Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

The strongest argument against early voting I've ever read


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
70 replies to this topic

#37 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,865
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

And that is what happens now.

#38 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

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 (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,627
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

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

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,792
  • Reputation: 20,024
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

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

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,792
  • Reputation: 20,024
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

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

#46 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,002
  • Reputation: 2,371
HUDDLER

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:44 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.


If the Huddle is a credible microcosm, "rational, open minded" voters might make up less than 10%. Just sayin....

#47 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:23 AM

hey pstall just whenever you get around to it can you please list the actual benefits of eliminating straight ticket voting? perhaps this time without going off on a dumb tangent about how it will make the voter base "more informed" somehow (it won't)?

#48 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:58 AM

So by saying it won't make someone more informed you concede straight ticket voters don't know who or what they are voting for?