Voting...

[Shipwreck]

Think about it for a minute. Anytime you let Washington decide how anything is done it is bad. I would like nothing more than to see NO NEW LAWS. Gridlock is great. If they do nothing in washington and make the states do more on their own then we would be a lot better off.

[Ringo Montgomery]

I don't think having 52 seperate countries would be very beneficial for the would-be former Americans. Think Greek city states people. Sure America is a huge country, but a lack of unity or faith in those governing the unity is a huge step in the wrong direction.

[X'an Shin]

Well, you both have very different view on how you view yourselves. X'an seems to be more patriotic about his state, and Jabe his country. This is all fine and good, but I'm more likely to agree with Jabe here since in the grand scheme of things, country is the largest category which encompasses all of those who this voting system would apply to.

No, I'm much more patriotic about my country than I am about my state. I couldn't give a rat's behind about Illinois. It's just that I respect our system here, and our system says that the Feds shouldn't be passing out laws to the states. This is why the gay marriage thing was voted on in 11 different states. It's also why you elect representatives from your state to go represent you on the national level (Senate, Congress).

For the country to tell the states how to vote is just plain wrong. The Federal government has nothing to do with our state elections (the gubenatorial one in 2006, for instance, where there will be an election in Illinois that doesn't have a Presidential candidate on it), and shouldn't be involved in any way.

[X'an Shin]

Agreed, I see what X'an is saying, but there needs to be some sort of better standard that states must meet. I think some states have proven that a higher authority needs to give more assistance.

I don't think it should go higher than the state level, but it would be nice if all the states got together and agreed on one system, and used it. While that sounds like it's the same thing (the end result is the same), it would go a long way towards keeping the Federal government's fingers out of the local government's pie.

[Ringo Montgomery]

For the country to tell the states how to vote is just plain wrong.

Is it? I mean, to have 30 or 40 different methods of preparing for elections, carrying out the voting, and tabulating the results just doesn't seem very efficient to me. People get emberassed when their country can't conduct an election and determine a leader within 24 hours and I think having different voting systems contributes greatly to that.

[X'an Shin]

I don't think having 52 seperate countries would be very beneficial for the would-be former Americans. Think Greek city states people. Sure America is a huge country, but a lack of unity or faith in those governing the unity is a huge step in the wrong direction.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what here (and if you are, my apologies in advance), but a lack of faith in those governing is how and more specifically WHY this country was built by the founding father would-be former Americans.

States rights. Checks and Balances. The Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative branches. If the Executive Branch (President) does something wrong, the Judiciary (Supreme Court) and Legislative (Congress and Senate) branches can stop him. The Executive branch has a veto power against the Legislative. Etc. etc. etc.

The fact we have an election every four years to give the public a chance to throw out the reigning King if they don't like him.

The minute we give total power to the Federal Government is the day we're no longer a Democracy (okay really a Republic, but you get the idea).

/plays National Anthem.

[Ringo Montgomery]

I was being serious, and now I can see that perhaps I didn't state my opinion in the best way. What I'm trying to say here, is that by losing unity or perhaps an identity as a nation promotes seperatism which leads to the fragmentation of the US. 100 years from now the US will no longer exist as a country, but most likely several independant nations (Canada as well). Sure thats a bold statement, but I can only go by the trend shown in large countries in the past and it seems as though countries such as Canada and the US are following this trend perfectly.

[Shipwreck]

I was being serious, and now I can see that perhaps I didn't state my opinion in the best way. What I'm trying to say here, is that by losing unity or perhaps an identity as a nation promotes seperatism which leads to the fragmentation of the US. 100 years from now the US will no longer exist as a country, but most likely several independant nations (Canada as well). Sure thats a bold statement, but I can only go by the trend shown in large countries in the past and it seems as though countries such as Canada and the US are following this trend perfectly.

Ok, the United States of America has had the same governmental system for over 200 years. How many other nations can claim that? It is because of the brilliance of our founding fathers in writing the constitution that it is this way. They spent a few years after the revolution fumbling around and then created a living document for our country that has survived and only had, not including the bill of rights, 17 changes in all that time.

This country tried to break up once and because we had a strong central government we were able to overcome it. Do not ever compare the US to other countries forms of government. There is no one else out there that has done what we've done, for as long as we have.

Look at our party system for example. The Republicans and the Democrats are not really that different from each other. Its not Ultra Conservative against Ultra Liberals. Most americans are moderate and only disagree on a few core issues. If you make the comparison to Europe, which I hate to do, you can see that the citizens there are all over the place. Five to ten parties all vying and having a legitimate shot at being voted in.

And it would be great if we all had the same system to vote through but I don't believe that one race, the presidency, should dictate that we all vote the same way. It would logistically be a nightmare and cost way too much money to be worth the trouble.

[Jabe Adaks]

I think federal elections need to be administered the same way for every state. Sorry, but consistency is necessity if a process is to be truly fair and unbiased. If states want to hold seperate elections for local officials then so be it, it is their right. Federal elections have become a circus, Kerry could have easily said "Its not over til its over" and made the nation hold its breathe for weeks like Gore did until every single vote was counted and recounted. He didn't, but he could have.

"HCI" is a computer science degree taught at many technical schools and it stands for human/computer interface. One of the most basic principles is that people's choices are often effected by how information is presented to them. Shouldn't all voters see the exact same ballot when they go to vote? They do at the state level, but not the federal level. In addition to that we don't all get the same choices, there were only three presidential candidates on the Illinois ballot: Bush, Kerry and Badnarik. I think we all know there were many others running.

To me, I don't care what an individual state decides to do, if they want to run their local elections differently then do so. But for everyone in every state to see a different ballot with different choices for the same exact election? That is absolutely rediculous. It precludes the possibility for the elections to be at all fair and as we have seen for ourselves it is simply not working as well as it should be.

Jabe

[Dwilah]

I think that Kerry conceding avoided a mess like Gore/Florida...for which I'm personally grateful. I do think a uniform voting ballot for President would probably be cool...but I'm the uneducated voter. So I don't really know.

[Shipwreck]

So what you are suggesting is that every four years the federal government runs its own election for the President. Because that is the only office everyone in the country votes for.

And do the states count the vote or do federal employees? Because what you are really doing when you vote for president is electing the members of the electoral college in your state. They in turn vote for the president. So the federal government runs the presidential election, they then turn the numbers over to the states so they know how to set up their electoral college. Seems a bit off to me. Unless of course we are doing away with the electoral college and going straight to a popular vote system.

In either case the election system wasn't broke until 4 years ago and now after 200 years everyone wants to make sweeping changes to a system. What needs to happen is that we get rid of all the damn lawyers who are arguing about how things should work. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming the system. Computers have only been a household item since the mid 80's and before that everyone voted just fine. I vote in every election with a number 2 pencil and a scantron sheet. I don't think its that hard. Punch cards: you are voting for the President of the United States of America and you can't take the time to make sure you punched the card out properly?

And I don't want to single anybody out on this. I really am not trying to jump on anyone. This whole issue is just one of those little hot buttons in my mind. I apologize to those I have pissed off, I am sure there are numerous, but this is just the way I feel about it.

[Jabe Adaks]

Shipwreck, you have valid points. But I think you have made the assumption that I want to see computerized voting and that I want the government to control just about the whole process.

All I am saying is this:

1) The federal portion of the ballot should look the same in every state (I prefer paper still, those electronic machines are prone to scandal)

2) The government sets rules as to how the state administers ONLY the federal portion of the election. The state still administers the election, but I don't think its too much to ask for a few ground rules since it is a national election.

Anything else the state can do as it pleases. If a state likes the federal system it can choose to use the same system for all of its elections. If the state hates it then it will hold its elections at a different time or just simply hand out two ballots to its voters, when local elections coincide with federal ones. I am not about big brother, I just think there are flaws in the current system. Its currently no different than if every county in a state had a different looking ballot for state elections and some counties not having all the candidates listed, does that make sense?

I am not knocking anyone and I don't take this thread personally. I don't knock the fact that the system has worked for 200 years, but I think its long overdue for review. I am not even going to get started on the electoral college.

Jabe

[Krusshyk]

I just have one question...

How do you get into the electoral college? They never talked about that in school. Do you have to take tests? I like tests...they should ask me to be in the electoral college.

Del'tizzle

[KirtViza]

i think jabe needs to give me his SIG just put a short haired human on it and change the name to Kirt Viza ;)

[Shipwreck]

Seperate topic for discussion, along the same lines....

In reading over the Constitution, the whole thing not just the amendments, I found it interesting that there is nothing that gives guidance as to how an election should be held. I mean we vote on the first tuesday after the first monday in November so that there is no possible way that an election falls on November first, All Saints Day, and so that people can travel on Monday to the place of voting. This was adopted back in the days where everyone rode on horse or walked to their polling place and we didn't want people to travel on Sunday.

Now, my question is do you think that in order for the Presidency to be decided on a federally mandated ballot would have to have a Constitutional amendment giving the federal government the right to create said ballot? Would it make sense because then the states would decide whether or not they wanted the federal government to create such a ballot?

I dunno if this is right or wrong. Its more of a discussion piece that I am throwing out there. I tried to do some research on it as a what if we did this, what would it take kinda thing.

Personally I think that because the Constitution doesn't currently allow for the government to prescribe anything about how elections are held, it would have to be written into the Constitution as an amendment. I would prefer to see it as such because if the states would ratify such an amendment there couldn't be any bitching, gripes, and complaints later about it. I also believe it would be the only way I would agree to it. I don't like the idea of Congress having the say in any part of our elections. If the states went for it then the population of the United States is better represented on this point.

And I think this is where my whole issue is. I don't like the idea of the federal government affecting the way elections are held without knowing what the people think.