Technically speaking, there is no right to vote guaranteed by the US Constitution. There have been amendments stating that the right cannot be denied for certain specific reasons (e.g. the 15th states that the franchise cannot be denied because of race or previous condition of servitude, the 19th states that it cannot be denied because of sex), but states are otherwise free to make their own rules. For instance, the ex-Confederate states invented all sorts of dodges such as literacy tests, poll taxes (later explicitly outlawed by the 24th Amendment), grandfather clauses, etc. to bar blacks from voting without violating the letter of the 15th Amendment. The memory of this is why anything that even remotely smells of voter intimidation raises all sorts of red flags.
In particular, there’s no guaranteed right to cast a personal vote in a presidential election – in theory, the state legislature could just decide how to cast the state’s electoral votes without public input. (That was seriously proposed as a resolution to the 2000 Florida mess.)
Honestly, I don’t know the name. My main contacts in his office have moved on in the last year or two.
Of course, even if I did know the name, I still probably wouldn’t know who it was.
:eek:
Apparently, something similar happened with Malone in Winchester. I never learned the details, but apparently it was something bad enough where even most of the conservatives turned on him and actively voted against him in favor of Oaten. It was hinted that there was some extreme election nastiness.
As for why everyone’s assuming things will turn out badly with the election here, well, mainly it’s because the two candidates are neck and neck and everyone and their mother is looking for the tiniest voting irregularity so they can bring it to court.
the chap concerned was called Stephen Milligan - in all other respects a decent enough cove, but died for a fancywank.
As to Malone - it wasn’t so much that he did any one thing that was bad but he was just a total tosser. Firstly he was a transplanted urban Scot and as such had no idea what Winchester was like, secondly he had a Charlie-big- potatoes attitude which again didn’t go down well, and he totally neglected the constituency.
When the Voters turned on him (by abstaining) he threw such an almighty hissy fit that he guarenteed to lose the re-run. We don’t like hissy fits in Hampshire. No siree bob.
Also it was partly a question of the last straw - we’d had to put up with John Browne for years - who managed to get suspended from Parliament for fraud and married a yank condom heiress - not our sort of people at all.
in short - the tories took the town for granted and paid fro the neglect.
Because there are always problems. Always. Every election, every year.
The U.S. is a huge country; its methods of conducting elections are hugely varied; and its politics are hugely contentious. With all the thousands of individual elections thousands of individual irregularities are sure to crop up.
2000 was unusual in the way it played out, but every close presidential election has resulted in both voting uncertainties and accusations of outright fraud. It’s still not known, for example, in the 1960 election whether the Democrats stole more votes in Illinois or the Republicans stole more in Texas.
And it’s worse in smaller elections. Former President Lyndon Johnson won his first election to Congress by a vote that Saddam Hussein would find hard to credit.
People think there will be problems in the next election the way they think the sun will rise in the east that day. The only question is the extent to which these problems will decide the result.
As I recall, there were precincts in which several hundred voters, too thoroughly infused with a sense of civic duty to let a little thing like rigor mortis keep them from the polls, showed up to vote for Johnson. They were so dedicated to maintaining an orderly process that they conveniently signed in in alphabetical order.
There is. However, there is a louder clamor not to do anything that would appear to disadvantage either of the major parties. (For instance, requiring people to show proof of identity is more likely to exclude homeless people than respectable middle-class folks, so the Democrats will have none of it; conversely, streamlined registration procedures are likely to bring in more lower-class voters, so the Republicans raise a stink.)
Of course there’s always clamor, and of course there’s always crackdowns, and of course there’s always reforms.
So what? There are problems with every single thing in the entire world that people are involved with. As long as people are involved in elections, the problems will never be sorted out.
Wow, what a cop out. Let’s forget about prosecuting murderers and fighting terrorism while we’re at it. It’s all hopeless anyway.
Frankly, I find the whole “there’s no perfect election” meme to be opportunistic on the part of those who benefit from intentionally unfair policies and practices.
I think the point is that there are some clear structural and institutional defects in our current election system that I believe can be fixed. Yeah, maybe that’ll never completely cure all the problems in our election system, but it might earn some degree of credibility, which is essential. Right now, I have little or no confidence in the credibility of our voting system.
I’ve read most of this thread, so if this was already mentioned I apologize for missing it.
I think the comparison between the US and the EU would be a better one to make. I would be very suprised if the EU does not adopt a system similar to an electoral college as it becomes a true Union, and less of the Confederacy that it is currently.
Smaller states will not want to be unduly overshadowed by the larger ones, and some compromise like our Senate and Electoral College will be required to get them to sign onto any constitution.
Nope. In France too, at least, felons can lose their right to vote (more exactly, they lose their “civic rights”. I’m not sure what it includes besides voting). It’s a separate sentence pronounced by courts. So for instance you can be sentenced to say, a one year suspended sentence of jail and 5 years of loss of your civic rights.
The latest poll I read puts you in company with only 11% of the population. The rest do have confidence that their vote will be fairly counted. There is no crisis of confidence, which is why there is always clamor and always irregularities.
But your first paragraph is exactly the reverse of my point. We are very vigorous in prosecuting murderers and fighting terrorists. They exist nonetheless.
I also disagree with your second and third paragraphs, but this is GQ.
I heard a rumor but cannot find any news reports, that Kerry said if the election was close he would never concede, but would begin setting up his administration and making appointments while pursuing the matter in the courts. Has anyone else heard this, or is it complete B.S.?
I read this in an actually news report. [MSNBC.com but can’t find it now.]
From what I remember, there were some analysts who believed that Al Gore conceding the race then withdrawing that concession probably contributed to his eventual loss. That, and his unwillingness to name cabinet positions, which Bush did.
Seems to make sense to me. If the election is close, and you believe the results are debatable, why would you concede?
Here is my actual ballot! They automatically send them to all pollworkers in case you’re assigned away from your home ward, because you can’t leave except for dinner in the 16-hour day.
No referenda this year, but as you can see there’s eight offices up with a couple of dozen candidates.
I see that there are different rules regarding the ability of convicted felons to vote in different states. Does that mean that a convicted felon living in State A, where he or she could not vote, could simply move to State B, where the law is different and he or she could vote?
Or does the jurisdiction of the state where the felon was convicted take precedent?
BTW, I live and vote in the UK but am also familiar with the relatively simple electoral systems in Ireland and Australia and find the system for electing the president of the USA unnecessarily abstruse.
