New Hampshire GOP says "liberal-voting colliegates too stupid to vote"

Minor Points
1) Today, voter fraud is often a 1 person affair. And it doesn't happen much at all, mainly in very local elections
2) It seems silly to say "No voting until you are 25, but hey, please go to a foreign country and fight for a policy and cause you had no vote in from ages 18-25". Did we not amend the constitution because of a similar discrepancy?
 
Cami and VRWCA: Voting twice is very unlikely. The UK only has one electoral administration body, they'd notice if you'd ticked off at both addresses, you'd get a call after the election and penalised for it.

The key important thing over there is that everyone is required to be registered with a specific polling place and that they can't cast their ballot at any booth, like in Australia. So that means Uni kids can register at two different polling places to get their names on the electoral rolls there, but that's only necessary because of the restrictive and arcane rules about where you can cast a ballot in the UK.

That is wht I am asking. Did they move their legal residence to the college, or are they retaining legal residence wherever 'home' is?

Think of the actors that filmed Lord of the Rings. Did they suddenly become New Zealand citizens and get to vote in all the stuff down there just because there were living down there for a time, or did they retain citizenship in USA, UK, etc. Or any other worker who spends a long, extended period of time away from 'home' in a different area.

That's citizenship of sovereign countries, which is very different to moving around within the one country. In most countries, permanent residents don't have voting rights, but all citizens do, in whatever place they live in. Canberra being the national capital, we have a lot of people who moved their enrollment here and a lot of people who are still enrolled in their home states. Moving enrollment is trivially easy, I just have to fill out a form every time I move, not provide any proof of residence or anything. It's also pretty easy to vote, in Canberra, in any electorate in the country, thanks to interstate polling places and postal votes.

Of course, in the US you have a ludicrous complication because you have states and counties trying to run elections totally independently with no single national body ensuring consistency or effective information sharing, but that's crappy administration more than anything. Still a different thing to different countries and citizenship issues.
 
We get polling cards to indicate our existence on the polling register. It also tells us precisely where to vote and each place has a specific list of whom can vote there. If I don't go to that exact place, I cannot vote, but I don't need any sort of ID except my polling card.
 
We get polling cards to indicate our existence on the polling register. It also tells us precisely where to vote and each place has a specific list of whom can vote there. If I don't go to that exact place, I cannot vote, but I don't need any sort of ID except my polling card.

Yeh, see that's the difference Cami wasn't getting. We can front up to any number of maybe three dozen polling places in our specific electorates/constituencies, every place has a list of everyone registered in that seat. We can also go to designated interstate polling centres to vote elsewhere in the country. If we're enrolled in another electoral division within the same state there's "absent" declaration votes, and if we're not on the electoral roll but should be we can also cast "provisional" ballots which get verified and sorted out in the period just after the election, but before results are finalised.

Funny thing about a system built on compulsory voting is they try VERY hard to maximise voter turnout (typically about 95%), to the point of near obsession. It's handy.
 
That's citizenship of sovereign countries, which is very different to moving around within the one country. In most countries, permanent residents don't have voting rights, but all citizens do, in whatever place they live in. Canberra being the national capital, we have a lot of people who moved their enrollment here and a lot of people who are still enrolled in their home states. Moving enrollment is trivially easy, I just have to fill out a form every time I move, not provide any proof of residence or anything. It's also pretty easy to vote, in Canberra, in any electorate in the country, thanks to interstate polling places and postal votes.

Of course, in the US you have a ludicrous complication because you have states and counties trying to run elections totally independently with no single national body ensuring consistency or effective information sharing, but that's crappy administration more than anything. Still a different thing to different countries and citizenship issues.

First paragraph: They were generic examples to show what I was trying to get at, and you ignored my domestic one about someone being away from home a lot in a different area for work. Say, an oil rig worker who owns a home in Minnesota, but because of the money lives away from home many months of the year so he can work a rig in the gulf.

Second paragraph: No, it's not a ludicrous complication. It's called federalism, and I am truly shocked someone from Australia doesn't grasp it. The students in New Hampshire can easily vote absentee ballot for their actual home district.
 
If someone is between locations a lot, surely it's their choice where they wanna be enrolled, as long as they're only enrolled in one place at a time and only vote once. Anything less seems to be a contravention of the principle that people should be able to move freely and easily within different parts of the same country and have easy access to political participation.

As to the second, no, it's not a contravention of federalism to have a national body administering a national electoral system. It's an appropriate application of the principle of subsidarity - the appropriate function to be performed at the appropriate level, meaning the central and national body performing tasks which cannot be effectively done at a lower level. Administering enrollment and national elections really should be done by a national agency given that they affect, in a uniform way, the entire country's politics. I mean, when you have people attempting to rig enrollment and residency rules, for partisan gain, at a local level, that must tell you something is wrong with letting small areas (often politically homogenous ones) do their own thing.

Further, in keeping with federal principles, enrollments are still separate at State and Commonwealth (federal) levels. When you change your enrollment with the Australian Electoral Commission, it also automatically gets sent to the relevant State body so you're enrolled for State elections. Both levels of the federal system work together! Quite convenient really.

(Interestingly, you guys generally have both levels of elections on the one day, on one ballot even, voting for state and federal politicians at the same time. How is that condusive to the separation of state and federal powers and politics and issues that are supposed to exist under a federal system?).

So yes, states still run their own elections for state parliaments, with quite different electoral systems. They draw their own boundaries for state elections, run state elections themselves. But, enrollment is simple, seamless and uniform across the entire Commonwealth. Voting in Commonwealth elections, for the national parliament, works the same everywhere. Electoral districts are drawn according to uniform, nonpartisan principles at a national level. The same postal, pre-poll and absentee rules apply everywhere. In short, people moving around within the one country don't need to figure out the local arrangements for enrollment, residency, eligibility, etc, to be ensured their democratic rights in national elections.

Anything else just creates needless bureaucracy, duplication and inefficiency for no actual demonstrable gain.
 
That's how we do it in the UK. You can choose where you want to vote if you are at college. EDIT: I think that's the reason you can vote in 2 places at once - you may want to vote in local elections at one place of residence but vote in parliamentary elections in the other, I suppose.

Federalism is like a dirty word here in the UK - it symbolises everything that is evil about those shifty European types to Daily Mail readers.
 
Yeah but you still have to register at a specific place! What If I want to go volunteer at the polling place the next suburb over and it's easier to vote there! What about that!

(Also, not much of Europe is Federal, is it? I think Germany may be the only large country which is. Belgium and Switzerland too. And Spain is de facto although not de jure, I suppose)
 
You can vote by post instead.

Federalism is what will happen to Europe if those nasty Eurofascists get their way! Quackers can probably tell you more about this fascinating subject.
 
But voting by post is harder to arrange and relying on that as the only non-in-person option will inevitably result in less people voting!

(Maybe it's just an Australian thing to think democracy means highest turnout possible and therefore as many options as possible for voting, and the process being as easy and flexible as possible?)
 
I am eligible to vote in both Polish and Canadian elections.

The reason the GOP wants to do all of this is because college kids don't tend to vote for them, not because they're trying to fix something that's broken, or make it more efficient, or whatever.

Why can't they be more upfront about this? "These guys don't vote for us, so we want to make it more difficult for them to do so"
 
You're teasing people, Paradigm. :)

Someone posted a photo of a US voting form at CFC once in a voting discussion. I seem to recall two boxes labelled as "vote all Republican/Democrat", though I may be wrong.
 
Successful federalism in action!
 
That's cos you have to vote for who gets to wipe the governor's bum in US elections.

EDIT: Are your elections sort of automated in Oz? Here we do the old fashioned thing of voting with a cross using a pencil and do all counting by hand.
 
LOL that's crazy warpus. That really must lower election turnout.

In the UK you have the party name and their logo on the ballot.
 
Votes done with a pencil, you number every box*, counts then done by hand. Party names written on ballots, candidates listed in a randomly drawn order for each electorate.

Bundles of pre-sorted ballots may be machine counted (with a smilar machine that counts banknotes) for verification of counts, though.

Counting is done at the polling place, as soon as polls close, rather than being shipped to one central location (we have a dozen electorates larger than the UK, centralised counts are impractical). So there's no big announcement of the result in one place, with all the candidates present on one stage. Instead there are progressive updates as results are reported at each polling place, which are compiled on the AEC website and fed to journalists who describe and prognosticate and candidates who have their own functions and watch on TV and get updates from scrutineers.

We know the basic result on election night (except in very very close elections which verge on hung parliaments, which has happened like once), and only a handful of the closet seats are ever in doubt after the first night. However, the formal result isn't declared until every vote is counted and every preference distributed, even in the safest of seats. The trick there is that formal declarations of results cannot occur until the postal vote deadline 2 weeks after the election (big country...), so there's time to do all the preference distribution and so forth.

We could do it quicker, but aside from the postal vote issue, Australian elections are rather obsessive about counting every single ballot and not just getting a result. The Senate takes longer, because it's prop-rep with complicated preference distributions, and because they count every ballot and not just random samples like in, say, Ireland. The obsessive accuracy also means recounts are essentially never granted by the courts.

*The one exception is that machine polling is done in my own local Territory elections, where the requirement of proportional representation and individually randomised candidate order for each voter makes printing expensive. I believe they still print out paper ballots though, I haven't voted here yet
 
Presumably you use some sort of columns for preference ranks or do you write in numbers by hand?

Ireland takes a random sample of ballots?!
 
Lower House is single member constituencies, so it's just like your ballots but you fill out numbers (every number, unlike the optional preferencing that AV is proposing). It looks like this:

6a00e0097e4e6888330147e2f60e4f970b-800wi


Senate papers use prop-rep, which is arranged into columns:

0036.gif


Most people vote "above the line" by marking a 1. Preference distributions for above the line votes are arranged by parties, which is not super-ideal, but geenrally understood to follow assumed left-right bloc patterns, resulting in minor parties contributing to the elections of the last Senator or two by the relative strength of their total preference flows.

These are the federal (Commonwealth) ballots, there are variations on the basic themes of single member preference-voting lower house and prop-rep upper house. Some state and territory systems allow preferences above the line in their upper houses. Queensland and the territories are unicameral. Preferencing isn't mandatory in NSW or Queensland. The ACT assembly and Tasmanian lower house use prop-rep without an above the line option, and randomise the candidate order on each ballot, to prevent parties ranking their candidates in hierarchical order.

(Look at me hijacking the thread with my psephological nerdery)
 
Top Bottom