Tell me, are you also in favor of the Electoral College?
Knock it off with this baloney already.
1 Like
I haven’t seen the system, so only guessing, but one “solution” would be that for each position or ballot initiative, you can “check” the box you want, but there should be a “save choice” button for the section. That save choice would not appear until all candidates/options had been seen on screen.
Once “saved” the system should have one more confirmation: You selected “XXXXXXX” - Confirm or Go Back
And then a final “Submit Ballot” button, which should also give you a confirmation screen of your choices AND the paper printout.
Or, of course, just stick with paper ballots for the security aspect. 
I agree with you. But I’m tired of having this argument on TPM with people who tell me that the system works as intended (even though the framers never imagined a state with 37 million people).
2 Likes
Sadly, true 
1 Like
Well, the system doesn’t function properly. The Swiss modeled their 1848 constitution on the US constitution, but reformed their senate to smooth imbalances in the 1990s. No country has adopted the US model since the 1950s because nobody sees the upper-house model as relevant to current circumstance. Worse still, Article V of the constitution specifically says you can’t abolish the senate. Oh, and we also still have an electoral college based on the assumption that people can travel 10 miles a day on muddy roads.
3 Likes
And no voting in crayon either. Fair is fair…if they get to suppress our votes, then we get to suppress theirs.
3 Likes
What has this got to do with LA County elections system?
2 Likes
Misdirection. If you change it, you change it BEFORE the election.
I was responding to something someone posted. Pretending it needs to be relevant only to the article is nonsense.
No. Bernie made it clear at the debate. He already thinks he’s the nominee, anticipates receiving the plurality of the delegates and wants to change the rules in the middle of the game so that it would mean he wins, rather than follow through with the rules he agreed to abide by. It’s not only abject bullshit on its face, but it’s also a way for him to gin up the resentment and grievance of his supporters who, like him, think he is entitled to win by changing rules mid-stream.
1 Like
Well, sure. I was looking at solving issues with an existing system, not tossing the system out for a different one. Not that that idea doesn’t have good arguments in its favor.
As a computicianologist1 and UI/human factors expert2, I have biases I’m sure. I firmly believe that electronic voting can work. I do not have faith in our3 ability to pull it off, though. I’m fine with paper ballots being the standard, but I’m not agin’ working on electronic solutions. This is one place where blockchain could actually have real utility, if only we could make sure no blockchain evangelists are part of the project.
1Word ©Boidster, 2020, all rights reserved
2Not an expert, but non-trivial real-world experience designing UI
3“Our” meaning both “human beings” in general and specifically “computer scientists” - the “move fast and break things” mentality is too common in my field, IMHO
5 Likes
We’re pretty much in agreement then. It’s nice in theory, but reality has a way of taking a shit on that.
5 Likes
Artists use crayons.
Trump voters make X’s with their pocket knives or wipe their snot-laden sleeves in the box to make their mark. Some still carry bricks of coal in their pockets to own the libs and play tic tac toe. Some, I assume are good people.
3 Likes
LA-countier here too. So far I note that the sample ballot gave me no clue where to vote, this time. Which lead me to study the whole thing more than once. Also, the “vote centers” are clustered about the center of town - two of them are in adjoining properties that you don’t even have to cross a street to move between. And that I will have to walk about twice as far as I used to do.
I think early voting in a primary that is held a month after the primaries start is a bad idea. So I hate all the junk mail urging me to do so. I was pretty happy with our prior analog method of voting. Have I started grumbling too early?
3 Likes
A distinction without a difference. The fact of the matter, is that the DNC has designed a process whereby the preference of 25 million voters can be overruled by less than 500 super delegates, who are by their very nature ensconced party loyalists. A process that only came to be during the Reagan presidency, for what it’s worth. Regardless, the process is un-American on its face, and no prospective candidate should have to face it down.
No, major difference. You don’t have to explain the delegate process or its problems to me. I don’t like it either. But if you start with a certain set of rules, you don’t change them mid-stream just because you don’t like the results they’re returning. That’s bullshit, shows a lack of integrity, threatens the credibility and integrity of the process itself and evinces the kind of self-centered, dishonest opportunism we’re supposed to be fighting against.
We all know damn fucking well that Bernie won’t ask for the rules to change if the result seems to be heading towards what he wants. He will attack and denigrate and whine and sow division ONLY if he’s not getting his way, because the whole point will be to undermine the credibility and integrity of the entire thing…a thing he agreed to fro the outset. It’s craven.
If Bernie didn’t get the majority, he didn’t get the majority. Period. Perhaps the majority should be allowed in that instance to pick someone other than him if its representatives decide that’s what would best represent their interests…
1 Like
OK, so then please show me your recent rantings on how the rules were changed less than 3 weeks ago so that Bloomberg could find his way to the debate stage.
How cute…you’ve retreated to ad hominem!
If pointing out your obvious hypocrisy is an ad hominem, then yes. It’s OK for the DNC to make an unscheduled rules change for someone you tolerate, but unacceptable that the same concept should go any other way.
It’s not hypocrisy to have missed an instance of something happening but then criticize that thing later when you notice it happening elsewhere. I’ve largely ignored the debates because they’re fucking garbage. We should be down to 2 or 3 candidates right now but instead we’re stuck with a vanity circle-jerk.
And yes, it’s ad hominem. You resorted to a tried and true tactic I see on Faux News all the time of trying to invent some sort of “hypocrisy” in order to attack the person’s credibility and avoid addressing the substance of the argument.
Also, this is all setting aside the substantive difference of the debate participation rules being changed versus election rules being changed. I don’t like either, but one certainly trumps the other in importance…by a along shot.
What tactic? The only one throwing out barbs around here is you. I asked an honest direct question to which you have no answer - so the issue isn’t with my question, it must be with the person asking it. Meanwhile, here we spin in circles while the real debate is sidelined.
Again, it’s a distinction without a difference. The rules are quite flexible when those in charge need them to be, and quite fixed and unbreakable when they do not. The DNC needed a Sanders spoiler, so lo and behold, here’s a massive rules change 12 months in that no other candidate had the benefit of, and in walks the 9th richest man in the world. (Not to mention, a guy that has ZERO history in supporting Dem causes, and until about 18 months ago was a registered Republican.) Purely an innocent coincidence, I’m sure. And then we Sanders supporters get called some pretty vile names and/or treated like we’re clueless idiots when we dare to stand up and point out the rampant hypocrisy, just as I did here today, and just how you responded to it. All I want from anyone is consistency and fairness in the process. I don’t care that Sanders loses FAIRLY. But all these obvious and repeated antics to sideline him are beyond ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg paid over 40k to the app that spolied Iowa for Bernie - not a problem for the DNC. The fact that at least 4 top HDC staffers work for Shadow, Inc? Nope, not a problem, either. The fact that Buttigieg called the Iowa results before even a single vote was tallied? More, please. Or the fact that several Iowa districts shaved votes to Deval Patrick, giving him more than Steyer and Yang COMBINED? Hell yes! All of that and much more besides, every bit of which hurt just one candidate, and we both know exactly how that is. And then all the millions of regular Americans that are supporting the only truly progressive candidate in our lifetimes are supposed to just sit down and shut up and pretend all this shit is just a figment of our collective imaginations. Not. Gonna. Happen.