Election night questions

Post Date

Wed, 11/05/2014 - 04:25

Categories

Politics

It's election night, so what the hell. Here are two interesting questions that crossed my mind over the course of the day. Please feel free to chime in, but please also do your best to respect the Gotham Blog rule against partisan politics.

1) The Senate race in Louisiana appears to be headed for a "runoff". That's when the winner on election night doesn't get 50% of the popular vote (obviously as a result of one or more "third party" candidate). They set up a follow-up election shortly thereafter between the leading two candidates only. How do you feel about this. Does it allow more ideas into the race without the risk of a candidate with the support of a minority of the population? Something to keep in mind, Bill Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote and would most certainly have lost at least the first election due to the presence of right leaning Ross Perot. Could a runoff between GW Bush and Al Gore hve changed the results (Ralph Nader had far less support than Perot)?

2) How is it possible that our elections are literally on the honor system? We walk in, we give our information verbally and absolutely no confirmation of who we are is made. My dad passed away last December. I would never do it because dishonesty is something I despise vehemently, but could I have simply walked in and voted again as my dad? Is it possible I may have found out that my dad had already voted?!? I'm sure it would not be difficult for a political operative to get a list of people that have passed over the course of a certain period of time. Races have certainly been determined by smaller numbers.

Thoughts...anyone...keep it friendly :)

Comments

Fred Klein

NULL

They ask for a signature at my Polling place, but I noticed that it has changed so much since I gave my sample...

NULL

We definitely need to tighten the security of the vote. You should have to prove who you are to exercise one of the most important rights and responsibilities that we have as citizens. I need to prove who I am to get into an office bldg. in NYC. I need to prove who I am to get onto an airplane. I have to prove who I am when I call up my local utility to question something on my bill. I certainly should have to prove who I am when I vote for public office.

Lucas Meyer

NULL

An interesting election. I knew that the Senate was "in the bag" for the Republicans because the Iowa Electronic Market had called the results weeks ago. For those of you who aren't familiar with IEM, its predictions have been 100% on the money. A childhood friend of mine is a Democrat operative/campaign manager type, and he was completely convinced (at least he was as of two weeks ago) that the Democrats would retain the Senate; I showed him the website, and he scoffed.

Hasn't returned my phone call yet... Check it out, folks. Amazing...

RitaSue Siegel

NULL

They require a signature at my polling place but that is easy to forge if that was my objective. If you recall, having to prove if you are who you say you are, gets into questions of what kind of identification will be acceptable. In many states, requiring photo ID to cast a vote is considered discriminatory because not everyone has one. This requirement is often used to limit access to the right to vote among people who do not have one. I don't have a careful study, but courts have upheld and struck down such a requirement.

Rona Gura

NULL

We have the same issue with the honor system as you do. My husband's first wife died over 11 years ago yet there is still a ballot card for her. Yesterday, he accidentally signed in on her line. So, effectively, he signed in as a woman and no one questioned it. He could have, easily, come in later and voted again as himself. I get the id issues, but something really should be done

Corey Bearak

NULL

At to the LA vote, it is an open primary so one needs to get to 50% to avoid the runoff which would be the general. NYC per a stupid state law requites citywide primary winners (bit not borough or council candidates) win at least 40% to avoid a runoff. The rationale was that the 1969 Democratic primary winner was a weak general election candidate and that a runoff would have created a candidate who would have defeated John Lindsay. The rule had generally hurt candidates of color who lost runoffs. In one case the runoff loser would have been the stronger candidates in November.
As to voter security, the rules allow poll watchers who can challenge voters.