Re: R: Re: CHAT (POLITICS!!!): Putting the duh in Florida

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Hmmm ... how many counters do you have?  Personally, I think we should
> go electronic.  Electronic voting machines are more accurate, and have
> less chance of accidental invalidation (i.e., people voting for two
> different people), and count instantly.
Except when they decide to reboot themselves and ignore the first 350+
people who voted.

Electronic machines that don't make a hard-copy backup of what they are
doing in real time are a very *bad* idea.

> Another possibility is to have a 24-hour voting period, so that ALL
> places, worldwide, start voting and stop voting at the same time.
This reminds me of my pet idea: allocate a bunch of new electoral votes
for citizens of other nations.  After all, who is President of the U.S.
affects everyone on the planet.

Here's a concrete implementation:  Allocate 200 more electoral votes
(there are at present 538 electoral votes for the 50 states plus D.C.)
to be divided among the nations of the world in proportion to the population.
(Population figures would have to be certified by a U.S. agency.)
Any nation that wishes to hold an election on Nov. 7 may do so at U.S.
expense (not large compared to just a few modern weapons).  Anyone
qualified to vote in national elections is qualified to vote in this one.
Whoever gains a majority of votes in the country wins the country's
electoral votes, which are exercised by proxy (no need to appoint actual
electors).

--
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein