• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why the long waits to vote?

Status
Not open for further replies.
geni said:
Except the UK is one timezone. We also tend to have results in place before northern Ireland has even started counting.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, as I remarked. (At the moment, anyway....)
:bricks:


At least we don't announce results (or even start counting) while the NI people are still voting.

And consider also the Euro-election delay that I pointed out above.

Rolfe.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I'm guessing it's a reference to Florida 2000, where they declared the result before they counted the votes.
Click to expand...


I HATE it when they declare results based on Exit Polls rather then official counts.
In 2004, after the 2000 prediction fiascos, most of the networks went to a mixed system where they figured in both exit polls and offical counts, but sitll had problems.
 
No official counts (even precincts) are released until the polls close in that state.

As far as anyone's (including the news media's) speculating or talking about what pre-election polls or exit polls say, that's just free speech.

Is someone suggesting we repeal the First Amendment in the name of protecting democracy?
 
I do think a lot of state officials simply underestimated how many people wanted to vote early. I will need real evidence before I scream "Conspiracy"!
And also I suspect on election day, and maybe before, the time of day makes a difference. A lot of people vote on the way to or going home from work, and I bet you have a crush between Seven and Nine, And FIve and Closing time.
And in the US, local elections are often scheduled at the same time as national elections.
Here in Sacramento, we have a Mayor's race going on .
 
Also in the UK, if the results in a constituency are close and any party wants a recount, then the recount is automatically done before the results are announced to the public.
 
I'm guessing these long lines are just a city thing. It took me a total of 2 minutes from the time I got out of my car to the time I got back into my car after I was done voting. And I live in the most densely populated state in the country.
 
Just to give you some idea of the turnout:

one polling station in my area (in South St. Louis) reported that they already received more ballots by 8 am today than they did in the entire 2004 election day!
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
No official counts (even precincts) are released until the polls close in that state.

As far as anyone's (including the news media's) speculating or talking about what pre-election polls or exit polls say, that's just free speech.

Is someone suggesting we repeal the First Amendment in the name of protecting democracy?
Click to expand...
On NPR today someone suggested letting the west coast vote the night/day before the east coast. What do you think of that?
 
I just looked up the figures, and while I knew that voter turnout was lower in the US than the UK, it surprised me by how much. Most general elections in the UK have turnout higher than 70% (though the last two have been lower) where as most US presidential elections are just above 50%. So up until now, the US's highest turnout - 63% (in the years I have figures for) is lower than every UK general election bar the last 2 - where voter apathy was a common discussion topic in the media afterwards.

Interesting wikipedia article on voter turnout here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
 
Why the long waits?

Because there are a lot of stupid people out there.

(Smart people don't vote.)
 
Rolfe said:
However, the post linked to a BBC story where results which showed that results had already been announced, apparently officially, well before any poll could possibly have closed.
Click to expand...
I really doubt that. Either the BBC got it wrong or whoever was recalling the story got it wrong.
 
WildCat said:
I really doubt that. Either the BBC got it wrong or whoever was recalling the story got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Don' forget these guys.
DIXVILLE NOTCH, N.H. – Barack Obama came up a big winner in the presidential race in Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, N.H., where tradition of having the first Election Day ballots tallied lives on.

Democrat Obama defeated Republican John McCain by a count of 15 to 6 in Dixville Notch, where a loud whoop accompanied the announcement in Tuesday's first minutes. The town of Hart's Location reported 17 votes for Obama, 10 for McCain and two for write-in Ron Paul. Independent Ralph Nader was on both towns' ballots but got no votes.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/new_hampshire_first_votes
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wait...you're surprised that the government is unorganized and inefficient? Seems pretty naive of you.
 
WildCat said:
Uh, that's a town of 17 voters... seems to be some sort of tradition there.

No state gives any official result until the votes are counted. The media is free to report whatever they want, but it's certainly not official.
Click to expand...

WC, the story you commented on, the BBC, was about small towns, not States. You seem to have moved the goal posts. Which doesn't fit your style.
You are correct other than that.
 
Last edited:
Jaggy Bunnet said:
CNN also report it as a result.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/dixville.notch/?iref=hpmostpop
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in that article that CNN reports it as an official result. Also a town of 21 voters probably isn't even a precinct by itself. (I'm pretty sure that's the smallest unit that is officially reported.)

My guess is this was technically an exit poll with 100% sampling.

Interestingly, the article points out that 100% of registered voters there participated (all 21 of them), but the town's population is 75. Do you suppose 2/3 of the population is under 18 or otherwise ineligible?
 
godofpie said:
On NPR today someone suggested letting the west coast vote the night/day before the east coast. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...

I really don't know. I live in the midwest, so I don't know what the concerns might be of west coasters. (Surely California with its huge number of electoral votes doesn't feel like it's being disenfranchised by voting later?)

Many states had early voting in addition to voting on Election Day. But I think you're talking about proposals to do the entire voting a day or half-day earlier.

If the concern is returns coming in for eastern time zones before the polls have closed in the west, a more logical solution would be to make everyone vote at the same time (ahem--Central Standard Time!!). So east coasters would have to vote a little late, and west coasters would have to vote a little early.

Trouble is, elections are run at the local and state level, so I don't think such a rule could be imposed at the Federal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom