U.S. 2016: For whom will you vote?

[Aractus]

I agree that electronic voting is bad. However don't pretend that pencil and paper voting is impossible to temper with. Erasers exist.

That argument is incorrect for two reasons. Reason number 1 - even IF you fill in your ballot paper in pen, it is allowed to cross out all numbers and start again. Reason number two - if someone has the opportunity to erase ballots then they have the opportunity to change them as just described, or to simply destroy them instead which would be far simpler.

Proof that you can cross out numbers: "Alterations to numbers will not make a ballot paper informal, provided the voter’s intention is clear, for example a number can be crossed out and another number written beside it." -page 8 of the formality guidelines.

On top of that, I think that allowing the entire US to vote for their leader is a much more democratic way of doing things than choosing an elected official from the party itself.

No it isn't because people's votes have different values based on where they live. If everyone had an equal vote, you might have a point, but they do not. The president needs a majority of states to be elected, not voters, therefore a voter in a state with a low population has a more powerful vote than a voter in a more populated state. As this is compounded by the fact that there are finitely many people to campaign to - thus campaigning heavily to win fewer voters in states with lower populations will be much more successful than campaigning in bigger states. How is this in any way "democratic"?

[SteelCurtain]

Again, you clearly do not understand the US Electoral process, as evidenced by literally every post you make.

The electoral college is not evenly dispersed among states. A candidate does not need to win a majority of states, but rather a majority of electoral votes. States with larger populations have more electoral college votes, so the amount of time you spend in Rhode Island is not the same as Texas. States with low populations have a proportional vote because they only get a small number of electoral votes.

Now I'm no huge fan of the electoral college system, but let's not act like you have a clue what you're talking about if you can't be arsed to read a simple article before making up your mind about exactly how the US Electoral system is flawed.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]When voters have a choice they vote in retards that are unsuitable to be the leaders like Trump and Clinton, or in the UK Maggie May.

Uhm... You what, mate? Are you trying to say, that UK holds elections for the office of Prime Minister? Do you just make sh*t up as you go along, because you figure, that if you don't know, what you're talking about, then probably nobody does?

Voters didn't choose Theresa May (because that's who I'm guessing you mean) - her party did, after Cameron stepped down.

Unless you meant, that voters would have voted for her, given a chance - which would just be a meaningless speculation, clumsily expressed.

[SteelCurtain]

[...]When voters have a choice they vote in retards that are unsuitable to be the leaders like Trump and Clinton, or in the UK Maggie May.

Uhm... You what, mate? Are you trying to say, that UK holds elections for the office of Prime Minister? Do you just make sh*t up as you go along, because you figure, that if you don't know, what you're talking about, then probably nobody does?

I'm guessing you're spot on here. All of the claims he's made thus far have been either willful ignorance of actual processes or made up shit to suit his narrative.

[ReptilianPeon]

I'm genuinely curious: Can somebody elaborate on what they consider Hilary's greatest foreign policy achievements? Like a top five list of the things she has done as Secretary of State, e.g. to make the world safer or to end a war. I see a lot of assertions that she is a good diplomat but nothing specific.

[Faith No More]

No it isn't because people's votes have different values based on where they live. If everyone had an equal vote, you might have a point, but they do not. The president needs a majority of states to be elected, not voters, therefore a voter in a state with a low population has a more powerful vote than a voter in a more populated state. As this is compounded by the fact that there are finitely many people to campaign to - thus campaigning heavily to win fewer voters in states with lower populations will be much more successful than campaigning in bigger states. How is this in any way "democratic"?

Oh, now I've heard it all.

Proof positive that you'll never let a little thing like ignorance stop you from some good old self-righteous America bashing.

[Aractus]

Uhm... You what, mate? Are you trying to say, that UK holds elections for the office of Prime Minister?

Yes sorry I meant the Labour leader that is elected through a plebiscite. That's why they keep putting up populist deadbeats that does their party no good. It should be left to the party room - which is as you point out how Maggie May was made the leader of the conservatives.

[Tiberius]

That argument is incorrect for two reasons. Reason number 1 - even IF you fill in your ballot paper in pen, it is allowed to cross out all numbers and start again. Reason number two - if someone has the opportunity to erase ballots then they have the opportunity to change them as just described, or to simply destroy them instead which would be far simpler.

So, what you're saying is, someone could take a person's ballot, cross out all the numbers in pen, and change them to whatever they wanted? That's tampering with a ballot. So, pen based ballots aren't immune to tampering. The same goes with pencil based ballots as I indicated before. My point here isn't that pencil / pen based ballots are bad; I agree with you that they are better than electronic voting...BUT I do take issue with your statement that they can't be tampered with, because they so obviously can.

Also, destroying them isn't far simpler. Assuming there is a record of the number of people who voted, one of the checks one could and should do is to count the number of ballots and ensure that the numbers are at least close to one another (giving some wiggle room for human error in counting). Missing large numbers of ballots would be a huge sign of election fraud. What would work better is for ballots to be altered to vote for someone else.

No it isn't because people's votes have different values based on where they live. If everyone had an equal vote, you might have a point, but they do not. The president needs a majority of states to be elected, not voters, therefore a voter in a state with a low population has a more powerful vote than a voter in a more populated state. As this is compounded by the fact that there are finitely many people to campaign to - thus campaigning heavily to win fewer voters in states with lower populations will be much more successful than campaigning in bigger states. How is this in any way "democratic"?

Well, it's definitely slightly democratic because everyone is voting, regardless of the strength of their vote. Did I say it was wholly democratic? No. I would love to see the President elected by the popular vote and see the electoral college disbanded.

But let me put your own question back to you: how is letting an even smaller subset of people (party members, or even elected party officials) choose the President in any way "democratic"?

Simple answer: it's not.

Do you know how many Australians got to vote for their current Prime Minister? 98. The country has a voting population of over 13 million. That was the vote in Parliament. Even if you argue that the guy who won (Malcolm Turnbull) was chosen by Australians in the recent election, do you know how many Australians got a chance to vote for him directly? 88,641.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Pa...ember_2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Wentworth

[account_inactive]

Uhm... You what, mate? Are you trying to say, that UK holds elections for the office of Prime Minister?

Yes sorry I meant the Labour leader that is elected through a plebiscite. That's why they keep putting up populist deadbeats that does their party no good. It should be left to the party room - which is as you point out how Maggie May was made the leader of the conservatives.

"Maggie May"

Don't insult Thatcher like that.

[Tiberius]

Oh, so it was an attempt at a humorous Margaret Thatcher reference? It confused me because it wasn't even funny.