Yeah, me, too. I like that I have the freedom to do that…and glad it pisses Trump off.
This isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is.
Sorry, I’m not keeping up. Coming back to this - your cite shows that 0.5% of people have troubles with deadlines. It does not show that the same number of people have the opportunity to vote in each case.
When mail-in ballots must be received by election day, people who live in rural areas without access to a dropbox or those with mobility or transportation problems have fewer days to vote than others.
Yes, but apparently that extra difficulty is practically irrelevant. Under either system, 99.5% of voters are able to get their ballots in on time. Evidently the issue is with that 0.5%, not with the system.
You’re missing the point. When ballots must be received by election day, you create a situation where one group has a different deadline a week before election day, while another group can vote up until the date. The first group is disenfranchised in that case. Maybe they don’t bother to vote, maybe they have to vote with incomplete information because candidates are still campaigning.
Try this: if California instituted a rule that Republicans must vote by 7 days before election day but Democrats have the full time, would that be fair? After all, everyone knows their own deadline and has equal ability to meet it, right?
So only about 45,000 people. (Quick search showed that almost 9 million people voted in the election)
The first group has slightly more barriers than the second to being able to cast their votes, but that doesn’t mean they’re “disenfranchised”. If all other things were equal and the first group was less likely to vote than the second, it would be reasonable to suspect those barriers were responsible. But if they’re not less likely to vote, that suggests those theoretical barriers are not actually significant.
No matter when the deadline is, there will always be some people who can safely wait until the very last minute and others who need to allow an extra few days for the mail.
Yes, whether the deadline is on Election Day or a week later, 45,000 people will try to vote and fail. So that’s not an argument for extending the deadline.
What do you think the definition of disenfranchised is? It doesn’t need to explicitly restrict a group if it creates an environment in which one group has more difficulty voting.
Disenfranchisement can be de jure (in law) or de facto (in practice).
- De jure disenfranchisement requires a law that restricts the right to vote for a group of people. For example, many states have laws that prohibit or severely restrict people convicted of felonies from voting.
- De facto disenfranchisement may take the form of restrictions that are applied unevenly or discriminatorily, through intimidation, or through unreasonable requirements to vote.[1]
Some states believe it isn’t unreasonable to require rural and mobility-challenged voters to vote earlier. California believes it is unreasonable if there is no good reason for the rule.
^ This. The level of smug self-righteousness in the 'CA always takes far longer than other states, and that’s GREAT’ camp is notable. Why is it ‘better’ to take much longer? Because it’s more Pure and Noble to invite malicious people to infer shenanigans from the longer time?
Similarly, the excuse ‘it’s due to California’s size’ falls apart when examined. As noted in the OP, both the UK and Japan are bigger than CA, yet manage to avoid long delays in providing counts.
And the whole ‘size’ issue doesn’t make much sense in the electronic age. (What, delays occur because of the physical distances, due to horse-and-buggy limits? Delays occur in sending results because it takes hours for each county’s numbers to be transmitted, due to how slowly electrons move? What?)
Defenses of notable-and-predictable departures from the average have to at least make some sense. The claim of virtue does imply that all the other 49 states (apparently) must be routinely disenfranchising their residents…and this requires evidence. It’s not something to be taken on nose-in-the-air faith.
Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of propaganda and misinformation need look no further than this thread. Counting ballots for a week is suddenly a huuuge problem, sure.
Well, what if I have to walk all the way to the end of the block to mail in my ballot? I have more difficulty than the guy who lives right next to the mailbox. And my neighbor, who walks with a cane, has it even worse! Presumably, by your definition, you would agree that I have been disenfranchised. Do you have a solution to propose for this problem?
If the primary voting is done by the time of the general election, and the general election voting is done by the time the new officeholders take office, why is it even an issue at all? It’s not a race. There’s a logical deadline, and California meets that logical deadline, easily and with plenty of margin to spare.
Since Washington has been mentioned, I’ll point out that in close elections, we have not known the winner for about a week or so after the election. Like California, we can mail the ballots on election day, and therefore the votes keep coming in via mail for a few days at least. I seem to remember an extremely tight governor’s race that took a while due to that fact, and then a recount. Democracy survived and no one cried “rigged.” Simpler times.
Pretty much everyone else in the developed world expects overnight results on all but the very closest elections, and their representatives/employees typically manage to deliver on that. Colombia just had an election and counted 99.98% of the votes overnight. In 2024, India managed to count 640 million votes in one day.
I’m pretty sure that if New York or Illinois or some other State where people are accustomed to having 99% of the vote counted within a couple days suddenly took two weeks to announce results, voters in those States would indeed consider it a huuuge problem and would demand that the cause of the delay be identified and fixed.
I guess California is just smarter than everyone else in realizing it’s perfectly OK to wait two weeks to find out who won an election.
Every reasonable person realizes that in an extremely tight race with recounts, it’s going to take a while to get a result. That’s different from a State telling its voters that under ordinary conditions, even in races that aren’t super close, they’re going to get results in maybe a week, if they’re lucky.
Most countries also have much simpler ballots than we do here. Counting is a lot quicker when you have one seat up for election, with maybe three or four parties contending for it, rather than ballots with dozens of local offices and a half-dozen initiatives.
I’m not saying it’s better. I have no idea if it’s better. I’m saying it’s fine as it is. I don’t concern myself with how other States do things so long as it’s accurate at the end. I’m a little surprised that anyone is at all invested in how we do things.
The only reason why the recent CA elections took “so long” (a whopping week) is because they were close, and we cared who second place was.
I have zero problems with how long it takes to count ballots. Given that LA County alone has more people than 40 states, I’m good with being careful.
You want fast results, buy a microwave.