United States electoral system


MattS
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am a political buff and am one of those people who know a lot about domestic and international politics... someone who just has an obsession with politics in general and would be perfectly at home in any democratic nation.

This is not a discussion about the electoral college, even though I do have an opinion on it.

Instead, what I find weird about the U.S. electoral system is how there are many different voting standards in different States and even different regions within States. Some use electronic voting, some use paper based voting, and some use a mix of both with differing rules as to what is a valid and invalid vote and so forth.

In Australia we have a federal system, and at the State and Local government levels there are different systems, for example in the recent Australian Capital Territory election, they use the proportional system, while in the State of New South Wales there is a mix of the proportional system and preferential system (the Legislative Council uses a State Wide proportional vote, while the Legislative Assembly uses the preferential system).

At the federal level, each State has twelve senators (elected to a six year term with a half election every three years), each of the mainland territories receive two senators (elected for a three year term) while the House of Representatives uses the preferential system (also known as an instant-runoff system) with reps elected every three years.

However, while there are different systems used, the same method of voting is used at each election. No matter which polling place a person goes to, they are handed exactly the same ballot paper, with the count following exactly the same rules. The ballot paper / system used does not change from electoral district to electoral district, and there is always a PAPER TRAIL.

Just wondering whether Americans believe their system should be cleaned up?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matt,

The voting system is provided for and controlled completely by the States. This system is used not only for Federal elections but also for local and State elections.

Different States have different ballots and even different counties within the States may have different ballots because there may be some local or State ballot measures (not just candidates but also proposed laws) that are in the ballot as well and therefore, State/Local money has to be spent to create the ballots that comprehensively includes all the things that particular area is voting for.

In Florida, for example, the supervisors of elections in the counties design the ballot for their areas and hire the vendor from the State approved vendor list to create the ballot. There is also a State standard for voting methods and the supervisors of elections have to use a voting method that is listed on the State standards. In Florida, all voting methods, including electronic voting, has a paper trail and a method for audit. I am fairly certain that all States have paper trails and method for audit for all their elections.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a bit misleading in my original post, as I remember at the last New South Wales State Election, we were able to vote online... but there was a paper trail because a receipt was emailed back. The receipt couldn't be forged though because it had gone through multiple systems.

I personally do not trust electronic voting, not without a paper trail to the point the electronic voting machine prints out a docket which can then be put into a ballot box.

Sure, electronic voting might speed counting up, unless the count is then challenged in court.

I have been employed by both the Australian Electoral Commission and New South Wales Electoral Commission as a polling official, which meant I was required to count the votes after polls closed. During the day I would mark people off the electoral roll and issue ballot papers.

At the end of the day the ballot papers were counted ON SITE, the party / candidate scrutineers would enter the polling place before polls closed, and would remain there during the count.

We have a pretty complex system here with preferential voting (a candidate must get 50% + 1 to be declared the winner), but it literally only took 2 hours to count through 3000 votes (just one polling place). The results would be called through to the electoral commission and within 2 or 3 hours we would know who has won government.

A first past the post system would be pretty easy so I am unsure why there is a rush to electronic voting, especially with the risk and cost of litigation.

Good old paper and marker, it is almost fail safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead, what I find weird about the U.S. electoral system is how there are many different voting standards in different States and even different regions within States. Some use electronic voting, some use paper based voting, and some use a mix of both with differing rules as to what is a valid and invalid vote and so forth. . .

Just wondering whether Americans believe their system should be cleaned up?

Frankly, I mistrust any "cleanup" that centralizes electoral authority at Washington. One of the nice things about a decentralized system is, the President has no authority to unilaterally change it in his favor. I have real concerns, for example, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which subjects state re-districting regimens to federal review (even the left wing of our Supreme Court has hinted that the Act may have outlived its usefulness).

Our Constitution requires the states to guarantee to their citizens a "republican form of government", but states have some leeway in how they want to implement that. I think it's a legacy of the US' origins as a collection of individually sovereign states--Georgia didn't want its voting practices to be controlled by a federal government full of representatives from Massachusetts, which in turn didn't want its practices controlled by a coalition of southern or western states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a federalist and I also believe in States having sovereignty, even more sovereignty than they have now. In my country the States used to have a lot of sovereignty, but over time High Court rulings have slowly chipped away.

The States here used to have the right to tax income, but the High Court ruled that a person can only have their income taxes once, and that power rested with the federal government.

I believe it is possible to have uniform standards for vital institutions (such as elections) through State cooperation. The States can still have their electoral commissions, but with standards which have been agreed at a interstate level.

That opens up lots of possibilities, through such agreements a person could be absent from a State (on business) and still turn up to any polling place to vote. Also, it could increase democracy by meaning a candidate could register in one State and be eligible to be on the ballot in all States.

Uniform standards also mean all people (candidates and electors) know the rules, know the regulations no matter where they vote.

I also firmly believe electoral commissions should not be answerable to the government, they should be independent statutory bodies that are answerable to the people through their legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is possible to have uniform standards for vital institutions (such as elections) through State cooperation. The States can still have their electoral commissions, but with standards which have been agreed at a interstate level.

Sure; there's even precedent for this - the Uniform Commercial Code, Uniform Probate Code, Uniform Child Custodiy and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, etc. US states can opt into these in whole, in part, or not at all.

That opens up lots of possibilities, through such agreements a person could be absent from a State (on business) and still turn up to any polling place to vote. Also, it could increase democracy by meaning a candidate could register in one State and be eligible to be on the ballot in all States.

I'm not sure either of those are desirable. It would require a nationwide, electronic (read: hackable) voter registry. And I'm not crazy about a resident of Maine being able to vote for representatives of the people of California. Getting an absentee ballot (in Utah, at least) is already insanely easy.

Uniform standards also mean all people (candidates and electors) know the rules, know the regulations no matter where they vote.

I'm not sure this is that important. Voting is voting, whether I pull a lever or tap a screen or write on a paper. The only confusion would be among poll workers (and if you've got poll workers going from one state to another in the same election, something's really seriously wrong), or in disputed elections- for example, Bush v. Gore actually hinged on our Supreme Court's interpretation of a state (Florida), not a federal, law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure either of those are desirable. It would require a nationwide, electronic (read: hackable) voter registry. And I'm not crazy about a resident of Maine being able to vote for representatives of the people of California. Getting an absentee ballot (in Utah, at least) is already insanely easy.

No I don't mean a resident voting for representatives outside their home jurisdiction, what I meant is with a uniform and standardised voting system (paper, electronic, proportional, preferential, first past the post etc), it means if you're away from your electoral district or interstate, you can still go to a polling place and do a declaration vote within your own district. The polling official would just have to look up where the elector is from, write out a ballot paper for them (easy, because they're standard), the person votes using a declaration vote and that vote is then sent to their home district, verified against the electoral roll and the counted if they're eligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't mean a resident voting for representatives outside their home jurisdiction, what I meant is with a uniform and standardised voting system (paper, electronic, proportional, preferential, first past the post etc), it means if you're away from your electoral district or interstate, you can still go to a polling place and do a declaration vote within your own district. The polling official would just have to look up where the elector is from, write out a ballot paper for them (easy, because they're standard), the person votes using a declaration vote and that vote is then sent to their home district, verified against the electoral roll and the counted if they're eligible.

That's almost impossible to do in the US. Each city can have a different set of things they're voting for so you can't really have "the same ballot". In Florida, you are assigned a voting precinct from your declared residence address. If you're away from your electoral district, you file an absentee ballot - that is, they mail the ballot to you, you fill it up, and you mail it back.

All electronic voting has a paper trail (what you call a receipt). But no, the paper is not counted, UNLESS there's a dispute. But, if the total number of votes in dispute is lesser than the difference between the candidates' final tally so that even if you give 100% of the vote to one candidate it wouldn't change the outcome of the election, then the supervisor of elections can decide not to spend the money to run a recount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share