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, some approximation of the names of your chosen candidates, why are you voting for them? All reasonable permutations of spelling accepted (to be determined in advance for each candidate). Nice side bonus: it might reduce negative campaigning, which repeats the opposition candidate's name all over the place...

3. No handing out of campaign literature at the polls. Signs are fine (at distances specified by law), but no hand-outs that subvert #2 and create a waste problem.

The goal of all three: a more-informed electorate. When asked who you voted for you should be able to say something more specific than "the Democrat". It might take a little longer to vote and a little longer to count the results, but isn't it worth it?

And finally:

4. Ranked voting, so that people can vote for perceived dark horses without feeling they've implicitly voted for the greater evil among the front-runners. (You see this all the time -- "I'd like to vote for X, but the bad guy is ahead so I need to vote for the less-bad guy who could actually win instead". So other parties get few votes and the cycle continues.) There are merits to both the Worldcon-style "Australian ballot" (do Australians actually vote that way?), where you keep eliminating the lowest vote-getters until a majority emerges, and point tallies, where top position is worth N points, next on N-1, and so on, and most points wins. Either scheme is better than what we do now.

Now that would be an enpowered electorate!

Comments

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

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).

[cellio]

I have heard that some states have "none of the above" as an option on all ballots, which sounds interesting. If NotA wins do they throw everyone out and start over, I wonder?

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

This is an option I could get behind. I don't like McMurray, but her challenger is even worse.

S

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

I like the abstain or none of the above options. If a certain percentage of the voters don't vote on a race, a new election should be held (of course that's expensive).

But regarding straight party options, I agree it's less than ideal. But people have the right to vote that way. It at least makes it easier for people to vote even if you don't think it's a good idea.

S

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

My whole point is why should voting be easier for some people than for others?

If there are four different races, for example, why should one voter have to make four actions to register their vote while another voter can register their vote for the same four races by a single action?