• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

mandatory voting

 
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm going to open another can of worms. I saw on the news this morning that Obama is proposing mandatory voting. Apparently, some countries, including Australia, have mandatory voting laws. I'm undecided on this. The Libertarian in me says "leave me alone, don't even think of forcing me to vote under threat of fine or imprisonment'. On the other hand, voter turnout and participation in this country is a national disgrace. Especially among younger voters. But then again, many people are so disengaged they can't even name the vice president. I doubt that forcing them to vote is going to get them engaged and educated about the candidates and the issues. I suspect many will just close their eyes and pull a lever just to fulfill their legal obligation.

And then there are people that are making a political statement by refusing to vote. What about them? Would mandatory voting infringe their First Amendment rights?

Still, the idea of forcing people to do something that I think should be a free choice just rubs me the wrong way. It's just more intrusive, nanny-state federalism. Isn't there a way to increase voter participation without putting people at gun point, so to speak?
 
Java Cowboy
Posts: 16084
88
Android Scala IntelliJ IDE Spring Java
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In my opinion, voting should not be mandatory. I think it's a strange idea to force people to have an opinion.

But if you don't vote (whether it's because you're too lazy, you're not interested in politics or because you want to make a political statement) you don't have the right to complain either if the government that was chosen by other people does things you don't like.

We had elections here yesterday. Not for the main government, but for the provinces. I think about 49% of eligible voters actually voted. In my city (Rotterdam) it was only 35,5%.
 
Marshal
Posts: 79177
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Would it be compulsory to vote for somebody? What happens if you write

I wouldn't vote for any of that lot

instead?
 
J. Kevin Robbins
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Definitely, there should be an option for "none of the above". He might win a lot elections. Then some smart-ass will get the idea to legally change his name to "Noneof Theabove".
 
author & internet detective
Posts: 41860
908
Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm from the don't complain if you didn't vote lot. Castingvs blank ballot is a form of voting, but I wouldn't do that either. Somebody is going to represent you and choosing the "least bad" option still matters.

I think mandatory voting is horrible. It could certainly be made easier to vote for those will want to. Easier to mail in a ballot or vote at home online.
 
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The president is being sly. He knows that left-leaning citizens in America have a lower turn-out than right-leaning citizens. Assuming at least some of the new voters who came to the polls under a compulsory-voting law were voting an actual preference, the overall effect would be to elect more Democrats.

A lot of people (I'm one of them) believe Republicans have been imposing new eligibility requirements in an effort to skew participation to the right (for example, here in Virginia, we briefly allowed a concealed-carry permit to satisfy the ID requirement, until the ID requirement changed to be a photo-ID requirement, and woe unto him that suggests we add a photo to Virginia's concealed-carry permit card ), so, to some extent, what the president has in mind could be seen as a way to negate those efforts.

I have a very leftie friend who lives in a district where the conservative legislator has often had no opponent. He always goes, always votes, and always writes, "Any ham sandwich" in the write-in slot. That is free speech in action. Just staying home is laziness.

Personally, I think "None of the above" should be on every ballot. If Nota wins, Nota should serve a full term, to let people see what having Nota in office is really like. If Nota wins a second term, the office should be abolished.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:The Libertarian in me says "leave me alone, don't even think of forcing me to vote under threat of fine or imprisonment'.


I expect that there's that much Libertarian in almost every American. We are genetically predisposed to dislike anything labeled with the word "mandatory." (Remember, we are the stock descended from people who were willing make a life-threatening ocean crossing, to a place with no certain future, leaving their entire lives behind, all because they didn't like being told what to do. We are in-bred to resist authority here.)

But... what if voting got you a $50 tax credit, payable from the otherwise withheld amount on your next paycheck or quarterly estimated payment? Nothing mandatory about that.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 67746
173
Mac Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE jQuery TypeScript Java iOS
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
When I started reading this topic, I was thinking along the lines of something like a tax credit. Rather than making it mandatory, figure out someway to encourage participation.

Opposers will, of course, wordsmith this as a "punishment" to those who do not vote ("withholding" the tax credit).

And voter suppression, rather than participation, seems to be the flavor of the day, so anything like this is unlikely to happen.

To me it is unfathomable not to vote -- the encouragement being to do my part to keep the bozos out of office. I haven't been very successful at that, but then I'm in Texas where electing bozos to office is an official state pastime.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Bear Bibeault wrote:I'm in Texas where electing bozos to office is an official state pastime.


Thanks for clearing that up.

I thought it was mandatory.
 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79177
377
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Stevens Miller wrote: . . . If Nota wins, Nota should serve a full term, to let people see what having Nota in office is really like. . . .

Don't suggest that; they tried it in Belgium and it worked really well
 
J. Kevin Robbins
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Stevens Miller wrote: . . . If Nota wins, Nota should serve a full term, to let people see what having Nota in office is really like. . . .

Don't suggest that; they tried it in Belgium and it worked really well


That could be another option for downsizing government. I like the sound of it.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Stevens Miller wrote: . . . If Nota wins, Nota should serve a full term, to let people see what having Nota in office is really like. . . .

Don't suggest that; they tried it in Belgium and it worked really well


That could be another option for downsizing government. I like the sound of it.


Quite, though my goal/prediction would be that people realize that a lot of those offices are more important to their quality of life than they think. That said, if a few were eliminated this way, I wouldn't complain. Just want people to know what they're losing, before they choose to lose it.
 
Bartender
Posts: 2856
10
Firefox Browser Fedora Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Though I strongly fee that voting should be made mandatory, to ensure participation I agree with Bear.
People here have off during voting day and they make a nice vacation of it. Not even 50% cast their votes which results into 5 years of complaints.
Rather there should be some sort of participation encouraging thing imposed.

Campbell Ritchie wrote: Don't suggest that; they tried it in Belgium and it worked really well


Here, I guess that would lead to another round of elections.
 
Bartender
Posts: 11497
19
Android Google Web Toolkit Mac Eclipse IDE Ubuntu Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Amit Ghorpade wrote:
People here have off during voting day and they make a nice vacation of it. Not even 50% cast their votes which results into 5 years of complaints.


Not really.

The average election turnout over all nine phases was around 66.38%, the highest ever in the history of Indian general elections


source
 
J. Kevin Robbins
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Stevens Miller wrote:But... what if voting got you a $50 tax credit


I suspect that would lead to a lot of people voting just to get the money, without really caring or even knowing who they are voting for. "I saw that name on a sign on the way to the poll, so I'll vote for that guy."

I still say that a test should be required to get a license to vote. If you can't pass the same naturalization test that immigrants have to pass to gain citizenship, then you have no business voting. Here is a self-study test of the 100 questions that immigrants might be asked. They have to get 6 out of 10 random questions correct. I suspect a large percentage of Americans would not be able to pass the test.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:"I saw that name on a sign on the way to the poll, so I'll vote for that guy."


Brother, that's how a lot of them are choosing who to vote for already.

I still say that a test should be required to get a license to vote.


A popular idea, and not without some constitutional predicate. After all, the First Amendment guarantees my freedom to speak. However, to use my amateur radio station, I must pass a test and obtain a license. No one considers that a violation of the First Amendment. I'd support a voting test if we also instituted a shooting test. That is, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you must pass a test and obtain a license before you are allowed to shoot anything.

Ya with me?

If you can't pass the same naturalization test that immigrants have to pass to gain citizenship, then you have no business voting. Here is a self-study test of the 100 questions that immigrants might be asked. They have to get 6 out of 10 random questions correct. I suspect a large percentage of Americans would not be able to pass the test.



I just took the 25-question quiz version. Got 100%, though some of the questions are of the delightful kind you only get in multiple-choice contexts (like, "What was written at the Constitutional Convention: A) The Declaration; B) The Constitution; C) The Bill of Rights; or D) War and Peace").

There are a lot of educated members of both parties. But, tell me true, if a person had to pass that test you linked to in order to vote, which way do you think the vote would skew (if it skewed at all)?

Heck, it's all just academic. Even if everyone wanted a voting test, we'd have the same problem writing it as we'd have in writing a USA 3.0 constitution. The test would have one question on it, "Are you against abortion?" There being no consensus on the right answer, the test would never be used.

Anyone know of a country that imposes a voting test?
 
Sheriff
Posts: 3837
66
Netbeans IDE Oracle Firefox Browser
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't think that paying voters to take part in elections is the right thing to do, since it doesn't address the root cause of low election turnout. I'd say that the turnout is low either when people disdain or distrust the office, or when they feel that their vote isn't going to matter anyway; either because the election is rigged (gerrymandering, anyone?), or because the institution is seen as remote and powerless - this is how the European parliament is generally seen in (not just) my country. Fixing this is certainly much harder than handing out cash, but, in my opinion, is the thing that actually needs to be done.

Another thing that should be done is making voting easier. I can utilize my banking account over the internet for more than a decade now, it's about time to do the same when voting. And it is certainly possible - some countries already do it.

(By the way, I took the naturalization test too. Got 80%. Can I apply for the citizenship right here on the local embassy, or do I actually have to travel to the States to obtain one? )
 
Martin Vashko
Sheriff
Posts: 3837
66
Netbeans IDE Oracle Firefox Browser
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:Definitely, there should be an option for "none of the above". He might win a lot elections. Then some smart-ass will get the idea to legally change his name to "Noneof Theabove".


This has reminded me a rather obscure party in my country, which uses it's entire party program as its official name. It's probably more than 300 words. And it's printed on every ballot, since it's the official name. Our legislators obviously haven't though of imposing some limit on the length of a name a party can have, so we end up with A0-sized ballots (ok, perhaps it's A1 only ).
 
J. Kevin Robbins
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Stevens Miller wrote:

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:"I saw that name on a sign on the way to the poll, so I'll vote for that guy."


Brother, that's how a lot of them are choosing who to vote for already.


Sadly, I believe that's true.

I still say that a test should be required to get a license to vote.


I'd support a voting test if we also instituted a shooting test. That is, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you must pass a test and obtain a license before you are allowed to shoot anything.


I'd support that, but I don't know how effective it would be. It might cut down on accidental shootings by idiots that can't obey the four rules of gun safety. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem when it comes to gun violence. It's when their guns get stolen and sold to some street punk for $100 that the trouble starts. One study showed that concealed carry license holders are actually more law-abiding than police officers.

If you can't pass the same naturalization test that immigrants have to pass to gain citizenship..


There are a lot of educated members of both parties. But, tell me true, if a person had to pass that test you linked to in order to vote, which way do you think the vote would skew (if it skewed at all)?


That's a very interesting question. One that probably deserves a different thread.

Heck, it's all just academic. Even if everyone wanted a voting test, we'd have the same problem writing it as we'd have in writing a USA 3.0 constitution. The test would have one question on it, "Are you against abortion?" There being no consensus on the right answer, the test would never be used.


No, the questions would have to factual, not subjective. Leave opinions out of it. I think the problem would be like the issues around voter id laws. It's racist, or it's unfair to poor people, and so on. The major parties and the special interest groups would never agree on a "fair" set of questions. That's why I say use the naturalization test. It's already there and it's been used for a long time.

Anyone know of a country that imposes a voting test?


I did a little checking and can't find one.
 
J. Kevin Robbins
Bartender
Posts: 1810
28
jQuery Netbeans IDE Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser MySQL Database Chrome Linux
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Martin Vajsar wrote:I can utilize my banking account over the internet for more than a decade now, it's about time to do the same when voting. And it is certainly possible - some countries already do it.


Internet voting scares the hell out of me. I don't even like electronic voting; those machines are easy to compromise, imagine what a target an online voting system would be. If China thought they could influence our elections by hacking (instead of making donations) they would throw everything they have at it.

But on the subject of making voting fairer so everyone feels like their vote counts, how about this? Eliminate the electoral college and go to a Plurality with Elimination system of voting. It would at least give alternate parties a chance at actually winning. The way the system is setup now, the Democrats and Republicans own the system; no other party has the slightest chance of ever winning a presidential election.
 
Bartender
Posts: 2407
36
Scala Python Oracle Postgres Database Linux
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1. Make voting compulsory? Yes.
2. Include a "none of the above" option on every ballot paper.
3. If NOTA wins, then the seat remains empty, allowing people to find out what it's like to have no representation and giving politicians a chance to consider their own lack of appeal.
4. People who refuse to vote lose their vote e.g. for the next 6 years. Use it or lose it.
5. Make voting easier? It could hardly be any easier. All it takes is a ballot paper and a pencil. Except in Florida of course.
6. Under no circumstances switch to electronic voting via computer. We should know better than to trust technology companies with such a fundamental aspect of democracy. One person, one vote. No votes for tax-dodging corporations. Easy.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:

Stevens Miller wrote:
But, tell me true, if a person had to pass that test you linked to in order to vote, which way do you think the vote would skew (if it skewed at all)?


That's a very interesting question. One that probably deserves a different thread.


This is a discussion about politics. Topic-drift is an occupational hazard with those.

Heck, it's all just academic. Even if everyone wanted a voting test, we'd have the same problem writing it as we'd have in writing a USA 3.0 constitution. The test would have one question on it, "Are you against abortion?" There being no consensus on the right answer, the test would never be used.


No, the questions would have to factual, not subjective. Leave opinions out of it.


Good luck with that. I mean, of course I agree with you, but everything is subject to enforcement. Someone has to write those tests and, if the tests decide who gets to vote and who doesn't, then I would expect there to be intense effort by all interested communities to have a big say in what goes into the test.

If we had some objective, cosmic judge (God, Gort, Deep Thought... take your pick) who could write the test for us, we'd be in business. But we have only ourselves and I don't trust us to write such a test objectively. Further, there's actually a large gorilla in this room: who says the people who pass the test have any right to impose their will on those who can't pass it? That would be a form of elitism, where the "Alphas" get to tell the "Deltas" what to do and how to live. I think that would simply be incompatible with the definitive American ideal that power comes from the people, and the people are a body composed of equal persons.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Interesting that so many of us programmers don't trust electronic voting. I sure don't.

Paper ballots are not beyond screw-ups, but at least you can use the human factor to correct for some of those. I was a party observer during the last recount here in Virginia for the Attorney General's election. The law says that the vote goes to the candidate based on any clear marking whatsoever that indicates a preference. (Observers don't make that choice; we're there to raise a stink if it becomes apparent that the election officials inspecting the ballots are being dishonest, which, as far as I know, has never been said by any observer in Virginia). Our paper ballots are the fill-in-the-oval kind. If the machine can't read a ballot, it goes into the "recount only" pile. If there is a recount, those are the ones you look at. You'd be amazed at how many people seem to have no idea what "fill in the oval" means. A lot of people just put a check-mark next to a name, or circle the name. Those are easy to figure. Some must have filled in the wrong one, because those have both ovals filled in, but a big "X" through one. Those are also easy to count.

In that race, the tough ones were when someone had circled the letter "R" or the letter "D." Why? Because Mark R. Herring was the Democratic nominee, and Mark D. Obenshain was the Republican nominee. Who gets the vote when one of their middle initials is circled? (As it happened, there were too few of those to affect the final result, but, really, how would you count those?)

The Republican observer, btw, said something amazing to me. She said, "We know your guy is going to win." How? "He was ahead before the recount started, and the biggest changes in votes during a recount all come from urban areas." Why? "Because urban areas include the most minority voters, and a lot of them can't read or don't understand the instructions given at the polls. That's where all those check marks and circled names come from. Minorities tend to vote for the Democrat, so your guy is only going to win by an even bigger margin after the recount is over."

I have no idea if there is any truth to what she said, except that, in urban areas, the Democrat did gain more votes than the Republican did, and those votes vastly outnumbered the recounted votes elsewhere in the state, so my guy did, in fact, win.
 
Bear Bibeault
Sheriff
Posts: 67746
173
Mac Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE jQuery TypeScript Java iOS
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'll disagree that voting is easy. It's vastly skewed towards the affluent.

Voting during working hours is difficult to impossible to those not in salaried or other high-paying positions. The few hours after work that the polls are open have lines so long that it discourages many, and there have been cases where the polls were just closed on people who have been waiting in line for hours. (No citation, but I've heard this reported and would love to be proven wrong.) Those without vehicles have an even harder time getting to the polls. The poor infirm even more so.

So-called "voter ID" laws just skew it more away from the less well off. Care to guess which party pushes that?

The idea of testing is unworkable. Not only are there the questions of who makes and grades the tests, but puts a further burden on those that already aren't able to vote. Sure, it rankles me when I hear someone voted for someone for some nonsense reason, but I'd rather have more rather than less people going to the polls.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Bear Bibeault wrote:Voting during working hours is difficult to impossible to those not in salaried or other high-paying positions. The few hours after work that the polls are open have lines so long that it discourages many, and there have been cases where the polls were just closed on people who have been waiting in line for hours. (No citation, but I've heard this reported and would love to be proven wrong.)



I've been a polling-place volunteer for about a dozen elections, three times being there continuously from when the polls opened until when they closed (6:00 am until 7:00 pm). My experiences are limited to those polling places, of course, so this is purely anecdotal.

1. There is always a line at the open.
2. The end of the line always makes it into the building (most often, a school) before 8:00 am.
3. There is never a line again for the remainder of the day (at least, not outside the building, where I am).
4. If you are in line at 7:00 pm, you get to vote.

Well, #4 is not an observation, as, like I said in #3, I've never seen a line at 7:00 pm. However, the law is utterly clear on this point: if you are in line when the polls close, you get to vote. (Not saying no one has ever been turned away, but, if they have, that was against the law.)

Virginia has no "vote by mail" option, but our rules on who is eligible to vote early as an absentee have become so lax as to be the equivalent. (Absentee votes do matter: my friend Dave Marsden had lost his special election for state senate until the absentee votes were counted.)

The Obama '08 election had the longest opening line I've ever seen, and the highest participation in Loudoun county. We still avoided any lines after the opening queue drained, however. Heh, kinda sad, in a way. The national Democratic party had distributed all these little palm-cards for us to use at the end of the day. They had a picture of Obama at night, in a rainy place, with a quote from him saying something like, "I know it's late. I know it may be cold or raining. And I know you're tired. But I need you to stay and vote. Your country needs you to stay and vote." Very moving, actually. I still have mine. All of mine, as the weather was great, the polls were moving quickly, and there as no line. Only sad part of that was a local BBQ place that had just opened up sent a truck to give away free food. Pretty much all of it was eaten by me, my colleagues, and the Republican volunteers. Felt very American to be eating barbecued chicken and rings at a polling place with the other party, but I felt sorry for the BBQ place going to all that trouble in anticipation of grumpy, hungry voters, when the voters had been so eager to go the polls that they'd pretty much all done it by then.

Oh, when you work the polls, the worst part is always right after the officials close the doors. Within seconds, every single time, some car comes careening into the parking lot at high speed, screeches to a halt, driver jumping out (often leaving the engine running) to sprint to a door that no force on Earth is going to get to open for them as they pound on it with their fists and plead to be allowed to vote. Every single time. Makes you want to laugh and cry, all at once.
 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79177
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Stevens Miller wrote: . . . If you are in line at 7:00 pm, you get to vote. . . .

Lucky chap. Round here there was a scandal a couple of elections ago when there was a last‑minute rush and people queued from 9.45 and still didn't get to vote (polling stations close at 10.00pm).

For the next election they introduced a rule that you can't vote after 10.00pm even if you arrive earlier.
 
Stevens Miller
Bartender
Posts: 1464
32
Netbeans IDE C++ Java Windows
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Campbell Ritchie wrote:For the next election they introduced a rule that you can't vote after 10.00pm even if you arrive earlier.


That is obscene.
 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79177
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Isn't it.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 17644
300
Mac Android IntelliJ IDE Eclipse IDE Spring Debian Java Ubuntu Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:I'm from the don't complain if you didn't vote lot.


I cast my vote with this lot
 
Junilu Lacar
Sheriff
Posts: 17644
300
Mac Android IntelliJ IDE Eclipse IDE Spring Debian Java Ubuntu Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Bear Bibeault wrote:To me it is unfathomable not to vote -- the encouragement being to do my part to keep the bozos out of office. I haven't been very successful at that, but then I'm in Texas where electing bozos to office is an official state pastime.


So I take it you're not a big fan of the esteemed junior senator from that state who just announced his candidacy for POTUS in 2016? I think maybe he forgot his face paint.
 
Bear Bibeault
Sheriff
Posts: 67746
173
Mac Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE jQuery TypeScript Java iOS
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Junilu Lacar wrote:So I take it you're not a big fan of the esteemed junior senator from that state who just announced his candidacy for POTUS in 2016?


Understatement of the epoch.
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic