When I got home last night and turned on Channel 4 news, they were in the middle of their lead item, which was about the long queues at US polling stations. However, reading this thread has made it obvious that this was a local or sporadic problem, and clearly many people have had no problems. In addition, later reports also made it clear that everyone who presented themselves at the front of the queue got to vote, and that nobody was disenfranchised by being actively turned away.
However, this does raise particular issues. Yes, tomwaits, I am surprised that the US (as a nation - sorry Wildcat, from 3,000 miles away exactly who is responsible doesn't seem that important) can't seem to organise voting effectively. I can categorically say that there would be huge protests and heads rolling all over the place if this happened in Britain. Nobody here has to wait at all, or no more than a couple of minutes. I can imagine peak time queues of maybe 15 minutes, but beyond that I feel the natives would start to get restless. (Me, I'd just go home and come back later. It's a fact that the polling places are very quiet towards the end of the day, which finishes at 10pm everywhere.)
I simply don't buy the arguments about scale. The more people there are, the more people there are to do the work. Deal with it.
I do understand the arguments about the length of the ballots. If it takes ten minutes to get through the actual voting process, then obviously each voting booth/machine/whatever will be occupied for longer. If this is the real cause of the problems, then would it not be worth addressing this issue? In Scotland there have been very serious calls for local ballots to be held on a different day from the general election, to prevent interference (in this case confusion rather than delay, but the principle is similar). If the need to vote for the judge or the dog-catcher is preventing some people from being able to vote for the President, isn't this worthy of attention?
I also hear stories about problems with automated systems. You know, a sheet of paper, a blunt pencil and a flat surface are pretty low-tech (when counted by a moonlighting bank teller wearing a rubber thimble). It's also very cheap to provide many of the things. Is it possible we have become too eager to embrace a technology that isn't mature enough to cope? In my mind, the key issue about introducing new technology is that it should be
better than the old system, not just "modern" or "different".
Channel 4 made some very valid points about all this. Yes, employers were obliged to give people time off to vote. However, they were not obliged to pay them for that time. How many people could afford to take half a day off work,
without pay, to vote? And would these people be skewed to one political party, possibly?
It was good to hear that all the queues had dissipated before the polls closed. However, do we have any idea how many people left the queue because they couldn't afford to wait any longer? Do we have any idea how many people who might have wanted to vote didn't even join the queue because they knew they couldn't afford the time? And is it likely these decisions would be skewed to one political party?
And yes, there was something of a party atmosphere, which was nice. However, it was a serious inconvenience to many people. Such queues are not normally seen in other developed western democracies, even (as Professor Yaffle observed) in places where turnouts are sometimes over 70%. Is it not reasonable for citizens of the USA to expect to be able to show up and vote within a reasonable time?
At the risk of sounding prejudiced, the long lines/time to vote is somewhat recent and is tied to the (according to republickers non existant) moves by republickers to disenfranchise large numbers/areas of voters with enough sense to vote in their best interests (Democratic) rather than vote against same out of a gigantic fear of catchin' teh "gay" and/or being forced to abort their children by the farm animal of their choice (republicker)(as I noted, I may be considered prejudiced in this matter). Republickers have been quite effective at this - though it looks like they are screwed this time!!!
Ohh, it is done by limiting workers at heavilly Democratic polling locations, raising knowingly fake arguments against voters registrations/documents - only in heavilly Democratic areas, sending out false notices concerning voting places/times/dates to addresses in heavilly Democratic areas, supplying defective/older machines to heavilly Democratic precincts, etc. And this does not address seriously illegal techniques they have used.
And of course we come to the claims that this is all conspiracy, rather than cock-up. Dudalb favours the cock-up theory, and that's the one I usually go for myself.
However, this conspiracy theory was also cited to me by my Michigan friend last month, and when I mentioned it on this thread it was supported, rather than debunked. I find this possibility very very shocking.
Yes, we had a cock-up in Scotland in 2007. However, all the evidence indicates that the spoiled ballots were distributed proportionately among voters of all parties. There is no evidence of intent, and no evidence that any party benefited disproportionately, even by accident. And yet there have been enquiries, and hand-wringing, and soul-searching, and recommendations for changes to procedure to prevent a repeat.
We have also had (certainly in England) evidence of small-scale ballot-rigging, mainly involving registration of non-existent voters, and the hijacking of the votes of incapacitated elderly people. And there have been high-level torpedoes flying around about that too. The intent is that such practices be
stopped.
However, what is being seriously suggested here is not just petty cheating, it is systematic manipulation on a grand scale, by those responsible for ensuring a free and fair vote. This is simply unconscionable. It's beyond outrageous. Has there been a public enquiry to determine if there was any truth to the 2004 allegations? Have there been recommendations for 2008 to ensure the same thing can't happen again? So far as I am aware, no.
Ditto the widely-reported allegations of attempts to keep Democrat voters off the register. If true (and the evidence seems rather extensive), this would shame a third world banana repuiblic. The UN would have a fit if it was happening in Zimbabwe.
Anyone can register a score or two non-existent voters. Anyone can walk into a polling station and pretend to be a registered voter. It takes a bit more organisation to sign up a bunch of Alzheimer's victims and use their votes, but it's still petty local meddling.
Turning to the US, anyone can put up notices in view of voting queues stating that anyone with an outstanding warrant against them will be arrested if they get to the polling station (though surely such notices should be removed immediately by those running the poll). Anyone can send out a mass mailing saying that Democrat supporters should vote on 5th November, not 4th. It's still petty.
However, widespread manipulation of the process so that predominantly Democrat areas are deliberately starved of facilities so as to deter voters while predominantly Republican areas have ample facilities implies such widespread and systematic corruption that the implications are simply appalling. And the fact is that this was alleged in 2004, and yet there seems to have been no system in place to prevent it happening again in 2008.
I hope this is just a CT, and that in truth it has been merely a cock-up. That Democrat-voting areas tend to have high population density, and that it was merely the high population density that led to the problems. However, unlike the Scottish 2007 cock-up, it is one that has the obvious potential to selectively disenfranchise voters of one party rather than another.
This seems to me to be a huge concern. It's maybe too early for thought to have been given to it as regards this year, but has 2004 taught nobody any lessons? What is the view of the US posters here?
Rolfe.
