What has changed in election ballots and vote counting since 2000? Have things changed significantly or is a repeat of the previous presidential election possible?
As the presidential election swings into medium gear, I think back to the 2000 election and wonder if the issues which arose during the voting and tabulation were ever really resolved or simply given a quick coat of media paint and then forgotten.
The issues I recall were (I’m probably leaving a few out):
Confusing ballots.
The electorial college which allowed the president with more popular votes to lose the election (I know this one wasn’t changed, but I always hear people complain the losing side of course about how unjust it was/is).
Vote tabulating errors (chads, chads, chads,…)
I’m sure there’s more.
Keep in mind I do not want to hear about who should have become president. That issue has been beaten into the ground. Let’s move on. I am interested in discussions about what has been done to correct the problems and whether or not the same thing could happen again.
Missouri has used the “butterfly ballot” for years and I’ve not heard about any changes. We have an election next Tuesday and I’m certain they will be used then. Some states i’ve heard are planning to use computer touch screens, but I’ve heard they’re concerned about errors there too.
Still in use. The Constitution you know!
I’d imagine any system used is subject to errors of some kind.
A poorly designed ballot can happen anywhere. The design of ballots, the process of voting, etc., are controlled by the individual states, which in turn often leave many of these issues up to individual counties. Most results were not affected by the mess in Florida, and that mess wouldn’t have mattered at all if the election hadn’t been so close.
The electoral college, or something like it, is an inevitable result of Federalism. We cannot simply have a popular majority vote in a union of equal and sovereign states.
Last verse, same as the first. It’s unlikely that any one state’s problems are going to be as pivotal as Florida’s were in the 2000 election.
#1 and #3 have prompted some states to push ahead with electronic voting systems. Of course, these systems don’t have paper trails for accountability, have questionaby lax security, have demonstrated miscounts and problems in the fields, and belong to companies whose CEOs hold massive fundraisers for political candidates, but the folks involved promise that the “hanging chads” of 2000 will be nought but an unpleasant memory next time around… Hmmmmmmmm…
Not to hijack the thread but if anyone cares to debate that America can’t move to a popular vote with out amending our constitution or that such an election is incompatible with federalism or even the idea that America is a “union of equal and sovereign states”, then I would be happy to contradict these assertions in another thread. As for here I am also interested in how things have changed since the problems of 2000. Here’s some links that might help:
Whoops, didn’t realize this was GQ. I wouldn’t debate here in any case but if someone opened a GD thread with any of these assertions I would be along. If I don’t have more problems connecting to the 'net that is.
The ballot issue and tabulation problems can happen anywhere anytime. There is a single ballot in every jurisdiction. It has federal matters like the president, congress, etc., and state and local matters. So the ballot in each jurisdiction is different. The ballots are pre-approved by eleciton officials. In 2000, the loser was playing politics. Yes, buttterfly ballots are confusing but not uncommon and were preapproved by officials.
It’s hard to keep political debate out of this thread but, according to these folks, Deibold is an electronic voting firm owned and operated by Republicans that specializes in systems that leave no paper trail. It seems that these systems are amazingly easy to corrupt. If you thought the butterfly ballot was fun you’ll go ape shit over this.
And I read at another web site that five of the top boys at Diebold contributed money to a congressional candidate who advocated doing away with separation of church and state.
Congress mandated a series of reforms to the voting process in 2002, and dedicated just short of $4 billion to institute those changes.
Chief among those changes is assistance from the Federal government under a fund-matching scheme to help states get rid of old technology (butterfly ballots, lever voting machines) and buy new stuff (touch screens, optical scanners). The great bulk of this money was supposed to be appropriated just after passage of the Help America Vote Act, but there were budget conflicts between Congress and the Administration – long story short, the funds have been slow to get out, so the goal of having all voting machines replaced before the election may be unachievable.
The act did many other things as well, including requiring states to ask for ID before a voter gets a ballot, made it tougher to throw out an absentee ballot sent in by a member of the armed forces, and other things as well. Here’s a decent one-page pdf summary:
By what right does the central government tell the states how to run their presidential elections? The Constitution provides Congress the power to regulate their own election but leaves to the selection of electors to the states. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…"
I am not a lawyer and I cannot provide a factual answer to this question. I’m sure there’s tons of case law on the subject, and maybe someone else can answer this.
I only know a thumbnail sketch of the contents of the Help America Vote Act, which bears directly on the OP’s question.