jrtom: (Default)

The URL pretty much captures it: the Michigan GOP plans to challenge voters' eligibility at the polls on the basis of home foreclosure records.

(Despite the fact that, among other things, a foreclosure notice does not necessarily entail that one is no longer living at the specified address.)

I say "part 1" in the subject line because I expect that this is not going to be the last such item that I'll be posting about for this election. (I volunteered for Election Protection in 2004 as LA-local tech support, and was in a position to see their entire database of reports of voter intimidation, machine malfunctions, polling place _absence_ fer gossake, etc. ad nauseam. I may do so again.)

If you're a McCain supporter, please contact his campaign and ask him to repudiate this policy. You might also point out to him that allowing his party to make plans to intimidate those that may have lost their homes is not the way to go about winning their trust and support.
jrtom: (Default)

Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that

(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination

(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)

(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.

Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.

I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)
jrtom: (Default)
("E-voting demise could be near")

I'm a big fan of technology. And while I think that it's _possible_ to have a robust, secure, accurate voting system that uses computers, the ballots themselves need to be recorded on actual physical human-readable artifacts.
jrtom: (Default)

A discussion of voting systems, focused mainly on detailed explorations of why IRV is a bad idea, but with a number of other topics as well.


Some visualizations of simulations of the effects of voting systems in a number of different circumstances. I haven't spent enough time thinking about the underlying assumptions, but if they're reasonably valid, it sure makes IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) look bizarre.
jrtom: (Default)
I don't normally ask for comments on my LJ. Today, I'm asking for them.

Talk to me about why it's important for you to vote--or why it's not.

Talk to me about the specific issues that are important to you.

Talk to me about what you hope the outcome will be--not just in terms of numbers, but what changes you hope that the results will entail.

Also, I will make this pledge: if anyone replies to this with a question something like "why do you think it's important to vote?" I'll try to give an original (and sincere) response each time I'm asked.

Above all else, though, get your ballot turned in. If you don't know how or where, ask me; I'll help you figure it out. You can _always_ (no matter what you are told) get a provisional ballot if all else fails--if you get crap about that, call me.
jrtom: (Default)
Diebold sez "glitch-free," just don't touch those touchscreens

As I have said elsewhere, I hope that Maryland tosses Diebold out on their collective ass. This is completely frigging ridiculous, and should not be countenanced.
jrtom: (Default)
Has American democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats?

A suggestion that the recent Ohio elections' referenda results are statistically unlikely (to put it mildly).

Anyone seen any independent reporting on this topic?


jrtom: (Default)

May 2011

1516 1718192021
29 3031    


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 18 April 2019 13:08
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios