Voting Lines

[Ted]

I don't think I could fit all the ROTFL smileys it would take to capture my reaction in one message!!!!!!!



Everybody say Ho! Put it up for da Grand Old Posse!!!!!

I thought you'd like that, and I'm glad I was right!

 

[Ghery]

Better than being number 666.

Last three digits of my employee number at Intel.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

im surprised the waitresses at the tilted kilt have the brain capacity to realize that theres an election going on...

Oh, they know there's an election, they just forgot which candidate they were voting for by the time they got to the polls.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, I didn't. And if they can serve alcohol, they are old enough!

Here ya go, Ed...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There were three people in front of me... Last Friday! Nearly 50% of the town had already voted by then. Impressive turnout.

 

[TMetzinger]

I've always wondered about that -- like what happens if I show up and they say, "Oh, you already voted." How do I prove the first "me" wasn't me? And once I do, how do they extract that person's vote from the tally? Or how they stop me from voting as someone else in another precinct?

I worked as an election officer this year in Virginia. Voters were required to show ID or sign an affirmation of identity. We had no issues with folks not showing ID. As I understand it, if you came in and we had already issued a voting permit to Ron Levy, I'd send you to the Chief Election Officer, and you'd get to cast a provisional ballot, and that ballot would be reviewed the next day at the County board of elections (and you could be there in person to make your case). Assuming you made your case, your vote would count. I do NOT know how they'd deal with the "extra" ballot, since it could be that there was no fraud, and the wrong name was marked off (i.e. we assigned a ticket to Rob Levy but marked Ron Levy). I expect there'd be an investigation looking for the answers if any race depended on a single vote - otherwise they wouldn't bother if the outcome wasn't affected.

I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the whole process, getting to see it up close and personal. It's clear to me that it's designed to make errors and fraud difficult while still ensuring that everyone gets to vote. All the officers put their partisanship aside for the day and focused on making the process work. The party poll watchers were mostly well behaved too.

 

[KennyFlys]

In Travis County, Texas, you must have either your voter registration card or your driver's license. Your driver's license is tied to the registration record. The bar code on either is scanned and matched with computer records as the laptop at the scene is connected with the county's registration office. Once verified (less than five seconds), you move on to the process of getting an access code. Once a booth is open, you use the access code to enter the ballot for voting.

Just twenty miles down the road in the small town of Lockhart... it's all on paper.

 

[Ted]

All the officers put their partisanship aside for the day and focused on making the process work.

I was generally impressed with the demeanor of most people this election. As a rule, I believe it wasn't as nasty as I remember other elections having been (2004 comes to mind). One of my friends gave me her standard threats if I didn't vote for her candidate of choice (she's done this for every election that we've known eachother), but overall the election seemed fairly civil. While most of the "Get out of the vote" advertising was clearly marketed for the blue side, most people I talked to supporting it were emphasizing the importance of voting, regardless of whether or not you agreed with them. Indeed, I supported my friends going out and voting, even though I knew a number of them were voting for the candidates I did not want to win.

Overall, that's a big thumbs up for the process, and I hope that we can continue this for future elections. Such things should be civilized, and the winners and losers should be gracious about it when the smoke clears.

 

[ron22]

In Minnesota if you are registered all you need is to know your name. Or the name of someone else registered:smile:
You just walk up to the person behind the table. Tell them your name they look it up in their print out. If it is there you just need to sign you name.
If you are not registered you need an Photo ID with your address on. Or a bill with your address on. Or easest way is just have a registered voter vouch for you no I needed then.

 

[Ted]

In Minnesota if you are registered all you need is to know your name. Or the name of someone else registered:smile:

What I can't figure out is why this is a state to state thing for a national election. I'd think that voting ought to be a nationwide standard item, but I haven't checked to see what the Constitution says about that. It probably says I'm wrong.

 

[ScottM]

What I can't figure out is why this is a state to state thing for a national election. I'd think that voting ought to be a nationwide standard item, but I haven't checked to see what the Constitution says about that. It probably says I'm wrong.

The tenth amendment to the US Constitution is why it is a state to state thing. The US Constitution has the process for the states err electors to vote for president, but the process to select the electors from the states is not a US Constitution issue and is left to the states to decide.

 

[Ted]

The tenth amendment to the US Constitution is why it is a state to state thing. The US Constitution has the process for the states err electors to vote for president, but the process to select the electors from the states is not a US Constitution issue and is left to the states to decide.

Thank you for clarifying!

It's good that at least the Constitution is being followed sometimes. Now if only we'd follow it the rest of the time, and change it the right way if we really had a problem with it.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I just wanted to remark that I personally knew every election worker in my polling place, and they knew me. There weren't any lines, nor issues with voter ID. And I got to eat cookies and cake after I voted.

I know this is not always possible in America, but maybe it should be.

 

[Missa]

In Pennsylvania, you need to show photo ID the first time you show up to a poll, and after that you don't, just sign. I find this odd. I see their logic, but there's nothing that says that once I've voted at a location that it is me showing up to vote the next time. I could easily enough even tell a friend to go vote on my behalf.

Come on Ted! In this town everyone knows or is related to each other. 1/2 the people in front of me didn't even need to give their names the poll worker just opened up the book to their name to sign.

Missa

 

[Ted]

Come on Ted! In this town everyone knows or is related to each other. 1/2 the people in front of me didn't even need to give their names the poll worker just opened up the book to their name to sign.

Did they know you? Hence my point.

 

[TMetzinger]

We have 3200 registered voters in our precinct. Our biggest bottleneck was at the registration tables where we checked IDs and validated eligibility. There's no way that we'd know everyone by sight.

However, between absentee and in-person voting, we had over 80% cast a ballot.

 

[Missa]

Did they know you? Hence my point.

Nope, but I had a nice chat with them and had to show my ID since I didn't vote last year beacause I felt I was still uninformed after just having moved here. Maybe they will reconise me next year.

 

[SCCutler]

What I can't figure out is why this is a state to state thing for a national election. I'd think that voting ought to be a nationwide standard item, but I haven't checked to see what the Constitution says about that. It probably says I'm wrong.

Never forget- the federal government exists to support the states and the people, not the other way around. We are in grave danger of losing that vital reality.

Each state decides how it will administer all manner of things, including (for example) how people are elected to office.

 

[ScottM]

Never forget- the federal government exists to support the states and the people, not the other way around. We are in grave danger of losing that vital reality.

I thought a strong federal was what we have now put in place the past 8 years? One with an independent Executive Branch, or shall we just call it the Royal Manor?

 

[Ted]

However, between absentee and in-person voting, we had over 80% cast a ballot.

Now that is a phenomenal turn-out, when I'm used to seeing numbers in the 50% range!

I was happy to see how many people went out and voted this election... even though my candidates didn't win.

 

[Ted]

Never forget- the federal government exists to support the states and the people, not the other way around. We are in grave danger of losing that vital reality.

Each state decides how it will administer all manner of things, including (for example) how people are elected to office.

I support smaller government and less restriction/control all around, but I'd thought that the point of our government (as opposed to, say, a confederacy) was that there was a stronger federal government and weaker state governments? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just asking the question. Clearly, the education system I was raised under was lacking in this regard.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think that the whole Federal/State tension has existed since the birth of the nation, and the Founders thought it to be a good thing. Between the three branches of the federal government, and the federal/state tension, no segment gets so powerful it cannot be overturned.

 

[ScottM]

I think that the whole Federal/State tension has existed since the birth of the nation, and the Founders thought it to be a good thing. Between the three branches of the federal government, and the federal/state tension, no segment gets so powerful it cannot be overturned.

That is exactly correct Tim. The founders never agreed on whether strong central or weak central government was the way to go.

 

[SCCutler]

I support smaller government and less restriction/control all around, but I'd thought that the point of our government (as opposed to, say, a confederacy) was that there was a stronger federal government and weaker state governments? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just asking the question. Clearly, the education system I was raised under was lacking in this regard.

The intent was (and, at least, theoretically, still is) that the states predominate in most areas which affect the lives of individual citizens. The fact that the monkeys in DC have, by (in varying measure) legislative edict, executive action and judicial activism, overreached the essential function of the federal government and gotten away with it does not, in any way, excuse it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Tenth Amendment)

The past 8 years have not really been any worse, in that regard, than prior, but that is no defense of the grasping federal leech, either.

The political parties principally responsible for the abuses of power are the ones which end in "t" and in "n."

 

[EdFred]

Hey, us Libertarians haven't abused anything.




















Well some of us probably smoke a bit too much weed.....