Did this system ever work in a way where you had actual results the day after the election?

[ridicully]

So, based on the predicted results of Ohio (where people were apparently still voting at midnight? Where over 100 000 ballots won't be counted for the next 10 days? And on which the news agencies can't agree? [They also can't agree on Michigan?]) - Bush may have won? But like last time, nobody will know for sure for some time?

And I thought only this Electoral Votes system was weird.

*presses ctrl-r some more*
*is fatalist*
*settles down to wait anyway*

Comments

[ridicully]

No, I'm quite happy to hear a rant. I'm not very good at articulating my thoughts at all, but I have this need to *understand* things, and people like you who include explanations in their rants are my salvation.

When I was listening to the news this morning, it just couldn't understand the rationale behind waiting 10 days to count the absentee ballots. Our general discourse on voting systems around the world at school certainly didn't mention it and the bbc seemed a bit puzzled, too.

I guess when the system was implemented it made sense, but judging from the comments on this and the last election, a lot of people seem to think it outdated. But changing something like this is nearly impossible.

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

You know, now that you mention it, I'm not sure what the original rationale for the ten-day wait was.

My guess is that it was probably originally intended to ensure that all of the ballots had been received before they got counted--in case there were hold-ups with the overseas post, as might well happen in a time of war, perhaps? But I really don't know.

I think it's just one of those quirks of the system that nobody really thinks too much about until it becomes a problem...at which point it is much too late to do anything about it.

And also, as you say, changing things like voting protocols is always difficult.