4 ms·

OK, but voting is also a very short part of the democratic process. Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. If recounts cause

by TheGRS 9y ago

OK, but voting is also a very short part of the democratic process. Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. If recounts cause the process to take months (which I believe was the case back in 2000), then it also makes the transition process take longer and seeds ever more doubt into the process. Just look at what happened in Kenya recently.

cmurf 9y ago
All of this used to be done by horse transit in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is by design merely a polyarchy (rather than a monarchy), and only potentially a democracy. Who specifically is elected is less important than the process being accountable. It's made more democratic through participation, and made more of an oligarchy or plutocracy through less participation.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
If you vote on a decision directly, it makes sense for it to be fast. But for large elections, when you select future rulers that will hold their office for years, a few days of delay between the vote and the results makes pretty much zero difference - especially that you usually do the vote while the old politicians still have months to go.
sverige 9y ago
> Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, there is always more than enough time to have a recount before the winner takes office. There is also enough time to do the same for things like ballot initiatives and referenda, which don't go into effect immediately, but some reasonable amount of time after the vote. With reference to the 2000 election, the legal fight over the process to perform manual recounts in Florida took far longer than the actual recounts would have taken, dragging it out to December 12. Interestingly enough, while I have heard some still claim that "Bush stole the election," when the press actually finished a manual recount, the conclusion was that Bush had, in fact, won the vote. But people will believe what they want to believe about the fairness of elections when it doesn't go their way, as has been amply demonstrated recently.
- mkstowegnv 9y ago
  As several studies that looked all the ballots cast in FL have concluded, Gore had slightly more votes than Bush. However ironically if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, the selective recount that Gore's lawyers were arguing for would have favored Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...

by TheGRS 9y ago

cmurf 9y ago

All of this used to be done by horse transit in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is by design merely a polyarchy (rather than a monarchy), and only potentially a democracy. Who specifically is elected is less important than the process being accountable. It's made more democratic through participation, and made more of an oligarchy or plutocracy through less participation.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

If you vote on a decision directly, it makes sense for it to be fast. But for large elections, when you select future rulers that will hold their office for years, a few days of delay between the vote and the results makes pretty much zero difference - especially that you usually do the vote while the old politicians still have months to go.

sverige 9y ago

> Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, there is always more than enough time to have a recount before the winner takes office. There is also enough time to do the same for things like ballot initiatives and referenda, which don't go into effect immediately, but some reasonable amount of time after the vote. With reference to the 2000 election, the legal fight over the process to perform manual recounts in Florida took far longer than the actual recounts would have taken, dragging it out to December 12. Interestingly enough, while I have heard some still claim that "Bush stole the election," when the press actually finished a manual recount, the conclusion was that Bush had, in fact, won the vote. But people will believe what they want to believe about the fairness of elections when it doesn't go their way, as has been amply demonstrated recently.

mkstowegnv 9y ago
As several studies that looked all the ballots cast in FL have concluded, Gore had slightly more votes than Bush. However ironically if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, the selective recount that Gore's lawyers were arguing for would have favored Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...