Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The strongest argument against early voting I've ever read


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31 FirstRoundPick

FirstRoundPick

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 979 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:38 PM

There isn't an app for voting yet?

#32 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:42 AM

removing straight ticket and introducing term limits is basically what i want. good residual effects from both but each are sacred cows.


please list the benefits of eliminating straight ticket voting

here, i'll go ahead and start you off with "it will undeniably slow the voting process, creating longer lines and reducing turnout in urban areas which generally vote heavily democratic"

#33 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:18 AM

if someone is going to vote straight ticket, why bother standing in line.
mail it in, since that's what you are doing.

in your world, the idea is to supress urban votes. which is shameful but that shoe fits easily.

in my world, it's to ensure the person is making an informed decision AND, avoiding a bridge vote where locally or state level, someone doesn't get to rid the coat tails of a pres vote and get a vote that if the local person had read a bit more, would NOT have voted for that local person.

i know far too many people, that are urban but not over 70 or poor who had voted straight ticket then later mention that don't like so and so for gov or for congressman and i tell them just don't vote straight. thats what you get.

and cry me a river on slowing the voting process. you got 2 or 4 years to figure things out before you go vote. for God's sake please.

#34 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:25 AM

I wish they'd just make voting day a national holiday like other countries.


This. I can't speak for everyone, but I prefer early voting because it's just easier to get around my work schedule. We shouldn't work on that day, in a way, it's the most important day for us as a country. The right to vote. Should be an election AND a party, a celebration of America, no matter which way you vote.

I do find it funny that posters that would normally say "suck it up, work on Sunday, be glad to have a job!" are all up in arms about people working on Sunday in this case.

#35 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,101 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:36 AM

It would be interesting to know what percentage of voters actually spend hours on researching who will be their 3 top 18th circuit district judges, or assistant dogcatcher - I totally agree with pstall that we should be more diligent, but as a society we are so busy, and advertising influences us so much despite our reassurances to ourselves to the contrary, that this kind of activity is mostly for the hyper partisan anyways, or the retired folks.

And yes this is just more Republican vote suppressing, we are as used to it as we are used to G5 coming up with inane reasons to defend it. Anyone who gives a crap about the right thats far more important than guns, or civil rights, or any of that - the right to vote - should consider anything that makes it easier for citizens to vote a good thing. Unless it's in your best interest to not have more citizens vote, in which case you must be a socialist, right?

#36 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:46 PM

I'm for every US citizen to vote once and legally.

#37 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,101 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

And that is what happens now.

#38 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:45 PM

if someone is going to vote straight ticket, why bother standing in line.
mail it in, since that's what you are doing.

in your world, the idea is to supress urban votes. which is shameful but that shoe fits easily.

in my world, it's to ensure the person is making an informed decision AND, avoiding a bridge vote where locally or state level, someone doesn't get to rid the coat tails of a pres vote and get a vote that if the local person had read a bit more, would NOT have voted for that local person.

i know far too many people, that are urban but not over 70 or poor who had voted straight ticket then later mention that don't like so and so for gov or for congressman and i tell them just don't vote straight. thats what you get.


this is total bullshit. first, changing voting law to "ensure the person is making an informed decision" sure sounds like the state attempting to influence the vote. if someone chooses to vote straight ticket, then that is their choice. there are plenty of people who voted for romney because obummer's a socialist antichrist and while those people are clearly dumb as hell, i don't propose that we make the voting process more difficult for them because it's actually their right to vote however they please

second, if you're voting primarily for major party candidates, you're already making an uninformed decision and, if your ballot runs 50/50 democratic and republican, you might just be the dumbest person alive. stop pretending that occasionally voting for the other side makes you informed and that voting straight ticket is somehow worse. oh and stop pretending that "if the local person had read a bit more, would NOT have voted for that local person" as if americans actually vote in their best interests. 47% of americans voted for mitt fuging romney; and it's not that they weren't aware of his dumb agenda because he fuging campaigned on it.

if you actually cared about representative government, you wouldn't smugly parrot republican talking points; you'd instead advocate for a shift away from first-past-the-post voting

#39 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

get off the smug bandwagon will ya? and i propose the removal of straight ticket for the wrong rep getting a vote just as much as a dem getting one.

straight ticket is lazy on numerous levels and needs to be abolished.

even right now, you have people that are going to vote straight ticket AGAIN for who knows how many elections in a row. and year after year after year many people who need better representation, are the ones that get the LEAST amount of that as well as the short end of the stick.

#40 SZ James

SZ James

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,764 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:00 AM

so what if I did all of my research (more than pstall, for sure) and still wanted to vote straight ticket?

#41 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:19 AM

if you did your research and it led you to straight ticket, rock and roll.

and i highly doubt more research was done than me. im a bit ocd on research on a candidate, esp locally.

but i would bet if people did do some homework, the % of straight ticket would go down.


if anything, don't allow straight ticket back to back elections. im sorry guys, but straight ticket is for dummies. and that goes for BOTH parties.

#42 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 19,775 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 31 March 2013 - 01:30 PM

if you did your research and it led you to straight ticket, rock and roll.

and i highly doubt more research was done than me. im a bit ocd on research on a candidate, esp locally.

but i would bet if people did do some homework, the % of straight ticket would go down.


if anything, don't allow straight ticket back to back elections. im sorry guys, but straight ticket is for dummies. and that goes for BOTH parties.


if you agree with the republican platform on literally every single issue and the democratic platform on literally zero issues, is it logical to vote straight-ticket republican?

#43 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:19 PM

I don't agree with every thing rep and don't disagree with everything dem.

I never have voted straight ticket. I think any rational, open minded person would have a harder time voting for one party only.

#44 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 19,775 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

i agree with you but i'm not sure banning it is wise

#45 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:44 PM

If the reason for keeping it is to speed things up I don't think that's all that crucial. So many places allow early voting. Once every 4 years is not to much to ask of our citizens to wait an extra 45 secs to a minute.
People take more time and thought at Redbox than the voting booth. Lol


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com