voting machines: too much automation

[cellio]

This isn't a gripe about the electronic voting machines with no audit trail and annoying user interfaces; that's a separate rant. This is a gripe about a feature also shared by the old machines: the "vote party line" lever/button.

I am offended by the presence of this option. It wasn't as glaring on the old machines, where the entire option space was in front of you and you watched the affected levers go ka-chink, but it was still wrong. My ballot this morning consisted of six screens, so I could have pressed that button without even looking at the effects. (Yes, there's a confirmation phase, but it's easy to just hit the big red "vote" button at that point.)

I don't want it to be that easy for people to vote for people whose names they won't recognize two minutes later. If you want to vote a straight Democrat or Republican or Pastafarian ticket, you should have to touch every lever, button, or check-box. Voting is a responsibility in which you should invest more than a few seconds' worth of thought. There were ballot items I skipped this morning because I did not feel well-enough informed; that should be more common, and the party-line button makes it less likely.

If we want a parliamentary government where you vote for parties instead of people, we should make one explicitly. I've heard the argument that taking away this option would disenfranchise some voters. Well, yeah -- if you don't want to look at each ballot item on which you're voting, you should be disenfranchised. If you've gone to the polls at all, the incremental cost of facing the candidate's names (and parties -- you get that information) does not seem at all burdensome. If even a few voters look at a name and say "hey, wasn't he the one who was indicted?" (or whatever), it will have served its purpose.

Comments

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>There were ballot items I skipped this morning because I did not feel
>well-enough informed; that should be more common

I think that that should be /less/ common. [Don't flame -- We're in agreement -- I can explain.]

When I lived in San Diego, the local (and/or state) government would mail an informational packet to every registered voter about 2 weeks before the election. Each candidate got a single page to do whatever they wanted with. (Graphics are allowed, but it's all black-n-white. Complexity, it turns out, is bad.) For each proposition, the major "for" group gets a page, then the major "against" group gets a page, and THEN there is an independent fiscal impact analysis.

I NEVER went to a polling booth uninformed when I lived in California. That is one of the few things that I truly miss about San Diego.

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

Elsbeth mentions the same thing about when she was in California (Palo Alto / Harvey Mudd College). There is more information available there (from both sides AND an independent source). Around here, you have to go hunting for the independent sources (League of Women Voters, etc.).

The political information from the candidates comes to your doorstep / phone / inbox whether you want it to or not :)

[cellio]

I agree. I've heard about the voter support they have in some parts of California and it makes me salivate.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

We do get a ton of information. But there are also lots and lots of mailers that just say "we're this group! vote this way! it's right!". One year I collected and tallied all the junk mail about an election, and it had a 2/3rds correlation with the actual outcome. Then I got to recycle the 2" high pile of junk.

The less biased information packet, though, is indeed nice. It probably came about due to our weird proposition system, though, where voters can vote directly for or against certain proposed laws. It is not complete except for state and district wide things, though: if you want information about really local candidates, good luck.

On the other topic, the party option is quite scary. Scarier is that I know people who just go in, click/pull, and walk out, without reading the information. When asked, they seem shocked that I would not do the same. "But the party knows a lot about these issues, I don't have the time, and aren't you a loyal X?" *sigh*

Select-a-candidate

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

Can't believe I forgot this until now!

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Interestingly, this version of the tool, created by a local news station in Illinois, is more straightforward (and much less biased) than the original NPR tool on which it was based.