Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
- PeZookThat depends on the county and the number of issues. This year there were enough issues in my county that our ballot was heavy enough to require extra postage, so the return envelope came with its postage already paid. That came as a pleasant surprise when I voted last week.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Shep, in Washington State, the voter pays postage if they return the ballot by mail.
Dayum. What county are you living in? (Clark, for me, which I sort of revealed with the sample ballot in the other thread.)Sute wrote:That depends on the county and the number of issues. This year there were enough issues in my county that our ballot was heavy enough to require extra postage, so the return envelope came with its postage already paid. That came as a pleasant surprise when I voted last week.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Shep, in Washington State, the voter pays postage if they return the ballot by mail.
Heh. I lived in Kitsap county for a while, up in the hills just west of Bremerton. I wonder if the mess of Kitsap Transit is up for more voting with more budget deficits...Sute wrote:Kitsap. I don't think there were really that many issues to vote on, but that was the explanation I found when I looked up the change.
It's actually the first Tuesday after the first Monday. In other words, it can't be Nov. 1, which is also All Saints Day. But yeah, otherwise it's all about the farmers, who had little to do in November and could afford to go and vote then, while the weather didn't suck.Kyler wrote:Why in the hell do they have election day on the 1st Tuesday of November?
I thought that that had as much to do with the fact that a lot of bookkeeping is done the 1st. I know our accountants work late that day.SCRawl wrote:It's actually the first Tuesday after the first Monday. In other words, it can't be Nov. 1, which is also All Saints Day. But yeah, otherwise it's all about the farmers, who had little to do in November and could afford to go and vote then, while the weather didn't suck.Kyler wrote:Why in the hell do they have election day on the 1st Tuesday of November?
It might be -- the fact that Nov. 1 is an important day for Catholics doesn't preclude the possibility that there's a perfectly secular reason for avoiding having an election on that day.Kyler wrote:I thought that that had as much to do with the fact that a lot of bookkeeping is done the 1st. I know our accountants work late that day.
Was at another polling place within the past 30 minutes, this time with my sister who, despite us living in the same town, had to vote at a different location. Turnout there (a retirement home) seemed lower than where i voted earlier today (an elementary school). The polls will be closing in a few hours.Early reports show mostly strong turnout in Pa.(video)
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
By Marc Levy and Patrick Walters, Associated Press Writers
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Early reports from around the state indicated Tuesday that voters were showing stronger than expected interest in casting ballots in a midterm election in which Pennsylvanians will pick a new governor and U.S. senator.
Voters were choosing between U.S. Senate candidates Joe Sestak, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Republican, and Democrat Dan Onorato and Republican Tom Corbett for governor. Sestak beat the five-term Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary, and Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell is leaving office after serving the maximum two terms.
Locally, the race for the 6th District seat in the U.S. House pitted Berks County doctor Manan Trivedi against incumbent Jim Gerlach. Residents were also coming to the polls with a strong agenda for change because of a sour economy and financial frustrations.
"I'm really (sic) at the Republican Party for being so obstructionist and not willing to work with anybody," said Christine Moles of Limerick.
"It's been so difficult to manage our funds with everything going up and our income remaining lower," said Janice Hartshorne, also of Limerick. "I had to go back to work at 70 years old to make ends meet."
The closely watched Senate race is being viewed as a referendum on the first two years of President Barack Obama's administration.
Sestak was fourth in line to vote at the Edgmont Township Municipal Building in Gradyville, and said he believes the near non-stop politicking he did Monday would yield results for him and other Democrats.
"I think you're going to see the turnout that is really going to put us over," he said.
Republican Pat Toomey had to wait about 20 minutes in Old Zionsville, near Allentown, before voting.
One poll watcher in the small Pittsburgh-area borough of Economy, Roger Kowal, said turnout was strong in his district, particularly among older voters who are worried about what the sweeping new federal health care law signed by Obama in March will mean for Medicare.
That may be bad news for Sestak, he said.
"If I was a guessing person, I would say they're going the other way," Kowal said.
Several news outlets reported above-normal voting in some districts in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh's suburbs, Hershey and the Lehigh Valley, although the Times-Tribune of Scranton reported light turnout in some northeastern Pennsylvania districts.
The sunny, albeit crisp, weather across Pennsylvania should help turnout.
Two registered Democrats in Philadelphia, Priscilla Molina, a 50-year-old dog walker, and Jeffery Williams, a 37-year-old Drexel University student, voted the straight party ticket because they view Democrats as the best party to lift the country out of recession.
Obama's "inherited a huge problem," Molina said. "The expectation that he would have this fixed (already) is unrealistic."
Said Williams, "Any plan is going to take a while. If we're on a path and on a plan, changing that plan I don't think is going to make it quicker."
A dispute over absentee ballots may become a factor in the closely contested race between Democratic U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy and the Republican incumbent he beat in 2006, Mike Fitzpatrick.
Elections officials in Bucks County north of Philadelphia said they may not be able to finish counting absentee ballots by Wednesday, or later in the week, the Bucks County Courier Times reported Tuesday.
Last week, the Bucks County Board of Elections agreed to impound more than 8,500 absentee ballots to preserve alleged evidence of voter fraud.
The Republican Party had challenged about 270 approved absentee ballots, claiming they bore problems such as having signatures that did not match voter registration records. Republicans also asked elections workers in Bucks County to look for ballot applications received by what they call a fictitious agency set up by Democrats.
There are multiple factors at work. In addition to what has been mentioned already, rent and several other types of bills are typically due on the 1st of the month so there was a desire not interfere with that sort of business (remember, this was set before the days of paying bills by mail was common). There was also a matter of having an election within a certain number of days before the electoral college was supposed to meet (I think it was 34) and so on.Questor wrote:I thought that that had as much to do with the fact that a lot of bookkeeping is done the 1st. I know our accountants work late that day.SCRawl wrote:It's actually the first Tuesday after the first Monday. In other words, it can't be Nov. 1, which is also All Saints Day. But yeah, otherwise it's all about the farmers, who had little to do in November and could afford to go and vote then, while the weather didn't suck.Kyler wrote:Why in the hell do they have election day on the 1st Tuesday of November?
Tradition is a stupid reason to do anything, in the absence of any other, better reasons. But as Broomstick pointed out, the reasons for setting the timing were sound, and there's really no particular reason to change things. Is having the election between November 2 and 7 a problem? No? Then might as well leave it there, since changing it brings its own problems.Stark wrote:Explaining why it is done doesn't actually make it less stupid, it just means the stupid is deliberate.
The issue of 'tradition' - a stupid reason for anything - is really core to why American politics is broken. Fucking electoral colleges.
That's the modern justification for the electoral college. But the real reason was to prevent the President from being democratically elected by putting the actual decision in the hands of the electors. We don't even have data for the popular vote for the first few presidential elections- it was completely irrelevant up until about the time Andrew Jackson ran for President. Nowadays, some states require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote (or rather in accordance with the majority- proportional representation is very unpopular among American political elites for the reasons you describe), and if any actually did cast votes differently than what the people wanted, then a lot more would do so. But that makes it an unessential and parasitic system. There would be problems reconciling this with the current election structure, but if you could kill the electoral college you would be able to alter the political system to eliminate those problems as well.SCRawl wrote:Tradition is a stupid reason to do anything, in the absence of any other, better reasons. But as Broomstick pointed out, the reasons for setting the timing were sound, and there's really no particular reason to change things. Is having the election between November 2 and 7 a problem? No? Then might as well leave it there, since changing it brings its own problems.Stark wrote:Explaining why it is done doesn't actually make it less stupid, it just means the stupid is deliberate.
The issue of 'tradition' - a stupid reason for anything - is really core to why American politics is broken. Fucking electoral colleges.
As for the electoral college, that's a whole other issue. Some see it as very important, as it helps to balance the rights of smaller states against the larger ones. Personally, I think that it pushes that balance too far, since all twelve people in North Dakota have the same say about who the next president will be as several million people in California, but as I am not a U.S. citizen I have no standing to object. But it isn't just a quaint throwback -- it's an intentional construct. It's also hard as fuck to get rid of, since it would require an amendment to the constitution.
I've read that some states have proposed apportioning their EC votes by popular vote within that state, which would effectively eliminate the EC without actually eliminating it. I'm not sure about the constitutionality of that, but as long as it's applied in every state, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it.Bakustra wrote:That's the modern justification for the electoral college. But the real reason was to prevent the President from being democratically elected by putting the actual decision in the hands of the electors. We don't even have data for the popular vote for the first few presidential elections- it was completely irrelevant up until about the time Andrew Jackson ran for President. Nowadays, some states require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote (or rather in accordance with the majority- proportional representation is very unpopular among American political elites for the reasons you describe), and if any actually did cast votes differently than what the people wanted, then a lot more would do so. But that makes it an unessential and parasitic system. There would be problems reconciling this with the current election structure, but if you could kill the electoral college you would be able to alter the political system to eliminate those problems as well.SCRawl wrote:As for the electoral college, that's a whole other issue. Some see it as very important, as it helps to balance the rights of smaller states against the larger ones. Personally, I think that it pushes that balance too far, since all twelve people in North Dakota have the same say about who the next president will be as several million people in California, but as I am not a U.S. citizen I have no standing to object. But it isn't just a quaint throwback -- it's an intentional construct. It's also hard as fuck to get rid of, since it would require an amendment to the constitution.
Interestingly, Richard Nixon supported a proposed amendment to eliminate the electoral college in his first term. Admittedly, he didn't fight for it, but the point still stands.
Is anyone actually saying that it's stupid that the election is on November 2-8, as opposed to saying that it's stupid that it's on a Tuesday, when most people have to work? There's nothing about "put it on a Saturday!" that's incompatible with "have it between November 2-8."TC Pilot wrote:I'm frankly baffled by this "Change the election date!" nonsense going on in this thread. What is so awful about Nov. 2-8 that a different date would make any difference?
