I’m interested to know what was done when the decisions to ignore the DNC’s threats were made in FL and MI. Letter writing, petitions, protests at the state capitol, etc…?
Were the people of these states, outraged that their leaders’ decisions threated their part in the primary process, simply ignored? To me it seems these reps gambled and lost, and I’m not sure I’d want my vote gambled with. Hopefully they’ll pay come election time.
Sound like good enough reasons not to, to me. Good points.
If I can pontificate for another moment about online voting… One thing I forgot until a little while ago: online voting also provides greater opportunity for vote selling and voter coercion. In the traditional polling place setup, if someone tries to buy or coerce my vote, he has no way of knowing that I did in fact vote his way once I was alone in the booth (assuming that the polling locations are well controlled). I’m not naive enough to think that vote selling and coercion don’t happen in our current system, but I’m persuaded that the problem would be worse in an internet voting system. In one scenario, I’m online at the voting system while my boss, union leader, family members, etc., stand over my shoulder and pressure me to vote for a certain candidate. In a different scenario, I acquire my login to the voting site and offer it to the highest bidder. If we’re voting the old fashioned way, either of those lot harder to pull off.
If there’s no consequences for that, the door is open to an unchecked race to be first. The 2012 election season will start before the 2010 Christmas decorations are packed.