CDR: RE: Close Elections and Causality
Thanks Tim. (First, I genuinely appreciate the specificity. Now we can discuss just where we disagree.) Given your points, one would have to argue that the proper election would have to be extremely simultaneous (e.g. everyone votes within 1 hour or whatever will most likely beat any realistic attempt to predict voter results before the vote is actually finished). I can see your point. However, it ain't gonna happen precisely because people have normal life concerns that truly are 24x7 and simply cannot work around them. (e.g. kids, certain kinds of jobs, etc ...). A reasonable level of flexibility is required. "Reasonable" appears to mean opening polls for most of the day, but I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is. Tax day is another example. Shit. Why should the Post Office do anything extra special for you if you don't get your forms filed in time? Why should they set up special lines and special times on the night of April 15? Because it's a compromise. It's pragmatic. The goal is to get people to file and to file on time. Same thing here. The goal is to give people a chance to vote. Otherwise, national elections should have national rules, according to your reasoning. States should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms to vote on national elections. But in fact, the states ARE granted such flexibility because that's the tradition. It does not fit yours or someone else's absolute ideals, but then it's such a huge process and who knows what level of flexibility each state or local region needs. So on the issue of extending hours: If each district, county, township, neighborhood should decide to open the polls LONGER, I can't see a problem with that. If they close it earlier, it's probably not a problem either unless someone felt they did not have a chance to get to the polls. Then someone will have to decide whether that person had a fair chance to vote. But you don't want some no-name federal government bureaucrat deciding what constitutes a fair and reasonable chance to vote in your circumstances, right? Yes, I know, you can probably name all sorts of extreme and clearly abusive behavior that this would allow. But surprisingly, most people do not abuse the system. Most people don't if it is too inconvenient to be a pain-in-the-ass. On the issue of re-voting: The causality and the hinge issues are irrelevant if ANY state, county, district, whatever can go to a judge and argue (not demand arbitrarily) for re-vote. It's exactly YOUR argument: Just because county X is demanding a re-vote does not suddenly make that county the hinge vote. They obviously do not know or care if county Y also demand a re-vote. Same flaw. Because every area of the country have the same right (as Palm Beach) to demand a re-vote. But "reasonableness" and "compromise" will usually demand some upper bound on how much of this can occur to correct for any problems that arise. My personal view is that it is obvious that the election is close, period. Therefore, any particular place where it's winner-take-all, a reasonable request to re-vote should be granted. Lots of places here and abroad have the concept of run-off elections for precisely the same reasons: Let's see what the voters really want. Ern -----Original Message----- From: Tim May [mailto:tcmay@got.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:02 AM To: cypherpunks@algebra.com Subject: Close Elections and Causality [ Long educational rant about causation and how some people are not clued in. ]
At 9:43 AM -0800 11/9/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
Thanks Tim. (First, I genuinely appreciate the specificity. Now we can discuss just where we disagree.)
Given your points, one would have to argue that the proper election would have to be extremely simultaneous (e.g. everyone votes within 1 hour or whatever will most likely beat any realistic attempt to predict voter results before the vote is actually finished).
I can see your point. However, it ain't gonna happen precisely because people have normal life concerns that truly are 24x7 and simply cannot work around them. (e.g. kids, certain kinds of jobs, etc ...).
"Designing fairer elections" has very little to do with my points, about causality, re-dos, and re-votes. I can think of various improvements to the election process, such as operating the polls for a 15 hour period, nationwide, simultaneously. Whatever. This is a matter for those involved in designing elections, not at all related to this business of whether some particular polling site should get a "do-over." I urge you to get involved in the Election Commission in your state and to make your suggestions for future elections.
A reasonable level of flexibility is required. "Reasonable" appears to mean opening polls for most of the day, but I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is.
The voting periods are set by the states, not the Feds. You, ironically, seem to be arguing for more of a role for the Feds, not less of a role.
Same thing here. The goal is to give people a chance to vote. Otherwise, national elections should have national rules, according to your reasoning. States should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms to vote on national elections.
See what I mean? How do you square your "I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is" with "states should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms..." point? I really need to give up on you. You blather, you ramble, you contradict yourself, you lack a consistent point of view, you probably would have voted for Buchanan and then claimed you wanted a do-over.
So on the issue of extending hours:
If each district, county, township, neighborhood should decide to open the polls LONGER, I can't see a problem with that. If they close it earlier, it's probably not a problem either unless someone felt they did not have a chance to get to the polls.
You fail to grasp the essential point: the hours must not be changed once they have been established. It is utterly wrong to close the polls _early_. Your point "it's probably not a problem either someone felt..." is utterly vacuous. It is also utterly wrong to keep the pollling places open longer. Especially when a political calculation is made that more Democrats appear to be straggling, as was the calculation in St. Louis on Tuesday. That you don't get this point, about consistent rules, does not surprise me at all.
On the issue of re-voting:
The causality and the hinge issues are irrelevant if ANY state, county, district, whatever can go to a judge and argue (not demand arbitrarily) for re-vote.
No, it is not irrelevant. It would give the courts the power to determine elections and would likely put an end to our system of government. Perhaps we should adopt your suggestion. Let the lawyers take over the election process just as they have taken over most things.
Lots of places here and abroad have the concept of run-off elections for precisely the same reasons:
Let's see what the voters really want.
We did just this--we had the election. Do-overs are not allowed. Fools like you just don't get it. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
participants (2)
-
Ernest Hua -
Tim May