FL & MI - The simplicity of a one-contest revote

Clearly there are minimum standards that Florida and Michigan must attain in holding a revote, but it could be done at a fraction of the cost of a regular vote.

Why?  There would only be one contest on the ballot - Obama or Clinton?  There would be no third candidates (throw in Gravel for a giggle, if you must), no down ticket races, no bond issues, no referenda.  All you need is a piece of paper with two choices - Obama or Clinton?

Because there is only one race on the ballot, a voter's time in the polling place would be a fraction of the time spent in a booth for a full ballot.  It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to vote.  So because the lines would move much more quickly, the revote would require far fewer polling sites.  This would cut costs drastically.

You could go to the trouble of putting together punchcard ballots or, heaven forbid, Diebold Votestealers, but why not just a simple paper ballot check mark?  The entire Ohio primary was done with optical scanner ballots.  It took much longer, but it got done.  Put together a simple form with circles to fill in, bring the ballots to a central counting site and count.  It would take longer, but it would get done, and probably at a fraction of the cost they are anticipating currently.

•  Far fewer polling sites?!! No Way!!

  And who do you suggest gets to pick the locations of these polling sites?

  by erin r on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM PDT

  •  Number of polling sites change all the time

    You would need larger sites to hold more precincts, and of course, I am not suggesting that they are injudiciously chosen.

    But I am not against holding the revote in the same sites we've already got.  If, for example, in rural sites, I assume some people are traveling long distances to vote.  My point is that efficiencies could be gained by concentrating several precincts in the same site because the time to vote is so much lower.

    The other problem with this is how do you communicate to voters that they have a new polling site?  I take your point.  Condensing the number of polling sites may raise more difficulties than it solves.  The real thrust of my post is to state that you don't have to have expensive voting machines or elaborate ballots set up.  Revotes could probably be done at a fraction of the cost by much less expensive means.

    by TheWurx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:10:06 PM PDT

    •  yes, but the most important thing with any vote

      is to make sure as few voters are disenfranchised as possible.

      Especially considering the importance of these revotes if they happen, the fairness will be the deciding factor.

      by erin r on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM PDT

•  tip jar n/t

  by TheWurx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM PDT

•  Screw the FL revote

  If they wouldn't revote in 2000, why should they revote today?

  by TerraByte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM PDT