Eh.....what?
There are voting stations open on days other than voting day?
A wee bit early to predict longer lines because of this - hm?
Any evidence that "(e)arly voting is only now becoming a popular alternative"? That, "in the past, many feared it. Also, it wasn't well advertised. This year, it was highly advertised"?
Any evidence of "(p)oor placement of early voting stations"?
Any evidence of "(t)he length of the ballot"?
It seems that a whole lot of evidence is claimed, even though the election is still taking place.
What the hell is going on here?
This seems to me as if this election was rigged in advance. Because, how else could one claim any of the above?
Hey, I'm just asking. Come what may.
Claus, for goodness sake! How about doing a bit of investigation for yourself before you mouth off?
The opportunity to vote in person in advance at the US elections has been widely publicised, including film of such voting broadcast on the BBC over the past few days. With people interviewed having stood for over four hours to vote. Which is what the OP was about, if you'd read it.
Given the fact that such early voting has been going on, and that the queues have demonstrably been very long, I think extrapolations about the possible length of queues today are not unreasonable. (Though I suppose one might also speculate that if many people managed to vote in advance, then that might
diminish the queues today....)
Now, there are news items about the increasing popularity of early voting, and how attitudes are changing, and about the placement of the early polling stations. One poster here referred to these matters. So how about doing some research for yourself by looking for these articles and assessing their credibility for yourself, rather than simply firing off your standard "Evidence?" jibe.
The sheer amount of voting that has to be done (or at least may be done) is a matter of record. These guys vote for everyone from the President down to the dog-catcher. I saw election posters for all sorts of posts when I was in Michigan last month, including one exhorting the lieges to re-elect "Lawless" as Circuit Judge, and another (regarding a mayor) that said simply "Anyone but Virg!". I'd have thought anyone who had lived in the USA would be bound to know this.
Most of the above is totally uncontentious, and easily verifiable. How you can use this to assert that the election is "rigged in advance" I simply can't imagine.
My initial point was simply that it's extremely surprising that the US can't seem to organise voting in such a way that people can have confidence that they can turn up and vote, without having to set aside half a day for the process.
My supplementary point was that the option to choose which polling station you vote at might compromise security. Rapidly followed by some observations that voting security in Britain isn't exactly watertight either.
Now I have also heard some allegations that there are attempts at rigging going on. First we have the claim, supported above, that in some areas Democrat districts have too few voting machines per head while Republican districts have plenty.
Then there's the one about the official-looking notices in polling places stating that anyone with an outstanding warrant against their name will be arrested when they get to the front of the queue.
Then there's the one about the official-looking letters sent to voters in some areas saying that Republican voters should show up on 4th November but that Democrat voters should show up on 5th November.
Why not save some of that outrage for genuine areas of concern, rather than shouting "Evidence?" at people posting perfectly uncontentious and mostly easily verifiable information.
Rolfe.
