Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Get out and VOTE tomorrow!!

This is topic Get out and VOTE tomorrow!! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003670

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-01-2004, 02:28 PM:

This is not meant to be a political oriented thread. It needs no discussion!

I just hope that all eligible voters get out to the polls tomorrow and exercise their right!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-01-2004, 03:36 PM:

Ummm.. If I vote tomorrow I would probably be charged with voter fraud since I already voted absentee.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2004, 03:44 PM:

I spent the weekend distributing campaign literature in our election district, and will be staffing the "Get out the vote" phone banks tonight. [thumbsup]

I also enjoyed the Green Bay Packers win over the Washington Redskins on Sunday football. [Wink]

By all accounts, there will be a record turnout at the polls this year --- Your vote is important: be a part of history.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-01-2004, 03:45 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Ummm.. If I vote tomorrow I would probably be charged with voter fraud since I already voted absentee.

As the Irish saying goes: vote early and vote often!

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 11-01-2004, 04:13 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
I also enjoyed the Green Bay Packers win over the Washington Redskins on Sunday football.

Yeah... Go Pack GO!... I even own my own cheesehead to wear while there playing.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-01-2004, 04:30 PM:

Ha! I didn't even register!

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-01-2004, 04:34 PM:

Does that mean that you are not voting?

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-01-2004, 04:50 PM:

Voting is overrated! People should be shot. Especially the people at the schools and the libraries with their "you need to register booths"... stalking my every move... "Have you registered?" ahh "NO!". "But it only takes 5 minutes." And then I just keep walking. It feels great. [Razz]

What I love more is when they think I'm too young or not a citizen. So I just breeze right on by.

Posted by Chris Mosel (Member # 1451) on 11-01-2004, 04:52 PM:

Go Packers!!!! Lets hope the win was not in vain. [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-01-2004, 04:55 PM:

Generally, it is voter registration that gets you into jury duty too.

Steve

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-01-2004, 04:55 PM:

My hope is that one of 'em wins by a margin sufficient to keep it out of the courts, everywhere. Yeah, it's getting me duty in Dec. or Jan.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-01-2004, 05:11 PM:

Already did the Jury Duty thingie this last year... a child molestation case... not a priest, just some old geezer and a 14 y/o boy.

quote: Jennifer Pan
People should be shot.

quote: Bill Enos
...one of 'em wins by a margin sufficient to keep it out of the courts...

NO Jen, ONLY the (ALL) fucking lawyers and the special interest groups outta be shot! [beer]

I am soooo sick and tired of all this political rhetoric and hub-bub! I'll be glad when it's over! [puke]

>>> Phil

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-01-2004, 05:34 PM:

Where do I re-register for the recount?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2004, 06:25 PM:

I haven't missed any votes (including all the piddly local things which actually have a more direct impact on my life and cost/quality of living). Still, I've never been called for jury duty --knock on wood. Even if I got called for jury duty, I'd probably just amplify the asshole part of my personality and be allowed to go back to work.
[thumbsup]

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-01-2004, 07:36 PM:

Jen:

Having taught political science in high school for over 30 years, I can only tell you what I told all the students over the years who do not register and who do not vote: I'm not upset with your decision. It only makes my vote count even more.

Just keep right on "breezin on" Jen. Others will decide your fate.

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 11-01-2004, 08:35 PM:

I don't think anyone should vote. That way Ill cast the only ballot & therefore pick our future.

I'm like Joe, I already voted absentee so I'll just sit back and watch next 48 hours of non-stop news coverage. [Smile]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-01-2004, 08:46 PM:

Is there any way to "un-register" after the election is over? That way my chance at jury duty decreases. I have yet to be called to jury duty, and I would be pissed to perform my civic duty if I was.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 11-01-2004, 08:54 PM:

I got an absentee ballot for my sister who's in a nursing home convalescing from a fall. A group from the Board of elections visited the nursing homes so that the residents could vote that way, but my sister was in rehab that day and missed them. I visited the Board office to get an application fot the ballot, took it to my sister to get her signature on it, then back to the office to exchange the application for a ballot, only to learn I neeeded a letter from my sister authorizing me to procure the ballot for her. This despite the inclusion of the same authorization within the application! I was told this new redundancy was a new requirement of the Justice Department.

So back to the nursing home to have her sign the letter, then back to the Board office, where I received the ballot. Then
back to the nursing home to have my sister vote by blacking the ovals next to the names of her choices, then sealing the ballot in an envelope within a second envelope, then back to the Board,
where I sealed the second envelope in the presence of a Board employee, who then machine dated and timed the ballot.

What's especially ironic is that my sister has been a paid polls worker for the past 30 years, and for the past five years has been supervisor of 15 to 20 polls workers at our local voting place! This is the first time she has missed voting in person in our venerable mechanical voting machines in the last 57 years.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-01-2004, 10:19 PM:

Mt only comment is those who fail to use there franchise to vote actually have indirectly lost it

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2004, 10:45 PM:

Jen and others who decided not to vote: Your future depends upon the results of elections --- this year's more than ever. Please register and vote in the next election.

In many states, jury pools are drawn from a variety of lists, not only voter registration lists. If you register a vehicle, or pay state income tax, etc., you may be called to serve too. If you are, serve proudly, and learn from the experience.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-01-2004, 10:57 PM:

Im actually hoping that most of the "undecideds" do not vote at all. A lot of people I know have said " I dont like either candidate, so I am not going to vote for either." I say, sounds good to me. I learned from southpark that you are pretty much always goign to have to decide between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, take your pick.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-01-2004, 11:10 PM:

Oh, you guys [Razz]

... I'll definitely vote next time. In the next election I'll do my research or what not to who I think would be good at running our country.

I don't really have a good excuse why I didn't register. But it has a lot to do with... the fact that I just don't care about politics or parties or who's running. I think I should be more knowable about all parties and propositions. Its the carelessness of being a youngin' still living with "her" parents and bumming off of them [Big Grin]

Yes, I should care... but I think you guys will choose who ever is right or wrong for me [thumbsup]

. Thanks in advance for voting. [Cool]

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-01-2004, 11:22 PM:

Don't feel bad Jen, I'm not registered in the state of Wisconsin either. I did vote back in Mass but I guess I was just too lazy to go out and register this year. Good thing is though, Wisconsin allows you to register at the polls, not sure if I'll have the time to even get there though between school and work I'm out of the house from 8AM-9PM tomorrow...maybe I'll sneak out. [Smile]

BTW, PACKERS SUCK!!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-01-2004, 11:28 PM:

Seeing as how the last election turned out with the popular vote (and has happened in the past if I recall correctly), do our votes really count? Hopefully they do away with the electoral college sometime, and then eventually peoples votes will actually make a difference.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-01-2004, 11:36 PM:

www.pickyourpresident.com

I post this link with caution...
FWIW, this site offers a fairly straightforward comparison as to how the boys stand on various issues. (Please do keep actual political comments off of the forums.)

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-01-2004, 11:54 PM:

Rachel, in Wisconsin you can register at the polls. Just bring a piece of mail with your name and current address along with a photo ID and you're set.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-02-2004, 12:51 AM:

Always voted, never contacted for jury duty.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2004, 02:05 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Hopefully they do away with the electoral college sometime, and then eventually peoples votes will actually make a difference.

Looks like somebody needs to do some reading on how the system works.

If we did away with the Electoral College, then the voice of your state (Arizona) and mine (Montana) and about 40 of the others would be drastically reduced.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-02-2004, 02:12 AM:

I, on the other hand, got called for jury duty this summer and I am not registered to vote since I am not a US citizen. Although since I am half Austrian, shouldn't I automatically get to vote in a state with an Austrian governor?

So apparently it doesn't have that much to do with being registered to vote. Or maybe it's different in California.
I sent back the enclosed form telling them that I am not a US citizen, wondering - shouldn't they know that?

quote: Jennifer Pan
Voting is overrated! People should be shot. Especially the people at the schools and the libraries with their "you need to register booths"... stalking my every move... "Have you registered?" ahh "NO!". "But it only takes 5 minutes." And then I just keep walking. It feels great.

Sad, Jennifer, and very uncool. I come from a country which had a mean dictatorship three generations ago, and you can still see the scars everywhere. All our Eastern neighbors only a few years ago didn't have the right to elect their leaders, let alone elect where they wanted to live or go. Ask your parents what it was like where they came from.
Having the right to vote is a great thing, even if you think all the candidates are really uncool.

I wonder, can voters in the US also make their voting form or whatever it's called that you vote on unusuable or unreadable? Reason I am asking is, In Germany the "unreadable" votes, meaning votes where people tick all candidates or just draw a smiley or a [fu]

on the form etc are also counted and published. It also sends a political message, basically "you all suck but I am not one of those people who are too lazy to come to vote, so maybe next time if you gain a little more profile, I might actually vote for you or you."

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-02-2004, 03:04 AM:

Hey Michael, I was never cool to begin with [Roll Eyes]

. But Yeah, my parents or at least my dad would love to go back to the old country. Plus, they didn't register either and my whole family are U.S. citizens. We're just lazy folks that love to complain about taxes. Now that I think about it maybe I should have registered, but then again I still wouldn't know who/what to vote on. So in turn, its just not "smart" for me to pick anything. Voting is a serious matter, I'm just not serious about it right now.

I have the right to vote or not to vote. That's what I love about this country.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-02-2004, 03:52 AM:

Without voicing any opinions about individual candidates in any election, I do feel that we should have the option of actively registering the decision not to endorse any of them, by having a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper... and furthermore, if 'none of the above' wins, for there to be a fresh election in which none of the original candidates are allowed to stand. I believe that Australia, where it is a criminal offence to fail to vote, does have something like this.

Jen's right - we (as in, both the US and Britain) do have the right not to vote, and sometimes we want to exercise that right not because we can't be bothered to turn up at the polling station but because we feel that none of the candidates standing would do a good job in office.

Phil: Your jury service makes me jealous. The only one I ever did was a very tedious, boring and minor tax scam. [sleep]

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-02-2004, 04:02 AM:

I'm 27, and this will be the first time I vote. I used to not care about politics, and then one day I realized that it impacts my life in very dramatic ways. No amount of campaigning to get people to vote ever effected me, it just took my realizing things in life to bring the decision on.

And this past weekend is the first time I ever rooted for the Packers. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-02-2004, 04:11 AM:

What do the Greenbay Packers have to do with voting? It's football! Who gives a flying fuck?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-02-2004, 04:17 AM:

If the Washington Redskins win their last home game, the incumbent president wins, if they loose, so does the incumbent. At least that's what has happened in the last 12 elections.

The Washington Redskins lost their last game to the Green Bay Packers. I thought you disliked football less than baseball!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-02-2004, 04:29 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Seeing as how the last election turned out with the popular vote (and has happened in the past if I recall correctly), do our votes really count? Hopefully they do away with the electoral college sometime, and then eventually peoples votes will actually make a difference.

See here's the problem. The way we vote for president, in fact much of our governmental system is based on the English form of parlimentary government. Probably because WE CAME FROM THERE!!! [Mad]

Popular Vote equates Mob Rule, not democracy. The last time this was tried in this country was pre-constitution. A failed "experiment" known as the Articles of Confederation, nearly brought this great land to its knees.

The Constitution was written to prevent mob rule. A "REPUBLIC" of free democratic states was created to actually "PREVENT" large metropolitian areas from dictating policy to the rest of the country. Each state would be free and totally democratic, and would be able to write it's own laws based upon a set of rights believed to be god given and necessary for humanity.

However, these free democracies would need to be tempered and prevented from becoming so powerful individually. Our republic is designed to do just that. One house of represetatives ordered by population and one house of senators ordered by states in equal number, each can cancel each other out, giving full power and authority to each state.

And then you add a president with authority to override if necessary, and to command armies at thier behest. The president, equivalent to Englands Prime Minister, is chosen not by a vote of the people, but rather by a vote of Electors. Each state chooses electors based upon thier own chosen method of choosing. The electors cast the votes for the president and then is chosen.

This is known as the Electoral College. We have NEVER chosen a president by popular vote since the inception of our constitution. To remove the Electoral College from it is to decimate it by a large percentage. We might as well do away with the bill of rights, the right for women to vote, the elimination of slavery, the formation of our governmental system, all of it.

The electoral college is a part of who we are. To say our vote doesn't count because your vote did not go for the winner is to declare defeatism. Just pack your bags and give up if that is the thought process. Imagine in another state where you guy wins the electors all the time, and the others in that state who voted for the other guy you hate, will they feel the same way?

Anytime your vote does not go for the winner does not mean it did not count. It just means that you must be vigilant and keep voting. Get others to vote as well. Educate people you know on issues important to you without insulting them or insisting they are stupid. Let people know you care about what is happening and get them to vote too.

We can never lose the electoral system. It would great a mob rule society that would be the first step towards destroying our great constitution that has held our system of government together longer than most have ever existed. If we toss it by the way side, we will lose our country, and our great experiment will truly be dead.

And so ends today's lesson in constitutional law. Stay tuned next week when batman teaches the joker about cattle prods up the ass.

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-02-2004, 04:53 AM:

quote: Dave Williams
See here's the problem. The way we vote for president, in fact much of our governmental system is based on the English form of parlimentary government.

Dave, it seems very unlike anything we have here, except maybe the system which one of the political parties used to select their leader at one time; I think that system has now been changed.

There are several things that I don't understand about how the system works over there:

How is the popular vote recorded, is it on a state by state basis, or is it by smaller areas, e.g. by county or city?

What determines how many votes each state has in the electoral college.

How are those votes cast? Do they all go to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state, are they cast in proportion to the popular vote, or the number of counties won, or what?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-02-2004, 05:03 AM:

And while you're at it, could you please also explain why a President in the US can only do 2 terms? Didn't Roosevelt do 3?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-02-2004, 05:53 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
And while you're at it, could you please also explain why a President in the US can only do 2 terms? Didn't Roosevelt do 3?

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits the President to two terms:

22nd Amendment

quote:
Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Case Law

Background to 22nd Amendment

quote:

Background
This amendment, while limiting a President to two elected terms, theoretically does allow a President to serve up to ten years in office. If a Vice President takes over the office of President and serves less than two years as President, he may still be re-elected twice and serve eight more years in office.

This amendment was added after Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first president to serve more than two terms; he ultimately was elected to office four times and died in his fourth term. Many felt this was in violation of a two term only ideal promoted by the first President, George Washington, and widely respected ever since. The amendment codified the previously held tradition.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 06:12 AM:

People pressuring me to vote, just like what is happening to Jen, is one reason why I didnt vote this year. Just leave me alone already. Another reason is because I havent taken the time to listen to both sides to be able to make a fair decision. I also have the feeling that alot of people are voting one way just so the other person wont win. Like a vote against one candidate rather than a vote for one candidate, and thats just stupid. Another thing is I honestly have not researched how the whole electoral college/process works. If its not by popular vote than I just dont get it. The more actual votes for one candidate should mean that candidate wins. Its like if we had a vote here. If Brad wants us to vote whether or not to lock a thread or something like that, then it would go by how many people want that thread locked. It shouldnt go state by state, it should be vote by vote. Am I making sense? If not, then yall should be happy I didnt vote.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-02-2004, 06:51 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
What determines how many votes each state has in the electoral college.

From HERE:

quote:
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

A good site for an explanation of the Electoral College.

>>> Phil

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 06:55 AM:

Thanks for the link Phil.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-02-2004, 07:13 AM:

You can request that you be removed from registration lists as a friend did several years ago after being summoned for jury duty twice in one year. The problem was resolved by the court which had intended to call somebody else with the same name. Otherwise if you don't vote in 3 years a notice will be sent to determine whether you've moved, died, etc. A non response will remove you if you don't show to vote at the next opportunity after that.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-02-2004, 07:31 AM:

i was summoned once for jury duty, right after returning home from college (how did they know?). i've never had a driver's license or registered to vote, so i presume it was because of my state id, now 6 years expired. either that or my passport, which unfortunately i am obliged to keep current.

i don't think democracy is any great impediment to tyranny. a minor one, perhaps. but even the most despotic regime must maintain a claim to legitimacy or it will be overthrown. democracy is such a hallowed idea to most americans that they would never seriously consider revolting against the government. funny that they are so indoctrinated in state-run schools.

carl

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-02-2004, 08:04 AM:

Various points:

- in Massachusetts, jury duty has nothing to do with voter registration and, in fact, anyone residing in the Commonwealth--regardless of actual state of citizenship--can be called to serve on jury duty; once one has served, there is a three year period of exemption (i.e. one must only serve once every three years).

- those who have said that the electoral college has nothing to do with the British system of government are correct; it is a unique institution, though it most closely resembles the "college of cardinals" which is used by the Catholic church to elect the pope.

- agreed with Chris and Jeremy -- those who are undecided or don't care about the outcome of the election shouldn't be voting; there's nothing wrong with being undecided, as long as the "undecideds" don't vote for anyone (i.e. make a decision not based on fact, logic, reasoning, etc.). Of course, they also shouldn't complain about the results of the election. [Smile]

- why does that "pick your president" site cover Nader, but not other minor-party candidates?

- yes, I voted this morning; I had to wait in line for over 30 minutes....

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-02-2004, 08:28 AM:

I also voted this morning, and I am happy to say I voted for the winner. [Smile]

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 11-02-2004, 08:36 AM:

Ok, Since the Redskins lost, does that mean that Bush is supposed to lose, or Kerry? This is my first election and I'm not sure what the incumbent is.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-02-2004, 08:58 AM:

I believe the myth is that the Redskins loosing is a necessary but not sufficient requirment for the incumbant to lose. So it isn't a matter of Kerry can't win anymore to a position of he can.

Steve

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-02-2004, 09:19 AM:

Since the US television networks (and related web sites) will not announce the winner of the eastern states until after the polls have closed on the west coast, I was wondering if anyone knows of any foreign (English language) web sites that will announce the results as soon as they become available.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-02-2004, 09:20 AM:

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

quote:
Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins home football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936.

Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

FOOTBALL + ELECTION

Did you know....??

The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.

This election year, that deciding game takes place on Sunday, October 31 ... vs. Green Bay.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041101/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_redskins___poliltics_6

quote:
Sports - Football

Does Redskins Loss Portend Kerry Victory?

Mon Nov 1, 7:50 AM ET

MANCHESTER, N.H. - John Kerry (news - web sites) supporters got a welcome omen for their candidate on Sunday: The Green Bay Packers (news) defeated the Washington Redskins.

If history holds, the 28-14 score portends a victory for Kerry on Tuesday because the result of the Redskins' final home game before the presidential election has always accurately predicted the White House winner.

If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted...

The Democratic candidate, who describes himself as superstitious and carries a lucky buckeye, cheered the omen.

"I couldn't be more thrilled with the Packers win today," Kerry said. "The Packers have done their part. This Tuesday, we'll do ours."

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-02-2004, 09:42 AM:

So this football rule; over the last 15 elections, how many of those were where the incumbent was not eligible to run for another term? Just in my lifetime there would have been two presidents that could not have run again, Reagan and Clinton, so does that 15 not include those years, and previous elections of the sort? If not then that is pretty dumb if you ask me.

As for abolishing the electoral college: there is a rule in politics, those in power want to stay in power. By getting rid of the electoral college, state representatives would lose much of his/her power.

Another thing to remember is that the popular vote is the entire country. It really doesnt matter if every single person in the state of Texas, california, florida and new york vote for Bush, he would still lose because it is whether he wins the state or not. So basically you are voting for your state to win and that goes into the electoral college.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 11-02-2004, 10:00 AM:

Chris,

My Take on the statement is that the incumbent PARTY is effected, not the incumbents themselves.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-02-2004, 11:51 AM:

Check with Brad first, he said it was okay to post this link.

For anyone interested in talking about politics, since we understandably cannot do that here, try

America's Debate

They are aimed at civil debate involving politics, I think it's a great site.

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 11-02-2004, 12:07 PM:

Hey Jen !!!!! go and listen to Mike Jacksons "Scream" and take the Pressure off [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 11-02-2004, 12:44 PM:

If you don't vote, which is entirely your right, you do lose the right to bitch about the results for the next four years. [Smile]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 01:13 PM:

I'm sure I can find plenty of other stuff to bitch about. [Wink]

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-02-2004, 01:25 PM:

Someone please correct me if I'm way off here, but my understanding of the electoral college "problem" is the following.

Each state has a number of electoral "votes" equal to its number of U.S. Senators (always 2) plus its number of U.S. Representatives (number changes periodically based on population census of the state, something like 1 per 500,000 citizens or some such). This helps out the influence of smaller states rather than just doing it by population. For example: Alaska has 3 electoral votes (for its 2 Senators and 1 Representative). If done purely by population, they would have only 1 electoral vote. If done purely by popular vote (straight numbers comparison of cast ballots) their influence on the national elections would be practically nothing.

Now California has the most electoral votes (55) because of its huge population. Here's where the problem occurs. If 51% of the people in California vote Republican and 49% vote Democrat, the Republican gets all 55 electoral votes. This effectively means that nearly half of the population has had their vote rendered meaningless. To continue our example from above, if the Republican wins all the "big" states by very narrow margins while the Democrat wins handily in most of the "small" states the Republican can win the election by electoral college votes even though a straight tally of the total votes would put the Democrat as the winner. Granted, this has only happened very rarely (twice if I remember correctly) so its not that big an issue, but it does seem to defy common sense.

Overall, it's a good system. In the collection of states, it gives the "little guy" a bit more of a voice in deciding its own future. Using popular voting puts all the power in places like L.A. and New York and the rest of us just go along for the ride. There are issues with it that don't seem to make sense, but it'll work well enough until something better is proposed.

- Mike

- edit : spelling corrections, sheesh! -

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 01:30 PM:

But my issue with it is, I dont want to vote on behalf of my state. I want to vote on my own behalf. If this is the case, then the saying, "Every vote counts" would actually mean something. It wouldnt matter how big a state is. I mean if America was just one big land mass with no borders and one group to lead it all, wouldnt popular vote be the only way? Like if I were in school and running for class president, would the amount of people in English classes as opposed to those in Art classes have an effect on the outcome? No, the number of votes would decide the outcome.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-02-2004, 02:10 PM:

quote: Mike Pennell
If you don't vote, which is entirely your right, you do lose the right to bitch about the results for the next four years.

Good point.

But nobody answered my earlier question: how come I, who am not a US citizen and not registered to vote, got called for jury duty? I have an Arnifornia driver license as every resident, citizen or not, of the state needs to have.

Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 11-02-2004, 02:55 PM:

Michael,
California chooses their jurors randomly by voter registration and/or driver licences. When you appear just tell them you are not a citizen and you will be excused from duty. [beer]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-02-2004, 03:58 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
I was wondering if anyone knows of any foreign (English language) web sites that will announce the results as soon as they become available.

Mitchell,

The BBC will have the results here

They say that the first results are expected around midnight GMT (7pm est). That seems very early; what time do the polls close there? Here the polls close at 22:00. The votes are on paper, and are counted manually. The first results are usually declared around midnight, those from remote areas with widely dispersed populations, and those where the result is very close, and several recounts are required obviously taking much longer, but most results are declared by noon the next day.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-02-2004, 04:34 PM:

I tend to make long posts, so please, either bear with me or just shoot me and let me die in peace! [Eek!]

quote: Stephen Furley
Dave, it seems very unlike anything we have here, except maybe the system which one of the political parties used to select their leader at one time; I think that system has now been changed.

I apologize. I incorrectly stated that our system is based on the english parlimentary system. I should have instead stated that at the creation of our governmental system, our founding fathers, who were in fact english, drew from the only form of government that they really knew. The original Articles of Confederation was a complete reversal of Royal Rule, and instead we got mob rule. As a compromise, the REPUBLIC was created, with a system that was reminiscent of the home land, yet improved to disallow rule by any one body or person. It was quite ingenious and has ruled this land for 220+ years.

On to new business, there is much that is bieng said here about votes becoming meaningless or not counting.

I will point out a few qoutes and then point out where the argument is lost...

quote: Jeremy Fuentes
But my issue with it is, I dont want to vote on behalf of my state. I want to vote on my own behalf. If this is the case, then the saying, "Every vote counts" would actually mean something.

However you are voting on behalf of your state. The only way to not is to just not vote. This is our system, and if you disagree with it then that is fine, however I would suggest reading up on our founding fathers and why they put this sytem in place. Voting on behalf of your state is voting on your own behalf because you live in your state. If you keep voting for the loser, then either move to a state that represents your values or stay where you are and become active in trying to change how your state votes. Represent!

quote: Michael Cunningham
If 51% of the people in California vote Republican and 49% vote Democrat, the Republican gets all 55 electoral votes. This effectively means that nearly half of the population has had their vote rendered meaningless.

Casting your vote for the loser does not render your vote meaningless. All votes are meaningful. When anyone believes thier vote may be meaningless, they tend to not vote. How many meaningless votes have never been cast? Just becuase your guy loses does not make your vote meaningless. The meaningless vote is the one not cast. One vote gave Adolf Hitler control of the Nazi Party, imagine the shagrin on those that abdicated thier vote because it was meaningless.

quote: Michael Cunningham
Granted, this has only happened very rarely (twice if I remember correctly) so its not that big an issue, but it does seem to defy common sense.

This pertains to the electoral college granting a winner not based on popular vote not bieng common sense. Common sense is also equatable to mob rule. Instead what is required here is greater sense of purpose. The electoral college was created to prevent popular votes from large metro areas casting the president. This is the basis of our republic. I am actually quite surprised that we have not had more irregularities in our history.

quote: Michael Cunningham
There are issues with it that don't seem to make sense, but it'll work well enough until something better is proposed.

We should not be looking for something better. It works. The way the states chooses its electoral votes is entirely up to the states, NOT the us government. If you want to change how your state divies them up, then do something about it. Colorado has a citizens initiative on the ballot right now.

The system works, however the individual states need to make thier own determination on how it works for them best.

The only reason that it is said to be broken is because it produced just the irregularities that the founding fathers had foreseen in the first place. Broken? It did what it was supposed to do. What is broken is having election law ripped to shreds by lawyers trying to litigate victories post election.

I will trust the creators of our constitution to have created a great document that is the framework of our government, our country, our way of life. There are parts of it that have needed to be changed, hence the ability to ammend it as needs be, as times prove different social trends.

However, proper representations is not a social trend. Slavery was a social trend. Prohibition was a social trend. Giving voting rights to women was a social trend. Getting the representation that we should get is not a trend, it is necessity. I cannot see even wanting to change the system as it is.

I could see the states all adopting a district by district electoral policy, house and senate. That would be quite fair, and would pull every single district into play, and then really the elections would be fun to watch. No one would be ignored.

But that cannot be done at the federal level, unless the constitution were ammended that way. It would take a preponderance of states to do it, but would take away states rights, and would be struck down by the supreme court, maybe.

AUGH....

so there.. i love the college, it is what it is.. it works, but then again I am a student of constitutional law so I tend to be a bit more defensive of it.... [evil]

Ok i did just get back from voting.. i voted for the winner in all counts.. lets hope he remembers that bribe he promised me..

ciao

dave

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-02-2004, 04:40 PM:

Just for the record, I went to the polls this morning, got registered, voted, and was out in 15 minutes! [thumbsup]

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-02-2004, 05:05 PM:

I took me about 30 minutes because my voter registration card had expired and they never sent me a new one. I just voted straight ticket to save some time, plus I didnt pay attention to the senatorial campaigns at all.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-02-2004, 05:23 PM:

George Carlin has a funny take on complainers/voting/not voting. I think the gist of it was that because you voted, and therefore caused the problems, it gives me every right to complain. By me not voting, I didn't cause anyone any problems! [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-02-2004, 05:41 PM:

voter registration card?

Around here (city of Boston, Mass.), voters just give their name and address and are not required to present any form of identification (though it is, I believe, required at the time of voter registration). Does Texas require voters to present a specific card? Why?

For those who voted, what type of ballot did you use? Boston recently switched from lever machines ("Automatic Voting Machine") to optical-scan paper ballots, which are now used by most communities in Massachusetts. The scanner is actually built into the ballot box, although I don't believe that the results are available until the polls close. At that point, one would presume that the results (save for write-in candidates) would be available almost instantaneously. I'm not sure how write-ins are counted. The paper ballots can be retained for possible recount purposes. I've voted using punch cards, lever machines, and optical scan ballots, and prefer the user interface of the lever machine, though the optical scan system is a close second.

Did anyone use the Diebold touch-screen machines which have been the subject of much controversy lately?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-02-2004, 05:43 PM:

I say that my vote and Nate's vote should be the only 2 that count. We'd probably cancel each other out, but then the contest would be settled in a violent fist fight, because violence solves everything!

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-02-2004, 05:59 PM:

Scott,

From what I understand, first time voters(like me) must have a registration card. After that you jsut take your driver's license and they look you up in their roll. I dont know why.

For me it was a scan-tron type ballot, just fill in the bubbles and feed it into a machine.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 06:10 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
Voting on behalf of your state is voting on your own behalf because you live in your state.

Yes, but were not voting on something on the state level, we are voting on a national level. It shouldnt matter what state I live in at all. I live in this country, and the winner represents this country, not just the interests of my state or any other state. The country as a whole, so the votes should be counted as a whole. Just my opinion* But youre right, I should really do some more research before I get into a debate over politics with people who know way more than I do, but I'm just stating my opinion.*

*-The only opinion that matters, ever. [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-02-2004, 06:34 PM:

quote:
Just my opinion*

*-The only opinion that matters, ever.

Uhh... no. The world agrees that my opinion is the only one that counts.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-02-2004, 06:39 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
One vote gave Adolf Hitler control of the Nazi Party

Urban Legend.

-Aaron

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-02-2004, 07:18 PM:

For Michael, if you have a CA driver's license then you are on the list for jury duty in CA.

For Scott, NV too sends out voter registration cards which are good until you miss voting at an election. Then you must re-register. First-time voters here must present a government-issued photo ID. Anyone that has voted before does not need to present an ID. I always bring both my voter reg card and my sample ballot, but since I've been voting in this state since 1973 no one has ever asked me for an ID.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-02-2004, 07:39 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Uhh... no. The world agrees that my opinion is the only one that counts.

I say we put it to a vote. How many electoral votes does Colorado have? [Big Grin]

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-02-2004, 07:54 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
voters just give their name and address and are not required to present any form of identification

Well, you didn't ask me but oh well, all I needed was my drivers license to register in Wisconsin.

quote: Scott Norwood
For those who voted, what type of ballot did you use?

We also used the optical-scan papers. I was under the assumption that this was their first time using them from the way people were talking, although I'm not sure...

Posted by Erica Peterson (Member # 1784) on 11-02-2004, 08:02 PM:

quote:
Scott Norwood: voters just give their name and address and are not required to present any form of identification

Better yet: in Cambridge when you check in, the lists of voters' names and addresses are spread out on a table in plain sight, printed in a large font. Anybody could walk in, pick a random name off the list, and vote.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-02-2004, 09:01 PM:

It should also be noted that if the candidate you voted for wins, you have no right to complain about anything for the next four years, because you approve of and endorse everything he does.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-02-2004, 09:04 PM:

quote: Joe
quote: Jeremy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just my opinion*

*-The only opinion that matters, ever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhh... no. The world agrees that my opinion is the only one that counts.

Apparently you both have brown eyes since you're both full of shit!

>>> Phil

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-02-2004, 09:13 PM:

The Electoral College also serves another purpose. Does anyone imagine the Florida recounts last election? Now, imagine the chaos that would have been caused by a president elected by popular vote requiring a NATIONAL re-count due to close returns nation-wide.

By the way, Maine & Nebraska do split their electors. The winner of each congressional district wins one elector. The winner of the state-wide vote wins the remaining two. It just so happens that neither of them have ever split.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-02-2004, 10:35 PM:

Is there any reason that they cannot count the early votes before hand?

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-02-2004, 10:50 PM:

Most election precincts have rules that prevent them from counting ANY vote until the polls close. The same reason why they don't just tally the votes as they come in. My guess would be that people would potentially start a buzz as to who was "winning" which might skew turnout one way or the other, such as "oh, my candidate's winning anyways so I'm not going to bother" or the "I wasn't going to vote, but my candidate's losing"

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-03-2004, 12:04 AM:

Do state elections take as long as federal elections to decide a winner? Provincial elections here are usually decided before the polls close at 9pm. Actually, federal elections take a similar amount of time.

At 269 electoral votes, Bush is now the projected winner.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2004, 01:09 AM:

269 depending on who you are listening to. Most networks have not jumped the gun on Ohio yet.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-03-2004, 02:32 AM:

Update at 0830GMT:

The chief electoral official in Ohio (can't remember the exact title, sorry) has just been on the radio (7.30am our time) saying that he'll have all the (as yet unopened) provisional ballots checked for eligibility and then counted if necessary - and if it is necessary (i.e. if the margin between the two candidates is less than the number of provisionals), there'll be no official result until the back end of next week.

Michigan called for Kerry by three US networks (says BBC Online). According to our media the state of play now is that Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii are yet to declare: if they go to Bush then game over, if not then it all hinges on Ohio.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-03-2004, 04:27 AM:

quote: Mike Pennell
If you don't vote, which is entirely your right, you do lose the right to bitch about the results for the next four years.

i know it's an exaggeration, but even so i disagree with the sentiment. by voting, you give tacit approval to the process and "lose your right" to complain about the result. you are part of the problem. me, i'm a conscientious objector.

quote: Mike Pennell
California chooses their jurors randomly by voter registration and/or driver licences.

so how did a non-registered, non-licensed abstaining bicyclist like me get called up?

carl

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-03-2004, 04:52 AM:

People without member pictures are reported to the jury lists by Brad.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-03-2004, 05:11 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
so how did a non-registered, non-licensed abstaining bicyclist like me get called up?

The selection and management of jurors is governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure. Jurors' names are selected at random from lists of registered voters and persons who have valid California drivers licenses or identification cards issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The two lists are combined to create one Master Jury List. 7000 prospective jurors each week are randomly selected from the master list to receive a summons. The summonses are mailed approximately five weeks prior to the service date. The summons contains information and instructions on how to have jury service postponed; how to request to be excused from jury service; or how to notify the court of disqualification from jury service. - saccourt.com

Since identification is issued by the DMV, I suspect that is how they got you! [Wink]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-03-2004, 07:55 AM:

Aaron,

Correct on your answer to my rediculous statement.

quote: Dave Williams
One vote gave Adolf Hitler control of the Nazi Party

Sometimes I have a habit of passing off information I learned from somewhere else as if I did the work and learned it for myself. Quite often, we tend to trust sources that should be trustworthy. I am glad that there are people here who know better and can correct even the smartest of us here. [evil]

The source I had that information from was from the Leauge of Women Voters. They are using it this year in thier get out the vote drive.

I should have either posted that I took that information from them or have researched it better.

Shame on me [Eek!]

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-03-2004, 10:37 AM:

CNN

quote:

Kerry concedes, White House aide says
Candidates to speak later Wednesday

CNN) -- Democratic Sen. John Kerry phoned President Bush on Wednesday to concede the presidential election, a White House aide said.

President Bush was to deliver a victory statement at 3 p.m. ET, Bush aides said. Kerry was expected to make a concession speech at 1 p.m. ET at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts.

Kerry's phone call came a few hours after White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card announced that the Bush campaign was convinced the president had won re-election.

"President Bush decided to give Sen. Kerry the respect of more time to reflect on the results of this election," Card told GOP supporters at the Reagan Federal Building and International Trade Center in Washington.

"We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election with at least 286 electoral votes," Card said. (Transcript of Card's comments)

Ahead in the popular vote by more than 3.7 million votes, the president moved tantalizingly close to winning an Electoral College majority with a lead in the key battleground state of Ohio, though the Buckeye State remained too close for CNN to call. (Electoral College)

"President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote," said Card, referring to the White House victory by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. "And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."

So far, Bush is projected to have won 28 states, with 254 electoral votes, and a win in Ohio would assure him of at least 274 votes, more than the 270 he needs for a majority Electoral College. (Small inroads make difference for Bush)

Kerry has a projected 252 electoral votes.

A top adviser for Kerry had said Wednesday morning the campaign would determine its plan of action after looking at the "real numbers" in Ohio. The adviser said the Kerry team "won't make this a mystery too long."

Sen. John Edwards told a crowd early Wednesday at Copley Square in Boston, Massachusetts: "We will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."

Card claimed an important psychological victory in the nation's popular vote and said that in addition to Ohio the campaign was putting Iowa and New Mexico in the "winner's column as well." (CNN has no projection yet for Iowa and New Mexico.)

Bush leads in Ohio by more than 136,000 votes, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, according to CNN data.

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell issued orders for counties by 2 p.m. Wednesday to report total numbers of provisional ballots. Counting of those ballots will not begin until Thursday, according to Blackwell's directive.

It is not clear how long the ballot-counting will take. Initially, Blackwell said the counting of provisional and absentee ballots would not begin for 11 days.

He said he could not immediately put an estimate on the number of those ballots but said 250,000 might not be out of the realm of possibility.

While he said the exact number of provisional ballots was unknown, he said it is "trending toward 175,000."

Blackwell suggested that "everybody just take a deep breath and relax."

In another key battleground state, Kerry is projected the winner in Wisconsin.

Iowa election officials blamed broken machines, a delay in opening absentee ballots and apparent fatigue for delaying the secretary of state's report of a final count until some time Wednesday.

New Mexico is too close to call and will not release presidential election results until later Wednesday because thousands of absentee ballots remain uncounted, according to a spokesman for the secretary of state.

The key turning point in Tuesday's election came when Bush carried Florida, which the president won four years ago by just 537 votes after a lengthy dispute. This time around, though, there was no question who won the Sunshine State, where Bush's margin was more than 370,000 votes. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Few states switched from the party of four years ago. New Hampshire, which Bush narrowly won in 2000, went for Kerry. Bush has so far carried no state carried by Democrat Al Gore four years ago, although he leads in two, Iowa and New Mexico.

GOP projected to keep control of Congress
Republicans are projected to retain control of the House and Senate, adding to their majorities in both chambers with strong showings in Southern states. (Senate, House)

In South Dakota, former GOP Rep. John Thune claimed victory over the Senate's top Democrat, Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

GOP candidates are projected to win open Democratic seats in four Southern states and were ahead in a fifth, Florida. The party also is projected to keep vulnerable Republican seats in Oklahoma and Kentucky and to lead in a third, Alaska.

The only GOP setbacks were projected in Illinois, where rising Democratic star Barack Obama took the seat vacated by retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, and in Colorado, where Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar is projected to beat beer magnate Pete Coors in the race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. (Senate)

Those results, coupled with the projected Daschle loss in South Dakota, would give the Republicans a net gain of four seats, making the lineup in the new Senate 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent.

Daschle could be the first Senate party leader to lose his seat in 52 years.

In the battle for the 435 House seats, Republicans are projected to retain their majority, winning 230 seats -- a net gain of at least four seats. CNN projects Democrats with 202 seats and one independent. (House)

Two more seats will be decided in a Louisiana runoff in December.

GOP candidates are projected to pick up six Democratic seats -- five in Texas, where a controversial redistricting plan pushed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay redrew the state's map to make it more Republican-friendly.

In addition, two other veteran Texas Democrats forced by the new map to run against Republican incumbents -- Reps. Charles Stenholm and Martin Frost -- also are projected to lose.

Democrats are projected to take a Republican seat in Illinois, where Melissa Bean defeated veteran GOP Rep. Phil Crane.

If projections hold, it will be the sixth consecutive election in which the GOP has held the majority.

Of the 11 gubernatorial races, close contests are expected in Missouri, New Hampshire and Washington.

In Indiana, CNN is projecting a big win for former Bush administration official Mitch Daniels over Indiana Gov. Joe Kernan.

Ballot measures
Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back Tuesday, with voters in 11 states projected to approve constitutional amendments codifying marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman.

California voters, who faced 16 statewide ballot measures, are projected to pass a measure to establish a constitutional right to conduct research using stem cells and to authorize $3 billion for such research.

A ballot measure approving the use of marijuana for medical reasons is projected to pass in Montana.

Colorado voters are projected to reject a proposal to change its winner-take-all to allocated electoral votes for presidential candidates.

A Florida measure to require parental notification before minors can obtain an abortion is projected to passed.

Gambling is another hot ballot issue, with six states deciding 13 measures.

CNN's John King and Kelly Wallace contributed to this report.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2004, 12:49 PM:

quote:
For those who voted, what type of ballot did you use? Boston recently switched from lever machines ("Automatic Voting Machine") to optical-scan paper ballots,

The automatic voting (mechanical lever) machines were invented in Rochester, NY. Still used throughout most of New York State.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/votingmachine.html

quote:
Standard voting machine
This voting machine was patented by inventor Alfred J. Gillespie and manufactured by the Standard Voting Machine Company of Rochester, New York, in the late 1890s. It was the first to use a voter-activated mechanism that drew a privacy curtain around the voter and simultaneously unlocked the machine's levers for voting. In 1898, Gillespie and inventor Jacob Myers, whose patents informed Gillespie's work, organized a company that became Automatic Voting Machine Company. Myers gave the first demonstration of a voting machine in an 1892 Lockport, New York, town election.

Automatic Voting Machine brochure
From 1898 through the early 1960s, the gear-and-lever voting machine was promoted as an ideal voting technology. Though its internal mechanism changed over the years, the machine's "three steps to vote" never changed:

Pull the handle to close the curtains of the booth.
Turn the voting levers over the names of your chosen candidates to expose the Xs.
Pull the handle back to register your vote and reopen the curtains.

New Yorker magazine cover
In this New Yorker magazine cover from 1956, election officials tally votes registered on the counters visible on the back of a gear-and-lever voting machine. These machines were last manufactured in 1985 and remain in statewide use in Louisiana and New York. They are being phased out under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which provides aid to states to acquire new voting equipment.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-03-2004, 02:55 PM:

In Georgia, we used touch-screen voting technology, with your votes being recorded on Smart Cards (the credit-card-like things with the chip)

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-03-2004, 03:27 PM:

Same thing here. Nevada has mostly switched to touch-screen machines, and will be completely switched over by 2006. Our new machines are also the first ones in the country to have a printer attached, so that the voter may see a printed confirmation of the selections made, prior to casting the ballot. The printouts stay with the machine and are used to audit the count, should that become necessary.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-03-2004, 04:54 PM:

Jeremy, it's time like these I realize I should not have quit bieng a teacher. Of course I was teaching five year old deaf kids with down's syndrome, but still I WAS MAKING A DIFFERENCE DAMMIT!!!

oh back to business... on the electoral college, I thought long and hard to today about it all and came up with a few examples that I hope at least try to help out a bit with understanding it's importance...

quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Yes, but were not voting on something on the state level, we are voting on a national level. It shouldnt matter what state I live in at all. I live in this country, and the winner represents this country, not just the interests of my state or any other state. The country as a whole, so the votes should be counted as a whole.

The winner of the presidency is quite often seen as the primary figurehead, however he has very limited powers. In all actuality, he represents the states of the republic, not the members of those states.

When you vote for president, you are only voting for electors who will then cast a vote for president. It may seem like you are voting in a national election, however a national election is exactly what the framers of our government hoped to avoid.

In all reality, you never vote in a national election. You vote for matters of locality, state, and thats it. When it comes to every four years, your state is asking you to tell it how you want it to be represented at the national level.

The only requirement for states to cast electoral votes is that they be cast in washington, in person by electoral members chosen by states to vote, on a specific day. I cannot recall the day, it is in january however.

If we were to ever do away with the electoral college and just vote the majority vote for president, it would completely strip this country of the one thing that has given it such longevity.... a "republic" of "free democratic" states. To switch to an actual national election for the first time in our nations history (since the inception of our current constitution), would deprive each state of its free will to determine how it votes for the leader of the republic. This would easily lead to outward determination of states policies regarding its affairs, and the elimination of states rights, state borders, self determination of local goverments, and eventually, yes, even the elimination of individual rigts of freedom.

Take also note that your congressmen vote on hundreds of bills each year, and you trust that they are going to do the best in your interest. You don't get to vote on these bills, you send someone to do it for you. The same is for the president. You dont vote for the president... ever. You vote for someone that holds your interests dear and hope that is the person that will cast the vote the way you wish them too.

So when you think you are voting for a president, you are really voting for some person you have never met, who will then take the state vote to washington to cast it for your state. YOu never actually vote for president. You vote for the vote for president.

Ok my head hurts. I am going to bed.

CIao

Dave

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2004, 06:43 PM:

I thought it was pretty interesting when several news people said that although there were millions of new young voters this year, encouraged to register by MTV, Rolling Stone and the "Vote For Change" concert tour, the youngsters did not vote in any greater numbers than in previous years.

One guy on CNN said, "Apparently these young people are more than willing to go out and see Bruce Springsteen and register to vote while at the concert, but when it comes to actually going to the polls, they can't be bothered."

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-03-2004, 08:32 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
Ok my head hurts.

Thanks for the headache inducing explanation. I dont have a headache, but I appreciate the effort you put into the explanation for me, saving me from a headache. But seriously, I was expecting a detailed explanation from you that made it clear for me how the whole thing works, and thats what I got. Thanks.

quote: Dave Williams
Jeremy, it's time like these I realize I should not have quit bieng a teacher.

Its times like these I wish I would have stayed awake in class.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-03-2004, 08:37 PM:

quote:
quote: Dave Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy, it's time like these I realize I should not have quit bieng a teacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its times like these I wish I would have stayed awake in class.

It's time like these I wish a "teacher" would instruct our youngin's how to spell correctly.

>>> Phil

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-03-2004, 11:30 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I thought it was pretty interesting when several news people said that although there were millions of new young voters this year, encouraged to register by MTV, Rolling Stone and the "Vote For Change" concert tour, the youngsters did not vote in any greater numbers than in previous years.

I was thinking the same thing when Puff diddy faddy combs was on NBC bragging about everything he did, but he didn't really do anything except get people registered and then not vote. I'm not saying his efforts were pointless, but don't boast about something that didnt really happen.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-04-2004, 01:00 AM:

Wouldn't you think that many of the 18-29 year olds that voted four years ago have moved on to the 30-44 group, since they're all four years older?

Fresh faces were needed to replace them so that the 18-29 group stayed at the same level as the last election, while the 30-44 and 44-59 groups both grew slightly.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-04-2004, 07:51 AM:

quote: Adam Martin
Wouldn't you think that many of the 18-29 year olds that voted four years ago have moved on to the 30-44 group, since they're all four years older?

Hey, I'm in that group now, and I still will be in 4 years when the next presidential race comes up.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-04-2004, 06:30 PM:

Dave Williams said:

"The only requirement for states to cast electoral votes is that they be cast in washington, in person by electoral members chosen by states to vote, on a specific day. I cannot recall the day, it is in january however."

Not so. The electors meet in the capital of each state on the second Tuesday of December after the general election. A "slate" of electors submitted by the winning party of each state are the ones who cast ballots for President and Vice President. They will most likely vote for the candidates of their party, but by law are not required to do so. Those ballots are then sealed and transmitted to the Congress in Washington. In January, the President of the Senate (the current Vice President) counts the ballots and announces the official result.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-07-2004, 01:17 PM:

The voting age should be raised to 30. Less frustration for all concerned. [Razz]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-07-2004, 02:14 PM:

Sure. And let's revoke the rights of women and minorities while we're at it. Obviously, only white men over 30 are able to think for themselves.

People over 50 shouldn't be able to vote (or drive). Why should they care? They're almost dead anyway. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-07-2004, 03:22 PM:

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
The electors meet in the capital of each state on the second Tuesday of December after the general election. A "slate" of electors submitted by the winning party of each state are the ones who cast ballots for President and Vice President. They will most likely vote for the candidates of their party, but by law are not required to do so. Those ballots are then sealed and transmitted to the Congress in Washington. In January, the President of the Senate (the current Vice President) counts the ballots and announces the official result.

You are partially correct, and partially incorrect.

At current here is how it plays out...

United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 7: The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

This would put it this year on December 13. Where I erred is that the counting of the votes is on January 6th, as I originally stated that the electors meet in washington in january to place thier votes. They do in fact meet in each state, at a place determined by each state, at the date described in federal election law. There six copies of votes and certifications are each originated and sent out to their respective recipients. This is done to prevent the circumventing of votes by outside parties.

Also, while there is no constitutional provision for electors to cast votes according to thier state tally, there are 26 states that have either state law or party requirements to cast the ballots as per the state tally. The federal cannot intervene in the state affair on this matter, so they must discard or take under advisement and council any votes not in proportion to thier state tally if thier state law so demands it.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-07-2004, 04:44 PM:

quote: Adam Martin
Obviously, only white men over 30 are able to think for themselves.

A little bigotted today, are we, Adam? This is typical. You make a statement, and the people who claim to know better read all sorts of meaning into it that isn't there.

Please spare me the righteousness act.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-07-2004, 04:57 PM:

Then what the

did you mean?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-07-2004, 07:21 PM:

Well obviously the words "white" and "men" didn't appear in his original post.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-07-2004, 07:36 PM:

Here's what my post meant: If Tim wants to discriminate against people under 30 (who, by the way, are eligible to be elected as Congressmen), then we might as well discriminate against the elderly, women, minorities, and anyone else who might have differing opinions or values.

I read Tim's post to suggest that voters under 30 raise questions and issues that he feels "frustrates" the process and that these issues should not be addressed or should be swept under the carpet and we should all play like they don't exist. AKA, "Those damned whippersnappers! Always causing trouble!"

I'm still waiting to find out what exactly he meant if it was indeed something that I read into incorrectly.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-07-2004, 07:39 PM:

Dave, I stand corrected. Guess I've been out of the classroom too long and my memory does not serve me as well as it once did. [Eek!]

The electors will indeed meet on December 13th this year.

You are also correct in citing individual state law for guidance of the electors in each state. This is a throwback to the Constitutional dictum that the states set their own voting qualifications (barring any amendments such as the women's vote and the 18 year old vote).

Jeremy- sorry to confuse you on this. You are not alone. The vast majority of Americans are just as confused. I sometimes wonder why it has to be this way. Guess that 200 plus years of tradition is hard to overcome. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-07-2004, 08:35 PM:

I'll do Adam and Tim one better--white, male, over 30, landowners, as the framers originally intended. [evil]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-08-2004, 01:33 PM:

Paul you beat me to it. Yes indeed, it was landowners only who originally voted. The reason was not to separate the rich from the poor, but rather instead to prevent those who did not hold a stake in the advancement of our country from electing enmasse a candidate that would raid the treasury at thier behest.

I cannot by forum rule post any further on this content as it would almost certainly lead to a political argument, not my intention at all.

and by the way... John, you are way very cool man! I love a good challenge to my egocentric ways. Ask anyone here, I know everything and am god. So it is nice to be put in my place every once in a while without getting my head bit off in the process.

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-08-2004, 01:35 PM:

But wait, I'm still confused!! Just kidding, this seems like it could start leaning toward an argument...now if I could only find that thread-locking key that I stole when Brad wasnt looking. [Wink]