Thoughts on early voting.
If you can't vote over a couple day period, just ask for an absentee ballot.
No same-day registration, either. 30 days out and that is the cutoff. Miss it? Too bad.
Voting is not supposed to be like ordering a pizza.
Quote: AZDuffmanShould be Election DAY. Not week or month. Absentee ballot but every 4 year you gotta show up to vote.
No same-day registration, either. 30 days out and that is the cutoff. Miss it? Too bad.
Voting is not supposed to be like ordering a pizza.
Of course you have this view.
If Republicans did better when more people voted, you'd obviously feel differently....
Quote: billryanI'm in favor of letting people vote over an extended period, but thirty or more days of voting is a bit ridiculous.
If you can't vote over a couple day period, just ask for an absentee ballot.
Voting should be very easy and held over a 2 week period
Everybody qualifies to vote by mail if they so choose
Elections are important
I love voting by mail
I work in business travel, many of my clients are in another country election day
These American Citizens should have the right to vote
Live in battleground FL so I definitely want to vote
Just because I may want to vacation in Vegas on election should not prevent from participating in an election
I watched Karl Rove have his famous meltdown in my Vegas hotel room :-) I voted by mail that cycle.
Quote: AZDuffmanShould be Election DAY. Not week or month. Absentee ballot but every 4 year you gotta show up to vote.
No same-day registration, either. 30 days out and that is the cutoff. Miss it? Too bad.
Voting is not supposed to be like ordering a pizza.
Why? Why put obstacles in peoples way? My Aunt has been homebound for years. Why deny her her right to vote?
I'm in favor of making it easier than ordering a pizza, but I think having voting for a month is too much.
Why do you think voting shouldn't be as easy as ordering a pizza?
Quote: ams288Of course you have this view.
If Republicans did better when more people voted, you'd obviously feel differently....
If people want to vote they can make an effort to do so. I want there to be the least chance of fraud as possible. The longer polls are open the more chance for fraud. That is simple common sense.
I would actually prefer you have to pass a US Citizenship test to vote, too bad that is impossible.
Quote: terapinedVoting should be very easy and held over a 2 week period
Everybody qualifies to vote by mail if they so choose
Elections are important
I love voting by mail
I work in business travel, many of my clients are in another country election day
These American Citizens should have the right to vote
Live in battleground FL so I definitely want to vote
Just because I may want to vacation in Vegas on election should not prevent from participating in an election
I watched Karl Rove have his famous meltdown in my Vegas hotel room :-) I voted by mail that cycle.
Sounds about right. For many years, I attended two trade shows a year. One in AC and the other in Vegas. They were always the last week in October, first in November. Started doing absentee ballots in 1998 and its great. I was on the 14th floor of the Taj election night 2000 and it was amazing as the results were coming in. Republicans drifted into one suite, Democrats into the other , and the dont give a shit crowd into another. Good times.
Quote: billryanWhy? Why put obstacles in peoples way? My Aunt has been homebound for years. Why deny her her right to vote?
The are not obstacles, they are requirements to insure a sound and clean election. I find it hard to believe even a homebound person cannot make it out one day a year. If they are that homebound a provision could be enacted where they get their ballot notarized or something, at their expense of course.
Quote:Why do you think voting shouldn't be as easy as ordering a pizza?
See above about sound and clean elections. I realize 47% of Americans are getting to be lazy lumps who think everything should be as easy as possible and handed to them. But sometimes you have to put in effort. How hard is it to spent 10-30 minutes before or after work and stop to vote? Answer is it is not hard at all.
But same-day registration invites fraud and ballot-stuffing. A child can understand that. Advance registration ensures you are a resident and not a transient. And yes, my answer to "that means some people will not get to vote" is "too bad, next time follow the rules and plan ahead."
And oh yes, since all responsible adults have of can get photo ID that is the most commonsense requirement of all.
And there you go again with your common sense. If holding polls open longer creates fraud, let's have voting open for just 12 minutes on voting day, between 10:37am and 10:49am. Just common sense, right? Screw the working people who can't get time off, only the retired and self-made (or self-employed) can vote.Quote: AZDuffmanIf people want to vote they can make an effort to do so. I want there to be the least chance of fraud as possible. The longer polls are open the more chance for fraud. That is simple common sense.
When will you learn that "simple common sense" is just simply nonsense? If good sense really were simple and common, we wouldn't be having so many national arguments, would we? No, the reason we have so many policy disagreements is that some people prefer to make well-considered choices based on thorough analysis and critical evaluation, while others are satisfied with making uninformed snap judgments based on simple common sense. It's the Gambler's Fallacy writ large. It's simple common sense that black would be due after a long streak of red. And it's simply wrong.
Quote: billryanI'm in favor of letting people vote over an extended period, but thirty or more days of voting is a bit ridiculous.
If you can't vote over a couple day period, just ask for an absentee ballot.
First of all, why the fork not. If people are eligible to vote, make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
This is, however, a politicized issue, as Republicans generally try to keep people from voting, as the more unworthy scum who vote, the worse they generally do. However, in this election, that may be turned on its head, as the repubs may believe that high voter turnout will actually help them. If that's the case, then they will advocate for letting your cat vote for you.
Quote: AZDuffmanShould be Election DAY. Not week or month.
Wait in line two hours or be able to go when there is no line at all? If we force everyone to all go at the same time it would be too much of a burden on those of us still in the workforce and it would be the jobless welfare queens who decide who wins.
Quote: billryanI simply don't think we need more than a month. Allowing people to vote before the debates occur is silly.
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.)
Quote: TomGWait in line two hours or be able to go when there is no line at all? If we force everyone to all go at the same time it would be too much of a burden on those of us still in the workforce and it would be the jobless welfare queens who decide who wins.
Who on earth waits in line that long? I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes or so.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd there you go again with your common sense. If holding polls open longer creates fraud, let's have voting open for just 12 minutes on voting day, between 10:37am and 10:49am. Just common sense, right? Screw the working people who can't get time off, only the retired and self-made (or self-employed) can vote.
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.
Quote:When will you learn that "simple common sense" is just simply nonsense? If good sense really were simple and common, we wouldn't be having so many national arguments, would we? No, the reason we have so many policy disagreements is that some people prefer to make well-considered choices based on thorough analysis and critical evaluation, while others are satisfied with making uninformed snap judgments based on simple common sense. It's the Gambler's Fallacy writ large. It's simple common sense that black would be due after a long streak of red. And it's simply wrong.
Because it is not nonsense. 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.
"com·mu·ni·ty or·gan·iz·er
nounNorth American
a person whose job is to coordinate cooperative efforts and campaigning carried out by local residents to promote the interests of their community."
that says what most of us suspected, that nobody really knows what a community organizer is/does.
When I heard that for example 70% of Af/Am voters in NC use early voting, I felt I now knew what a community organizer does.
I'm just throwing this out there.
Quote: odiousgambitWhen you google "community organizer" you get:
"com·mu·ni·ty or·gan·iz·er
nounNorth American
a person whose job is to coordinate cooperative efforts and campaigning carried out by local residents to promote the interests of their community."
that says what most of us suspected, that nobody really knows what a community organizer is/does.
When I heard that for example 70% of Af/Am voters in NC use early voting, I felt I now knew what a community organizer does.
I'm just throwing this out there.
We have them here in Florida
The program is "Souls to the polls"
Organize a bus to go to the church pick up the souls and take them all to the polls :-)
Quote: AZDuffmanWho on earth waits in line that long? I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes or so.
Because there's early voting
Quote: onenickelmiracleDo we have a right to pizza? Even if we don't, I would like voting as easy as ordering a pizza. Online voting is so possible and inevitable.
The only problem I have with online voting is, I don't trust "digital signatures," and feel that there is no way to guarantee that a ballot is being cast by the person in question.
Besides - does everybody have online access? If there is a correlation between how wealthy you are and how likely you are to be able to vote online from your home, then the "disenfranchising poor people" problem resurfaces.
On the other hand, who really notices the signatures - and, except for local elections, is anybody really going to compare every ballot's signature against the one on the registration? Imagine if this had to be done in Florida in 2000 - "well, the loops in the Ls look different" "maybe the person had a finger injury that day"
if I vote after work on election day, an hour wait is typical. I have waited more than two hours.Quote: AZDuffmanWho on earth waits in line that long? I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes or so.
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.Quote: AZDuffmanBecause 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.
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?
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.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.
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!
Quote: JimRockfordif 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).
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.
Quote: TomGBecause 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.
Quote: MathExtremistIf 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!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnd 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.
Quote: AZDuffmanWho 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?
Quote: billryanPeople 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.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen 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.
Quote: billryanThe 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.
How many polling places vs how many machines? In Phoenix you do not have to travel as far as in Pima county. Rural areas might have more places but fewer machines. Even so I doubt politics played into it. Probably more of a cost and security issue.
Quote: AZDuffmanShould be Election DAY. Not week or month. Absentee ballot but every 4 year you gotta show up to vote.
No same-day registration, either. 30 days out and that is the cutoff. Miss it? Too bad.
Voting is not supposed to be like ordering a pizza.
We are a republic, not a democracy. We were never supposed to be a democracy. By nature democracies are transitionary, they cannot be stable. A sure way to destroy our republic, and our freedom, is to turn our country into a democracy and make it easy for more and more people to vote. Either by way of anarchy, or directly, a democracy will end in oligarchy. That's why I mentioned here before, voters used to have to be qualified. Voting is not a God-given right. I hope I will not live to see the day, but I suspect many posters here are young enough that they will see the end of America as we know it. And they won't know what to do with themselves. Hopefully for them it will be gentle, and not require massive liquidation of population reduced to manageable proportions as under Mao or Stalin.
Quote: MathExtremistNobody'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.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou say 2 + 2 = FISH all the time.
Exactly.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow many polling places vs how many machines? In Phoenix you do not have to travel as far as in Pima county. Rural areas might have more places but fewer machines. Even so I doubt politics played into it. Probably more of a cost and security issue.
Have read of recent talk of bringing the election process under control of Homeland Security? Look it up.
Look up rigged machines in Venezuela and Brazil.
Quote: billryanBecause 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.
Well, obviously it would stop sometime--on Election Day. And though the average American voter has the intellect of a tub of cottage cheese, I think that most people do understand that one of the consequences of casting an early vote is that you can't change your mind between then and the actual Election Day. If people think they might want to change who they plan to vote for, then they can stay home until the actual polling day rather than voting early. What's the problem?
Quote: billryanThe 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.
"Sparely populated" Pima County includes Tucson and its suburbs, with well over half a million people in the metro area. And as it's still only about 1/5 the population of Maricopa County (Phoenix area), I doubt that it's where "most of the statewide Democrats" live. In fact, it would be very reasonable to expect that most of the state's Democrats live in the Phoenix metro area, since most of the state's people do.
And the number of spots isn't relevant; it's the number of polling machines available. Pima County has a lot of isolated little towns, each of which would need one small polling place. Maricopa County is heavily urbanized, so a lesser number of much larger polling places might be more appropriate.
I think it's very amusing of you to imply that Arizona would be a place where there is a voting availability conspiracy that favors DEMOCRATS. LOL, as they say on the internet.
Quote: beachbumbabsHere 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.
But...but...but...if we put more polling machines in minority-heavy districts, then the inferior races will be able to vote! Where are your Republican sensibilities????
I wonder if this had anything to do with the narrow Dubya win in 2000.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to call you a Republican. That would be just about the nastiest thing I could say.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik"Sparely populated" Pima County includes Tucson and its suburbs, with well over half a million people in the metro area. And as it's still only about 1/5 the population of Maricopa County (Phoenix area), I doubt that it's where "most of the statewide Democrats" live. In fact, it would be very reasonable to expect that most of the state's Democrats live in the Phoenix metro area, since most of the state's people do.
And the number of spots isn't relevant; it's the number of polling machines available. Pima County has a lot of isolated little towns, each of which would need one small polling place. Maricopa County is heavily urbanized, so a lesser number of much larger polling places might be more appropriate.
I think it's very amusing of you to imply that Arizona would be a place where there is a voting availability conspiracy that favors DEMOCRATS. LOL, as they say on the internet.
Reading is Fundamental. You might try it some time. If you bothered reading the post , you might see I was complaining about the lack of polling places in and around Phoenix, where much of the states Democrats live. But you think anyone that doesn't support six month voting periods must be a Republican out to suppress the vote.
What a maroon. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Quote: billryanReading is Fundamental. You might try it some time. If you bothered reading the post , you might see I was complaining about the lack of polling places in and around Phoenix, where much of the states Democrats live. But you think anyone that doesn't support six month voting periods must be a Republican out to suppress the vote.
What a maroon. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Sorry, it was hard to believe that you (based on your previous posts) were taking up the banner of all those poor, disenfranchised Democrats.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSorry, it was hard to believe that you (based on your previous posts) were taking up the banner of all those poor, disenfranchised Democrats.
You truly are a maroon. Please quote any post I've ever made here that gave the impression I favor the right? Just one.
But it's cool. There's a place in the world for the angry young man.
We haven't functionally been a republic for a long time. According to this 2014 study, we're already an oligarchy:Quote: bobbartopWe are a republic, not a democracy. We were never supposed to be a democracy. By nature democracies are transitionary, they cannot be stable. A sure way to destroy our republic, and our freedom, is to turn our country into a democracy and make it easy for more and more people to vote. Either by way of anarchy, or directly, a democracy will end in oligarchy. That's why I mentioned here before, voters used to have to be qualified. Voting is not a God-given right. I hope I will not live to see the day, but I suspect many posters here are young enough that they will see the end of America as we know it. And they won't know what to do with themselves. Hopefully for them it will be gentle, and not require massive liquidation of population reduced to manageable proportions as under Mao or Stalin.
Quote:After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4
Yes, yes, I know -- how many people are going to think "well, duh!" But the point is that any systemic change needs to take in to account where we actually are, not where we should be.
When America ends as we know it, it'll be because the robot apocalypse/technological singularity happens in about 25 years. We don't have enough time to screw up badly enough before then, and afterwards it won't matter. And I definitely expect to be around to see it. Whether I'll be happy about it is a question only time will answer.
Quote: billryanYou truly are a maroon. Please quote any post I've ever made here that gave the impression I favor the right? Just one.
But it's cool. There's a place in the world for the angry young man.
Quit the name calling, please; this and your post above it. I'm giving the politics threads a little latitude for the moment so I'm stopping with a warning. For now. Thanks.
Quote: bobbartopVoting is not a God-given right. I hope I will not live to see the day, but I suspect many posters here are young enough that they will see the end of America as we know it. And they won't know what to do with themselves. Hopefully for them it will be gentle, and not require massive liquidation of population reduced to manageable proportions as under Mao or Stalin.
I don't think the USA has 50 years left in her as a country. We probably have at least 20, but remember the USSR went from on the march in 1970 to gone about 20 years later. Germany raised from not existing to near Euro domination to defeat in 20 years. Then they did it again over 20 years!
Collapse is probably inevitable. Almost half of the people will not be able to make it on their own so no need for the liquidations. Natural forces will handle that.
Quote: billryanReading is Fundamental. You might try it some time. If you bothered reading the post , you might see I was complaining about the lack of polling places in and around Phoenix, where much of the states Democrats live. But you think anyone that doesn't support six month voting periods must be a Republican out to suppress the vote.
What a maroon. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
When I lived there, Tuscon was always considered more liberal than Phoenix.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't think the USA has 50 years left in her as a country. We probably have at least 20, but remember the USSR went from on the march in 1970 to gone about 20 years later. Germany raised from not existing to near Euro domination to defeat in 20 years. Then they did it again over 20 years!
Collapse is probably inevitable. Almost half of the people will not be able to make it on their own so no need for the liquidations. Natural forces will handle that.
I think those are good guesstimates you made, between 20 and 50 years, I would have come up with a similar number.
As to the USSR, it's a different kind of example. First, they are masters of deception. Absolute masters. In his 1984 book, New Lies for Old, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn wrote of a long-term ruse to lull the west to sleep. In other words, they purposely "ended" communism, with barely a shot being fired. In the book he explains in detail how they orchestrated a contrived "Sino-Soviet Split", also the splits between Tito and the Soviets, Albania and the Soviets, all a ruse. He even explained how they would bring the Berlin Wall down, and this was in 1984. "Perestroika", it was all planned, all a ruse from within. Now, of course, we are all "friends", while they and China are building the most massive military war machines in the world's history. They will leave nothing to chance. They don't want to destroy us, they want to occupy us. A complete merger. There will be no more "communism", it will be called something else. But it will be world government, and we will be brought down from within. Our own people will vote for national suicide.
Every single voter should get the right to vote
Voting on one day prevents many of my clients from voting
I arrange business travel for a company that employs thousands of engineers and executives that manage them
None of their engineers and executives know if they will be in the country election day
Their business travel is very unpredictable
They have to travel out of the country often to take care of customer issues, supplier issues and major project issues
Some trips they plan a week in advance, some trips they only get a day notice.
None of these employees can guarantee they will be in the country election day. None of them can predict that.
Some trips require a couple days out of the country, some trips require weeks outside the country
These voters should have the right to vote early or vote by mail
American domestic manufacturing jobs are dependent on international travel by my clients
These clients should have the right to vote
Quote: AZDuffman
No reason for early voting. Show up on election day, simple concept.
None of my clients know if they will be in the country election day
Not everybody does neighborhood side hustle jobs
A lot of people have important jobs that require them to spend days or weeks away from home
Quote: AZDuffmanCollapse is probably inevitable. Almost half of the people will not be able to make it on their own so no need for the liquidations. Natural forces will handle that.
There is a lot of money to be made guessing right on these things
But if the country collapses, money won't matter. Just ask Zimbabwe.Quote: TomGThere is a lot of money to be made guessing right on these things
