Absentee ballot came!

[themadscientist]

I've never been this excited to get one. I ripped it open and perused it. There were some state ballot initiatives to research before I completed it, but the object of my excitement, the presidential selection was easy. My voice is recorded and ready to go back in the mail.

[szh]

Mine showed up too!

Keeps the voting process simple for me.

Z

[stebo0728]

You know, I kinda have a beef, overall, with the notion of an absentee ballot. Here you have your vote ready to go, and you've not seen a single debate yet, and you've probably not seen the beef of the campaign ads, yet you're vote is ready to go? Though I understand, because truthfully my vote is already locked up too, but I won't be casting it until voting day. But what about people who might be swayed one way or the other after having already sent off a ballot? What if, on the off chance, you decide you should have cast your own vote differently? Im kinda feeling like voting should be a little more limited to election day. That's not to say that maybe there's not some extenuating circumstances where absentee or early voting is warranted, but do you realize up to 85 percent of the vote COULD be cast before the first debate? Not that it will, but 100% early turnout would be roughly 85% of the vote.

And another thing, IF we have absentee voting, or early voting, I don't think results from it should be in anyway publicized until election day. Furthermore, I dont like that early poll closing results get publicized while other polls are still open. I think any and all results should be subdued until the last poll closes. The results can go ahead and be reported to election officials, not media, and begin calculation, but they shouldn't be reported on mainstream media until the last poll closes. Impending results should not be allowed to sway turnouts one way or the other.

[Marenta]

Thank you, stebo. At least I know I am not the only person who has thought about this problem with absentee ballots.

[themadscientist]

It takes time to get that stuff moved around and while i understand some people are still on the fence and feel their pain, I am not. I don't wait for the candidates to tell me about themselves. I do my own research. As far as early voting, I would only want people who are out of the country to be afforded that option. People stateside should drag their a** to the polls. A possible way to address your concerns, very legitimate ones to be sure, have embassies be the polling places for American expats.

[bigbadberry3]

Voting shouldn't be just one day IMO.

[szh]

If voting day would be changed to the weekends - or kept through at least one Saturday or Sunday, then I would gladly vote in person!

Plus, don't assume that I vote "ahead of time". The past few elections, I handed it in at the polling station - the difference was that I did not have to wait in line for the form, the booths, etc.

And, in TMS's case, since he is in Japan, an absentee ballot is critical.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

If voting day would be changed to the weekends - or kept through at least one Saturday or Sunday, then I would gladly vote in person!

Plus, don't assume that I vote "ahead of time". The past few elections, I handed it in at the polling station - the difference was that I did not have to wait in line for the form, the booths, etc.

And, in TMS's case, since he is in Japan, an absentee ballot is critical.

Z

No doubt in my mind that the absentee ballot is a great thing. I am glad that you wait until he end to cast your vote.

Can anyone provide a reason as to why we can't have the presidential vote on more than a single day between 9-5? We want more people to vote so why limit the time window to such a short amount of time?

[szh]

No doubt in my mind that the absentee ballot is a great thing. I am glad that you wait until he end to cast your vote.

My reasoning is that things can change till the last minute in this regard ... but, like TMS, I try to do my research and reading ahead of time if I can, including watching as much of the debates as I can.

I am just concerned that not all candidates are allowed to participate in the debates!

Can anyone provide a reason as to why we can't have the presidential vote on more than a single day between 9-5? We want more people to vote so why limit the time window to such a short amount of time?

I'd love to know the answer too!

Z

[themadscientist]

I would like to see a two or three day voting period. That would allow more people opportunity and more to to scrutinize the results.

[stebo0728]

You can make the voting block however long you like. 24 hours is my personal preference, but either way, results need to stay shut off until the last poll closes. The length of time to vote isn't my concern, leaked, skewed, or just plain falsified results while voters are still contemplating getting out in rain/sleet/whatever to cast a vote, thats my issue.

Honestly, if a good secure method of "online" voting could be rigged up, I'd be in favor of that too, again so long as results are held until the last chance to vote passes.

[szh]

You can make the voting block however long you like. 24 hours is my personal preference, but either way, results need to stay shut off until the last poll closes. The length of time to vote isn't my concern, leaked, skewed, or just plain falsified results while voters are still contemplating getting out in rain/sleet/whatever to cast a vote, thats my issue.

Honestly, if a good secure method of "online" voting could be rigged up, I'd be in favor of that too, again so long as results are held until the last chance to vote passes.

Good points ...

Z

[Marenta]

I'd really like to see election days be like a federal holiday. If everybody could take the time off work and not be hit in the pocketbook to get out and vote, it'd be interesting to see the turnout.
Work and colleges and everything else, seriously, I don't know what the big deal is with just having the day be a holiday. I do realize that there are exceptions, like public transportation and truck drivers and stuff like that that don't take holidays, but, there's nothing wrong with being a focused employer who allows people the time to go to the polls.

But, I'd love to see the results tied up until the last report comes out. If people "hear" that their state is going the opposite way of what they were going to vote as, then they just wouldn't turn up to cast their vote. I lived at the intersection of BFE and Middle of Nowhere in Illinois and I voted Republican, which is futile because of Cook and Jefferson counties (Chicago and St. Louis, respectively) since they most often go Democrat. But, I still voted!

[stebo0728]

Now all that said, I like the idea of having a longer time for reasonable, educated voters to vote. But I also come from a position of limiting the vote, not broadening it. I dont mean to limit in any way along any party or political lines, I just mean to limit it more along "does this person even know why they're voting" lines. I don't have a perfect answer of how to do that, but I'm not particularly pleased by darwin award holders voting.

[Marenta]

See, stebo, that's the issue you've nailed. On one hand, having every single person able to vote do so would royally screw up our election. I don't know about you, but, Mickey Mouse isn't a great president.

However, if we limit the scope of voting to only those that are "in the know" then we get skewed results. Everybody will assume that they are knowledgeable about the circumstances surrounding the election, but they will only know the rhetoric that is thrown out on news networks and the supposition that others who think they are "in the know" spout when they are chatting near the water cooler at work.

As impossible as it would be, I would like to see every able bodied person that can vote have the full, unabridged picture of every candidate that way they are truly "in the know" and have them show up to the polls. At least then Mickey Mouse would be a fully elected official.

[stebo0728]

Yes it's quite a conundrum. I don't wish to just patently deny anyone a vote. I don't like people who have extra skin in the game, living on the public doll, casting a vote. But I don't necessarily want to deny EVERYONE on public assistance, because some are legitimately there temporarily, and aren't voting against taxpayer interests. But how do you differentiate? Just as in education level, or "awareness" of issues, how do you differentiate? That's the kicker. I guess, at the end of the day, do you just chock these unwanted voters up to "margin of error"?

[szh]

I don't know about you, but, Mickey Mouse isn't a great president.

I don't know if I'd be so sure about that ...

However, if we limit the scope of voting to only those that are "in the know" then we get skewed results. Everybody will assume that they are knowledgeable about the circumstances surrounding the election, but they will only know the rhetoric that is thrown out on news networks and the supposition that others who think they are "in the know" spout when they are chatting near the water cooler at work.

Maybe ... but statistics would make it work out, I think? Since the sample size would be large enough to be meaningful.

Note that I am NOT proposing the following as a solution, but John Campbell (science fiction write and famous editor) once said that the right to vote had to be earned.

His approach had limitations that would not fly today, as being racist (based on the fact that it would have been exclusionary to many minority people at the time and today too).

The essence of his approach was "you earned the permanent right to vote after personally earning a cumulative sum of $100,000." (or some such number - remember that this value was a number that needed a few years of earning in those days).

Note the word "cumulative" - this was not intended to be for the rich in any given year only. Once you got the right to vote, you did not lose it, even if you did not make one more penny in your life.

I.e., his reasoning was that earning that amount would effectively demonstrate your skills in being successful in this world, and therefore you then had presumably had the capability and capacity and intelligence and street-smarts to vote for your leaders.

Again, not a chance in h*** of this having been adopted back then or today.

As impossible as it would be, I would like to see every able bodied person that can vote have the full, unabridged picture of every candidate that way they are truly "in the know" and have them show up to the polls.

Agreed ... even if impractical or impossible as you say.

At least then Mickey Mouse would be a fully elected official.

Reminds me of the actual event I remember reading about years and years ago. In some country, a company went on an advertising binge for some product during some small election or the other ..a "vote for this product" kind of ad campaign.

They out-spent the actual candidates running for office and the product won ... as a write-in!

Z

[Marenta]

As much of a odd reference as this is going to be.. the system in Starship Troopers is probably one of the best that I've seen. Earning the right to vote.

Please don't laugh too much, but I'm going to link a wiki page about the Terran Federation, it's actually pretty ingenious. Too bad people can't distinguish the difference between a right and a priviledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_Fed ... _Troopers)

[themadscientist]

I thought the same thing as I watched that movie. People tend to respect things they have to earn. That's part of the problem in this country, their whole lives are handed to them with no struggle.

[stebo0728]

All I remember from that movie was boobs.....and a few bugs....

[szh]

All I remember from that movie was boobs.....and a few bugs....

The movie had bugs?
.
.
.
.
.
I kid, I kid!

I loved the book ... haven't actually seen the movie - was just joking above.

Z