2 hours in line to vote
-
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well. I am still happy I did that.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well. I am still happy I did that.
Good for you. I went out to vote a week ago at around 10 in the morning, hoping I would be in and out in a few minutes like it was 4 years ago. It took 2.5 hours!
"When you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." -- John McCain in 2000, on his vote against lowering the top tax rate from 39% to Bush's proposed 35%.
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well.
Ah, but will he loose the dogs of war? ;P I spent a morning filling out my ballot a few days back; i'm fairly sure the guy i voted for in the presidential race won't win, but i'm still glad i voted for him. The important parts came after that question though - plenty of proposed amendments to the state constitution, local offices, etc. where my vote may actually count.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
There was only one proposition on our ballet and I voted against it although I was very unsure what exactly the details were as this was the first I had heard about it.
John
-
There was only one proposition on our ballet and I voted against it although I was very unsure what exactly the details were as this was the first I had heard about it.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
There was only one proposition on our ballet and I voted against it although I was very unsure what exactly the details were as this was the first I had heard about it.
Yeah... that's a big reason why i like to vote with access to the Internet. Being able to pull up transcripts of candidate interviews and texts (rather than summaries) of proposals is nice. :)
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well. I am still happy I did that.
John
-
This is one of the only benefits to living in Oregon. They mail out the ballots. You fill them out and drop them back in the mail. No waiting in line anywhere.
-
This is one of the only benefits to living in Oregon. They mail out the ballots. You fill them out and drop them back in the mail. No waiting in line anywhere.
I almost thought I would have to vote by mail. I was not sure if I booked my vacation for this week or next. For us I thing our voting location should have better organized things. There are 2 districts that vote at the local grade school and the other district has less than 100 voters so there was no lines at all on their side. The problem was there were 3 people to take our names and 2 to take the other district. So that the holdup was finding our names not actually voting there were always about 1/2 of the machines free.
John
-
thrakazog wrote:
They mail out the ballots. You fill them out and drop them back in the mail.
How do they confirm who EXACTLY filled in the ballot? How do you confirm they received the ballot?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How do they confirm who EXACTLY filled in the ballot?
They don't. They make you sign a *secure* envelope that the ballot is put in. Scouts honor is the plan there I guess.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How do you confirm they received the ballot?
I can't really. You've got to put your faith in the post office that they can figure out how to get a letter across town. I don't think the postman is out to get me.... yet. They do have official drop off points for people who don't want to mail them in.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How do they confirm who EXACTLY filled in the ballot?
They don't. They make you sign a *secure* envelope that the ballot is put in. Scouts honor is the plan there I guess.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How do you confirm they received the ballot?
I can't really. You've got to put your faith in the post office that they can figure out how to get a letter across town. I don't think the postman is out to get me.... yet. They do have official drop off points for people who don't want to mail them in.
-
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well. I am still happy I did that.
John
I dropped off my Arizona mail-in ballot last week at the post office.
-
I don't know if you've ever read ArsTechnica's coverage of the state of electronic voting in this country... but Jon Stokes has a long-running series of articles on the topic. Mail-in voting may be among the safer methods - why waste time intercepting physical envelopes / faking signatures when you can change the totals once in a database and be done with it?
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
I stood 2 hours in line to vote (it normally 20 minutes tops) for the candidate that I am very confident will loose my state and most likely will loose the election as well. I am still happy I did that.
John
-
I don't know if you've ever read ArsTechnica's coverage of the state of electronic voting in this country... but Jon Stokes has a long-running series of articles on the topic. Mail-in voting may be among the safer methods - why waste time intercepting physical envelopes / faking signatures when you can change the totals once in a database and be done with it?
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Our whole damn financial system depends on secure electronic data transfer and record keeping. You'd think we could manage to do as well with voting... That we don't suggests that there are powerful vested interests in failure...
-
Our whole damn financial system depends on secure electronic data transfer and record keeping. You'd think we could manage to do as well with voting... That we don't suggests that there are powerful vested interests in failure...
Rob Graham wrote:
That we don't suggests that there are powerful vested interests in failure...
I have to agree. It's puzzling to me that we've seen such a muted outcry over it... i can't help but think that, if the Democrats snag the presidential election and hold on to a majority in the House and Senate, we'll start to see more bi-partisan inquiries into the matter...
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
I don't know if you've ever read ArsTechnica's coverage of the state of electronic voting in this country... but Jon Stokes has a long-running series of articles on the topic. Mail-in voting may be among the safer methods - why waste time intercepting physical envelopes / faking signatures when you can change the totals once in a database and be done with it?
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
why waste time intercepting physical envelopes / faking signatures when you can change the totals once in a database and be done with it?
Database manipulation requires a bit of knowledge and often leaves a trail - there are all kinds of ways extremely low tech people can affect the vote via mail (ballots undelivered to the voter, ballots lost on the way back to counting stations, ballots filled out by 3rd parties, etc...) and it's easy to keep the corrupt politicians / power brokers shielded from such activities.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That we don't suggests that there are powerful vested interests in failure...
I have to agree. It's puzzling to me that we've seen such a muted outcry over it... i can't help but think that, if the Democrats snag the presidential election and hold on to a majority in the House and Senate, we'll start to see more bi-partisan inquiries into the matter...
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
i can't help but think that, if the Democrats snag the presidential election and hold on to a majority in the House and Senate, we'll start to see more bi-partisan inquiries into the matter...
Errrr... why? Don't forget that Obama is a product of Chicago Democratic machine politics. Chicago and Cook county are 100% controlled by Democrats and have been forever. Voter fraud has been a way of life here for more than a century and shows no signs of letting up. In the 2000 presidential election there were more "spoiled ballots" in Cook county than "questionable / spoiled" ballots in the entire state of Florida and nobody batted an eye.
-
Shog9 wrote:
why waste time intercepting physical envelopes / faking signatures when you can change the totals once in a database and be done with it?
Database manipulation requires a bit of knowledge and often leaves a trail - there are all kinds of ways extremely low tech people can affect the vote via mail (ballots undelivered to the voter, ballots lost on the way back to counting stations, ballots filled out by 3rd parties, etc...) and it's easy to keep the corrupt politicians / power brokers shielded from such activities.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Database manipulation requires a bit of knowledge and often leaves a trail
It should leave a trail. The better systems are set up this way: a physical record of the voter's actual choices (ink-on-paper), a physical record of what the machine read (paper tape), and the electronic record used in tabulation. We've had a bit of drama here in Colorado, since many of the machines that were in use weren't keeping any physical record - we've had huge numbers of early / mail-in voters in the past couple of elections for this very reason, since in some areas it was the only way to ensure your vote could be re-counted should that be necessary (assuming, of course, that it didn't disappear... but again, much more work involved in launching a concerted effort to alter votes). From what i can tell, Chicago is doing a better job...
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Shog9 wrote:
i can't help but think that, if the Democrats snag the presidential election and hold on to a majority in the House and Senate, we'll start to see more bi-partisan inquiries into the matter...
Errrr... why? Don't forget that Obama is a product of Chicago Democratic machine politics. Chicago and Cook county are 100% controlled by Democrats and have been forever. Voter fraud has been a way of life here for more than a century and shows no signs of letting up. In the 2000 presidential election there were more "spoiled ballots" in Cook county than "questionable / spoiled" ballots in the entire state of Florida and nobody batted an eye.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Don't forget that Obama is a product of Chicago Democratic machine politics. Chicago and Cook county are 100% controlled by Democrats and have been forever.
Exactly. Surely the Republicans will be keeping a sharp eye on his administration and any voting irregularities that might possibly be associated with it? Or am i being optimistic again... Expecting the foxes to keep the coyotes out of the hen house? :sigh:
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
thrakazog wrote:
They mail out the ballots. You fill them out and drop them back in the mail.
How do they confirm who EXACTLY filled in the ballot? How do you confirm they received the ballot?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How do they confirm who EXACTLY filled in the ballot?
Yeah, one guy may fill in his whole, dead, neighbourhoods ballots. Our 'backward', pencil cross ballot seems pretty secure. You prove who you are, get a ballot, get a UV mark, and cast your vote, in a booth in a public polling station.