InfoWorld
Lead with Knowledge
HOME/ SITEMAP
SUBJECT INDEXES
App Development
Broadband
Business Intell.
Business News
Business Strategies
Careers & Mgmt
Collab. Software
Content Mgmt
CRM
Database
E-Business
End-User Apps
End-User Hardware
Enterprise Apps
Ethics
Government
Licensing
Middleware
Mobile Computing
Networking
Online Community
Operating Systems
Processors
Security
Servers
Storage
Telecomm.
Web Services
Web Technologies
Wireless
XSPs
NEWS
CTO ZONE
TEST CENTER
FEATURES
COMMUNITY
OPINIONS
RESEARCH
EVENT
WEBCASTS
ABOUT InfoWorld
ABOUT US
About InfoWorld
Services
Advertise
Contact us
Employment
WHITE PAPERS

Learn to secure your PCs from new and unknown hacker attacks.

Free IDC White Paper - Discover Secure File Sharing for the Enterpriseattacks.
SEARCH:  
Home  //  Article
Print Article    Email Article
Window Manager
Brian Livingston
Readers propose how to fix the U.S. election system and my errant views at the same time

IN THE LAST two weeks, I've written that computer professionals have a responsibility to help upgrade the error-prone vote-counting procedures used in U.S. elections. Specifically, I wrote that inexpensive terminals could eliminate double voting and other problems. A paper trail would be generated to allow hand recounts, if needed. At the same time, I said it would be irresponsible to simply speed up a bad system. I opined that we should press for campaign finance reform and the end of the Electoral College. Modern equipment now makes a direct popular election possible. Voters' second or third choices would count in an IRV (instant run-off vote), ensuring that one candidate achieves a majority, as in Australia.

This week, I report my readers' responses. Several readers were more interested in fixing me than in fixing the U.S. elections.

I received numerous messages from readers who criticized my Electoral College views.

C. W. Hayes sent a map of the presidential vote by county indicating that Gore won majorities in urbanized areas whereas Bush took the vast rural areas of the United States (see www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm).

Bush's reach is broad when plotted this way. "Why not call for a land-mass vote?" asks Mark Dobie. "George Bush had the votes of 85 percent of the land mass; Al Gore had only 15 percent, getting most of his votes in big cities."

Fortunately, the U.S. still counts its votes by the person, not by square foot.

The Electoral College gives the seven smallest states three times the electors they'd have if electors were distributed by population alone.

But that doesn't mean the Electoral College is good for small states. After the debates, neither major candidate visited any "safe states," where one party was far ahead. Instead they visited (and made campaign promises to) only "swing states," which tend to have the largest electorate.

At present, a candidate can win the Electoral College with 51 percent of the vote in only the 11 most populous states. Absent the Electoral College, candidates would have to visit all states with undecided voters.

Other readers were supportive of my ideas. Mentioning the great Down Under elicited comments like this: "As an (unbiased!) Aussie," writes Phillip Rinehart, "I have long been a fan of IRV, though I always knew it as 'preferential balloting.' " He added, however, "Your terminal system must somehow be able to handle absentee voting and possibly home voting."

That's certainly true, and because many U.S. states are permitting widespread absentee voting, improvements in paper-based ballots were on other readers' minds too.

"Check out the balloting system that Oklahoma uses statewide," writes Andy Anderson. "It uses paper ballots that are read and tabulated optically/electronically. If a ballot is improperly marked it is rejected immediately when the voter inserts it into the reader. The voter can then return it for another ballot."

Others noted that terminals are already used at some polling places. In 1998, counties representing 8.9 percent of the U.S. population used them. Six vendors have developed such polling systems, according to www.electiondataservices.com/content/votingequipment.htm.

"In Kentucky, our polls are computer-generated stations," writes Cliff Carlton. "They were electronically set up so there was no way you could mess up the vote."

I didn't propose online or Internet voting because computer access isn't yet universal and security issues remain to be solved. Joseph Kahle agrees, adding that privacy would concern many voters. "If anyone believes that public disclosure of how they specifically voted on any and all issues would have no effect on their private lives, they are surely living in a dream world," Kahle writes.

Unrelated to this, Joe Kruger rejected fixes entirely: "The notion that computer nerds (and I'm one of 'em) can do a better job of running elections flies in the face of the hundreds of failed IT projects that happen each year." He added, "I'm guessing this won't win the vote as the best reader comment."

Don't be so sure. Kruger will receive a free copy of Windows Me Secrets, as will readers Carlton, Rinehart, Anderson, Kahle, Hayes, and Dobie.


Send tips to brian_livingston@infoworld.com. He regrets he cannot answer individual questions.


MORE >
SUBSCRIBE TO:    E-mail Newsletters  InfoWorld Mobile InfoWorld Magazine
Home  //  Article Print Article    Email Article
Back to Top
 ADVERTISEMENT
 

SPONSORED LINKS

Download the J.D. Edwards CRM white paper. Visit jdedwards.com/crmpaper
Gateway: Your Reliable IT Provider of Business Technology Solutions
Learn to secure your PCs from new and unknown hacker attacks.
Get FREE Hurwitz Report: Control Your App Dev Costs with TogetherSoft!
Click here to receive a FREE Success Kit from Oracle.

SUBSCRIBE
E-mail Newsletters
InfoWorld Mobile
Print Magazine

Web-based training
ABOUT INFOWORLD  |  SITE MAP  |  EMPLOYMENT  |  PRIVACY  |   CONTACT US

Copyright 2001 InfoWorld Media Group, Inc.