Ship of Fools: The 2014 US elections

Thread: The 2014 US elections Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028047

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

God fucking dammit! No, no, no, no, no, no!! How the hell did this happen? I voted! I asked everyone I knew to vote! How did those goddamn bastards take over?

I want to scream and shout and cry and punch things.

I am so pissed off about this. And upset.

[Mad]

Was it money? Are we really that bendable by TV ads? Is it really a given that whoever can pour more money into the election will win? Is there any hope?

GDMFSOBs.

God help us, God have mercy. It was bad enough and rough enough before.

The bad guys have won.

No, I refuse to accept that.

I know we have to keep working and fighting for what's right, but ... God, I thought, I really thought, we'd wake up today to a better country, not a worse one.

Please, God, help us, and help the world, because these people's actions will surely be damaging everywhere, not just here. Environmental stuff alone, not just economic. [Waterworks]

(Joins the polar bears on a shrinking ice floe, singing "We Will Overcome.")

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I'm surprised that you're surprised. It was widely predicted by assorted Talking Heads that this outcome was likely, and polls bore the TH cohort out.

I agree that it will be a tough 2 years, but take heart. Here's why:

In my own state, the State House was taken over by extreme right-wingers. They enacted a very unpopular & extreme legislative agenda -- slashed higher ed, rejected Planned Parenthood, gutted various state programs which resulted in costs being passed down to communities, which jacked up local property taxes, etc.

No Talking Head I'm aware of has noted this, but IMO the very recent (2010-2012) memories of what the Tea Loonies did to our state is part of the reason for the Democratic wins in 2014 in my congressional district. Our Democratic Senator won, and so did our Congresswoman.

The Repugnicans have two years in which to screw things up. They will, depend on it. This sets the stage nicely for a Democratic landslide in 2016; it may not even matter much who runs on the D ticket (especially if the Rs insist on trotting out yet another clown-car full of damn fools).

[ 05. November 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

To paraphrase P. T. Barnum: No one ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of the American public

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

The Repugnicans have two years in which to screw things up. They will, depend on it.

And they will blame it all on Obama in some convoluted way that a six year-old could see though and Republicans will buy it because -- see P.T. Barnum quote above.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Please, God, help us, and help the world, because these people's actions will surely be damaging everywhere, not just here. Environmental stuff alone, not just economic.

Hey, cheer up, push back and relax. That ship sailed about a decade ago. Ol Double Ewe fucked up the worldwide reputation of freedom and democracy so badly, that there is pretty much nothing, and I mean nothing (short of nuking Mecca) that thon GOPers could do to set us back further.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

Mitch McConnell in a NPR interview: "The people have spoke." (sic) [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

And in local news:
four more years of Governor Jerk Bully Asshole

In an interview yesterday, he said that he'd never seen such a nasty campaign and he was putting the Democrats on notice that Mainers wouldn't stand for that way of doing politics. Democrats are causing nasty politics here? Look in the mirror, you dickwad.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Eh, I think our new governor may be the One Reasonable Republican left in America, and his opponent conveniently forgot to actually campaign (no, painting your rather moderate opposition as a culture warrior isn't a campaign), so I can't say I'm too angry about things around here.

Back with my parents in Oklahoma, however...good God, where do these people come from who make deano look like an Islamophilic socialist?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Was it money? Are we really that bendable by TV ads? Is it really a given that whoever can pour more money into the election will win? Is there any hope?

No. Yes. Maybe, but maybe not the way you think.

In Maryland, the Dem. incumbent started out with more money and far outspent the Republican challenger.

I've heard a lot of people talking about how sick they are of all the money poured into attack ads and the like when it could be spent maintaining our infrastructure or repairing our failing social security system.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've heard a lot of people talking about how sick they are of all the money poured into attack ads and the like when it could be spent maintaining our infrastructure or repairing our failing social security system.

True. Or feeding the hungry or setting up ebola wards in Africa.

Someone is collecting all that money. Is it the ad agencies? Where are they spending it? Why isn't the economy benefiting?

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
God fucking dammit! No, no, no, no, no, no!! How the hell did this happen? I voted! I asked everyone I knew to vote! How did those goddamn bastards take over?

Christ Almighty, son. Did you not watch the news? Have you lived under a rock, in a cave, with cotton in your ears for the last year? No one, regardless of persuasion, really had any illusions about what was going to happen. And it wasn't even as bad as it could have been.

But since this is Hell, screw you for making a big public show of praying to God that your candidate wins, like the fucking Kingdom won't come unless we elect a Democrat. I fill in the box marked [D] too, but I would never pray to God that my party would win a penny-ante, pissant election.

[ 05. November 2014, 23:32: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

But since this is Hell, screw you for making a big public show of praying to God that your candidate wins, like the fucking Kingdom won't come unless we elect a Democrat. I fill in the box marked [D] too, but I would never pray to God that my party would win a penny-ante, pissant election.

It's not a matter of "my party." It's a matter of sickeningly vicious and horrible people getting into more power so they can do more damage. And hell yes, I pray to God that we can get out of this horrible situation somehow. The US has been winding up with fucking crazy loons taking over the GOP.

The Kingdom will come regardless. But life on Earth still matters. How people, especially the poor and hungry and sick and marginalized, are treated, matters. And we now will have to fight a hell of a lot harder to make things better.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

(I'm in Florida. From the point of view of people like me, it's been OH MY GOD WE'RE TRAPPED WITH THIS MONSTER FOR FOUR MORE YEARS.)

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Easy, son. I live in a red state too.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

From across the ocean I heard of the NY's 11th district and its congressman Michael Grimm. The guy in January threatened to throw a journalist off the balcony during an interview. Soon later he was indited with 20 federal charges including fraud, perjury and employing illegal immigrants.

Democrats lost by almost 15 points. Seriously, does the donkey even try?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
And in local news:
four more years of Governor Jerk Bully Asshole

In an interview yesterday, he said that he'd never seen such a nasty campaign and he was putting the Democrats on notice that Mainers wouldn't stand for that way of doing politics. Democrats are causing nasty politics here? Look in the mirror, you dickwad.

Interesting article, in that it demonstrates yet again what happens in first-past-the-post contests. It doesn't matter if over half the people in the electorate can't stand you, so long that majority fail to agree on who to replace you with.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've heard a lot of people talking about how sick they are of all the money poured into attack ads and the like when it could be spent maintaining our infrastructure or repairing our failing social security system.

But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Worse, there's no longer any way to tell who is pouring that money into any given campaign.

Time was, you could at least partially parse the TV ad rhetoric / lies / distortions according to who was funding them.

Now it's a deep, dark secret. Some PAC with an innocuous moniker but run by a gang of undisclosed thugs could be responsible, or maybe a nice little circle of crocheting sainted grannies. Who knows?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.

Do you know that for all of my taxable working life I've had the option of saying that I want to designate some portion of my federal taxes to be used in political campaigns?

Sometimes it's the same pot of money.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.
Do you know that for all of my taxable working life I've had the option of saying that I want to designate some portion of my federal taxes to be used in political campaigns?

Sometimes it's the same pot of money.

If you tick the box, you are explicitly saying that the money is for political campaigning and not for fixing other things. If you want that money spent on maintaining your infrastructure or repairing your failing social security system, don't tick the box!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Worse, there's no longer any way to tell who is pouring that money into any given campaign.

Time was, you could at least partially parse the TV ad rhetoric / lies / distortions according to who was funding them.

Now it's a deep, dark secret. Some PAC with an innocuous moniker but run by a gang of undisclosed thugs could be responsible, or maybe a nice little circle of crocheting sainted grannies. Who knows?

You can make an educated though deeply pessimistic guess and that guess will still be more just and ethical than reality.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.
Do you know that for all of my taxable working life I've had the option of saying that I want to designate some portion of my federal taxes to be used in political campaigns?

Sometimes it's the same pot of money.

This year's elections cost $4 billion. The tick-box, even if ticked by every single taxpayer, would raise a paltry sum by comparison.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.
Do you know that for all of my taxable working life I've had the option of saying that I want to designate some portion of my federal taxes to be used in political campaigns?

Sometimes it's the same pot of money.
If you tick the box, you are explicitly saying that the money is for political campaigning and not for fixing other things. If you want that money spent on maintaining your infrastructure or repairing your failing social security system, don't tick the box!

I've never ticked the box.

Still have to deal with people who would rather focus on flash and symbolism than substance.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Someone is collecting all that money. Is it the ad agencies? Where are they spending it? Why isn't the economy benefiting?

They are the economy, stupid.
(given their size)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the same pot of money. The money for government comes from taxes. The money for political parties comes from whoever is willing to pour money into political parties.
Do you know that for all of my taxable working life I've had the option of saying that I want to designate some portion of my federal taxes to be used in political campaigns?

Sometimes it's the same pot of money.
If you tick the box, you are explicitly saying that the money is for political campaigning and not for fixing other things. If you want that money spent on maintaining your infrastructure or repairing your failing social security system, don't tick the box!
I've never ticked the box.

Still have to deal with people who would rather focus on flash and symbolism than substance.

By all means, if I negate one of your points, you should feel free to make an entirely unrelated one.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Mitch McConnell in a NPR interview: "The people have spoke." (sic)

So what? Obama has come out and said the exact same thing.

And as for the OP, don't be such a sore loser. If the dems had done a better job in Washington they would have carried the day. People aren't voting for the GOP, they're voting against the DNC.

POTUS has been dragging his party down for a long time now, you want to know why they got swept? Look at his approval numbers. You've expressed considerable admiration for the president in the past, but as far as most of the US is concerned he's not doing very well.

NPR has been running analysis for a while now predicting close or losing races for a lot of the dems due to the presidents low polling numbers.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

What I find interesting is how this is accompanied by a decline of influence of the US in the rest of the world. I'm not sure yet if I find that a good thing or a bad thing.

But having heated debates about contraception in fucking 2014?! Getting all hot and bothered about something as logical as universal healthcare? I know that many US Shipmates find this as weird as I, but it does have an influence on how other countries look at yours.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Irish_Lord99:
POTUS has been dragging his party down for a long time now, you want to know why they got swept

Sen. Reid? Is that you? What are you doing in Maine? Maine is a long way from Nevada.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

That was below the belt, even for Hell. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Mitch McConnell in a NPR interview: "The people have spoke." (sic)

Our new governor has said the same thing. [Help]

[ 06. November 2014, 23:18: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Wal, they done spoke, that's fer sure and certain.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By all means, if I negate one of your points, you should feel free to make an entirely unrelated one.

I spend my days around lawyers. I'm bound to pick up some of their ways.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

You Americans are amazing.

It is mind-boggling that the world's richest country cannot do universal healthcare. The debate about the AHCA was fascinating and deeply troubling to watch - and just for the record I DO know a couple of things about healthcare.

So you have a president who finally after about 6 decades of trying enacts a healthcare act that whilst pathetic compared to what the rest of the world can manage has been stunningly successful... and this is a deeply unpopular president?

[Killing me]

Although to be fair, we Brits have managed somehow to elect David Cameron. Dave's a good guy really, he writes to me from time to time (I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal, so I have no idea why he would write to me...)
Dear Ian,
I believe that we should reduce the deficit and stop sending so much of our tax-payers' money abroad, do you agree?
Dear Ian,
I believe in a benefits cap so that work always pays more that benefits, what do you think?

No Dave, I believe you should make feckless companies, not only pay their taxes that provide for the societal framework that enables them to be profitable but also pay their workers a living wage so the government doesn't have to step in and top up their pay. I also believe that in an economic crisis, governments should not front-load cuts but support the economy thereby reducing unemployment and underemployment and thus reducing the benefits bill that way...

But what do I know?

I have to admit I am tired of how poor the political debate seems to have become both sides of the Atlantic. (And I'm a polititcal uber-geek)

[Disappointed]

AFZ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In one thing the GOP was right. Give the populace universal health care, and they will hang onto it like grim death. It will not be removable or repealable, any more than you could get rid of Social Security. And why is that? It is because it is a necessary good.
That they wished for the populace (not themselves, notice) to not have this good is why they should be voted out of office.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And yet they weren't.

The bulk of the American populace is so occupied struggling to cobble together the rent or mortgage payment from 3 or 4 or 5 part-time, no-benefits, no-rights, one-tiny-mis-step-and-you're-out-on-your-ear, sales-clerk type jobs that we have neither the time nor the energy to think about or try to understand our political contexts. If we vote at all, we vote on the basis of a bunch of received truths swallowed hole and rarely questioned.

We believe the Standard American mythos (exceptionalism, rugged individualism, etc.) taught us in school -- remember that the Texas State School Board ends up selecting, by default, school texts for much of the country -- and seldom examine our own experience, much less the systematic assaults which routinely and consistently shaft us with that experience.

We get the government our ignorance, arrogance, and exhaustion demands.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

As you can see, one step forward in Texas always comes accompanied by another step back.

I have six staff working under my supervision. One commutes 2 hours each way because he cannot afford anything that's closer. He's a high-school graduate (they all are, for whatever that's worth these days) making $10.75 an hour, as does his partner in a similar agency in my town; they have two small kids in three child-care settings for 14 hours a day; this plus their rent takes so much of their income they depend exclusively on food pantries (and what we managers sometimes slip them) to feed themselves. They didn't vote; they couldn't get to their polling place before it closed.

Two other staff, similar wages, each has, in addition to their 40-hour work week with me, an additional 35 hour/wk job elsewhere. Work, eat, & sleep is all they do, but at least they have health insurance to cover the illnesses they'll develop from lack of sleep and wretched diet. Neither got to a polling place in time to vote.

Another staff person with a severely disabled adult son can eke out a living on her wages only because her son receives disability through Social Security to supplement her income. Her life consists of her work, and then going home to care for her son, i.e., more of the same. She couldn't vote because she is no longer physically able to get her son into his wheelchair and van by herself, and she cannot leave him alone.

I'd go on, but I just can't. It's too depressing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

First step: I've never understood why some countries have voting in the middle of the week. Here it's Saturday. A lot more people can get to the polls on a Saturday.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Ain't gonna happen with Republican majorities as far as the eye can see, all busily stomping out the voting rights of the Great Unwashed.

I've just been approached by another manager where I work because he bristled at being asked for ID on Tuesday. But my state's House, Senate, and Executive Council are now all owned by Republicans (though we still have a Dem for gov, go figure).

Some of those who won were active 2010-2012 in trying to squelch college-student voting, homeless-person voting, recently-moved person voting, etc. etc.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
First step: I've never understood why some countries have voting in the middle of the week. Here it's Saturday. A lot more people can get to the polls on a Saturday.

Federal Elections are held on Mondays in Canada, as decreed by the Canada Elections Act. That's just the way it has always been.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
First step: I've never understood why some countries have voting in the middle of the week. Here it's Saturday. A lot more people can get to the polls on a Saturday.
Federal Elections are held on Mondays in Canada, as decreed by the Canada Elections Act. That's just the way it has always been.

...you do realise Acts can be amended, don't you?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Non Sequitur, orfeo. Likewise Australia could change its voting day to Monday, so what's your point?

Though I do see that Australian Federal Voting Hours are 8AM to 6PM. In Canada it's 9:30AM to 9:30PM in the Eastern Time Zone, and 7AM to 7PM Pacific Time (three hours behind).

The only reason Saturday voting matters in Australia is that your polling hours are shorter, 9 hours instead of 12, and overlap with the business day.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Non Sequitur, orfeo. Likewise Australia could change its voting day to Monday, so what's your point?

Though I do see that Australian Federal Voting Hours are 8AM to 6PM. In Canada it's 9:30AM to 9:30PM in the Eastern Time Zone, and 7AM to 7PM Pacific Time (three hours behind).

The only reason Saturday voting matters in Australia is that your polling hours are shorter, 9 hours instead of 12, and overlap with the business day.

Um, I was responding to a post that was about people being unable to get to polling booths in the USA. If you think everybody can neatly pack up and leave work at 5 and doesn't have anything else to do after that, then feel free to live in that universe. We are being told that doesn't work for everyone. I'm suggesting that Saturday might be better.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

This is Hell, and you're an idiot, orfeo, because you are being one. Quit being so bloody slow on the uptake.

People have scheduling issues at whatever time you select, that's just life. But as for work, 95% of people do not work 12 hours a day, and can make it into a polling booth in that timeframe. Which is why in five elections where I have been a poll staffer, there has always been a 5PM and 7PM rush, just after work and just after dinner.

It's not the day that is the issue, it's the window of hours on polling day that makes or breaks accessibility, and Australia has short polling hours by world standards.

In New York State, for example, the poll hours are 6AM to 9PM for General Elections, and 12PM to 9PM for Primaries. Much more time to vote, either before or after work.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well maybe you should talk to Porridge about it. That's what I was trying to do. My interest in continuing this conversation with you is precisely zero.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

No, you were just having an "Oz is better" moment and it actually turned out to be a brain fart.

And you still have dreadfully short voting hours.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I think Saturday is better, regardless of what country it's in. I'm sure we're not the only country in the world that does elections on a weekend. I doubt we invented it.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re voting times: Here in San Francisco (and perhaps throughout California), we can vote for weeks ahead of time, including weekends.

Oh, and re Saturdays being the best day: could make it impossible for people who observe Saturday as a religious day. And some people work weekends.

[ 08. November 2014, 05:36: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Sigh. I wasn't trying to suggest it was perfect, I was trying to suggest it was better. Yes, of course some people work on weekends. Some people work on every day of the week. But you have to pick one of them.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Unless you offer people the opportunity to vote over many weeks, as I mentioned.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think Saturday is better, regardless of what country it's in. I'm sure we're not the only country in the world that does elections on a weekend. I doubt we invented it.

Well maybe Saturday would be better (assuming they're not working then as well, which I rather suspect). Perhaps it would be better to give everyone the constitutional right to leave work for a brief period of time in order to vote.

The salient point is however, how is it ever going to change, if those who would have it changed are systemically disenfranchised from voting?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Perhaps it would be better to give everyone the constitutional right to leave work for a brief period of time in order to vote.

Since reading this, I've discovered that some states actually do this. I'm going to put in an LSR that my state does so. It has as much chance of passing as an ice pop on a hot car fender, but it might get something started.

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
The salient point is however, how is it ever going to change, if those who would have it changed are systemically disenfranchised from voting?

Indeed. In conversations with my staff, they seem at least a little aware of the forces driving them into the ground; to a voter (if they voted) they'd have voted for Dems (though I'm no longer sure how much difference that might make) rather than the Repubs actively working toward even more widespread disenfranchisement.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

It's usually the poorest workers who never had a Monday through Friday schedule and are more likely to have Tuesday off than Saturday when McDonalds and Walmart (our nations largest employer) are at their busiest.

Come to think of it, I can picture the Republicans trying to change the voting day to Saturday, which would benefit their white collar voters and keep more blue collar workers away.

I can't speak for other states but in Ohio there was a big push for early voting by mail or computer, so there's that option, too. I've almost always voted at six in the morning when there are no lines.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Perhaps it would be better to give everyone the constitutional right to leave work for a brief period of time in order to vote.

I think that is the law, at least in some places.

In Arizona more and more people vote by mail. It makes the whole process more relaxed, and I believe it increases our pathetic voter turn-out.

One state (Oregon?) only votes by mail now.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think Saturday is better, regardless of what country it's in. I'm sure we're not the only country in the world that does elections on a weekend. I doubt we invented it.

No. Saturday voting means prime time Saturday evening TV is election results on every channel (or at least it was when I was an au pair in Germany 20 years ago). [Disappointed]

The civilised way is to have polls open from 07:00 to 22:00 on a Thursday, so only those who really care sit up into the small hours for the results and the rest of us find out when we wake up on the Friday.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
One state (Oregon?) only votes by mail now.

Confirmed: Oregon has vote by mail only. It's actually quite civilized.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
One state (Oregon?) only votes by mail now.
Confirmed: Oregon has vote by mail only. It's actually quite civilized.

Can you offer a little detail on how this works? And what happens for people -- i.e., the homeless -- who have no address? What happens for people in the process of moving from one polling site to another?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Washington State is also mostly Vote By Mail

Ballots are mailed out 3 weeks before. You can pick up a ballot from the County Election if yours doesn't get there. You also can drop the ballot off to one of a few ballot boxes on election day if you don't want to pay the first class postage, but there aren't that many sites compared to the old polls.

There are several State and Country Booklets mailed to each voter with a for and against statement on each ballot proposition.

It's a lot more convenient than going and standing in line at a local Church before or after work. I have some nostalgia for meeting my fellow citizens at the polls, but too often it was depressing to see how low turn out was.The major down side is that there isn't a dramatic few days before election when a contested election gets focus. The other problem is that it has to be postmarked by election day so the mail trickles in for a few days.

While the homeless have problems with this, I think they in general have that problem of registering to vote in a district without proof of residence. Several local organizations provide mail addresses for homeless people. That's useful not only for voting, but for applying for a job or housing or communicating with family.

It's widely seen as a better and cheaper option.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The other problem is that it has to be postmarked by election day so the mail trickles in for a few days.

Here they have to be received by Election Day, either by mail or dropped off at a polling place or early-election site. What no one seems to understand (in fact, there was a letter to the editor just this morning) is that they don't start counting the mail-in ballots until Election Day. As more and more people vote by mail, this causes ridiculous delays. I don't understand why they can't be counted as they come in, as long as the results are not announced before Election Day.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
No. Saturday voting means prime time Saturday evening TV is election results on every channel (or at least it was when I was an au pair in Germany 20 years ago).

The civilised way is to have polls open from 07:00 to 22:00 on a Thursday, so only those who really care sit up into the small hours for the results and the rest of us find out when we wake up on the Friday.

It is indeed a perfect evening for watching a movie instead.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

As you might guess, I find the postmark limit a bit messy. It was put in when the proposal for the original scheme was objected to as being unfair to overseas military. (There are several large bases in Washington). This is a bit more cumbersome, but it's neutral for number of days to poll.

As I recall, but there's preliminary counting of ballots that are received with no announcements of interim results until the "poll close" of the end of mail for election day. The interim votes are then announced progressively as they count the rest of the ballots. Naturally, there is a tendency to mail in on the last possible moment.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

As it is, absentee ballots don't necessarily get counted, at least around here. Heck, *ballot boxes* have been known to wind up in the bay. Safest thing is to either vote at the registrar's office, or to turn in an absentee ballot there. The ballot might still disappear, but at least it can't be waylaid on the way to the registrar.

So I'm not for a mail-only system.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There are boxes where you can drop the ballot in, but I suspect they are more subject to tampering then the mail ballot because they get votes from a particular area and thus it's easier to target the "wrong" votes that need to be suppressed.

Of course no one has a great solution if the Post Office goes bankrupt. Internet solutions have had a dismal track record for security and tampering.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

The Oregon system has a number of safeguards, including the ability to check that your ballot was counted. In 15 years there have been something like 13 cases of voter fraud out of thousands of referrals for mismatched signatures, etc. they say the biggest problem is coffee stains on the ballots.

It really is pretty convenient - ballots must be delivered my 8PM on Election Day, though they can be faxed or emailed for active military. While pew call it "vote by mail", every town has at least one drop box so you don't need to pay postage.

You can read more about the system at www.oregonvotes.gov

There are a number of articles online about the integrity of the system, too - both Republican FUD about the potential for fraud and the actual results.

One point of interest: we really had vote-by-mail before the current system. In Wasco county 86% of the population had already signed up for absentee ballots! What we really did was to provide universal ballot delivery by mail - you can still vote in person if you would rather. Every county still has to have some number of polling booths, but nobody is required to use them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0