Americans Get Out & Vote!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Saturday would mean making government union employees work on a weekend; that will never happen. A voting holiday would be easier, but is also unlikely to happen.

As for the moans and wails of dispair in this thread, jesus, people, the democrats still control the White House and half of our legislature. For a bordering-on-violence fit of aplopletic rage from the Right, their "high water mark" was so underwhelming they couldn't even take control of both houses of congress like they did in 1994!

[starslayer]

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.

Nebraska and Maine, IIRC, are the two states that do this. The constitution only specifies that the electoral college must exist; it says nothing about how they must vote or anything else about them, instead leaving it up to the states. Changing election day also does not require an amendment; the current day was mandated by Congress in 1845, and only specifically applies to choosing the electors for the college - i.e., congressional and presidential elections. States may hold other elections on any day they wish, it's just more convenient to do everything in one go.

[Simon_Jester]

As for the moans and wails of dispair in this thread, jesus, people, the democrats still control the White House and half of our legislature. For a bordering-on-violence fit of aplopletic rage from the Right, their "high water mark" was so underwhelming they couldn't even take control of both houses of congress like they did in 1994!

What I think is causing the wailing is a mix of two things. One is betrayed expectations: most of the left, and most people here, thought we were done with people seriously proposing the kind of policy the Republicans liked in 1994-2008. It looked like a fairly decisive defeat of that philosophy of government, between the recession and the sheer number of people who voted for Obama.

The other factor is fear that the Republicans will take this and use it to gain more momentum- that they will retain the political initiatve indefinitely, as they seem to have managed to retain it even during their period of being in a decisive minority in 2009-10. And that it will prove impossible to reverse any bad decisions they make without the country undergoing some kind of extremely radical and violent shift in the political system. Which, I'd say, is bad enough news to explain quite a bit of moaning.

[Akhlut]

Since this is the thread about getting out and voting, I did get out and vote yesterday. For the Greens. Of course I had no hope of them winning, but I was hoping for us to get the 5% minimum to retain major party status, but, no, everyone was voting for either largely incompetent, Chicago-machine parties here in the Land of Lincoln. Looking at the election maps is also fun, seeing that nearly every county outside of Chicago went for Brady (Republican), while every county in Chicago went for Quinn (Democrat). Of course, I don't think anyone really trusts either man to be governor, they just hate the idea of the other guy being governor more. Too bad that ensures even more incompetent governance, as people will just decide if D or R is better than what someone's actual policies are!

[Cycloneman]

What I think is causing the wailing is a mix of two things. One is betrayed expectations: most of the left, and most people here, thought we were done with people seriously proposing the kind of policy the Republicans liked in 1994-2008. It looked like a fairly decisive defeat of that philosophy of government, between the recession and the sheer number of people who voted for Obama.

I thought that after about two years of Obama and the Democrats, people here had realized this was an incorrect assumption.

[TC Pilot]

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."

Destructionator seems to be saying November's bad because of the weather, yes. The further discussion of "it was easier on farmers that way" also tends to suggest the discussion was mostly focused on the time of the year, rather than the day of the week.

As for "it must be on Tuesday," if you switch it to a Saturday, you run the risk of half the voters being hungover, like Yosemite Bear noted. Hmm, maybe it should be on a Sunday, so all those Republicans can't vote because they're stuck in Church.

Since this is the thread about getting out and voting, I did get out and vote yesterday. For the Greens. Of course I had no hope of them winning, but I was hoping for us to get the 5% minimum to retain major party status, but, no, everyone was voting for either largely incompetent, Chicago-machine parties here in the Land of Lincoln. Looking at the election maps is also fun, seeing that nearly every county outside of Chicago went for Brady (Republican), while every county in Chicago went for Quinn (Democrat). Of course, I don't think anyone really trusts either man to be governor, they just hate the idea of the other guy being governor more. Too bad that ensures even more incompetent governance, as people will just decide if D or R is better than what someone's actual policies are!

I've met more than a few people that would have voted Green Party if they weren't afraid of Brady winning. Still, it's a testament to how weak the Green campaign was that they didn't even get as many votes as Cohen did.

[Akhlut]

I've met more than a few people that would have voted Green Party if they weren't afraid of Brady winning. Still, it's a testament to how weak the Green campaign was that they didn't even get as many votes as Cohen did.

Lack of funding didn't help, and outside of Chicago, Illinois is a lot closer to the right than the left, so I imagine just on party names alone more people would have gone for Cohen than Whitney.

However, I imagine that if the major debates allowed Cohen and Whitney on, the race would have largely been between those two instead of Tweedlydee and Tweedlydum.

[TC Pilot]

Lack of funding didn't help, and outside of Chicago, Illinois is a lot closer to the right than the left, so I imagine just on party names alone more people would have gone for Cohen than Whitney.

Problem with that is, his "party name" is "the guy who got dumped from the ticket."

However, I imagine that if the major debates allowed Cohen and Whitney on, the race would have largely been between those two instead of Tweedlydee and Tweedlydum.

I agree to the extent that I think Whitney would have made a much better showing had he gotten more air time (drawing off left-leaning voters and the "Quinn is an inept loser" crowd, pulling a win with like 35% of the vote is my take). But Cohen? From what I heard from him, his campaign was basically "I have a secret plan to fix the economy." He never sounded like he knew what he was talking about the way Whitney did.

Then again, I live near Chicago, so all I got was the Tribune, which endorsed Brady and seemed to have a grudge against Cohen.