(no message)
I think the idea has gotten traction mostly in states that intentionally make it as hard as possible to vote.
that takes an hour or two.
Others actually commute Not to mention there are fewer and fewer places to vote , population expansion, less hours to vote (thanks Republicans).
The point being. We should all of us participate in our own government and governance. Being denied that “right” by any factor is against our own beliefs and any impediment or created strictures is abhorrent to the rights of all citizens
The fact that you ninies cannot say yes to this simple idea that all citizens should be able to vote has created a need for Election Day to be set aside as a National holiday just to participate in an open election.
One could argue absentee ballots are available, but I won’t since that is a hassle. Again, this would help the GOP overall, but it doesn’t require a full work day. If you left the morning open, they could vote near their homes, and then have plenty of time to commute for the afternoon.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
This country is founded on limited democracy that we call Republic. Your full democracy is mob rule.
(no message)
(no message)
Most 18 year old kids vote the way their parents vote. As much as I like having extra votes, what's the point of that?
New voting age: 25.
Exceptions: (1) 18 or older with proof of payment of a mortgage or rent apart from parents, or (2) 18 or older with a valid military ID (active or reserve).
To be eligible for POTUS, you must be 45 or older (maybe 50+), and not 35 or older. 35 was fine when you had people like George Washington being the surveyor for Ft. Pitt when they were 16 years old. Now, that would be considered illegal child labor. We have people who are 26 who are still on their parent's health insurance. Times have changed. Kids don't mature as quickly.
(no message)
(no message)
local elections (not the federal election) a national holiday. Democracy only works best in small communities. It never work well at federal level of big country in long run.
At local level, average voters have more knowledge about the issues they care about and the virtue/quality of the leaders they choose. Even voters made the mistakes, these mistake are less costly at the local level. Making local election a national holiday can bring local voters together to generate a sense of community. I strongly support average voters participating more in local elections.
At top of federal level, the issues are too complex to average voters, which need a good understanding of history, science, economics, foreign affairs/geopolitics...to make your judgement. But our current election have federal election and (most) local elections on same day. With MSM help, it changes the average voters' focus from local election which should be their primary concern to federal election which average voters are pretty ignorant about.
amount of information is in?
and waste time. The bulk of them anyway. Although PB below makes a strong argument.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Our taxes are already way too low to pay for what we seem to want to spend.
People already are all-to-willing to accept the fiction of consequence-free tax cuts. Do we really want to put our finger on the scale in favor of more tax cuts?
But, if people have to vote right after they pay taxes, then candidates who want to stop the need for those taxes may start to seek nominations, and things may begin to change.
You want to pay less in taxes? Vote for the guy that promises to lower taxes.
(no message)
I am not comfortable a January post will hold up for the entire year. I'm going to have to keep grinding this one out.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
We can do it quarterly if you want, or even monthly...or even bi-weekly. But everyone has to do something active to make a payment to the government.
Revenues would plummet, expenses (related to collection) would rise, and the honest folks that pay will eventually be charged more to cover the costs of the dishonest.
(no message)
(no message)
...stack of money they paid over the course of the year the week before the election.
(no message)
(no message)
NY polls are open from 6 am to 9 pm. My commute is one hour and 45 minutes and I manage to vote and work every election day. Imagine that.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Donald Trump is only favored by one demographic: Old people. Old people don't work. Old people already vote disproportionately more than young, working age people.
That's why Donald Trump's poll numbers are even worse among all people than among registered voters. Old people have nothing better to do at election time than go to the polls and give an age-spotted, crooked middle finder to the working people that support them.
This is why I would favor a holiday. Stop tilting the country to policies that favor old people and disfavor working people that support the old people.
I suppose that if 50 is your definition of "old" you might have something of a point. On the other hand, it might be that "wiser" heads voted against Hillary. This is probably also even more skewed given the population density along the coasts. Anyway, the ageist argument is pure bigotry.
Link: http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
Read this poll. It is very telling. (Page 187, or hit the link if you find Trump favorability in the table of contents).
The only positive favorability is in the 65+ age category. Trump is increasing unpopular as you trend downward in age, but only 65+ is a net favorable. Not only is he down in the 45-64 range, he has a -9 net favorability in that group.
His last bastion of popularity is in the 65+ demographic. I maintain that this age demographic has the largest proportion of folks who do not have a full-time job, and can more easily vote than those with full-time jobs. .
Link: Current favorability poll on page 187
(no message)
(no message)
I haven't given much thought to that, and wasn't aware that anyone viewed it to be a problem.
All efforts to expand the electorate do. Which is why Democrats support them the GOP opposes them.
(no message)
The fewer poor people who vote, the better it is for the GOP.
(no message)
(no message)
Does that make sense? If everyone is voting on the same day, we all have something in common on that same day, we can talk about it...we can make it a celebration of sorts...it becomes a civic ceremony, if you will. We are sacrificing all kinds of unifying moments (like standing for the anthem) in the favor of diversity. Would be great to have one day on which we are all American (no hyphens), and we all have a responsibility other than grilling hot dogs and drinking beer. Just a thought.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It's a counterweight to the arguments regarding early voting. It doesn't tip the scales for me, but I like the sentiment behind it.
What if you work in the service industry and you have work on that day?
I don’t see the downside.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)