thoughts on election day (not about candidates)

[cellio]

Voting reforms I would like to see (unlikely as they may be):
1. No "vote straight party" options. The right to vote is important and was hard-won; it is not too much to require that you actually vote for candidates.
2. All voting is write-in. If you can't bother to learn, or write down

Comments

[sethg_prime]

(1) I’ve never seen straight-party options on ballots in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville, MA. I assume these were established in cities with more powerful political machines

[cellio]

(1) I’ve never seen straight-party options on ballots in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville, MA. I assume these were established in cities with more powerful political machines.

Wow. I have never not seen this. I have also never seen a paper ballot, except absentee.

(2a) On the other hand, the blogger Matthew Yglesias has long argued that American elections simply have too many positions on the ballot: it would be better to have the few offices that everyone actually pays attention to be elected and have the rest be appointed.

I agree with him, though maybe for a different reason. Yes, there's too much stuff to wade through sometimes (not today for me -- only four races), but more to the point, some of the stuff we vote for is either stupid (registrar of wills? really?) or ought to involve expertise and a perspective that we the people don't have (judges).

(3) In Massachusetts, people handing out literature have to stay a certain distance away from the polling place. Is that not the rule in Pennsylvania?Yes, but it's measured

[tangerinpenguin]

Single transferable vote seems to be gradually catching on. Slowly, but I haven't been seeing it get reversed once it manages to get in place. Nobody really likes the gameplay that naturally attaches to just using the largest plurality, especially if you see a lot of races with more than two or three realistic candidates. (Or at least nobody is willing to admit to liking the gameplay in front of voters.) The fact that STV can (usually) be accurately described as Instant Runoff, and people understand and trust a runoff to have a "fair" result, makes it one of the easier alternatives to push through. Really, the biggest challenge is usually trying to explain why Borda Counts are not just a different way of getting the same thing.

[xiphias]

For me, voting involves going to the polls, getting the ballot which is a sheet of paper with names on it and ovals next to the names, and we use a marker to fill in the oval next to the name we want.

No option to vote party line. In any case, not all offices have candidates from all parties, so, in practical terms, you couldn'tNot sure I want to make voting into a spelling test. If you're dyslexic enough that you CAN use a ballot, if you familiarize yourself with it, but CAN'T reliably write a name, I don't see that you should be penalized. If you've had a stroke, and are perfectly lucid, but have trouble with fine motor control, I can imagine you might be able to fill in an oval easier than you could write a name

[cellio]

I've never seen a paper ballot (except for absentee ballots). I used to vote by pulling levers and now I vote with a touch-screen of dubious reliability. (In no case is there a paper trail; I have a receipt that shows that I voted, but no official record of the vote

[dvarin]

They have paper ballots here. They're of a type with the stardardized-testing answer sheets people use in grade school--you fill in the oval next to your choice. Presumably they're later scanned by some kind of scoring system.

When I was in Pittburgh they used the lever-pull machines. Probably it's just too expensive to replace them in anyplace where they have them already, and they don't seem to break much (that is, they're clearly from decades ago, yet still functioning) so there's not much need.

[tangerinpenguin]

Maybe it would be sufficient to remove parties from the ballot?

This is not an absolutely accurate description of Washington state ballots, but it echoes xiphias' experience: for most races, the candidates may (but are not required to) list a "party preference" but the state actively tries to avoid anything that smacks of treating the voters as members of a fixed party. Like, say, registering your party affiliation. This has a couple of immediate implications: in the prior major election, many Republican candidates listed their preferences as "GOP" or ducked the question altogether to avoid being associated with the Republican brand at a time when it was electoral poison

[sue_n_julia]

Given that, between state and local races, Julia and I each voted for about 25 people (6 of whom were unopposed judges) and 10 referenda/proposals, requiring write-in voting is somewhat unreasonable. Yes, I can usually remember 25 names or so, but not necessarily what will be the valid spellings

[cellio]

Julia and I each voted for about 25 people

Wow. I had 4. Yeah, that would make a difference!

Note that I didn't say spelling had to be exact and that bringing in notes would be ok. I'm not trying to impose a literacy test, just trying to move people away from "oh, I recognize that name" or "vote for whatshisname because he's the $party". I encountered people today who could not name the person they had just voted for for Senate. One admitted to not even having read the names because that's what the "straight party" button was for. (No, I wasn't badgering anybody; these were conversations I overheard at the polling place.)

[sue_n_julia]

Regarding spellings, yeah, you actually are imposing a literacy test. Why not have all the candidates listed? Then you don't have to argue is MacGregoire or Gregor close enough to Gregoire. That's going to be a big issue in the Alaska Senate race where the incumbent is a write-in candidate. And I fully expect that to end up in court (most write-in races have a series of "acceptable" spellings for the candidate name

[alaricmacconnal]

I agree with cellio on the straight party option. Everyone who votes should have to make the same number of touches, ovals, etc. to get the same result. No shortcuts. I also wish that every ballot choice had the "abstain" option, so that a voter is required to make a choice. This serves as an additional check on the vote counting (the number of "votes" for race A is the same as the number of "votes" for race B). If they aren't the same, then something was missed (or there was an error).

Re: Straight party vote

[cellio]

Interesting idea! That has a lot of appeal. Would probably be challenged on "one man, one vote" even though one man had the option for one whole vote instead of half of one, but it would be interesting to see how it played out.

[browngirl]

This is the most interesting election-related post I've read today. I'm going to point a friend of mine who helps run elections to it, as I think she might have some useful perspectives.

[cellio]

Thanks! I'm glad she decided to come visit.