Languish Presidential Election!

[CountDeMoney]

I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...

The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.

Why are you even responding to him?  He doesn't give a shit about that.

[merithyn]

The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.

Why are you even responding to him?  He doesn't give a shit about that.

I still have hope for him.

[garbon]

I was very confused when I saw those long lines in Florida. Also sounds like many waited till last day of early voting so...

The reason so many working-class people do the early voting is because they can't fit regular voting times into their work schedule. So it stands to reason that if the early voting was shortened from 14 days to 8 days that there would only be one weekend in that time, and that's when the majority of those same people would go to the polls. It's not about waiting until the last second. It's about being able to vote on a weekend when they don't have to be at work.

Understandable except that isn't it the case that many states don't have early voting?  Are they disenfranchising their populace? Is postal voting particularly onerous? Though as mentioned again many states allow neither form of early vote.

[dps]

What?

If it harms both parties they're more likely to cooperate.

The 17th amendment was passed and that was a more radical restructuring of the government and that got passed.

Does it matter, they're just parties not the foundations of democracy.

Hard for you to believe it, what with the two having had a duopoly for so long, but eventually political parties decline, collapse and transform.

What does that have to do with anything?

Obviously they're just self interested factions, that's why I think they will get rid of the Electoral College if Romney loses. Because it will be in the interest of both parties to compete for the popular vote.

Under the current set-up, both parties' Presidential nominees can concentrate their efforts on a few swing states.  I'm not sure how it would ever be in either party's interest to chance that, and force candidates to run a truly nation-wide compaign.

RE:  long lines for early voting--I was going to vote early a couple of weeks ago, but there was a huge line, so I passed.  To me, the whole point of voting early is the convenience, and if I'm going to have to wait in a line 10 times as long as the one there'll be on Tuesday, that's not convenient.  I'll just wait till Tuesday and vote after work.

[garbon]

Is "four year years" a familiar chant for Obama supporters?

I think one year years are long enough already.

[Phillip V]

New video goes viral of Romney angered by having his faith questioned in 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE

[celedhring]

Saw it before, to be frank it's an interesting discussion should not Romney be so abrasively defensive about it.

[merithyn]

Understandable except that isn't it the case that many states don't have early voting?  Are they disenfranchising their populace? Is postal voting particularly onerous? Though as mentioned again many states allow neither form of early vote.

I don't know. I've never voted early, nor have I ever voted absentee. It's a really big deal for me to go to the polls on election day, so I make sure that I can. (I'm a traditionalist at heart, but shh, don't tell Max.)

I would argue that given how disenfranchised so many voters already are - and how low our voter turn-outs are - anything that can be done to get people to vote should be. And beyond that, anything that appears to be done in order to specifically prevent a particular party or subset of people from voting should be not only discouraged, but prosecuted. It seems nefarious where the problems were and when, to me, and falls in line with all of the other crap that's going on. I'm not just blaming Rebuplicans, by the way, since I live in Illinois and the same crap is happening here from the Democrats. It's all bullshit, and it all needs to stop.

[garbon]

I agree though I think it is hard to take seriously the notion that 8 days of advanced voting plus absentee ballots are insufficient windows for voters given that states like Mass and New York typically only have election day and appear to allow absentee ballots only if you will be out of town or have one of the listed hardships.

[jimmy olsen]

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url

A survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.

[Phillip V]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url

A survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.

Good. Puerto Rico needs to step up and become a U.S. State.

Next: Canada

[Valmy]

Romney may win the popular vote, but the geography is stacked against him. Obama wins reelection. Hopefully such a scenario would lead to a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, now that both parties have been burned in recent times.

I don't think that would help at all.  Back when I thought we had a real chance of that it was because the EC was seemingly so insignificant.  But after 2000 I knew we would never reform the EC.

[Valmy]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url

A survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.

I think all the inhabited territories either need to become a state, join a state, or become independent.  Non-statehood is supposed to be a transition not a permanent status...DC being the obvious exception here.  But Congress is unlikely to do anything one way or the other.

[lustindarkness]

Is this election thing over yet? I'm tired of the polls, the negative ads and polls, and more polls, and the languish thread, and the other thread about the fucking polls. 

[celedhring]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Finternacional.elpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2012%2F11%2F05%2Factualidad%2F1352111625_284992.html&act=url

A survey published last week by ASISA reflected a 48% support the first option, 41% associated sovereignty and only 6% for independence. Any change in the status of Puerto Rico must be approved by the U.S. Congress.

I think all the inhabited territories either need to become a state, join a state, or become independent.  Non-statehood is supposed to be a transition not a permanent status...DC being the obvious exception here.  But Congress is unlikely to do anything one way or the other.

What would be the consequences if Puerto Rico became a state and started sending representation to the Congress?