US Election 2020

[JimC]

A well designed system can make it much more difficult for the inevitable corrupt or crazy people to bugger things up...

[Tero]

Giuliani, on 20 000 a day, fighting for 8000 votes:

The lower Court of Common Pleas ruled on Friday against the Trump campaign which sought to invalidate 8,329 ballots in Philadelphia, the state’s biggest city, because envelopes lacked information such as printed names, the date or addresses.

The campaign has not alleged the ballots were fraudulent.
(Biden will still win by 72 000)

[Tero]

White Lstinosxin Texas:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... nos-437027

another type of redneck.

[JimC]

Court of Common Pleas, eh...

I'd prefer the Court of Uncommon Fleas!

[Tero]

Nothing much found in Georgia, recount goes on
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest ... 2020/card/

About 2,600 uncounted ballots were found in reliably Republican Floyd County, Ga., prompting officials to say the error would be corrected and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office to call for the county’s elections director to resign.

That batch of ballots will provide a net increase of 778 votes for President Trump, Gabriel Sterling, voting-system implementation manager at the Georgia Secretary of State's office, said during a video news conference Tuesday.

[Joe]

Tejano, eh? I haven't heard that word since I lived in Zavala county, about 150 miles away from Zapata.

I actually noticed they went for Trump on election night. Democrats typically do well in that part of Texas.

[Tero]

Nov 8.
It will be over then.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/93435876 ... -president

Supreme court will not take up any Trump case after that. State courts will wrap up even sooner.

[Hermit]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

Actually, it can. Australia used to be rife with gerrymandering, unequal value of votes and other shennanigans. By the mid 1970s all that was gone. Our national elections are run by one Federal electoral commission. Each state and territory has its own EC, responsible for state and municipal elections. That's it.

The commissions ensure that seats are of almost exactly equal size in terms of voter numbers, and they also determine their shape. As no politician is allowed anywhere near those commissions. The independence of their staff is jealously guarded by all parties, who are keeping an eagle eye on them, lest an opposing one sneaks one or more of their operatives in them. Independence is therefore in a way self-policing and self-perpetuating.

Oh, and we have instant runoff preferential voting too, so, if you really want to vote for the Greens or any other minor party even though they have less than a snowflake's chance in hell of having a say about who our next Prime Minister will be, it won't be a vote thrown away. It gets passed on to your second, and if necessary subsequent preference(s) until only the two leading candidates are left standing.

It's not a perfect system, but compared to what happens in US elections you could be forgiven to think it is.

[Tero]

The GSA holding up Biden is onecof a set of independent agencies...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... government
...that congress created and funded. All heads but the EPA head cannot be fired by the president. But new heads are named by presidents. Senate approval then fires the previous holder. More often the agency is run by the second command until a new head is named.

[Sean Hayden]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

Actually, it can. Australia used to be rife with gerrymandering, unequal value of votes and other shennanigans. By the mid 1970s all that was gone. Our national elections are run by one Federal electoral commission. Each state and territory has its own EC, responsible for state and municipal elections. That's it.

The commissions ensure that seats are of almost exactly equal size in terms of voter numbers, and they also determine their shape. As no politician is allowed anywhere near those commissions. The independence of their staff is jealously guarded by all parties, who are keeping an eagle eye on them, lest an opposing one sneaks one or more of their operatives in them. Independence is therefore in a way self-policing and self-perpetuating.

Oh, and we have instant runoff preferential voting too, so, if you really want to vote for the Greens or any other minor party even though they have less than a snowflake's chance in hell of having a say about who our next Prime Minister will be, it won't be a vote thrown away. It gets passed on to your second, and if necessary subsequent preference(s) until only the two leading candidates are left standing.

It's not a perfect system, but compared to what happens in US elections you could be forgiven to think it is.

Confidence in democracy is at historic lows in Australia. I read that people who monitor such things aren't exactly worried --yet. But it's the kind of thing that has the potential to undermine systems. For example, an interesting bit of reform currently sought by those dissatisfied with democracy is a push for more local autonomy and authority. That's probably nothing, but it could be used to apply pressure for reforms that may threaten federal authority and its ability to enforce standards.

I think these are people problems, and not easily addressed by systems.

[JimC]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

Actually, it can. Australia used to be rife with gerrymandering, unequal value of votes and other shennanigans. By the mid 1970s all that was gone. Our national elections are run by one Federal electoral commission. Each state and territory has its own EC, responsible for state and municipal elections. That's it.

The commissions ensure that seats are of almost exactly equal size in terms of voter numbers, and they also determine their shape. As no politician is allowed anywhere near those commissions. The independence of their staff is jealously guarded by all parties, who are keeping an eagle eye on them, lest an opposing one sneaks one or more of their operatives in them. Independence is therefore in a way self-policing and self-perpetuating.

Oh, and we have instant runoff preferential voting too, so, if you really want to vote for the Greens or any other minor party even though they have less than a snowflake's chance in hell of having a say about who our next Prime Minister will be, it won't be a vote thrown away. It gets passed on to your second, and if necessary subsequent preference(s) until only the two leading candidates are left standing.

It's not a perfect system, but compared to what happens in US elections you could be forgiven to think it is.

Confidence in democracy is at historic lows in Australia. I read that people who monitor such things aren't exactly worried --yet. But it's the kind of thing that has the potential to undermine systems. For example, an interesting bit of reform currently sought by those dissatisfied with democracy is a push for more local autonomy and authority. That's probably nothing, but it could be used to apply pressure for reforms that may threaten federal authority and its ability to enforce standards.

I think these are people problems, and not easily addressed by systems.

I think that the lack of confidence is about our current crop of politicians, and the endless bickering that is partisan politics in our parliament. I doubt there is any lack of confidence in the electoral system, at least in so far as the possibility of party political subversion of elections.

[Sean Hayden]

Whatever the cause of the dissatisfaction, it presents an opportunity and suggests possible ways your system may eventually be undermined.

The biggest challenge to what I've said so far, or what really requires more explanation, seems to be that the people in the US overwhelmingly support the kind of reforms I've argued aren't possible without a change from the people!

[Hermit]

Confidence in democracy is at historic lows in Australia.

You should read past the headlines of two year old puff-pieces.

The majority of Australians dislike the conflict-driven politics of the federal parliament, but don’t dislike democratic values or democracy as a system of government.

When asked to select three aspects of Australian democracy that they liked the most, the top three in 2018 were (in order):

1. “Australia has been able to provide good education, health, welfare and other public services to its citizens”
2. “Australia has experienced a good economy and lifestyle”
3. “Australian elections are free and fair”.

Respondents were least likely to choose features that praised (or showed engagement) with current democratic politics. The findings suggest that Australians are happy with the underlying democratic infrastructure of Australian society that allows them to achieve a high standard of living, but are less positive or engaged about day-to-day political operations.

[...]

citizens still appear to value the overall stability of their political system, even if the lack of political trust means they doubt its ability to deliver, especially on more challenging policy issues.

(Emphasis added by me.)

There is not even a hint of Australians thinking that our electoral system is corrupted and fraudulent. Confidence is made explicit by the study, and its authors point that out. The contrast between our country and yours is palpable, and for good reason: Your breathtakingly byzantine, fractured electoral system, run by fucking politicians, leaves your elections wide open to many forms of undemocratic manipulation that simply don't happen here due to the design of ours. You don't need me to list them, do you?

[Sean Hayden]

I actually downloaded a study and read the bulk of it, which is how I knew about the policy changes some dissatisfied Australians would like to see.

I'm not sure why you insist on being a dick in every disagreement.

I never said Australians were dissatisfied with your electoral system, though there are bound to be some who are. People don't like the influence of money for example, and there are apparently a few who want a better way to limit the inclusion of "minor parties" that they claim are actually just lobbyists.

What I addressed was the possibility of corruption, and how it may get started. The claim I was replying to was that systems can be designed such that it doesn't matter who gets elected. I disagree. I think the claim is too strong.

[Hermit]

I actually downloaded a study and read the bulk of it, which is how I knew about the policy changes some dissatisfied Australians would like to see.

So, from "Confidence in democracy is at historic lows in Australia." to "policy changes some dissatisfied Australians would like to see", "People don't like the influence of money", "a few who want a better way to limit the inclusion of "minor parties" there is "the possibility of corruption". I don't even know why you bothered quoting me here. There's precious little of relevance in your statements.

But let me see now if I can establish some sort of a link with my description of the Australian electoral system and your sallies into the wide blue yonder. Ignoring the fact that you have provided no support whatsoever for your speculation that "confidence in democracy is at historic lows in Australia". is my guess right that you mean to say such factors as "policy changes some dissatisfied Australians would like to see", "People don't like the influence of money", "a few who want a better way to limit the inclusion of "minor parties" there is "the possibility of corruption" might lead (by unspecified means) to the undermining and eventual collapse of our system? Right or wrong, some linkiepoo would seem to be in order, along with relevant quotes from it.

I'm not sure why you insist on being a dick in every disagreement.

The irony of this sentence does not escape me. Some people might regard name-calling as a somewhat dickheadish behaviour. Not me, of course. I just see it as a reaction by a person of irascible and fragile dispositions.