I could believe that Republicans engineered this in order to dick over Democratic districts, but I could equally believe that this is the result of sheer incompetence and poor planning regardless of party. Either way, I think we can all come together and agree that voting should be easy and convenient for everybody. (If you don’t agree with that, I think you’re un-American. And I say that non-ironically.)
-
Um… no. Extended hours planned ahead of time might have helped, to be sure, but I specifically spoke of “extending voting hours on Election Day because of long lines” and governors making that decision by “long lines were enough to declare a state of emergency .” So only the existence of long lines in the first place would trigger the ability of the governor to extend the voting hours, and that would NOT help those in line already in any meaningful way.
-
I think there’s no particularly complex analysis in play here. “How long were the lines last time?” is pretty much the only question that needs to be asked by the prospective voter.
And now perhaps you can educate me: who decides how many voting machines are made available in a particular voting location?
The point is it should never fucking take three hours to vote in this country.
So the righties have trotted out the victim label to attach here. A well worn and dependable call to laugh and chuckle at the weak left. So predictable. Reality is that Obama never referred to her as a victim, he never used any word that could be stretched to imply that she was a victim. He spoke of her… well shit, here is the transcript, let’s just let that stand on it’s on.
He used this as a springboard to talk about the fact that we can, and should, do better than this, when it comes to how we do our elections.
How is this a partisan issue? Doesn’t everyone want elections to be conducted in a way that gets the highest percentage of registered voters to the polls? Seems like something the “patriotic” flag-waving righties would be whole-heartedly in support of.
Oh yeah, what was I thinking. She “looks” like she might vote demycratical and all, so, yeah, they’re okay if she stays at home. Damn taker!
Wrong. The only question that needs to be asked is, “Where is my polling location and what are the hours it is open?”
“How incompetent are my local election officials likely to be?” should not be a factor.
Yes, I agree with that statement – but the devil is in the details.
To pick an absurd example or three, I assume we agree that even though voting should be easy and convenient for all, the government has no responsibility to provide door-to-door transportation from a home to a voting place for every voter, or hors d’oeuvres to people waiting in line, or daycare services for kids to accomodate parents who wish to vote but lack a sitter.
So where we may well reach disagreement is over what you consider “easy and convenient” may not dovetail with my feelings. Rather than just say “easy and convenient,” i think it’s more meaningful to discuss specific proposals.
My point from the previous post is thus proved.
I think an expectation that there is never going to be any line is absolutely absurd.
How long the line is, then, and whether there are alternatives that also allow voting, is absolutely reasonable. Which makes the question, “How long were the lines last time?” a very reasonable one.
This is also absurd.
Certainly the average should never be three hours.
But a huge, unexpected turnout, combined with an unexpected breakdown of a machine or two, could easily create a three hour wait. What’s to be done then? Shoot the elections volunteers?
My perception of liberals – often unfair, I’m sure – is that they are well-meaning people with very little concern for or understanding of practical reality.
Statements like the above confirm that perception. Certainly we should never regard a three hour wait as an acceptable standard. At the same time, we cannot possibly guarantee that it will never happen.
Why was the breakdown of a machine unexpected? Do we not expect that machinery will sometimes break down? What’s the backup plan for that? Perhaps we can have paper ballots to hand out to people when the machines break down. Perhaps we can have additional machines.
There are indeed many factors that can lead to delays, but very few of these factors should be “unexpected.” It’s the job of elections officials to plan for them. “Sorry, but we like electronic machines and it’s hard to plan” isn’t a good enough reason to force people to wait for hours to vote.
As for what’s reasonable, I already shared my opinion in a prior post. People should be able to vote during their lunch break. So waiting for 20 minutes or half an hour… okay. Waiting for two hours or more? No.
We both have mail boxes, so I’m not seeing the relevant difference. And if she is really struggling and hurting by waiting in line, then use an alternative. I’m not asking her to do anything she doesn’t already do a lot of-- mail things in.
You know, Bricker, you’d have at least a chance of not looking like an idiot here if you came up with an example that might actually be illustrative of a genuine difference in understanding ‘easy and convenient.’
But garbage like this is nothing but bullshit sophistry.
This is extraordinary asinine. Also, I do consider you to be un American because you are quite committed to altering voting rules and regulations to specifically favor Republicans.
How about you quit being such a bitch here, and don’t pretend that this has anything to do with babysitting or being carried to the voting booth while being provided a sandwich.
This is about people who, regardless of any other factors, showed up to vote. They were there, readyand willing and able.
I’m sorry you can’t understand my posts. Perhaps you should wait for others who do understand my words to respond, and then you can join the conversation.
And my point from my previous post is proved. You’re a reprehensible partisan bitch.
Are you suggesting that there was some sudden emergency in Victor’s case? That it wasn’t part of a state or county policy to create delays in Democrat-leaning precincts?
Ugh. Well, this thread has certainly proved fruitful. I’m going to go make a sandwich while I wait for six well-oiled men to show up with my litter on which I shall be transported to my polling place.
Yeah, if only you weren’t such a deep and complex thinker. That’s the problem, for sure.
Well, I said “to pick an absurd example,” simply to illustrate the vagueness of terms like “easy” and “convenient.”
But here’s a more realistic one, since you apparently have problems with more inchoate analogy: how many voter machines should be assigned to a particular polling place? What factors should be considered in reaching that decision?
I can go a long way in ensuring virtually no wait time, for example, if I decide to assign fifty machines to a polling place that historically has no more than 200 people per hour show up.
But that’s a very expensive solution. Ten machines would seem to be acceptable, even though it might mean a short wait. Five machines might be enough, that 200 people per hour was linearly spread over the hour. But if 100 people show up inside ten minutes, there will be a wait, no matter what.
How do we balance the cost of the voting machines against the need for ease and convenience?
That sure seems to be an ad hominem attack that doesn’t address any of the points I made.
You yourself pointed out that these wait times are endemic of Florida voting which means they are fucking up somewhat more generically than a broken machine here or there. The fact is these long waits are by design, not by accident.