JimRockford
JimRockford
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 461
September 14th, 2016 at 8:21:37 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Who on earth waits in line that long? I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes or so.

if I vote after work on election day, an hour wait is typical. I have waited more than two hours.
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." - Isaac Newton
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 14th, 2016 at 9:09:25 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Because common sense also says you need to have balance. One work day is pretty much the same as the others, so stretching it so people can go before or after work balances the need for security and convenience. Leaving all those machines unattended overnight is the big security risk. Based on your position on Hillary's emails I get that you either do not understand or care about basic security measures, but even a basic understanding shows that to be a huge risk.

If your job is so repetitive that it's the same day in, day out, you may not appreciate the fact that many people have jobs where the work varies significantly from day-to-day and they can't just postpone, say, the flight to Tokyo or the meeting with VC investors or (ahem) the big poker tournament. If you think everyone's job is as repetitive as yours, you're wrong. There's your common sense again.

And the notion that you can't secure a room unattended overnight, regardless of what's in it, is just absurd. Seriously, have you never been to a museum or a bank?

Quote:

We have so many arguments because you think that just because an "educated" person says something then everyone else should shut up and not dare question them. It is the emperor's new clothes. All those over-educated people try to say 2 + 2 = FISH and others say they must be right when it is clearly not so.

Nobody's saying 2 + 2 = FISH. If you're hearing 2 + 2 = FISH when other people talk, it's because you don't comprehend what's actually being said. That's on you, not the people who are speaking about things you don't understand.

There are two acceptable ways to deal with that: one is to ask questions, learn, and come up to speed on a topic. The other is to accept that you don't understand something and leave it to the people who do. But you've chosen the third way, which is to denigrate the better-educated whenever they say something that doesn't jibe with your "common sense" intuition, and to assume those people are wrong. That anti-intellectual, anti-education, backwards approach may be acceptable to you, but it's counterproductive and will only lead to a populist idiocracy. If you want to be willfully and proudly ignorant, relying on faulty logic and intuition, that's your life choice. Don't expect anyone to applaud you for it.

Quote: Monty Python logic


BEDEVERE: Quiet! quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

CROWD: Are there? What are they?

VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt?

BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?

VILLAGER #2: Burn!

CROWD: Burn, burn them up!

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #1: More witches!

VILLAGER #2: Wood!

BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?

[pause]

VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood?

BEDEVERE: Good!

CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah.

BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1: No, no.

VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!

VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!

CROWD: The pond!

BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1: Bread!

VILLAGER #2: Apples!

VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

VILLAGER #1: Cider!

VILLAGER #2: Uhhh, gravy!

VILLAGER #1: Cherries!

VILLAGER #2: Mud!

VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!

VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!

ARTHUR: A duck.

CROWD: Oooh.

BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...

VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs the same as a duck.. she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

VILLAGER #1: A witch!

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch!

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2849
September 14th, 2016 at 9:37:01 AM permalink
Quote: JimRockford

if I vote after work on election day, an hour wait is typical. I have waited more than two hours.


I have never waited more than 15 minutes, but then again, the last time I remember voting after 4 PM was in the 1980 general election (this was back in the days when the networks would declare states based on exit polls before polls closed in those states, and Reagan was declared the winner at 5:00 local (Pacific) time).
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 74
  • Posts: 8582
September 14th, 2016 at 3:26:40 PM permalink
Here in Florida, unless you early vote, waits are from 2 to 6 hours from mid day on. Speaking for Central Florida, where I vote,.and South Florida, where it always makes the news. Only in presidentials, though.

Republicans, in the last few election cycles, have taken to mailing out absentee ballot request forms, so they get their votes cast more easily than waiting in those lines. And yes, they have shown a correlation over several cycles, of wait times significantly higher in minority heavy districts. It's up to each county clerk how many machines and poll workers to place in each precinct.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 210
  • Posts: 7998
September 14th, 2016 at 4:47:39 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Because there's early voting



Nope, not anywhere I lived.

Not since the 1980s when I first voted.

Not in the 1970s when my dad would take me to the polls when he vote.

No reason for early voting. Show up on election day, simple concept.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 210
  • Posts: 7998
September 14th, 2016 at 5:03:10 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If your job is so repetitive that it's the same day in, day out, you may not appreciate the fact that many people have jobs where the work varies significantly from day-to-day and they can't just postpone, say, the flight to Tokyo or the meeting with VC investors or (ahem) the big poker tournament. If you think everyone's job is as repetitive as yours, you're wrong. There's your common sense again.



My job is not repetitive, in fact quite often the hours varied. I always found time to vote in the 14 or so hours the polls were open.

Quote:

And the notion that you can't secure a room unattended overnight, regardless of what's in it, is just absurd. Seriously, have you never been to a museum or a bank?



Seriously, do you know what kind of places polling places are? School houses, fire houses. various small places. Few if any of these come close to bank or museum level security. But then again, I am indeed talking to the guy who thinks it is no big deal to send classified information on an unsecured email and keep it on an unsecured server. In the real world, you have to think about security. And multiple day voting is simply not very secure.

Quote:

Nobody's saying 2 + 2 = FISH. If you're hearing 2 + 2 = FISH when other people talk, it's because you don't comprehend what's actually being said. That's on you, not the people who are speaking about things you don't understand.

But you've chosen the third way, which is to denigrate the better-educated whenever they say something that doesn't jibe with your "common sense" intuition, and to assume those people are wrong. That anti-intellectual, anti-education, backwards approach may be acceptable to you, but it's counterproductive and will only lead to a populist idiocracy.



You say 2 + 2 = FISH all the time. I denigrate the "better educated" when they cannot intellectually and logically defend a point. When they think I should just dummy up and listen to them because they have some kind of degree. If they can rise to talking logic and defending a point I will listen. But when it is as I said, the emperors new clothes, well I will not hesitate to call out that the king is naked. I have done the same in the global warming arguments. I will do it here in the fallacy that we need early voting an cannot have voter ID both to ensure "fairness." I will do it wherever I see the king naked.

As to "educated." I shine my shoes with your degree. Intellectual respect must be earned.



If you want to be willfully and proudly ignorant, relying on faulty logic and intuition, that's your life choice. Don't expect anyone to applaud you for it.

Quote: Monty Python logic


BEDEVERE: Quiet! quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

CROWD: Are there? What are they?

VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt?

BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?

VILLAGER #2: Burn!

CROWD: Burn, burn them up!

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #1: More witches!

VILLAGER #2: Wood!

BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?

[pause]

VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood?

BEDEVERE: Good!

CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah.

BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1: No, no.

VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!

VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!

CROWD: The pond!

BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1: Bread!

VILLAGER #2: Apples!

VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

VILLAGER #1: Cider!

VILLAGER #2: Uhhh, gravy!

VILLAGER #1: Cherries!

VILLAGER #2: Mud!

VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!

VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!

ARTHUR: A duck.

CROWD: Oooh.

BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...

VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs the same as a duck.. she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

VILLAGER #1: A witch!

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch!

Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 948
September 14th, 2016 at 5:45:47 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

And how do you or anyone else determine how much time we "need"? The easier it is to vote, the more voters will participate in the process, which I thought was the whole idea, unless you're a Republican, of course.

Why on earth should debate-viewing be a prerequisite for voting? The debates convey very little information about the fitness of the two candidates. They are media shows wherein each seeks to create the best superficial impression for the benefit of undecided voters. In fact, it could be argued that those who DON'T watch the debates are better equipped to make an informed decision, as they won't be swayed by some unimportant remark or retort that will get blown far out of proportion by the media.

As far as the actual electoral process goes, early voters are almost by definition not in the "undecided" category, so it doesn't matter much whether they vote early or on Election Day. Those Republicans who would vote for a jar of warm spit if it were the Republican candidate will vote the same way regardless, as will those Democrats who would vote for Marge Simpson if she were the Democratic candidate. (And yes, each of those choices would be better than the actual respective candidates.)



Because you have to stop it sometime, otherwise we'd have 365 days of voting. In Arizona this spring, thousands of early voters selected Marco Rubio in the Presidential Primary. By election day, he'd dropped out. I'm pretty sure those people would change their vote if they could. Suppose you vote on October 1st and by November 1st, we are at war. You might want to change. I just moved from a state without early voting to one with three weeks of it. I think the correct amount is somewhere in between.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 948
September 14th, 2016 at 5:49:12 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Who on earth waits in line that long? I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes or so.




People in Arizona waited for hours this spring in several cities. Somebody severely underestimated the number of polling places needed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/arizona-voting-suppression/index.html

Don't you live there?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 210
  • Posts: 7998
September 14th, 2016 at 5:56:49 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

People in Arizona waited for hours this spring in several cities. Somebody severely underestimated the number of polling places needed.



Then just get more polling places and machines. AZ has had lots of growth so it will need to do this, and there will be growing pains.

Quote:

Don't you live there?



Nope. When I did the wait was about 15-25 minutes IIRC. It was not "hours." I would have said the hell with that and left.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 948
September 14th, 2016 at 6:31:50 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Then just get more polling places and machines. AZ has had lots of growth so it will need to do this, and there will be growing pains.



Nope. When I did the wait was about 15-25 minutes IIRC. It was not "hours." I would have said the hell with that and left.




The State shut down 75% of the polling places in and around Phoenix. There were four times as many spots in sparsely populated Pima County than in the most populous county in the state. One County is majority Republican, the other has most of the statewide Democrats living within it, but I'm sure that was a big coincidence.

  • Jump to: