[quote=“nimelennar, post:39, topic:79067, full:true”]
Your earlier comments seem to indicate that you think that if the vote is 55,000 to 40,000, with 5,000 uncounted, that the 5,000 should be uncounted, as they cannot change the “winner.” When it was pointed out that that 5,000 could count for multiple delegates, you say that “If the number of provisional ballots would not change the delegate count to the point where it would alter the outcome, then [the provisional ballots should not be counted].” (emphasis mine)[/quote]
You don’t count if there’s no chance of changing the outcome–but you’re describing a case where the outcome can be changed.
I agree that that’s how it should work; I’m just explaining to the person I was replying to that it wasn’t previously as clear from his replies that that’s what he was arguing for.
I’m not convinced that’s a realistic concern, for two reasons: first, ballots are anonymous and there’s not currently an exit-polling mechanism in place that would allow people to discern where votes came from (or didn’t come from) with that degree of particularity, except in very homogeneous communities; and, second, politicians are primarily concerned with who will vote for them in the next election, not who screwed them in the last election.
As I said in my original post:
" If the margin is close enough that the provisionals could conceivably play a part in the outcome, then they are counted."
Or did you miss that? I said “play a part in the outcome” not just who the winner is. The election outcome includes the delegate count.
Because mathematically, no matter how many votes there are, there is ultimately (at some point) one vote that decides the election. If you throw all others out, you would get the same result if you counted only that one vote as you would if you had counted them all. But having the entire election decided by one person wouldn’t be considered democratic, would it?
You are advocating throwing votes out (disenfranchising people) because they may have no effect on the result with no reason for it but laziness. Saying that it’s acceptable to throw out votes for no better reason than because you’re too lazy to count them opens up a huge gaping flaw. So what if only 5 people voted for our candidate but 1 million voted for yours? We didn’t feel like counting their votes, so our candidate wins. You’re the one who said we didn’t have to count votes if we were feeling lazy. (Yes that’s extreme, but the point is, laziness is not a legitimate excuse for falsifying election results.)
And one could equally say that elections don’t exist for the purpose of arbitrarily throwing votes out, but to count the votes and understand the will of the people.
I’m just saying that it should be done correctly. Why do you want to disenfranchise people? Are you afraid of losing?
You seem to be obsessed with the notion of counting votes rather than the true objective–figuring out who has more votes. Not counting the absentee ballots fails from the counting votes standpoint, it’s fine from the determining the winner standpoint.
You have a 7-game series to determine the championship. Your position is akin to saying that all 7 games must be played even if one team has already one 4 games. Can you find a sporting event that works this way?!
Precisely. A or B. Is it decided democratically (by counting all votes) or do you just throw out votes until it is decided?
Does it matter whether our candidate won 50.01% vs 49.99% instead of 99.99% vs 0.01%? Yes, it does. Imagine a world with more than 2 parties. The differences could have big implications.
In sportsball, people don’t just arbitrarily decide to throw out some points that one team scored because they were too lazy to count them. Do they?
I’m sure that if I indulged in sportsball, I could come up with some counterexamples.
But I don’t, and will instead quote a noted expert in the sporting arts.
But the rules are the rules. They are (as in all games) entirely arbitrary, and there is no basis on which anyone–not even the Supreme Court of the United States–can pronounce one or another of them to be “nonessential” if the rulemaker (here the PGA TOUR) deems it to be essential.
–Antonin Scalia PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN 532 U.S. 661 (2001)
Is that true, though… I mean, it’s not that difficult for me to get on that ballot. There’s easily more than a 100 people on an average ballot (for the national parliament) divided into about 17 political parties. If I wanted I could start a political party myself and join those people myself (and each election there are indeed several new parties giving it the old college try).
If I didn’t want to be on the ballot myself but wanted a say in who is on the ballot, I could join one of the political parties and help create the candidate list for that party.
Also, during the election I actually directly vote for the actual candidates, not someone who should in theory vote for my candidate.
Knowing that someone might not even bother their arse to count your vote isn’t particularly conducive to getting people to actually cast it though, is it? As I said earlier, if it’s to mean anything, the whole system needs to be above reproach, or it’s going to dissuade people from engaging with it.
Sorry, don’t take it personally, but you are being very, very naive here. Maybe it’s because I’m Italian and I’ve learnt a thing or two about the ways votes have been bought and sold in that lovely peninsula ever since elections were held, but I can assure you: in these matters, who has to know, will know.
Especially in the US, where term times are short, you have to keep the juice flowing. That’s hard to do if you don’t respect pacts with people that matters. Note that I’m not talking about big headline-grabbing promises, but the nitty-gritty of local administration: who will build and where, who will get contracts to fix this and that, which local rule will be tweaked enough to allow this or that group or person to build power or political capital, and so on. There is a chain of debts and promises that flows from the top to the very bottom, through surrogates and surrogates of surrogates. It’s the same everywhere, it’s just how democracy works in practice.
I guess it’s possible that you’re correct; I just haven’t seen any evidence of it. Do you have some?
Sure, there’s some of that, but I am not convinced it’s as pervasive as you seem to think it is. But, again, if you have some evidence, I’m happy to look at it.
I apologize; I did not re-read our whole conversation each time I replied, and thus I misinterpreted you.
I’m not going to continue arguing with you because we agree on the principle; however, I’m not the only person who misunderstood you in this thread, so, although the fault is largely on my end, you may be able to phrase things more clearly in future.
Does it matter whether our candidate won 50.01% vs 49.99% instead of 99.99% vs 0.01%? Yes, it does. Imagine a world with more than 2 parties. The differences could have big implications.[/quote]
When you change the problem you change the proper response. Ballots are only ignored when they have no possibility of changing any matter they were voting on.
[quote][quote=“LorenPechtel, post:47, topic:79067”]
Your position is akin to saying that all 7 games must be played even if one team has already one 4 games. Can you find a sporting event that works this way?!
[/quote]
In sportsball, people don’t just arbitrarily decide to throw out some points that one team scored because they were too lazy to count them. Do they?
[/quote]
I said games, not points. I was showing another situation that works like the ballots do–games are counted until one team is a certain winner, then they play no more.
I was a card-carrying member of a party in local government (and one of the most “honest” ones, relatively speaking and by Italian standards), I’ve seen it happening. I also pay attention to local politics where I live now, in UK. It’s not corruption or anything illegal (well, assuming there is no clear money trail), it’s just how it works. Otherwise, why would political parties keep lists of voters etc? To campaign, sure, but also to tally during and after the fact. Especially in a post-ideological scenario where political differences can be very small between parties and candidates, a politician needs all the inches it can get.
Exactly. Look at baseball. If the home team is ahead, they don’t even bother to play the bottom half of the 9th inning, because the winner has already been decided.
I guess I should have been more specific. Do you have some evidence of this actually happening in the United States, of a type that is actually shareable and doesn’t rely on me just taking your word for the opinion that you have formed?
OP and this thread are remarkably devoid of facts. There are lots of ways we could design a theoretically good or bad way to deal with provisional ballots, but there are actual ways that they are dealt with in California, so why don’t we discuss that? Provisional ballots in California are in fact counted. See, for example: Provisional Voting :: California Secretary of State
What Happens After You Cast a Provisional Ballot?
Your provisional ballot will be counted after elections officials have confirmed that you are registered to vote in that county and you did not already vote in that election.
I have also worked at the polls a few times, in Alameda County, which says:
I have heard that provisional ballots are not counted. Is this true?
This is not true. If a voter is qualified to vote and votes provisionally, his or her ballot will be counted.
Of course, if you don’t believe the public statements of county and state governments, that’s another problem.
In my experience, people who need provisional ballots are people who showed up at the wrong precinct or showed up to vote in person even though they are registered to vote by mail and didn’t bring their ballot. We always offered these people provisionals, but a lot of people were outraged because they’ve been led to believe that provisionals don’t get counted.
