Should early voting be done away with?

[Ishmael]

Vote and explain if you so desire.

Ishmael

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

doesn't matter really..

 

[blobfish]

Why would it be done away with? It gives people a chance to vote that may not do so otherwise.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Why would it be done away with? It gives people a chance to vote that may not do so otherwise.

^ i agree..

 

[eyer]

The 17th should be done away with...

 

[garbage can]

Remember Iraq and the purple fingered voters.

In the early voting states, early voters must dip their finger in sulphuric acid.

 

[Ishmael]

I voted "Yes."

While I understand the reasoning behind early voting, I reject the argument.

Early voting has merely brought with it the opportunity for the perpetration of more fraud and more legal action. By drawing out the voting process you've merely opened the window of opportunity for such activity wider.

But more importantly, from my stand point, voting should NOT be 'convenient.' Voting should require an effort on the part of the voter to ensure that they are participants in the process. As opposed to being just another thing on the individuals lists of 'things to do' like picking up the dry cleaning, dropping the kids off at soccer practice, etc.

Proponents of the idea push the idea of convenience and greater voter participation. They point to the fact that only 30% of the population (+/-) participate in presidential elections. And if you look at it from merely the raw percentage that, indeed, is not an admirable figure. This thought process more or less follows the old Soviet idea that quantity is a quality in and of itself. I disagree, mere volume of voters does NOT make for a quality election result. Motivated individuals that make an effort to go to the polls generally does make for a quality election. If participation, mostly blind participation, is the goal, then why not criminalize those who don't vote like the Aussies have done?

What prompted my starting this thread were two news articles I read today. The first was a court order in Florida to open a polling place for an additional four hours because the poll was closed for four hours earlier in the week due to a 'suspicious package' investigation. These folks had 3 weeks to make it to the poll to vote, is an additional 4 hours really going to make all that much difference? And at what cost? Another opportunity for lawyers to stick their nose into the process.

The second was a woman arrested in NV for attempting to vote twice in two different locations. The whole window of opportunity thing.

All in all I'm thinking that it's a well intentioned bad idea.

Ishmael

 

[fgarvb1]

Should early voting be done away with?


FUCK NO!


Early voting here is always in the same building! (thank God)

Finding out where to vote in any election here can take hours.

I have actually missed voting because it was after five o:clock and could not find out where to go vote at.

The information on the Internet was wrong.


And older people need it.

 

[Ishmael]

Should early voting be done away with?


FUCK NO!


Early voting here is always in the same building! (thank God)

Finding out where to vote in any election here can take hours.

I have actually missed voting because it was after five o:clock and could not find out where to go vote at.

The information on the Internet was wrong.


And older people need it.

Interesting post.

You've covered so much, but let's start with this. Why do "older" people need it? It seems to me that if you've lived that many years and haven't cyphered out the magic of absentee ballots, your probably shouldn't be voting anyway. What can be more convenient than filling out the ballot at home, at the dining room table, with any research material you may want to access right there at your finger tips. It's like an open book test without the time limit.

You've also made a quite convincing argument as to why we should NEVER go to internet voting.

Ishmael

 

[islandman]

The better question is: Should the results of early voting be made public thereby potentially influencing subsequent voters and votes?

 

[Jessie_Pinkman]

Why do "older" people need it? It seems to me that if you've lived that many years and haven't cyphered out the magic of absentee ballots, your probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[jeninflorida]

once again democrats are whining.

again, stupid moronic democrats are unhappy with the "system". the hours are what the hours are. deal with it. stop bitching.

 

[sufisaint]

Only for those who have a true need...not for lazy asses who get wrangled up by door to door vote getters.

 

[fgarvb1]

Interesting post.

You've covered so much, but let's start with this. Why do "older" people need it? It seems to me that if you've lived that many years and haven't cyphered out the magic of absentee ballots, your probably shouldn't be voting anyway. What can be more convenient than filling out the ballot at home, at the dining room table, with any research material you may want to access right there at your finger tips. It's like an open book test without the time limit.

You've also made a quite convincing argument as to why we should NEVER go to internet voting.

Ishmael

It's not about probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
Older people here VOTE if they have to be carried in on a stretcher!

They feel like it is their scared duty to vote and it is easier to vote while going to the doctor or buying groceries and remember some of them don't see all that well and have to be driven.

And Ishmael shame on you!

Some of the wisest people I know are elderly..hell. they have been through more and have experienced all kinds of political BS and usually have some good insight and wisdom about many things.

It IS their right as well as yours and mine.

 

[Ishmael]

The better question is: Should the results of early voting be made public thereby potentially influencing subsequent voters and votes?

Not necessarily a better question, but a legitimate question. And there is a corollary, what of revelations concerning a candidate that might invalidate their qualifications for office? What options do the early voters have to modify their votes based on new realities?

Of course this is now known as the Oct. surprise. Most of these 'surprises' are bull shit, but some are quite legitimate and vote changing in nature. But the early voters die has been cast.

There is merit in the concept of everyone voting on the same day and voting based on the information known to them at that time. Kinda like the difference between those that committed to Face Book stock and those that waited a bit to see what happened. Kinda.......not a perfect simile to be sure. But it works for now.

Ishmael

 

[Jessie_Pinkman]

once again democrats are whining.

again, stupid moronic democrats are unhappy with the "system". the hours are what the hours are. deal with it. stop bitching.

Let's see who is whining Tuesday night.

 

[Ishmael]

It's not about probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
Older people here VOTE if they have to be carried in on a stretcher!

They feel like it is their scared duty to vote and it is easier to vote while going to the doctor or buying groceries and remember some of them don't see all that well and have to be driven.

And Ishmael shame on you!

Some of the wisest people I know are elderly..hell. they have been through more and have experienced all kinds of political BS and usually have some good insight and wisdom about many things.

It IS their right as well as yours and mine.

You know what? I really do understand. And if they're so hard headed that they feel they must go to the polls, well, more power to them. But if they're that hard headed they can be that hard headed on election day. My point is, and remains, that they have 'convenient' alternatives should they choose to exercise them.

And if they're so distrustful of the ballot they cast absentee, please explain to me why their ballot cast on election day is so much more valid? If the process in the county is corrupt, it matters not when or where you filled out the ballot.

No shame on me at all.

Ishmael

 

[fgarvb1]

You know what? I really do understand. And if they're so hard headed that they feel they must go to the polls, well, more power to them. But if they're that hard headed they can be that hard headed on election day. My point is, and remains, that they have 'convenient' alternatives should they choose to exercise them.

And if they're so distrustful of the ballot they cast absentee, please explain to me why their ballot cast on election day is so much more valid? If the process in the county is corrupt, it matters not when or where you filled out the ballot.

No shame on me at all.

Ishmael

Sigh, older and increasingly young people VOTE here. Many cannot stand hardly at all much less thirty to sixty minutes at the time. Only in extreme circumstances would they vote absentee. They vote in person.

I don't recall knowing anyone who voted absentee unless they were going to be or was out of the country at the time of election.

It's Texas...some people vote, do jury duty and pay taxes because it's the right thing to do.

I don't know how to explain it else.

http://lufkindailynews.com/topic/?q=early voting&t=&l=25&d=&d1=&d2=&f=html&s=&sd=desc&s=start_time

 

[blobfish]

Let's see who is whining Tuesday night.

Not very political, huh? You should stick to Googling pictures for your avatar.

 

[Liar]

Vote and explain if you so desire.

Ishmael

Can I vote now or should I wait til the last minute of the thread?

 

[LillyO]

I voted no. In reality I have no other choice anyway.

 

[Wrong Element]

If states want to do away with early voting, and we're not going to have weekend voting or an Election Day holiday like much of the world, they need to insure that people don't have to wait in 10-hour lines, as we're seeing now in certain penis-shaped states in the American Southeast.

I suspect the motivation here is a world where the only people who have time to vote are the same folks who have the time to post endlessly on Lit in between listening to Rush and watching the FNC.

 

[Ishmael]

Sigh, older and increasingly young people VOTE here. Many cannot stand hardly at all much less thirty to sixty minutes at the time. Only in extreme circumstances would they vote absentee. They vote in person.

I don't recall knowing anyone who voted absentee unless they were going to be or was out of the country at the time of election.

It's Texas...some people vote, do jury duty and pay taxes because it's the right thing to do.

I don't know how to explain it else.

Which was precisely my point.

Then you'd best change your 'recollections.' Absentee voting is as easy as sending your county election board a letter requesting an absentee ballot. And in many states you are sent the form to request the ballot. And then you fill out the ballot and send it back. It really is that easy.

To your point, I DO understand how some of the elderly might think they're being hornswoggled, but my reply to that is in my previous post on the subject. If the county board of elections is corrupt it matters not how or when you vote. And that brings full circle back to hard headedness. And I just don't feel compelled to accommodate the hard headed.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that the elderly and handicapped have their own times and polling places, but I know you've been around enough to know what sort of legal actions that would provoke. Or any other such notions.

My stand is based on a very simple philosophy. Voting is NOT a right, it's a privilege. And like all other privileges there are certain requirements placed on those that choose to exercise that privilege. And that, by definition, is going to inconvenience one person or another. (I reject the term disenfranchise, I'm 'disenfranchised' if you vote for candidate A whilst I voted for B under the definition that some advocate. Disenfranchised is when you are systemically excluded from exercising an option.)

Further, the older citizen votes in far greater numbers, proportionately to their percentage representation of the overall population, than any other group. How can one possibly say they're being 'discriminated' against?

Vote on election day, no matter your color, age, marital status, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or if it interferes with your tee time, a hot date, death in the family, a concert date, or your attempt to set a world record at holding your breath. The date is the date and all else is your personal priorities.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I voted "Yes."

While I understand the reasoning behind early voting, I reject the argument.

Early voting has merely brought with it the opportunity for the perpetration of more fraud and more legal action. By drawing out the voting process you've merely opened the window of opportunity for such activity wider.

But more importantly, from my stand point, voting should NOT be 'convenient.' Voting should require an effort on the part of the voter to ensure that they are participants in the process. As opposed to being just another thing on the individuals lists of 'things to do' like picking up the dry cleaning, dropping the kids off at soccer practice, etc.

Proponents of the idea push the idea of convenience and greater voter participation. They point to the fact that only 30% of the population (+/-) participate in presidential elections. And if you look at it from merely the raw percentage that, indeed, is not an admirable figure. This thought process more or less follows the old Soviet idea that quantity is a quality in and of itself. I disagree, mere volume of voters does NOT make for a quality election result. Motivated individuals that make an effort to go to the polls generally does make for a quality election. If participation, mostly blind participation, is the goal, then why not criminalize those who don't vote like the Aussies have done?

What prompted my starting this thread were two news articles I read today. The first was a court order in Florida to open a polling place for an additional four hours because the poll was closed for four hours earlier in the week due to a 'suspicious package' investigation. These folks had 3 weeks to make it to the poll to vote, is an additional 4 hours really going to make all that much difference? And at what cost? Another opportunity for lawyers to stick their nose into the process.

The second was a woman arrested in NV for attempting to vote twice in two different locations. The whole window of opportunity thing.

All in all I'm thinking that it's a well intentioned bad idea.

Ishmael

You're wrong on both counts.

Voters in Florida had 1 week to vote. Oct 27th-Nov 3. There were lines in excess of 3-4 hours. That would seem to fit your "inconvenient" criteria.

The woman in Nevada is accused of voting twice in the day. If the election was only 1 day, she still could have allegedly committed fraud.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/fbi-arrests-woman-on-allegations-of-voter-fraud-177037841.html

 

[naughtycakes]

Which was precisely my point.

Then you'd best change your 'recollections.' Absentee voting is as easy as sending your county election board a letter requesting an absentee ballot. And in many states you are sent the form to request the ballot. And then you fill out the ballot and send it back. It really is that easy.

To your point, I DO understand how some of the elderly might think they're being hornswoggled, but my reply to that is in my previous post on the subject. If the county board of elections is corrupt it matters not how or when you vote. And that brings full circle back to hard headedness. And I just don't feel compelled to accommodate the hard headed.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that the elderly and handicapped have their own times and polling places, but I know you've been around enough to know what sort of legal actions that would provoke. Or any other such notions.

My stand is based on a very simple philosophy. Voting is NOT a right, it's a privilege. And like all other privileges there are certain requirements placed on those that choose to exercise that privilege. And that, by definition, is going to inconvenience one person or another. (I reject the term disenfranchise, I'm 'disenfranchised' if you vote for candidate A whilst I voted for B under the definition that some advocate. Disenfranchised is when you are systemically excluded from exercising an option.)

Further, the older citizen votes in far greater numbers, proportionately to their percentage representation of the overall population, than any other group. How can one possibly say they're being 'discriminated' against?

Vote on election day, no matter your color, age, marital status, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or if it interferes with your tee time, a hot date, death in the family, a concert date, or your attempt to set a world record at holding your breath. The date is the date and all else is your personal priorities.

Ishmael

If you're so concerned about fraud, how can you advocate absentee ballots? Seems to me it would be a lot easier to commit fraud via absentee ballot than during early voting, which is in person and requires ID.

There's been a series of Cuban Republicans in Miami implicated in an absentee ballot fraud scheme and reports show that Gov. Scott paid $5,000 to a Hialeah ballot broker during his campaign.

Fraud concerns swirl around Florida's unregulated absentee ballot brokers ahead of election

“Absentee ballot fraud has been substantiated on a rather significant basis as contrasted with voter impersonation fraud,” said Robert Pastor, an American University professor and director of the school's Center for Democracy and Election Management.

“Absentee ballot voting is by definition open to possible fraud in that the individual who gets the ballot could be subject to either intimidation or manipulation in some fashion,” Pastor said. “This is not very easy to determine.”