The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Syd Webb
> wrote:
>
> >> Remember.. compulsory voting. =EF=BF=BDSo every voter *must* be able t=
o vote,
> >> no matter where they are.
> >
> >Zebee is making a key point here that bears amplification.
>
> Yup
>
> >I was appalled to hear that in the recent UKoGBaNI election there were
> >queues of would-be voters were being turned away from polling places
> >at 10pm on a week-day, as the punters were out-of-time. I shuddered
> >to hear that in the 2000 US presidential election not only wasn't
> >there a consistent, nation-wide voting mechanism but that procedures
> >could differ between regions within a single state.
>
> That wouldn't happen in Canada. Most polling stations are in school
> gymnasiums or church halls. As the time for polling comes to an end
> they make an effort to get the line completely inside the hall...
Same in the U.S., though many polling places
are less capacious facilities.
> >4. Have a consistent, nation-wide voting system...
Since the U.S. is a true Federal system, not
constitutionally possible. Oregon has voting
by mail only. Louisiana has (had?) a "jungle"
primary which could resolve the election, or
set up a general election runoff.
> >5. Mobilise a vast work force for Election Day.
We do that.
One key point. How many voters to a polling place?
In Illinois, no more than 500 or so. (That can
change if new housing is erected in the precinct,
but the borders will be tweaked after at most
one election. In 1972, after the Supreme Court
ruled that states could not require over 90 days
residence for voter registration, there was an
enormous increase in student registrations in
university towns. I was at the University of
Illinois then; one area of dorms and frat houses
went from almost no resident voters to several
thousand in one precinct. It was fixed by 1974.)
> > The AEC recruits a large number of casuals...
In Cook County, there are five election judges
and anistant for each precinct - one temp
for each 100 voters.
Incidentally, I think I see one of the problems
of counting the Australian way. The final
disposition of a transferrable vote is dependent
on other votes; so a ballot cannot be fully
processed till all ballots are received, or so it
seems.
I also note that the AEC is generating a
"National Two Party Preferred Result",
apparently by treating the entire country
as if it was one constituency, and munging
all the Liberal/National/Liberal-National votes
into one total. This transfers any votes
cast for winning candidates of other parties
(Greens and independents), munges
National and Liberal votes together even
where the two parties compete (i.e. O'Connor
WA, where the National appears to have
unseated the incumbent Liberal), and will
not reflect the total of constituency
two-party results.
It's actually of no significance, AFAICT.
This could lead to bizarre results.
Consider this hypothetical election.
Three parties, A, B, and C, 10
constituencies, 100 votes.
A B C
1 6 1 3
2 6 1 3
3 6 1 3
4 6 1 3
5 1 2 7
6 1 2 7
7 1 2 7
8 1 7 2
9 1 7 2
10 1 7 2
30 31 39
The A Party wins the most seats but
the B and C parties are the 2PP
finalists.
I suppose the voter is required to indicate
a preference between Labor and some
coalition party wherever both are on the
ballot, but what if in some constituency
neither were?
What would the AEC do then?
|
