Posted Sep 1, 2004 13:05 UTC (Wed) by tymiles
In reply to: Patience
Parent article: Back door in Diebold voting systems?
None of it matters because in the US the President is not elected by the popular vote (Which by the way Final numbers showed Gore with 50,996,116 votes and Bush with 50,456,169. Bush won the White House by capturing 271 electoral votes, one more than the Constitution requires. The popular vote total included all absentee ballots that were counted in the weeks following the Nov. 7 election.)
The election is won by getting the most electoral votes from the Electoral College (Which are delegates from each state whom "normally" vote based on how the popular vote is trending. The silly rule is that if you have a state with 10 electoral votes (The amount of electoral votes each state has is based on population of each state at the time of the election Each state has the same number of electoral college members as the total of its senators and representatives.) and 6 go to Bush, 4 go to Gore then all 10 in the end go to Bush instead of splitting up the votes.
Anyway we all know that by redistricting you can sway votes because people assume that a district that is heavily pro one party will all most always give their electoral votes to the party they support. This is what they recently did in TX. They redistricted so the Republican Party could merge large clumps of Republican voters into blocks and get more voting power and more electoral votes in those areas of that state. Even with a paper trail you could tamper with the voting in borderline areas (Or Swing states) to make one party or the others look like a bigger block in areas where the dominant party has the base and most people would not notice. (This has never been proven to have happened. But no one knows if it has happened)
This computer crap just makes it more easy to tamper.
Post note: The winner-take-all system in the US awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate receiving the greatest number of statewide popular votes. (This may be a plurality rather than a majority.) Conversely, this means that a candidate who finishes second by a narrow margin gets no electoral votes at all. One effect of this system is to reinforce the established parties' hold on power, because it is more difficult for a third-party upstart to win a majority of electoral votes or even to influence the outcome of a presidential election by winning enough electoral votes to throw an election into the House. Groups that might otherwise have started their own parties have therefore had an incentive to work through the major parties rather than to confront them. Farmers, labor unions, and business groups, as well as ethnic and religious minorities, are thus encouraged by the winner-take-all system to find a home within the two-party system. The winner-take-all system reinforces the existing power structure, and it is no surprise that it has been strongly supported by the two major parties that benefit from it.
The winner-take-all system has been criticized in that it lessens the likelihood of multiparty choices and thereby limits the ability of voters to "let off some steam" by voting for a candidate with a philosophy that might be closer to their own. The fewer candidates in the field, the greater the likelihood that a voter will feel alienated by the lack of a real choice. In some circumstances, it is suggested, the safety valve afforded by alternative party choices could prove useful in maintaining governmental legitimacy.
Another disadvantage of the winner-take-all system, according to its critics, is that it tends to exclude the population of some states from the national political dialogue. In every presidential election, some states are "in play" and others are not, meaning that one political party has effectively conceded the state to its opponent. As a result, neither party tends to spend much money in that state on political advertising or do much campaigning, which would go for naught. If electoral votes were awarded on a district-by-district basis, it has been argued, more advertising and campaigning would occur and therefore more Americans would be included in the national election-year dialogue. Of course, some districts would also not be "in play," but it is likely that candidates would have to campaign in more states, thereby involving more of the population in the election-year dialogue.
(Sorry about the rant)
to post comments)