Electoral College Guess

• ts1227

  

  I Wear Pants;1306769 wrote:What is the problem with early voting? How does it harm the electorate?

  Many people in the Mid-Atlantic are early voting this weekend because they're worried that this storm will knock out power long enough to turn Election Day into a clusterfuck.
  
  Obviously those people are all out to defraud the system.
• I Wear Pants

  ts1227;1306771 wrote:Many people in the Mid-Atlantic are early voting this weekend because they're worried that this storm will knock out power long enough to turn Election Day into a clusterfuck.
  
  Obviously those people are all out to defraud the system.

  Clearly.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1306768 wrote:I know you didn't invent that line of thinking so I'm not attacking you here but...that's such a dumb fucking way to go view things.

  Thanks for not attacking me.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1306798 wrote:Thanks for not attacking me.

  People who disagree with you or don't follow the same path you have in the life of your political ideals are not stupid, just as those who disagree with me aren't heartless. It's a ridiculous way to look at things. Those people can certainly be stupid or heartless but not because they hold that view.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1306769 wrote:What is the problem with early voting? How does it harm the electorate?

  Constitutional arguments aside let me ask you this question. Would it be easier for all parties involved in monitoring the integrity of any election to do so over varying periods of days/weeks or on one single day? Many of these people that we count on to monitor the election process are volunteers. Giving up a day of your time is one thing. Days/weeks requires far greater resources. Also I might add would it not be a lot easier to vote more than once in 30 days than in 12 hrs?
  
  Those with known extenuating circumstances should be given due deference. No one argues this. Just not to just any individual seeking personal convenience. It is a healthy thing to have some small level of personal inconvenience of time for the individual to participate in the voting process. Most national elections occur every two years. The big one every four. Its pretty hard not to plan for them.
  
  Personally if we are going to do anything (others have advocated this) I think it would be good if election day would be a national holiday. This would eliminate the burden of most Americans from voting around work. Though I know for many it would be just another day off. Move the national election to the 1st Monday in November (one day carriage ride to the nearest polling station no longer needed). The individual has little excuse to vote when the government gives them a day off to exercise their civic duty.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1306906 wrote:Constitutional arguments aside let me ask you this question. Would it be easier for all parties involved in monitoring the integrity of any election to do so over varying periods of days/weeks or on one single day? Many of these people that we count on to monitor the election process are volunteers. Giving up a day of your time is one thing. Days/weeks requires far greater resources. Also I might add would it not be a lot easier to vote more than once in 30 days than in 12 hrs?
  
  Those with known extenuating circumstances should be given due deference. No one argues this. Just not to just any individual seeking personal convenience. It is a healthy thing to have some small level of personal inconvenience of time for the individual to participate in the voting process. Most national elections occur every two years. The big one every four. Its pretty hard not to plan for them.
  
  Personally if we are going to do anything (others have advocated this) I think it would be good if election day would be a national holiday. This would eliminate the burden of most Americans from voting around work. Though I know for many it would be just another day off. Move the national election to the 1st Monday in November (one day carriage ride to the nearest polling station no longer needed). The individual has little excuse to vote when the government gives them a day off to exercise their civic duty.

  The constitutional argument is that the government is only required to have voting on election day, not that it is barred from allowing voting on other days.
  
  Election day as a national holiday would be great, but early voting still allows more people to vote. If you go by a strictly constitutional view we wouldn't require early voting, absentee voting, etc, etc (if I'm recalling correctly).
  
  What is wrong with allowing people to vote early for personal convenience other than some view that those people are "lazy" or something? There is none. You would be fine with early voting if it tended to go your way, but it doesn't so you hate it. If early voting this round is massively Romney then I'll still think it's a good thing.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1306909 wrote:The constitutional argument is that the government is only required to have voting on election day, not that it is barred from allowing voting on other days.
  
  Election day as a national holiday would be great, but early voting still allows more people to vote. If you go by a strictly constitutional view we wouldn't require early voting, absentee voting, etc, etc (if I'm recalling correctly).

  I left the constitutional arguments aside because I was giving a practical response to your question. Not a legal one. You might be surprised on my strict interpretation of this one. The federal congress has rule over the Day (note day is capitalized for emphasis in the constitution) the electors cast their vote. Period. The electoral vote happens on a single day. When it come to the choosing of the electors the congress may determine. Not shall or will. Check the language in the constitution. The states choose the electors. The states elect the president. The power rests in the states. If you would note many of these early voting laws are being enacted by the states. The states are exercising their sovereign will in choosing their electors. I may disagree practically with them but legally I can't.
  

  I Wear Pants;1306909 wrote:What is wrong with allowing people to vote early for personal convenience other than some view that those people are "lazy" or something? There is none. You would be fine with early voting if it tended to go your way, but it doesn't so you hate it. If early voting this round is massively Romney then I'll still think it's a good thing.

  I don't give two shits who early voting benefits. I gave you my practical opinion in my previous post. My legal opinion finds no problem with it. Your assumptions that my political leanings cloud my judgment on the rule of law are quite false. Now answer the practical questions I presented you.
• Ty Webb

  

  http://news.yahoo.com/advantage-obama-hunt-270-electoral-votes-163526687--election.html
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1306938 wrote:I left the constitutional arguments aside because I was giving a practical response to your question. Not a legal one. You might be surprised on my strict interpretation of this one. The federal congress has rule over the Day (note day is capitalized for emphasis in the constitution) the electors cast their vote. Period. The electoral vote happens on a single day. When it come to the choosing of the electors the congress may determine. Not shall or will. Check the language in the constitution. The states choose the electors. The states elect the president. The power rests in the states. If you would note many of these early voting laws are being enacted by the states. The states are exercising their sovereign will in choosing their electors. I may disagree practically with them but legally I can't.
  
  
  
  I don't give two shits who early voting benefits. I gave you my practical opinion in my previous post. My legal opinion finds no problem with it. Your assumptions that my political leanings cloud my judgment on the rule of law are quite false. Now answer the practical questions I presented you.

  Constitutional arguments aside let me ask you this question. Would it be easier for all parties involved in monitoring the integrity of any election to do so over varying periods of days/weeks or on one single day? Many of these people that we count on to monitor the election process are volunteers. Giving up a day of your time is one thing. Days/weeks requires far greater resources. Also I might add would it not be a lot easier to vote more than once in 30 days than in 12 hrs?
  
  This seems to assume that people voting more than once is a widespread problem which everything I've seen indicates is not true. And perhaps it would be easier from the standpoint of volunteers to do it on one day but I think that would do a disservice to all the people who take advantage of early voting either because they have to or it works better for them. We already have disgustingly low voter turnout, no need to make it worse without there being a significant benefit (being easier on volunteers doesn't outweigh the benefits of all the people who use early voting IMO).
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1306909 wrote:The constitutional argument is that the government is only required to have voting on election day, not that it is barred from allowing voting on other days.
  
  Election day as a national holiday would be great, but early voting still allows more people to vote. If you go by a strictly constitutional view we wouldn't require early voting, absentee voting, etc, etc (if I'm recalling correctly).

  Economically speaking, a national holiday to vote would be costly. Along the same lines, the benefit of early voting lets people do it on their own time, and makes for smaller lines so people aren't away from work as long.
  
  And, yes, we really don't want people to not vote because they don't want to wait in line for 3 hours. But it's funny to me how people talk about limits to early voting as "disenfranchisement" and "voter suppression" when many states still have no early voting at all. Crying that early voting restrictions suppress or disenfranchise is simply ridiculous partisan bullshit.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1306991 wrote:Economically speaking, a national holiday to vote would be costly. Along the same lines, the benefit of early voting lets people do it on their own time, and makes for smaller lines so people aren't away from work as long.
  
  And, yes, we really don't want people to not vote because they don't want to wait in line for 3 hours. But it's funny to me how people talk about limits to early voting as "disenfranchisement" and "voter suppression" when many states still have no early voting at all. Crying that early voting restrictions suppress or disenfranchise is simply ridiculous partisan bullshit.

  The voting restrictions that were attempted in Ohio certainly were suppression. Husted lessened early voting hours in Democratic counties and kept them the same in GOP ones. If he tried to do it across the board I'd still think it was stupid (because I find value in early voting) but it wouldn't be a deliberate attempt to shape the vote.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1307166 wrote:The voting restrictions that were attempted in Ohio certainly were suppression

  And then ultimately made them uniform across the state. And then a liberal judge shot it down.
• se-alum

  

  We all know why early voting always goes the way of the Democrats, there is no reason arguing it.
  
  There was a Democratic campaign advisor the other day that said he didn't see the problem with giving out free food then taking people to the polls. LOL!
• BoatShoes

  Just so we're clear.
  
  A. Obama Wins
  
  It's because of democrats shipping illegal somali's to the polls for a month in exchange for free food and biased pollsters intentionally shutting down "mittmentum" in order to discourage conservatives and convince independents to "vote with the winner"
  
  B. Romney wins
  
  It's because conservatives were successful in their ability to suppress just enough voters and also because Bain Capital has control over voting machines used in Ohio.
  
  November 7th probably won't be a happy day :thumbup:
• gut

  Oh noooo'sss, Obama in trouble in Minnesota! Buying ads which, according to Ty, means he's losing!!!
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/28/poll-obama-up-three-points-in-minnesota/?hpt=po_c2
• QuakerOats

  I think we should all vote on the same day (except in the case of absentee military etc.) so that we are all casting our votes simulataneously based upon the same information available as of one point in time. [In fact, this year may be a good case in point, where someone voted for obama say 5 weeks ago, but now may regret that vote as more information became available about Benghazi].
  
  The idea that we do not make election day a first priority and see to it that we get to the polls on that day is not so valid in my book.
• se-alum

  

  QuakerOats;1307286 wrote:I think we should all vote on the same day (except in the case of absentee military etc.) so that we are all casting our votes simulataneously based upon the same information available as of one point in time. [In fact, this year may be a good case in point, where someone voted for obama say 5 weeks ago, but now may regret that vote as more information became available about Benghazi].
  
  The idea that we do not make election day a first priority and see to it that we get to the polls on that day is not so valid in my book.

  I agree, you should go to the polls on Election Day or vote via Absentee Ballot.
• gut

  Additionally, I would make a few recommendations:
  
  1) Remove "R" and "D" designations from candidates. You should know who you are voting for, at least, even if you don't really know their policies.
  
  2) Multiple choice, at least for POTUS. In other words, you have to select a valid ticket or you disenfranchise yourself. "Obama/Biden", ok. "Obama/Clinton" or "Obama/Pelosi" or "Reid/Obama" means your vote doesn't count.
• BoatShoes

  I personally wouldn't mind if when you went into vote, in the booth you could view various straight-forward statements from the candidates and synopsis' of the candidate's positions...heavily regulated by the FEC so as to prevent them from being misleading, etc. Maybe a list of newspaper endorsements...I dunno, just some ideas....
  
  I don't know...most people aren't political junkies like people who post on a politics board and with so much information and misinformation out there...I think it could be exhausting. I think I saw something suggesting that the average American spends very little time considering the election...and yet we're all bombarded with distorted information for over a year.
  
  I don't know...I don't think it would be the worst idea if there was something to help voters who aren't political junkies get clear information get clear information before they cast their vote on election day.
  
  
  Maybe instead of early voting, you stretch the initial election day over a couple of days and during that time there's no campaigning allowed by the candidates and no ads allowed during that quiet period or something.
  
  As to Gut's point about "know who you're voting for" I think it's generally a problem that some folks don't even know who half the people are on the ballot. Take local judicial candidates for example. I consider myself pretty into politics and yet, if I don't really go over the candidates before I head into the booth, I'm not even sure who these people are, what cases they've ruled, etc. If I can't cast a truly informed vote, what about somebody out there who doesn't really care that much??? I wouldn't mind a fair breakdown of the candidates at the poll.
  
  Just some thoughts.
• gut

  Hurricane Sandy suppressing the vote!!!
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1307256 wrote:Oh noooo'sss, Obama in trouble in Minnesota! Buying ads which, according to Ty, means he's losing!!!
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/28/poll-obama-up-three-points-in-minnesota/?hpt=po_c2

  Ty and Quaker are both best when you assume they're insane.
  
  Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1307381 wrote:Ty and Quaker are both best when you assume they're insane.
  
  Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

  Says the guy using a Samsung Windows phone.
• majorspark

  

  gut;1307378 wrote:Hurricane Sandy suppressing the vote!!!

  Reporters were actually asking Jay Carney if Obama had a plan to postpone the election because of this.
  
  http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2012/10/election-day-to-be-postponed-because-of.html
• sleeper

  

  I'd rather just have voting be on a Saturday. It would allow more people who pay taxes to vote since they don't have to work. Have the polls open at 5am and end at 10. Problem solved.
• gut

  sleeper;1307393 wrote:I'd rather just have voting be on a Saturday. It would allow more people who pay taxes to vote since they don't have to work. Have the polls open at 5am and end at 10. Problem solved.

  Only problem is A LOT of people work on Saturdays. Think about all the stores, malls, car dealers, restaurants...even most banks are open half a day.
  
  There should be enough early voting such that lines on election day are shorter than 1 hour.