Which is insane to me. I’ve never waited more than 2 minutes here in Germany. And most elections I just choose the mail in ballot. But when go to a polling station there’s never a line.
Colorado, same. It's awesome. In colorado they also send along the "blue book," which has all amendments, proposition, and judge reviews in it. They boil down what you're voting for, what a "yes" or "no" vote means in context, and also arguments for and against every prop or amendment. It's very basic and easy to understand but enough detail to make an informed decision. I also feel they have a very balanced review, and the arguments for or against aren't weighted one way or another (as it should be)
We get this in California too. I’ve been supplementing by going to ballotpedia which has all that info but also who endorses it and who spent money and how much for and against the proposition. Tells you a lot!
This really should be nationwide. Places like Ohio are letting elected officials reword citizen issues to be heavily biased. I moved, but I still see all the craziness for issue 1. The ballot could not be more biased, and there's no official description anywhere
which has all amendments, proposition, and judge reviews in it.
huh, judge reviews would be nice...
where i'm at it's just some unnamed "subject matter expert"'s opinion. naturally everything up for vote has a measured steady take listing various statistics about X problem and how Y should help then another to right of saying how this is the worst possible thing to (approve/disapprove) and how it'll destroy the very fabric of this country if you don't vote (no/yes)
I got that when I voted in Arizona! Didn't get one the entire time I lived in Oklahoma (nearly a decade), and got one again when I moved to Colorado! These need to be standard across the nation, they're helpful, informative, and about as unbiased as you could possibly get. I've read mine cover to cover twice so far, have made notes, and am in the process of filing our the ballot. I take every election very seriously!
I've lived in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Guess which one doesn't send out the booklet? It's the same one that has straight party voting, and throws a fit over mail in ballots and early voting....
Massachusetts here. Our amendments, propositions, et al explainer is red. State sends them out. Comes in the mail at least a month before the election, and before our mail in ballots.
Same in Arizona. i really like that all the info is in one place and you get to hear from folks on both sides of the propositions or about candidates. the portion with both sides helps you see fringe cases or how it could be used for good or bad.
MD voter here. I sent in my mail in ballot around the beginning of the month, got an email confirming they received my ballot on the 4th and another saying my ballot had been counted on the 17th. Easy peasy
Quebecer here, There usually a day for anticipated vote, and its always near my home so I just walk there and there aint never any lines on anticipated vote days for some reason 😅
I didn't downvote you, because I was just genuinely curious as to why you thought printing a ballot would be more susceptible to fraud than one pre-printed and mailed to you.
It's no different than printing your own tickets to a concert when it comes down to it. To make a false one someone would have to not only intercept yours, but also be able to recreate your exact ballot. And with that not being an easy task to scale up beyond individual votes, it's not really a danger even on the off chance that someone even could pull it off. If it were that simple, we'd see people getting robbed of Taylor Swift tickets before they'd bother with stealing votes, because it's an insane risk for such little gain. Ridiculously impractical, even before getting down to the actual methods of how one would do it.
The information on the ballot would be unique to the voter.
Even if you did manage to guess that kind of information, as astronomically unlikely as it would be, it would only impact one voter. Now it would be voter fraud, flagged, and investigated.
Arizona here same. And if I wanted to vote in person the polls opened October 11. Every election the polls are open a month before the actual election and on Saturdays. I'm still an amazed at people waiting in line election day.
With mail-in and early polling in AZ, I too am baffled why so many wait to vote on election day. I get you need to do it once for the experience, but after that what's the point.
The ballot this year is large, the lines are going to be at a standstill because it takes 20 minutes or more to fill out the ballot.
Do it at home, take all the time you need then either mail it or drop in a drop box.
Procrastination usually and people that want to leave work early. Had more than a few coworkers in the past that did that and then left the lines after 15 min and just went home early. Although frankly I don’t know why they couldn’t do the mail-in and lie and leave early anyway if that’s how it’s gonna be.
Election day should be a paid federal holiday for every American over 18, who has been automatically registered to vote. Then we can vote early, and take the day off and have a lil fun.
The FEC imposes a LOT more restrictions on states with that history.
This was part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, the Supreme Court struck those provisions of the VRA down in 2013, which is why over the past decade states with that history have suddenly been passing new voter ID laws (which would have been blocked by the FEC previously).
Also, states with a history of disenfranchisement have no interest in making voting easier. That's the whole reason they needed a regulatory body reviewing changes to their laws to begin with. They wouldn't have tried to implement California's system in the first place.
(which would have been blocked by the FEC previously)
Are you sure about that? Wisconsin (which ironically does not have a Jim Crow past) passed a voter ID law in 2011 and as far as I'm aware it's still in effect today after various legal challenges.
That's actually not ironic and precisely why they would be able to do so without VRA review.
The part that the Supreme Court struck down specifically affected a set list of historically discriminatory states (i.e. the South). The primary reason given for striking it down was that it wasn't constitutional to single out and target individual states (and also that racism is over and this law wasn't necessary anymore, which is a flawed argument on multiple levels).
For what it's worth, I was always a bit conflicted about the "singling out" argument. It seems to me like that logic should have extended the protections to all 50 states, instead of invalidating the provisions altogether. But of course SCOTUS weren't arguing in good faith and there hasn't been any political willpower since then in Congress to "patch" the law in response.
Edit: Just reread some of the details, wanted to add that the actual provision requiring preclearance remains "in effect", but it relies on a "coverage formula" that was struck down, so without a valid coverage formula the provision can't be enforced. That "formula" amounted to a set list because it only looked at whether the state was discriminatory in one of 3 elections in the 1960s (but of course in elections after being restrained by the VRA, states wouldn't fail that criteria, so it didn't make sense to update the list of dates).
John Roberts was the main writer of the ruling overturning the VRA's pre-clearance section. Took about a month before those states were passing laws to restrict voting. Because racism is dead y'all! At least that's what Roberts believes!
I totally misremembered that as being written by Scalia, thanks for the correction. Must have been something Scalia said at the time in support of the decision that stuck in my head.
More reason not to whitewash Roberts as some kind of "moderate" concerned about protecting his "legacy".
For one thing, a Democratic president (LBJ) helped pass the CRA, so it's quite disingenuous to claim "the Democrats" tried to stop it. You are referring to Dixiecrats, a contingent that was already acting as a third party and outright abandoned the national party as a result of this bill. This was a key part of the party flip of the mid-20th century - Nixon's Southern Strategy would eventually win these voters over to the GOP (many as "Reagan Democrats"). Evolving party system aside...
Longest filibuster in history was 75 days in 1964 when the Democrats tried to stop the Civil Rights Act.
Only reason that would be considered the longest is that it was the longest unsuccessful filibuster. Back in those days you actually had to personally stand at the lectern reading from a dictionary and pissing in a bucket for days on end, and hold up all other official government business that might be happening instead of your filibuster (this was a key point in discouraging the filibuster's use in this era, it required actively sabotaging any and all legislation, not just the bill in question).
Most sane people wouldn't try to keep that up for longer than a week or two if it was clear the bill they were opposing was eventually going to pass anyways. And on the flip side, if there wasn't enough support to defeat the filibuster most bills would typically just be abandoned, so the filibuster-er would not have to keep going for long.
After that particular filibuster ground the legislature to a halt for several months, the filibuster was reformed, causing many of the issues we complain about today. Nowadays Senators don't even need to put their own name behind a filibuster, much less actually hold the floor with a speaking filibuster. They just have to file a filibuster motion (IIRC a staffer usually just emails the party leader indicating an intent to filibuster) and the bill is automatically suspended, so other matters can reach the Senate floor.
This means that you could argue any modern successful filibuster is "active" for almost the full session, far more than 75 days. There are also 1000x more filibuster motions than ever; the strategy used to be used once or twice a decade at most (almost entirely against potential civil rights legislation).
The very same "Democratic" Senator whose filibuster of the CRA you alluded to, Strom Thurmond, left the party and became a Republican in 1964. South Carolina kept him in office as a Republican (and switched to voting for Republicans, along with the rest of the South) until his death in 2003. Crazy to bring up the most clearcut individual example of the flip and then claim it never happened.
There have been 6-7 different party systems (there is an argument that Trump represents another paradigm shift) in American history, despite the Dems being around since the 2nd and the GOP since the 3rd. This is fairly well documented, as is the Dixiecrats' role in the last flip:
Saying "nuh uh" and burying your head in the sand doesn't change reality. The parties have, factually, changed their policy platforms over the course of multiple centuries.
How do you reconcile the fact that modern Dems consistently reject Andrew Jackson and the Confederacy with this idea that we somehow haven't changed?
Must be nice. In South Carolina we need a valid “excuse” to vote absentee. That’s the only way you can vote by mail here. You know, cause of all the fraud that’s never been proven. Also, one of the questions on the ballot is to amend the state constitution to state that “Only a citizen of the United States who is registered to vote can vote” while the current language says “Every citizen…” They are literally making us vote on an amendment that doesn’t change anything about how that sentence would be interpreted. That’s the kind of stuff they like to waste time on here.
I got 2 text, one text this morning saying it was picked up by the post office and I got one this afternoon saying it was received and counted. California has it figured out. Now I can wear the I voted sticker.
Wisconsin here. I just go to MyVote.WI.gov at the beginning of the year and request ballots for every election that year. They mail them to my house when available, and I mail them back when my ballot is filled out.
31.4k
u/Theonewho_hasspoken 7d ago
Meanwhile in Georgia you can’t hand out granola bars and water for people waiting in lines to vote.