General
19 Aug 03
19 Aug 03
3 edits
I just watched CNN explain the California Ballot for the recall election to be held in October... Or March depending if the democrats manage to slip enough money to a judge in time to get it stamped as 'violating civil rights'. Anyway... Is it just me or has the world gone nuts? In order for the ballot to be 'fair' they hold a drawing (totally mixing up the alphabet) and the candidates whose name starts with 'R' are now first in the list. In the next district, the list is 'Popped' and 'R' is shuffled to the bottom, and 'Z' or whatever moves to the top. Next District, Shuffle. Can you imagine the law suits and supreme court fights because a box of ballots got delivered to the wrong district. 'Q' should have been first, but 'B' was there instead.
Oh, dear God. Sorry for making fun of you so much. Really could use your help figuring this out.
Doesn't this make the assumption that voters have no clue who they will vote for? And will vote for the first name they see? If they do, what is the advantage of holding an election? Couldn't we just draw a name from a hat? and save a lot of trouble? Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but if I have 135 pages of candidate names to search through, I would want it arranged alphabetically. If I want to vote for 'Jones,Leo (The Crook)' , it sure would be nice to go to the 'J' section without searching randomly for Mr. Jones.
I think that if anything can show us what a failure our education system is, it is this latest silliness from supposedly grown adults in California. Is there a single reason to present a 'Randomized' list of candidates? If so, what is it?
If there is anything good about this, it is that Florida will no longer be viewed as the dumbest electorate in the world. 'Go Golden Staters!'
And to make it worse, Four... count them... Four! reporters set there without blinking and state what a wonderful thing it is that there will 'be no unfair advantage to any one candidate' thanks to this marvelous randomization. My head hurts. Bad. Lost in bewildered thought.
Mike
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
19 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe small effect of the Republican candidate appearing first on the voting form in West Palm Beach could well have won the last election for Bush. It was quite easy to make a mistake on the infamous punchcard "butterfly ballot" if you were trying to vote for the second listed candidate (Democrat).
Is there a single reason to present a 'Randomized' list of candidates? If so, what is it?
If you have shockwave flash the ballot card can be seen here.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/graphics/news/ballot.htm
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by iamatigerDan. Thanks for proving my point. If the electorate is too stupid to read and punch... Then why bother with the complicated process of election by ballot? What is the point of the process? Might as well just draw a name from a hat.
The small effect of the Republican candidate appearing first on the voting form in West Palm Beach could well have won the last election for Bush. It was quite easy to make a mistake on the infamous punchcard "butterfly ballot" if you were trying to vote for the second listed candidate (Democrat).
If you have shockwave flash the ballot card can be seen here.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/graphics/news/ballot.htm
A better system would be to have all names on a single card in alphabetical order. No "punch machine". You would be required to :
1 - Use Pen Provided
2 - Circle Name Of Person You Are Voting For
3 - Fill In Square To Immediate Left Of Name For Tabulation By Computer
4 - Insert Your Ballot Into Jacket And Hand To Election Judge. You Will Be Instructed At That Point
How tough is that? Do you know why it will never be done? Because the electorate has the mass IQ of a patch of turnips, and not even the people tabulating the votes can figure out how to stack them correctly into a card reader. Our education system in conjunction with Disney has conspired to turn the entire population into mindless boobs! Not the good kind either.
In order to accomodate "Idiots" who can't or won't read, we try to invent "fool proof" machines and cards and chads and... Oh, crap. Ain't no use talking about it. We as a civilization are spiraling down (to the left, by the way) at the speed of light. Way to go University's. You have managed to dumb us down to nothing.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCareful before you start with the generalisations again Mike! :p - IQ as defined has an average of 100, this average cannot change (for the population as a whole, because IQ is a standardised measure - and does it really mean anything anyway?), so the "electorate has the mass IQ of 100", not the mass IQ of a patch of turnips. Just because some people are unable to read, doesn't mean necessarily that they have a low IQ. IQ is supposed to measure innate, heritable intelligence, and reading is not something we are born with. Reading is a skill that is supposed to be taught at school,it's really unnatural (in the sense that it wouldn't be a skill that builds up simply from the types of talents we're already endowed with - e..g, vision, pattern recognition, etc), takes a long time to learn, and reflects primarily access to education, not IQ, so designing these machines for those who can't read is a good thing, as it allows people who don't have that opportunity to make their voice heard too...
Dan. Thanks for proving my point. If the electorate is too stupid to read and punch... Then why bother with the complicated process of election by ballot? What is the point of the process? Might as well just draw a name from a hat.
A better system would be to have all names on a single card in alphabetical order. No "punch machine". You would be r ...[text shortened]... ay) at the speed of light. Way to go University's. You have managed to dumb us down to nothing.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by kyngjNo... IQ meant nothing in the phrase. I used it in the vernacular. As a model of "the ability to reason". Try to read as written. Thanks. Look for the point of the message. If you find none, just say so.
Careful before you start with the generalisations again Mike! :p - IQ as defined has an average of 100, this average cannot change (for the population as a whole, because IQ is a standardised measure - and does it really mean anything anyway?), so the "electorate has the mass IQ of 100", not the mass IQ of a patch of turnips. Just because some people are una ...[text shortened]... ood thing, as it allows people who don't have that opportunity to make their voice heard too...
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI understand that Mike, but you still can't claim the IQ of a patch of turnips for an electorate without some justification, no matter how you define or use the term. I see that you're making the claim that the electorate shouldn't be trusted to vote for a president as they're not smart enough to do so - what other system would be better, do you think?
No... IQ meant nothing in the phrase. I used it in the vernacular. As a model of "the ability to reason". Try to read as written. Thanks. Look for the point of the message. If you find none, just say so.
Joe
19 Aug 03
the punch card was introduced because there are several variations, and out of mmillions of people, many are going to use them. If given pen & paper and told to fill in the box to the left do you:
A better system would be to have all names on a single card in alphabetical order. No "punch machine". You would be required to :
1 - Use Pen Provided
2 - Circle Name Of Person You Are Voting For
3 - Fill In Square To Immediate Left Of Name For Tabulation By Computer
4 - Insert Your Ballot Into Jacket And Hand To Election Judge. You Will Be Instructed At That Point
put a cross in the box
put a tick in the box
fill in the box entirely, maybe going over the edge
shade the center of the box (=small dot?) but leave a gap so as to be sure not to go over the edge.
under some election rules any of the above would result in your vote being void. The punch card system was supposed to make it so more people (but by no means all) would make their mark in a way that was going to mean their vote was valid. But there'll always be people who:
put a cross/punch against the person they don't want to win
cross out/punch next to all the people they don't want to win
forget why they're in a small box, panic and tick the first name they see.
Anyway, I thought the origional objection to the butterfly punch card was that, with teh names being on both sides and the boxes overlaping, it was possible to read accross to the wrong box. Also, as most peoples eyes drift upwards, being 1 above the major competator would be an advantage.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWySorry if I didn't make myself clear enough, I meant to say that you thought that you're proposed system was beyond the ken of the electorate as they were not smart enough - if that system can't be implemented, what is the best way to do it without resorting to the butterfly punch card thing that was so vilified?
An alphabetical List. Didn't you read it?
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by belgianfreak"fill in" means "fill in" ... education system failure.
the punch card was introduced because there are several variations, and out of mmillions of people, many are going to use them. If given pen & paper and told to fill in the box to the left do you:
put a cross in the box
put a tick in the box
fill in the box entirely, maybe going over the edge
shade the center of the box (=small dot?) but leave a g ...[text shortened]... , as most peoples eyes drift upwards, being 1 above the major competator would be an advantage.
I know. Silly "election rules" give silly "election results". education system failure.
I can't duplicate the graphics, but the "instructions" at top of every page, which are already required by law, shows a single, Correctly marked ballot, with the words... "Concentrate real hard. Be sure to use the SPECIAL pen provided to COMPLETELY FILL-IN box at left of your choice and Circle your choice so as to eliminate re-count problems. Thank you."
Butterfly, smutterfly. Just give the voter a list. Surely our education system can teach people enough to enable them to do two very simple tasks.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by kyngjHey Joe,
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough, I meant to say that you thought that you're proposed system was beyond the ken of the electorate as they were not smart enough - if that system can't be implemented, what is the best way to do it without resorting to the butterfly punch card thing that was so vilified?
If you can't pick out your candidate from a list after watching an election campaign for three years, fill in a box and circle the correct name... we are in trouble. I could do it in any country in the world in any language. simple symbol matching... forty thousand year old scratches next to pictures of beasts in caves tell us that they were doing it quite successfully back then. Why can't we educate a "modern" person to accomplish at least that much?
19 Aug 03
the "instructions" at top of every page, which are already required by law, shows a single, Correctly marked ballot, with the words... "Concentrate real hard. Be sure to use the SPECIAL pen provided to COMPLETELY FILL-IN box at left of your choice and Circle your choice so as to eliminate re-count problems. Thank you."I don't know what the cards instructions are because I don't live over there, but as a serious question, because it's a pet one of mine - in which languages?
and if the person has Parkinsons?
what if you go over the lines? If it's OK then by how much is not ok?
what if you fill in but don't circle, or visa versa?
not trying to be perdantic, but in my work I've learnt that if someone can make a mistake, someone will?
How about this for an idea - ballet circles, so noone is at the top. You spin it so that only the candidate you want to vote for is visable through the slot then mark that piece however you like. Laugh, but it wouldn't soprise me if it happens
😉
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakI appreciate your consideration. I hadn't thought of a person who would have a hard time physically. I could suggest that any person needing help could choose to do an "open marking", asking and receiving instruction from any and all persons of their choice. The logic is they know who to trust, and who not to trust. It is their vote after all.
I don't know what the cards instructions are because I don't live over there, but as a serious question, because it's a pet one of mine - in which languages?
and if the person has Parkinsons?
what if you go over the lines? If it's OK then by how much is not ok?
what if you fill in but don't circle, or visa versa?
not trying to be perdanti ...[text shortened]... lot then mark that piece however you like. Laugh, but it wouldn't soprise me if it happens
😉
As to language... As I stated above, picking a single name is simple symbology. I, and you could pick out a name in any language on earth after seeing it associated with the person it stood for a few times.
A deeper issue on language would be "initiatives" and 'propositions' that must be read to be properly chosen. I again would allow the "open marking" option where the voter could take any person they choose to do their reading and/or marking for them. I completely trust that person to choose a trustworthy marker/reader.
Yes. I'm afraid it will get worse and not better. We keep trying for simple answers instead of common sense.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
19 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWe can use something called a "proxy vote" in the uk for that kind of thing. Don't you have those?
I again would allow the "open marking" option where the voter could take any person they choose to do their reading and/or marking for them. I completely trust that person to choose a trustworthy marker/reader.
I think with alphabetical ballot listings you'd probably get all the candidates renaming themselves to things like AAAAGore 😀