Daniel Bishop wrote:
> What difference does is make who the votes were *meant* for?
The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. You'll get different
answers from politicians and partisans (whose answer will depend on what
side they're on), lawyers and technocrats. Within lawyers, you'll get
different answers from litigation lawyers and constitutional lawyers. With
the litigation lawyers, it clearly depends on who their client is. And even
constitutional lawyers will disagree, although not as vehemently as the
litigation lawyers.
So the answer to your question is not as simple as your portrayal of it.
The punch card balloting system is based on 35-year-old technology and is
deficient in many respects. Its error rate (whole system, as opposed to
whether a card reader can reliable read an actual hole) is acceptable for
elections where there is a clear winner. It is totally unacceptable for
close elections.
Many jurisdictions in the US and elsewhere use much more reliable systems,
so we already have acceptable technology. It's time to get rid of the
unreliable methods used in the bigger Florida counties (and in Texas,
Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.).
Whatever the system, ballots should not be designed by amateurs, as was the
case in Palm Beach County. In the case of the butterfly ballot, a test
project, involving 1000 or so volunteers, would have revealed its
now-obvious deficiencies. (I have stated, elsewhere, that I can visualize
myself mispunching that one -- and I'm far from stupid.)
As Joe and others have discussed, it would also be better if we required the
winning candidate to have a majority of the votes, rather than a mere
plurality. The adoption of Australia's virtual run-off system would avoid
the expense of run-off elections in those districts where a majority is not
achieved by any candidate in the first round. A majority requirement would
prevent candidates like Ralph Nader from being "spoilers," while at the same
time allowing them to attempt to receive a sufficient percentage of the
"first-round" votes to qualify for federal matching funds.
Finally, I disagree vehemently with your SAT analogy. An election is not
supposed to be a test of voter skill -- only a measure of voter will.
Bill Potts, CMS
San Jose, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
