<href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000637A4-DDB5-101E-990A83414B7F0123&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006">

How do you vote where you live?

Here in the USA we go with the electoral college, which is a fancy way of saying whoever gets the most votes, wins. Only it's written by lawyers in old fashioned english.

I vote by punching a little stylus into a manila card. No pictures. Just names and political party affiliations.

We use paper ballots, you mark an "x" next to the candidate/party of your choice. Electoral fraud is very common here. In 1980, after the then governor killed a couple of left wing militants as a publicity stunt the election was stolen by his right wing /pro statehood party.

Such is live in the colonies....

Voting...how, what's the word? quaint.


This post brought to you by Boeing. Forever New Frontiers.

Paper ballots here. Every registered voter's name is in a list at the booths, complete with photo. A ballot is given for each official/representative being elected; it has the logos of all competing parties along with contenders' names. A dark crayon is used to cross your choice with an 'X' , ballot is folded and inserted by voter in ballot boxes with transparent sides, and that's it. At the end of the day, votes are counted in the presence of all parties' representatives, total is posted on the outside of booth, and results relayed to main electoral offices.
Still, frauds, coercion and all kinds of dirty tricks, while certainly not to the levels of the PRI era, aren't uncommon, specially in small towns.

"Here in the USA we go with the electoral college, which is a fancy way of saying whoever gets the most votes, wins."

I skimmed that article in the paper edition, but I thought one of the points mentioned was that the electoral college system does not, in fact, mean that the person with the most votes (overall) wins. Wasn't that a sticking point when Bush got elected? (Please, forgive my ignorance.)

The main thrust of the article was, if I recall correctly, that a system where voters prioritize their choices (instead of putting an X next to the one they dislike the least) would be fairer in cases where there were more than two candidates and no candidate got a clear majority. Actually, I also remember that was discussed in a thread which I have no time to look for right now.

The Canadian system when I voted, was one where you chose your favorite and marked an X on the ballot next to their name, even though there were often more than two candidates.

________
You have to give up.

The US electoral college system for electing the President is essentially a parliamentary system, where the only decision the parliament makes is who gets to be President and Vice-President. The expectation is that delegates to the College will vote the ticket they were elected under, but part of the College's raison d'etre is to deal with those very rare occasions when the electoral process produces a College in which no candidate has a majority of delegates.

There are three reasons the College's composition might not accurately reflect the choice of U.S. voters in the country as a whole.

1. Electoral systems based around regional constituencies are inherently likely to distort results. The geographical distribution of supporters for one party or another is often unequally spread. Such distortions are most notable when one party has strong support confined to a small region. This may mean gaining a percentage of constituencies that does not reflect the percentage of voter support that party gets in the nation as a whole.

2. Nearly all states ensure that all delegates to the college are won by the ticket that wins the election in that state. So even though a candidate may get only 50% of the votes in the elections in a state, they get 100% of the state's delegates.

3. The winners in those states are chosen by simple plurality, i.e. the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if they fail to win a majority.

Any or all of these features can result in the election of a President who did not win a majority of the vote, or, as in the case of Bush II (even leaving aside the Florida fiasco), did not win even a plurality of the vote, in the country as a whole. Whether that makes the result less legitimate is an entirely separate issue. Some would argue that winning states rather than votes is an inevitable and necessary feature of the United States' federal system. Personally, I don't agree, but then, in my country federalism is a bit of a joke.

Note that introducing preferential or immediate run-off voting* in each state presidential election, or counting delegates in proportion to the votes cast for their respective tickets, would not necessarily prevent "anomolous" results. For example, the lower house of the Australian Parliament, which by convention chooses the executive government, is composed of representatives elected one each from regional constituencies where each vote is conducted under the immediate run-off system*. Neverthless parties with regional support are over-represented; and small parties with consistent levels of support nation-wide get no representation at all. And occasionally one party will gain a majority of Parliamentarians despite failing to win a majority of votes and preferences nation-wide.

The source of distortion is the regional break-up of the voters. Although preferential voting at least ensures that the elected MP has the support of a majority of the voters in their constuency, the system cannot ensure the same result for choosing the government of the nation. A directly elected executive chosen by optional preferential voting would; an executive council or legislature that was elected by proportional representation would (although that would probably involve horse-trading in the council itself, as PR systems rarely result in one party gaining a majority of delegates). I understand the German parliament is composed of a mixture of regional reps and reps elected by proportional representation.

* voters indicate by writing numbers next to the candidates on the ballot sheet indicating the order of their preference for the candidates. At most Oz state elections, voters are not required to number every candidate. When a candidate is eliminated during counting (when all the preferences at a particular level have been distributed, the candidate with the least votes is the one eliminated), their votes are then distributed to the remaining candidates on the basis of who on each of those ballot papers received the next number. Generally this process whittles the candidates down until the choice is between one or other of the two major parties. Thus, when the winner is decided, the final figures are referred to as the "two party preferred" vote. This can also be calculated for the country as a whole, by adding up the figures for each seat. In the federal election prior to the most recent, the Liberal/National Coalition won 49% of the two party preferred vote but a sizeable majority of lower house seats and therefore government. The Australian Labor Party stayed in opposition with 51% of the two party preferred vote. One could consider this a failure of the system.

(Isn't that uninteresting!)

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

Paper ballot, fucking big orthopedic double-thick black coloring pencil, cardboard box, and a coven of three or more to do the count.

The government-issued electoral pencil sharpener is green. Bright green.

In northern California, the little voting stickers we get say:

"I VOTED TOUCHSCREEN."

No joke.

"Before man came to blow it right
The wind once blew itself untaught,
And did its loudest day and night
In any rough place where it caught."

-Robert Frost, The Aim Was Song

Now that's what I call product placement!

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

Last election, they had a similar machine to hold the manilla card, but instead of a punch, there was a tiny black circle stamp, and you stamped through these plastic pre-cut holes to the card beneath. When my card came out, the little black circles didn't line up squarely on the card's markings. So the card was destroyed and I voted again. Marginally better, but still not square on - the machine holding the card was pushing it a little high for a square on mark.

Fucking hell.

In both local and legislative elections you just pick the sheet printed by your chosen party (or the one who has the people you know, in local elections), put it in an envelope and vote. That shows how parties matter more than individuals in most cases here. You will have the two main parties sheets, three minor ones and a score of nutcases organizations.

The only anomaly is the senate, where you have to choose the three people you want to become senators for your province. There you have a big broadsheet with all the candidates and you have to score those you vote for, up to a maximum of three. In general practice, most people go with the party too. The big parties print copies of the sheets with their three local candidates already scored, and helpfully send it to your home.

Service at a voting table is a public duty, that normally cannot be refused. Each table handles around five hundred registered voters, by place of residence (and in urban areas, alphabetic name ordering). There are three people (plus three reserves, who usually just have to be there early in the morning, to see if they are needed), and usually several overseers from the parties to make sure things go smoothly, nobody interferes with the right to vote, there are enough ballots, etc. Usually there is a pleasant atmosphere, and even complicity, between the overseers and the citizens that man the voting tables. It has been a long time without incidents, and the fact that a sizable part of the people has had to work at a voting table gives you a certain perspective on democracy in action. In a public building you can find, depending on population, from one to ten voting tables, serving those who live close by.

Accounting is by hand, by the table members and usually with two overseers helping/controlling. The only arguments are usually over blank or null votes, as they are handled differently. Is an empty envelope a blank or a null? A defaced ballot?

Voting stops at 8 pm, and at 10 most people have finished. The ballots are recounted at the election centers, but usually there are no discrepancies, as you should expect working with sets of less than 500 votes.

José

A little extra details about Australian elections: for Federal and most State elections there are two ballot papers, one each for the lower and upper house. The lower house one is just your average ballot paper; you write your numbers in the squares next to the candidates' names. The upper house ballot is like that too, but the candidates are grouped into parties. Because each party might have ten or so candidates on their ticket, and a large number of parties and independent candidates run for upper house seats, the ballot papers are often the size of tea-towels. Also, the ballot paper provides for "above the line" voting. At the top of each column representing a party ticket there is a box which you select if you wish all your preferences and undistributed quotas to be divvied up by the party you voted for, rather than by following how you might have numbered the hundred or so boxes below the line. In some elections, you're only required to number at least fifteen of the candidates below the line to cast a valid vote. Fifteen is still irksome enough that most people vote above the line. (Most being 94.9% at the 1998 Federal election, for example, making me the member of a very small minority indeed.) You can only choose one party that way. They could change the voting system so that voters could indicate preferences above the line by numbering various parties in order, which would be just as convenient, but that would deny parties the control over where preferences and quotas go - so that won't be happening.

Votes are counted by temporary electoral staff chosen largely from the ranks of the teaching profession, surrounded by bickering scrutineers representing the candidates.

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobW:
the ballot papers are often the size of tea-towels.

---

Let us not forget the time it was as large as a table-cloth

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobW:
...making me the member of a very small minority indeed...

---

We should start a club or something.

I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone else to allocate my preferences for me.

-----
I only buy clothes that express my deeply alternative lifestyle.

The people I know who vote above the line usually blame their kids.

"Well, I was going to number all the boxes but the two year old was getting restless."

Hah! You just don't love DEMOCRACY!

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

i do vote below the line, every time, though i always vow not to next time after i spend ten minutes trying to weigh up exactly who of the right wing nutters is less fucked.

my dad was the local returning officer when i was a kid so i spent friday nights before the elections helping him set up. i remember the year they changed over to disposable cardboard ballot boxes and voting stations and i was so dissapointed

(my keyboard stopped working)

but the best bit was all the stationery: scissors, pens, pencils, little rulers, string.
the simple pleasures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty:

...the best bit was all the stationery: scissors, pens, pencils, little rulers, string....

---

And pencil sharpeners!

we still vote on paper in estonia. there'll be big list of names, sorted by their parties, and we have to write a number onto that little piece of paper given to us and later dropped into big box. next elections we'll have is that eu parliament thingie and i kinda hesitate - maybe it would be better to give my vote to person i like the less, just to get some troublesome leftist out of the country and to brussels, where he'll be mostly harmless.
it's been promised that next elections after that - some local thing in about three years - will be electronical. meaning, we have id-cards parallel/instead passports and everybody who has chipcard reader connected to computer can vote through internet.
those id-cards were maybe a good idea - just that we have not much use for 'em right now. ok, they are used as season tickets in public transit, and to verify yourself if you want something from local authorities through internet - but there should be technical support for more functions: credit card, social security, driver's licence, organ donor etc.

early to bed and early to rise makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes

thanks mom.