a "mid-term", an election during a year with the PotUS race can be even longer.

12 years ago I posted a mid-term ballot in this link so feel free to take a look if you're not certain what I'm talking about. A number of other Americans also offered up their ballots as well.

[Jub]

Why sign ballots at all? When I vote I sign in at the registration desk, am given a ballot, mark it with a simple x in a circle, and drop it in the ballot box. Done.

That's largely the process here for voting IN PERSON - the signature matching is a thing for mail-in ballots, to establish the person is who they say they are. As already noted.

Also keep in mind that American ballots are hella long - I think this time around I had more than 20 races/judges/referendums to vote on. This was a "mid-term", an election during a year with the PotUS race can be even longer.

12 years ago I posted a mid-term ballot in this link so feel free to take a look if you're not certain what I'm talking about. A number of other Americans also offered up their ballots as well.

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it. This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy. American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

[Jub]

Why sign ballots at all? When I vote I sign in at the registration desk, am given a ballot, mark it with a simple x in a circle, and drop it in the ballot box. Done.

If they changed to ranked voting I'd expect to either write a number or to be presented with a grid of places to mark with an x. Again, no signature.

For absentee ballots( or mail in ballots) in Utah you need to sign a statement saying you are who you say you are, and then election workers compare that with a signature on file. I thought this was the most common practice for mail in verification

I never thought of those, I've never had to vote in absentia. I'd hope we can find a way to use biometrics to bring this kind of voting online in the near future.

[Formless]

I never thought of those, I've never had to vote in absentia. I'd hope we can find a way to use biometrics to bring this kind of voting online in the near future.

I'd hope we can find a way to use biometrics to bring this kind of voting online in the near future.

What

bring this kind of voting online in the near future.

There is something wrong with this statement

voting online

Do you trust that the computer you are using right now is free of malware? What about your neighbor's computer? What about your coworker's computer? Your customers, assuming you work that kind of job? Voting online sounds to me like a terrible idea, and I know experts who consider all forms of electronic voting a terrible idea just in general. See this video by Tom Scott, a British youtuber, for all the arguments about electronic voting being either untrustworthy or at minimum eroding the appearance of trust we have in the machinery of the election. And this video is from 2019, by the way.

Look, I always vote via mail in ballot, and while I know the ballot is counted by a machine I know that in the case of a recount they can always take out the paper ballot I submitted and count it by hand if they have to. Its a backup system that is known to be trustworthy and has been thoroughly tested over decades to be sure that tampering with it is hard and almost no one gets away with it. I also don't like the idea of having to give my government so much as a fingerprint to prove my identity given how the police in this country are allowed to act. My signature has always been considered a good enough biometric and the science of identifying forged handwriting is advanced and trustworthy enough I don't see any reason to waste time trying to find a replacement that might be ripe for unknown abuses. Just accept that at a certain point, democracy takes time. If we want to speed things up, better to just move the inauguration ceremony to December or something rather than cutting the candle short on the wrong end.

[Formless]

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it. This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy. American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

Do you actually believe in democracy Y/N

[bobalot]

Looks like the Republicans will have a tiny majority in the House and there will be probably infighting between the Trumpist and "Establishment" wings of the Republican party.

LOL.

[Broomstick]

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it.

I can't disagree.

You can leave choices blank. There are people who walk in and vote for just one or two of the races. Other people just guess.

I agree it's an overload.

This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy.

For the party leadership that is a feature and not a bug.

American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

Keep in mind that originally American "democracy" only applied to White men who owned land, and therefore quite a lot of people had no choice at all. What we have now is the improved version, despite all its flaws, but yes it very much still needs some work.

[bilateralrope]

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it. This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy. American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

What's wrong with voting a straight ticket ?

Elected officials are going to be voting in party blocks most of the time anyway.

[LadyTevar]

This year my "Vote Straight Democrat" was a direct response to how the Republicans have been acting/reacting to Trump. It was also a reaction to every Republican on the Ballot that I'd seen ads for where Trump Was Backing Them.

I wasn't really voting Pro-Democrat. I was deliberately voting Anti-Trump GOP.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought about it like that, which is probably one of the reasons the Dems did so well.

[Ralin]

What's wrong with voting a straight ticket ?

Elected officials are going to be voting in party blocks most of the time anyway.

We're theoretically not supposed to be an one-party state. Always voting a straight party ticket is the sort of thing people who want an one-party state but don't have it yet would do.

[bilateralrope]

What's wrong with voting a straight ticket ?

Elected officials are going to be voting in party blocks most of the time anyway.

We're theoretically not supposed to be an one-party state. Always voting a straight party ticket is the sort of thing people who want an one-party state but don't have it yet would do.

How many US elections (in any district) can you name where voting a straight party ticket would be less effective at advancing whatever positions the voter supports than voting some other way ?

[Jub]

Do you trust that the computer you are using right now is free of malware?

Yes, if I didn't believe so I'd have done a low level format of my drives and freshly reinstalled windows and the other programs I use.

What about your neighbor's computer? What about your coworker's computer? Your customers, assuming you work that kind of job?

I'm less confident there, but the issue is hardly unsolvable. You could make it so that smart phones have a legally required dumb web browsing mode stored in ROM and then have your biometrics stored server side as part of being a registered voter.

My signature has always been considered a good enough biometric and the science of identifying forged handwriting is advanced and trustworthy enough I don't see any reason to waste time trying to find a replacement that might be ripe for unknown abuses.

Signatures would only be useful if every ballot was checked against recent known good signature samples. Given that we know not every ballot will be checked and that samples of signatures won't be available to those counting ballots your signature is far, far less secure than a fingerprint or retinal scan.

Just accept that at a certain point, democracy takes time. If we want to speed things up, better to just move the inauguration ceremony to December or something rather than cutting the candle short on the wrong end.

How does this scale to permanent space habitation beyond low orbit? Do you renounce your vote while a certain distance from Earth or should we look into other methods because John Q Public doesn't want his biomarkers on file?

[Jub]

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it. This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy. American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

Do you actually believe in democracy Y/N

Do you actually believe that even a plurality of voters make an informed choice about every position they vote for?

[Jub]

That is a pointless amount of voting as a vast majority of voters won't know anything about the positions the nominees will hold, much less what would make a person a good fit for it. This overload of choice will contribute to people voting a straight ticket down party lines and is likely bad for functioning democracy. American elections seem designed to masquerade as a democracy while doing everything they can to make sure most people can't make informed choices.

What's wrong with voting a straight ticket ?

Elected officials are going to be voting in party blocks most of the time anyway.

That's such an American two-party response. In a system with multiple parties and viable independent candidates voting a straight ticket would be tantamount to throwing away your vote. Only in a failed democracy could one look at a list of a dozen plus appointments and only need to look at the party to know who best represents your interests.

[Jub]

What's wrong with voting a straight ticket ?

Elected officials are going to be voting in party blocks most of the time anyway.

We're theoretically not supposed to be an one-party state. Always voting a straight party ticket is the sort of thing people who want an one-party state but don't have it yet would do.

How many US elections (in any district) can you name where voting a straight party ticket would be less effective at advancing whatever positions the voter supports than voting some other way ?

Why should the current state of US two-party politics be desirable in the first place?

[Highlord Laan]

Looks like the Republicans will have a tiny majority in the House and there will be probably infighting between the Trumpist and "Establishment" wings of the Republican party.

LOL.

It'll be even better if donnie douchbag runs in 2024. Nothing like a split ticket to rile up the stupid people.

[bobalot]

Looks like the Republicans will have a tiny majority in the House and there will be probably infighting between the Trumpist and "Establishment" wings of the Republican party.

LOL.

It'll be even better if donnie douchbag runs in 2024. Nothing like a split ticket to rile up the stupid people.

He is supposed to be making an announcement today about it.

[Broomstick]

I'm less confident there, but the issue is hardly unsolvable. You could make it so that smart phones have a legally required dumb web browsing mode stored in ROM and then have your biometrics stored server side as part of being a registered voter.

Not everyone has a smart phone. In the US, about 15% of people don't, which is about 1 in 6. Are you going to disenfranchise 1/6 of the citizens for simple lack of a particular device?

Just accept that at a certain point, democracy takes time. If we want to speed things up, better to just move the inauguration ceremony to December or something rather than cutting the candle short on the wrong end.

How does this scale to permanent space habitation beyond low orbit? Do you renounce your vote while a certain distance from Earth or should we look into other methods because John Q Public doesn't want his biomarkers on file?

Um.... how about we actually get to "permanent space habitation beyond low orbit" before we expend time, money, and energy worrying about that one?

[Jub]

I'm less confident there, but the issue is hardly unsolvable. You could make it so that smart phones have a legally required dumb web browsing mode stored in ROM and then have your biometrics stored server side as part of being a registered voter.

Not everyone has a smart phone. In the US, about 15% of people don't, which is about 1 in 6. Are you going to disenfranchise 1/6 of the citizens for simple lack of a particular device?

This is mainly for people who would normally vote by mail and would not replace polling stations. You can also remedy this by ensuring that access to a smartphone capable of basic online functionality is a right and providing them for free upon request.

Just accept that at a certain point, democracy takes time. If we want to speed things up, better to just move the inauguration ceremony to December or something rather than cutting the candle short on the wrong end.

How does this scale to permanent space habitation beyond low orbit? Do you renounce your vote while a certain distance from Earth or should we look into other methods because John Q Public doesn't want his biomarkers on file?

Um.... how about we actually get to "permanent space habitation beyond low orbit" before we expend time, money, and energy worrying about that one?
[/quote]

If you wait that long you won't have a robust and capable system in place when it happens. Just because you've grown used to the US rolling out technology piecemeal, state-by-state, and long after its needed doesn't mean that should be the way of things.