OT: Brazilian Launch Facility

[Makinus]

One thing i find strange in your (US) elections: if in Brazil we have an entirely eletronic voting system (where the citizen just punches in a special computer the number of his candidate), why the US, in several states, the vote is still in the old paper system?

We have almost imediate results in elections, with accuracy assured by computers, while using paper votes you have a long process to "count" all votes, normally done by humans, that, intentionally or no, can give inacurate results.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Makinus:
One thing i find strange in your (US) elections: if in Brazil we have an entirely eletronic voting system (where the citizen just punches in a special computer the number of his candidate), why the US, in several states, the vote is still in the old paper system?

We have almost imediate results in elections, with accuracy assured by computers, while using paper votes you have a long process to "count" all votes, normally done by humans, that, intentionally or no, can give inacurate results.

Technological Determinism Answer:
It is called technology “lock-in”. Why do some developing nations have newer, faster, more cost-efficient telecommunications systems than the USA? Because the USA has the most extensive and developed telecommunications system in the world and a correspondingly huge legacy infrastructure. The USA has the same problem with voting technology.

Socio-Political Answer:
Each administrative unit in the USA has local authority over voting. For example, I live in the state of Pennsylvania. I live in a small, incorporated borough (village, town) inside a township (traditionally 16 square miles) inside a county. 30+ townships in my county, 67 counties in Pennsylvania. We generally elect school district Boards here, but school district domains do not follow municipal boundaries, i.e. they can cross multiple counties or any number of smaller administrative units’ boundaries. Each of those voting units has some local degree of authority over voting.

When I lived in the state of Maryland, there were no townships and very few incorporated boroughs. Generally, the smallest administrative unit was the county and the counties ran the schools. Much more efficient, but very different than Pennsylvania. So all of the states in the USA vary in their voting practices as well.

Do not ask me about taxes…!

Getting everyone to agree to replace the voting technology they have already purchased previously and to coordinate that effort above the local level is politically impossible most of the time.

[geoschmo]

We could have a whole thread discussing the pros and cons of the electoral college system.

Here's an interesting article about it for anyone wanting something deeper then the typical arguments that come up on the subject. It was written before the 2000 election mess.

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

[Loser]

Nice one Geo. I'm passing that around like and AOLer with a survey.

[Andrés]

I didn't know how your electoral system works.
Let's see if I get this right.
Electors are proportional to the number of congressmen of each state, who are proportional to the population of each state.
This systems prevent a small state with a high voters ratio to disbalance the election. (Note that in other countries like my own, mandatory vote is suposed to prevent tis disbalance. But that has its own pros and cons.)
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Andres:
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?

Well, that wasn't quite the original intention it was something of a compromise, it's just cool that it worked out that way.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Andres:
I didn't know how your electoral system works.
Let's see if I get this right.
Electors are proportional to the number of congressmen of each state, who are proportional to the population of each state.

Almost right - Electors from a given state = congressman + senetors from that state. Congressmen are proportional to the population, senators are an arbitrary 2 per state; this is why the smallest states still have three electors.

Originally posted by Andres:

This systems prevent a small state with a high voters ratio to disbalance the election. (Note that in other countries like my own, mandatory vote is suposed to prevent tis disbalance. But that has its own pros and cons.)
Wouldn't it be possible to weight votes in a similar way with a simple mathematical formula without the need of electors in the middle?

Possibly, but then you are trying to replace a portion of United States Constitution with something designed to have exactly the same effect as the replaced portion, just to get rid of a few hundred people. Personally, I suspect that minimizing changes to the Constitution to help increase the respect for the document and its intentions are more important than the money wasted on salaries for those few hundred middlemen.

[Wardad]

The two Senate per state and the resulting +2 electoral votes are more than just a legacy from the States Rule era.
They allow better representation of rural agricultural areas. Otherwise important pursuits like growing food may get ignored and trampled on by the voter demands from heavily populated cities.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Electors from a given state = congressman + senetors from that state.

That would be Representitives. Both Senators and Representitives are Congressmen.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
That would be Representitives. Both Senators and Representitives are Congressmen.

Ach, you're right. Ah well, at least I got the numbers right; I missed the term. Oops.