RE: Should candidates challenge elections?

From: <clintcurtis_at_clintcurtis_dot_com>
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 18:13:25 CDT

Anything less than an open system lends itself to fraud. At would be a
rare occasion where the winner would bother to research the vote. Even
losing candidates are overwhelmed by attempting a recount. It is more
in the purview of statisticians and interest groups.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Should candidates challenge elections?
> From: Ron Crane <voting@lastland.net>
> Date: Tue, May 17, 2005 10:12 pm
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
> Making whole ballots public creates a significant potential for
> coercion. Imagine a small town (or small precinct) in which the ballot
> lists two races: state rep and sheriff. In this jurisdiction there are
> a few homes with "Green Party" signs on their lawns. Their owners voted
> for the Green candidate for state rep and against the current sheriff.
> No one else in the jurisdiction voted Green. Now imagine the sheriff's
> a bit vindictive.
>
> Ick.
>
> Slicing the ballots into strips, each showing an individual race, would
> fix this problem.
>
> -R
>
> On May 17, 2005, at 5:54 PM, clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com wrote:
>
> > Beyond just the random issue, we should insist that the votes be
> > publicly available to anyone who wished to see them. That would take
> > the stigma out of the recount process and make sure that the votes were
> > properly tabulated. Property tax records as well as most public
> > documents are publicly available to anyone who shows an interest in
> > their information. Voting records should definitely be considered
> > public documents. Providing a second receipt which could be stored as
> > public record should allow such access.
> >
> > Clint Curtis
> >
> >
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: [OVC-discuss] Should candidates challenge elections?
> >> From: Stephanie Frank Singer <sfsinger@campaignscientific.com>
> >> Date: Tue, May 17, 2005 7:01 pm
> >> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> >> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> >>
> >> I'll put my two cents in for random. And we should make it clear what
> >> "random" really means. Otherwise people often mistake "random" for
> >> "mostly evenly distributed" which is not a synonym at all!
> >>
> >> It's a mistake to rely on candidates. Consider Joe Hoeffel, who ran
> >> against Specter in PA for Senate in 2004. He would have a lot to gain
> >> if fraud were proved, as he would either be a Senator now, or folks
> >> would have to recognize that he came from nowhere to be neck-and-neck
> >> with a well-established incumbent, in which case he would be
> >> considered
> >> a candidate to reckon with (which he isn't). But it's not worth
> >> risking the "troublemaker," "sore loser" labels that he faces for
> >> complaining. It's not realistic to depend on candidates (or anyone
> >> else) to work against their own perceptions of their own
> >> self-interest.
> >>
> >> Here's another tack: not only do I, as a PA resident, have an
> >> interest
> >> in the integrity of PA elections, I have an interest in the integrity
> >> of each other state's elections, because of Amendment 14, Section 2 of
> >> the Constitution. If enough voters were disenfranchised in, say,
> >> Texas, then the Consitution guarantees that the Texas delegations to
> >> the Electoral College and the US House of Reps should both shrink,
> >> which gives my electors and reps more clout!
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 17, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Ron Crane wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Whatever the process, it has to be transparent, established before
> >>> the
> >>> elections in which it is applied, and either (a) completely unbiased
> >>> (random) or (b) open to *all* partisan inputs, including those of any
> >>> member of the public. We cannot rely on the candidates to do the job.
> >>> Just off the cuff, I prefer publicly-witnessed random choice, since
> >>> it's easy for the public to understand and to verify, and it's not so
> >>> open to the exercise of discretion, and it's not so open to
> >>> manipulation via uneven (or unevenly-applied) bureaucratic obstacles,
> >>> such as application fees, etc.
> >>>
> >>> -R
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OVC discuss mailing lists
> >>> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> >>> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OVC discuss mailing lists
> >> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> >> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> > arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:41 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT