Eventually ID-required voting will be the norm. The courts are gradually throwing the anti-ID cases out. It's only logical..if you have to show ID to register to vote, why wouldn't you be able to produce that same ID when it comes time to actually vote.
This was my beef with that case, since I was pretty sure you have to prove who you are (a citizen, in the first place) to be able to register, and this same method could be used to check at the polling station.
As for the Swedish system, every person who has a SS number (well, we call it 'personnummer' but same thing really) is in a register that includes an adress, and a month or so before the election this register is used to make the lists used at the polling stations, where everyone is assigned one station, if you move before the election you'll have to do absentee voting.
It feels like a safer system to me, but it seems some people in the US would take offense to the government having a register of people and their home adresses (which are these days incredibly hard to find anyway
I understand why many illegal immigrants and those relying on their votes oppose the IDs. For example illegal African immigrants are adviced to "lose" their IDs before they go to a country, because if recieving country doesn't know the country of origin, they cannot send them back.
Iirc Belgium passed a law that allows illegals to vote (or at least people without citicenship), because the socialists were afraid that a right wing party would win the elections. Socialists know that most immigrants are dependent on social wellfare and income transfers, so increasing the number of immigrants also increase their voter pool.
If y'all have more than 2 candidates, how are votes counted? E.g. one right wing candidate with 40% beats two left wing candidates with 30% each yet a majority of the voters truly preferred either of the left wing candidates to the right wing candidate. In America's system, this can happen which is partly why we only have two main parties. Is this a problem for Sweden?
Not really a problem in Sweden or Finland. But this is pretty common in our presidential elections. This year we had presidential elections. On the first round our standing president got 46% of all votes, while Sauli NiinistÃ¶ got 24% of all votes. So we had a secound round of voting. Which resulted in Tarja getting 51.8% of all votes and Sauli getting 48.2% of votes... So Tarja kept the majority and started her second term as president, I think her first elections were won by equally small margin... Not quite the example that Trip had, but these elections were close to turning around for someone who had a clearly in minority after the first round.
Tarja has done pretty decent job as a president, but I am dissapointed on how she got the be the president. But it has more to do with the image that was created for the public, lack of perspective and stupidity of voters and how women turned their coats to their own political party just to get the first president with tits. But thank god it's the last time in country that a women wins elections only because she's a woman. I'm sure our next female president will be more qualified, now that the female president issue is out of the way...
Parliamentiary elections are a different matter. Like Floffe said, people usually "vote for parties", even if the most suitable candidate is in another party. Much of this depends on personal values. In Finland all the biggest parties have so much in common, that it really makes no difference to me which one is ruling, so I vote for person, not a party. Our system is even more "equal" then Sweden's because we haven't had any true ruling party. For example in 2003 elections, our biggest party got 24.69% of all votes, second got 24.47% and third 18.55%, the rest 33% were split with 15 smaller parties, 4 of those parties got enough votes to get people in the parliament. President usually appoints the leader of the biggest party as a negotiator to form a new government. This usually means that the party leader of the biggest party is also the prime minister, but it's not always necessary. And the negotiations usually result in us having a goverment formed by at least 3 parties, usually even more. For example between 1995-1999 we had a goverment, which left our second biggest (Centre party) party out to form a "rainbow-goverment" formed of 5 different parties, which included both our left and right wing parties.
Things aren't always as democratic across the sea in Sweden. Iirc Sweden has had a minority goverment where Swedish Social Democratic Party held all offices of the goverment, because the left wing and the green party supported the minority goverment, eventhough they were left out. One could argue, that this qualifies the example Trip gave, but in reality it doesn't, because these goverments have had support of the majority even if the governments themselve were minoritys.
Couple of months ago the Swedish Social Democratic Party "won" the elections in Sweden. They were the single biggest party with 35% votes agaisnt 26% of the Moderate Party. But Moderate party had formed a bigger alliance that got 48% of the votes opposed to 44% of the Social Democrats alliance, that included the Left Party and the Green Party... That's how the democracy works in the Nordic countries. I for one think, that our system is as good as possible for a democratic system. I just don't believe that everybody should have the right to vote...
Your electric voting sounds interesting. But I think it's really sad that people in USA don't have enough faith /cannot trust, that there will be no foul play in your elections.