Jump to content

Case Against Early Voting: Candidate Roughs Up Reporter the Night Before Election and Wins


Recommended Posts

And it turns out to be only close by Montana standards. I've never liked the concept of early voting. It doesn't seem to increase turnout, but does allow parties to target the most obviously partisan voters (if you're not on either a Democrat or Republican list of likely voting for them, they don't try as hard to get you out there).

 

Mostly, I don't believe it's fair that voters turn in their ballot before election day. The whole point of running an election is to actually, y'know, try to convince people to vote for you. Well, how can you do that if the person's already voted and even if you do persuade them, it doesn't matter anymore. Here we've got one heck of an "October surprise" in Montana where you can only describe the situation as the guy snapping over what seems a mild annoyance, but it was too late for the two-thirds of voters who already cast their ballot for someone who is so bad at handling pressure that he self-sabotages the night before the biggest day of his professional life.

 

Not that any of this matters. Anymore, early voting and voter registration laws can only go in one direction, more permissive. Any restrictions end up in court and lose more than half the time because minorities, disparate impact, something or other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their ads were hilarious. Montana...

 

I like early voting until they can come up with a better way to vote. I don't wanna stand in line on the one and only election day for a billion hours because of all the voters in my county showing up at the library that is the only polling place available and my twenty pieces of voter ID are checked. It's bad enough that there are signs EVERYwhere screaming the names of unknown candidates for Justice of the Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how this one incident, no matter how fucked up it was, should ruin it for everyone. I don't know if early voting was meant to increase turn out more than it was meant to take pressure off of voting sites on election day.

 

Besides as has been said already I don't think it would have made a difference. If you're voting early, you probably already have your mind made up and aren't going to change it because of something like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Agreed. If anything, i think this is a case for moving to online voting, where you can change your vote up until the polls close on voting day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see how this one incident, no matter how ****ed up it was, should ruin it for everyone.

 

It's an extreme case that demonstrates the basic problem. If people vote before the campaign is over, then you can't, by definition, have a completely informed electorate. Last year voting literally began before the presidential debates even happened in several states. At the very least, you always owe it to the candidate to try and persuade you, even if you can't be persuaded.

 

It's not a matter of "ruin it for everyone". Things are already ruined by virtue of having early voting at all. The Montana situation simply shines a light that 2/3 of voters in that state were unaware that one of the candidates was to random rage even though if they had been forced to wait as they should, they could have been informed.

 

Perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference. Frankly, I do not believe it. It takes less than you think for leads to disappear. The margin of victory in this case was only 3 in 100 voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't see how this one incident, no matter how ****ed up it was, should ruin it for everyone.

It's an extreme case that demonstrates the basic problem. If people vote before the campaign is over, then you can't, by definition, have a completely informed electorate. Last year voting literally began before the presidential debates even happened in several states. At the very least, you always owe it to the candidate to try and persuade you, even if you can't be persuaded.

 

It's not a matter of "ruin it for everyone". Things are already ruined by virtue of having early voting at all. The Montana situation simply shines a light that 2/3 of voters in that state were unaware that one of the candidates was to random rage even though if they had been forced to wait as they should, they could have been informed.

 

Perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference. Frankly, I do not believe it. It takes less than you think for leads to disappear. The margin of victory in this case was only 3 in 100 voters.

Early voting here was Oct 24- Nov 5. The election was May 8th. Most people have their minds made up. If you don't, then go on election day and wait in line for over an hour, two hours.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Agreed. If anything, i think this is a case for moving to online voting, where you can change your vote up until the polls close on voting day.

Your just asking for Russian hacking aren't you lol.

 

I mean if survey monkey can figure it out, why can't the government. LOL!

 

And let's be real. It's not as if voting machines aren't already hacked, people don't use fake IDs to vote, or most importantly, mail in ballots aren't susceptible to fraud (or are counted for that matter).

 

Instead of mailing ballots, it's possible to mail a code to log in with to vote online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's not as if voting machines aren't already hacked, people don't use fake IDs to vote

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Pfft, you tell that to any Democrat these days and they go into seizures about how it absolutely doesn't happen and any contrary view is a racist conspiracy to deny black people the vote because the woke avengers insist black people don't understand the concept of ID or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.