I voted this morning

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The line was as long as I've ever seen, and that includes the 2008 election when Barak Obama was first elected.

There were no problems at all, just a lot of people relieved to vote and end this madness. I was privately glad to see the long lines. I don't care what peoples' votes are, so long as they do vote. My biggest problem is with people who are passive-aggressive about not voting because… their votes don't count… the system is rigged… they didn't like any of the candidates… etc.

If you don't vote:
  1. You don't get to complain about the results.
  2. Someone else's vote might count more because you failed to vote.
I got to the school at 8:05 am and walked out at 8:50, some 45 minutes later. They were using new paper ballots that may have caused some slow down. I had to mark my votes by filling in circles on the ballot, and then I fed it into a scanner to read and record it. With only 2 scanners available, there was a line of people waiting to use them. I think we were better off with the punch cards ballots we abandoned after the Florida hanging chad fiasco of 16 years ago.

The voting marshals insisted that all cell phones be turned off, not silenced, but powered down. Evidently, the fear of electronic mayhem has caused this.

Who else has Election Day thoughts or observations? I shouldn't have to say this, but I will: non-partisan election day comments please.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
Richard, I voted as well. However, got right in and right out. Just will be glad when all of the political ads go away! Sick of the negative campaigning. I also agree if you don't vote, then you have no right rto complain about the way things are!

Cheers,

Phil
 
M

Midwesthonky

Audioholic General
I voted as well. I got to my polling place at 7 am when it opened. No parking due to amount of people lined up along the entire side of the building. But it moved fairly quick once they opened at 7 am. I was in and out in 15 minutes.

Glad to see so many people voting regardless of their choice.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
...I got to the school at 8:05 am and walked out at 8:50, ...
I was just wondering how could it possibly take so long to vote....then I remembered that you guys have to vote for everybody from President to dogcatcher.:D

Whether it's for a city councillor/mayor, provincial MLA or a federal MP, I don't think I've ever been as long as 5 minutes in casting a vote.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I was just wondering how could it possibly take so long to vote....then I remembered that you guys have to vote for everybody from President to dogcatcher.:D
The time I spent filling out my ballot was no more than 5 minutes. It was those two long lines, one just to get in, and another shorter line to scan my paper ballot and leave!
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I took advantage of absentee voting for the first time this year. Cost a couple stamps to mail in the ballot, but well worth avoiding the lines.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
The time I spent filling out my ballot was no more than 5 minutes. It was those two long lines, one just to get in, and another shorter line to scan my paper ballot and leave!
Line-ups aren't a big issue here - at least in my neck of the woods. We tend to have somewhat higher voter turnouts here, so it's not because of a lack of voters. Perhaps we have more polling stations....
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I took advantage of absentee voting for the first time this year. Cost a couple stamps to mail in the ballot, but well worth avoiding the lines.
A couple of good friends of mine did the same...because they live up here right now.;)
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I've voted by mail since 1999. It is such a pleasure compared to polling places.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
The voting marshals insisted that all cell phones be turned off, not silenced, but powered down. Evidently, the fear of electronic mayhem has caused this.
I early voted a couple of weeks ago. still a 20 minute process.
In GA, they had a sign saying no cell phones allowed; however, it is not like they were doing anything to check. I just left mine in my pocket and hoped no one would call and figured if they did, I would just hand it to one of the poll workers until I was done.
In my location, the booths do not have true privacy (they have side blinders, but no privacy curtain, anyone walking behind me can see my screen) so the workers would see me if I used my phone, but it occurred to me that if I wanted to buy your vote, I could have you text me a video of you pushing the submit button after showing the screen confirming who you voted for, so I would guess that is the concern about phones in polling locations. Without the video I would have no evidence that you kept up your end of the deal!

As for people not voting, I can understand it, depending on the specifics. In a solidly red or blue state, anyone voting against the majority of their state is essentially wasting their time by going to the polls (and it is not like they have the day off from work to go cast a vote). Heck, in my county, over half of the positions on the ticket are uncontested Republicans because no one is willing to "waste their time" running for an office as a Democrat. I'm sure the opposite is true in other states/counties.

There is an interesting (and legal) way around this, called vote swapping, but the logistics take a more than casual involvement in voting.
United States presidential elections[edit]
Vote trading occasionally occurs between United States citizens domiciled in different states (and therefore citizens of those respective states) to demonstrate support for third-party candidates while minimizing the risk that their more favored (or less disfavored) major-party candidate will lose electoral votes in the nationwide election (i.e., the "spoiler effect").[4] For example:

  • A Republican-leaning libertarian whose preference order is {Libertarian, Republican, Democrat/Green, Green/Democrat} and who lives in a "swing state" might trade votes with a Republican who has libertarian sympathies, lives in a state considered "safe Republican" or "safe Democrat," and has preference order {Republican, Libertarian, Democrat/Green, Green/Democrat}.
  • A Democratic-leaning progressivist or socialist whose preference order is {Green, Democrat, Libertarian/Republican, Republican/Libertarian} and who lives in a swing state might trade votes with a Democrat whose preference order is {Democrat, Green, Republican/Libertarian, Libertarian/Republican} and who lives in a state safe for one major party or another.
However, I see not voting as a vote against the current election/political system. Not voting can be read as a indicator of how many are disenfranchised with the system (likely the two party political or the electorial college system). Personally, I think that a popular vote makes sense not that it can be practically implemented (it couldn't when the current system was agreed on as law). If only 30% of the US public participated in an election, that would send a very strong signal that the system is broken (and the US is pretty low on voter participation).

All of that said, this years elections have a serious wild-card aspect to them. I don't know of any other time where I believe it is safe to say more people are going to the polls to vote against the opponent than to vote for their own candidate. I think this is true on both sides of the ticket.
I would speculate that 15% to 20% of the people voting for either candidate are enthralled with their candidate and the other 20% to 35% have some distaste for having to vote for their own candidate in order to attempt to block the opponent!
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I've voted by mail since 1999. It is such a pleasure compared to polling places.
But you don't get to wear one of those cool "I voted" stickers around, and have strangers avoid you because they fear you are going to start talking politics with them (that was my sense this year - usually I get questions about how long the lines were or where you can go to vote early)!
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Working in the computer industry as I do, many, perhaps a majority, of my colleagues were not born in the US, so they have more recently studied the US political system than many native-born citizens. It is very interesting and amusing to get their views on our presidential elections. "The founders didn't trust people to elect a president, did they?" And that is so true. In the first presidential election only white male landowners could vote. I just looked it up, and that was 6% of the population. Talk about your vote really counting! And then there was still the Electoral College to buffer the popular vote. Of course, the Electoral College was a better compromise than letting Congress do it! Can you imagine that process? Political favors traded for presidential votes? Ugh.

When I first studied US history seriously I found it amazing that the US has become as successful as we have. Then I studied other country's histories and learned how good we look by comparison. Compared to other issues, the process for choosing a president is a nit.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
In GA, they had a sign saying no cell phones allowed; however, it is not like they were doing anything to check. I just left mine in my pocket and hoped no one would call and figured if they did, I would just hand it to one of the poll workers until I was done.
I'd guess it was part of a simplistic and panicky effort to insulate polling centers from viruses, malware, etc. No network connections of any kind.
There is an interesting (and legal) way around this, called vote swapping, but the logistics take a more than casual involvement in voting.
Another way is to eliminate the electoral college and elect presidents by national popular vote.

Voter turnout (as a percentage of registered voters) has always been low in the USA. Why, and how to increase turnout are good questions. (If you're a cynic, you might also ask how to decrease turnout.)

I looked those numbers up on wikipedia (1960 to the present) and after a little 'fun with spreadsheets" I got these numbers:

View attachment 19417
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Another way is to eliminate the electoral college and elect presidents by national popular vote.
I certainly agree, but the vote swapping is something that you could do this year as opposed to a long-term solution of the popular vote!

I looked those numbers up on wikipedia (1960 to the present) and after a little 'fun with spreadsheets" I got these numbers:

View attachment 19417
Your link does not work for me (on real computer, not a tablet or phone issue)

Edit: nevermind, you covered it!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
When I first studied US history seriously I found it amazing that the US has become as successful as we have. Then I studied other country's histories and learned how good we look by comparison. Compared to other issues, the process for choosing a president is a nit.
That reminds me of a friend of mine (now deceased) telling me about WW2 (he was in Europe). He was certain we would be defeated because of some serious F-Ups on the part of the allies, only to find that, ultimately, the Germans had even greater F-Ups!!!
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Of course, the Electoral College was a better compromise than letting Congress do it!
I thought the compromise was made to get the southern states to agree to ratify the Constitution and join the union. All or nearly all had smaller populations than some of the northern states.
Can you imagine that process? Political favors traded for presidential votes? Ugh.
Shirley you jest.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I thought the compromise was made to get the southern states to agree to ratify the Constitution and join the union. All or nearly all had smaller populations than some of the northern states.
Shirley you jest.
Surely I'm not Shirley! ;-)

That's not my understanding... I thought that was the purpose of the Senate. Whatever. I'd prefer direct elections for presidents.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
That's not my understanding... I thought that was the purpose of the Senate. Whatever. I'd prefer direct elections for presidents.
I looked up 'Electoral College' in wikipedia just to get a quick look at the history. Their short version of the real answer is much more complex than you or I remember. (I hate when that happens.) It evolved into something that original framers of the Constitution never intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#History

I also prefer direct elections for the simple reason that states with small populations get more clout through the Electoral College. (graphic copied from that same wikipedia page)

 
Last edited:
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top