h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry, that shoud have read "voter registration fraud", since I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was the voters involved with the fraud. I think we all know who we can blame.

I don't understand the voter registration thing, either. Here, when you do your taxes, there is a form which goes to Elections Canada so they have your latest address. As well, you can register at any candidates offfice, as well as the day that you vote at any polling station. When you register at the candidates office, you don't need to register for any party. While many people are members of a particular party, the majority of Canadians are not, and no one asks you which party you are registered with.

We still vote on paper, and seem to do fairly well with it. The only time there has been a significant problem was during one of the Quebec referendums when it appeared (read shown) that some Anglophones were either turned away from the polls, or where the people counting the votes called many ballots voting against the Bloq referendum "spoiled" and yet, the same errors supporting the referendum were not "spoiled".

They lost anyway, but it narrowed the margin significantly.

Over all, there have been very few problems, probably because we have scrutineers from all candidates in a riding reviewing the proceedings.

I know that the NDP has online voting for its Provincial and Federal leadership campaigns, and I expert that the other parties do, as well.

Here's what I found to be an interesting attempt to explain the arcane U.S. Presidential Electoral system to non-Americans (specifically, to the Muslim World):

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DE73F888-91E6-4D69-839F-DB9F1E7087D7.htm

And Dr. Sleiman makes a hopeful, but exceptionally tentative, prediction of the winner.


(why is it that so many people in the West are so down on Aljazeera? It's always seemed to me that it makes a titanic effort to give a window on the world to its principal audience. And the rest of the world is able to look through that window as well.)

I don't understand it, either.

I suppose because many people have grown up believing that only "our" press is reliable. The fact is, "our" press is just as, or sometimes (Fox) more biased than "their" press. I imagine that if it isn't in "our" press, it isn't true and/or isn't important.

Cold War Story:

A friend of mine was living in Montreal when Gorbachev's government made a unilateral decision to declare a moratorium on nuclear tests. They stopped testing completely. My friend came across an article in one of the French language papers commenting that every major news outlet in the U.S. except for the Washington Post (I think it was the Washington Post) reported the story as "the Soviet union has *offered* to stop nuclear tests".

My friend commented: "At least in the Soviet Union they know that most of what they read in the papers is lies."

In 1983, when the Russians shot down the Korean airliner which, despite America's assertions to the contrary, had "strayed" into Russian airspace in order to spy, I was in Oregon visiting my brother.

If you went by the US papers and TV, you'd have thought that the only people killed were the 75 American citizens. There was no mention of the 105 Koreans (including 29 crew), 28 Japanese, 74 other nationalities (including Canadians). 207 non-Americans died without comment.

The Canadian media, on the other hand, covered not only the Canadian angle of the story, but the various stories in the home countries of those other passengers killed, even showing a good part of the Japanese memorial services. In fact, I recall having read a report from a Japanese paper about the Canadians killed.

Meanwhile, the American press was frothing at the mouth about how this was a direct attack on the American passengers on the plane. One of the big stories was about how this was a direct attack in order to kill Congressman Lawrence McDonald, President of the John Birch Society. Conspiracy hounds continue to say that, because McDonald was the founder of the Western Goals Foundation as a front for the John Birch Society intelligence network, they plane was shot down in order to "get rid of" him.

You have to wonder why the Russians would have to resort to killing over 200 people in a spectacular shootdown in order to kill one man who could have been killed more easily, at less expense, and more "quietly" in the US. However, like all crackpot conspiracy theories, simple is an unknown concept. Frankly, convoluted (and usually unsuccessful) plots are the domain of the the CIA, not the KGB.

http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/propaganda.html

"George, God here ..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1332877,00.html

"President Bush has words with the Almighty"



az

Azahar, I read it a couple of hours ago, good isn't it! The saying, (There's many a true word spoken in jest.) Is fully borne out here isn't it.

<>

Want an explanation before you start laughing?

1) We vote on paper because it's easier, everyone knows how to do it, it takes no electicity or complicated communications systems. When you're at Australia's most remote poling place (an Indigenous Community about 1500 miles from Alice Springs) the last thing you need is worrying about whether the generator can manage the voting computer. Paper and a pencil won't break down because of extreme heat, dust, fuel shortages or high winds.

2) Have you heard the stories about the irregularities with the American computer system that are already happening? Well, yes, we are still counting, but hey, we won't need a recount, will we?

3) How do you write curse words on a computer screen? We have compulsory voting here, so unless a person can spare the $50 fine, the only way to express discontent with the system is handing in a ballot with some choice language/rude pictures on it.

Yeah, lots of other technically advanced countries vote electronically. And hey, Australia might even start introducing it. But there are some good reasons to stick with the paper.

As for who Australians voted in - well that's another matter!

This Bush thing scares me too! Have you heard about what's going on at florida polling booths already? Calling people up and saying "Well if it's inconvenient for you to vote in November, why don't you vote right now over the phone?" and making them believe that this is a valid vote!! Truly frightening?

Why do some technologically advanced countries still keep their citizens ignorant of their election process?

Ami of zx

anhaga, that Al Jazeera link would not work - it said something like 'Server Down' - I hear that happens to them a lot..

Ami: Well, if you put it that way, I guess there are circumstances where electronic voting is overly complicated.

It remains startling that the country that has the biggest mouth on democracy has such a disreputable voting system itself.

So, back to my earlier question: does no-one know what this voter-registration is all about?

Adelaide:

hmm. I never get a "server down" from Aljazeera. I'm there several times a day and it always works fine. Perhaps it's their New Zealand server.

42% of Americans consider themselves 'born-again'!?



That scares the bejeezus out of me too!

Could be... Sometimes it works just fine. Oh dear, I might try again later, and just hope it works.

<&lt We vote on paper because it's easier, everyone knows how to do it, it takes no electicity or complicated communications systems.>>

Just to say, we vote on paper here too, and it works just fine (a bit slow sometimes, and whenever I hear people talking about how we should introduce computerised systems, I worry. After all, it isn't working too well in the US of A right now, is it?

We (Canada) vote on paper. At least I do in municipal (Edmonton), provincial (Alberta) and Federal elections. We just did a Federal one a few months ago: no problems. We did a municipal one a few days ago: no problems. And we'll probably be doing a provincial one next month: problems are anticipated or even imagined.

I really don't understand the big push for electronic stuff. I would have thought that people would have realized by now that computers really have had pretty mixed effectiveness. Just look how long it takes to buy an item at a computerized retail store: how many times have you seen the hand written 'cash only. interac is down' signs?

As my son said an hour ago, when I was fannying about with creating a profile on the local Health Board site - "you must remember, computers don't exist for our convenience, and the sooner we all admit that to ourselves, the happier we'll be."

Well, my experience here in the Netherlands is that there haven't been problems with electronic voting. It's essentially a very simple system.
The fact that electronic AND paper voting systems cause problems in the US obviously says more about the US than either of the systems.

I have never understood the push for computerized voting.

I don't know of any major situation, here in Canada, of ballot-box-stuffing, at least in the last 50 years. It is, I suppose possible, but not on a major scale. Registering people via their Income Tax forms eliminates the tampering that occurs with people going door-to-door.

Since we don't have "affiliated registration" (registering for a particular party), we don't have the problem of partisan groups having access to the registration. Of course, people can register at their local candidate's office, but since they don't have to actually say if they are or are not going to vote for that party, it is in the best interests of the candidate's office to register the voter properly.

Elections Canada site: http://www.elections.ca (official Federal elections site)
We have online proxy voting: http://www.proxyvotecanada.com/
Advance polls: http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/voters_when_en.shtml#advance_polls
Official Ontario Provincial elections site: http://www.electionsontario.on.ca (every time you reload the page, you get a different Ontarian's face... cool!)

How to vote: http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/voters_how_en.shtml?nocache=true

Another quote I read stood out, from Julius Caesar:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar."