DNA?

Oh. Right. The androids...

this is a puzzler

But seriously, i was just providing an example that would help circumvent all of this. Of course, i've long wondered why our voting system has remained so mired in 19th century techniques and technology.

Unlike voter ID laws... that wouldn't be constiutional.

You'd be pitting your right to vote against your 5th ammendment right to protect yourself against self incrimination... as the new Voter ID fingerprint database would suddenly be the largest in the world.

Or at least something the ACLU would argue as such anyway.  Makes more sense then photo Ids being unconsitutional anyway.

Of course, i've long wondered why our voting system has remained so mired in 19th century techniques and technology.

Or you could just implement these ideas, one new one every election, and actually never have them used for anything. Like fake security cameras.

Fingerprints don't actually do anything, but it makes people think that it did.

Because there is simply no motivation to update or improve it. Everyone who has been elected was elected under the current system, and incumbents are generally interested in removing - not adding - wrinkles or variables so that they can keep getting elected. So gerrymandering is good, and changing the voting system in any way that they don't perceive as improving their chances of getting reelected is bad.

That just feels like a giant waste of time and money to get around doing something that is really uncontroverisal among the american people, and in general outside of political hysterics.

Also, it wouldn't work after the first time.

You attempt to fake fingerprint people, MAYBE be lucky in that the court case doesn't happen until after the election, find out the whole thing was a ploy... and then who's going to believe the next one?

Gerrymandering is something you figure they could fix with computers and satellites, building combinations of different counties or fractions of counties automatically, with no human input outside the initial programming and census updates.

Actually it's the exact opposite.

Computer programming has made gerrymandering about a dozen times worse. 

The parties tend to do that, and then tilt them heavily in their favor in the initial programming.  They end up gerrymandering things WAY more effectivly then people ever could.

Also in general there are questions that need to be asked, like minority representation.

Does it make more sense to create districts of minorties or with strong minority representation so that they will likely elect a minority politician who will focus on their sepcific needs?  Or does it make sense to refuse them a district and split up among different districts?

And i'm saying just let computers do it completely. No consideration for parties or for ethnic minorities, just go.

Gerrymandering is something you figure they could fix with computers and satellites, building combinations of different counties or fractions of counties automatically, with no human input outside the initial programming and census updates.