NJ/NY voters being denied right to vote

[Greenday]

Didn't take long for this to happen. In NJ, you were allowed to email or fax in your credentials and get a mail in ballot that you could fill out and send back. Tons of people tried to do it, but the county clerk offices wouldn't send people their ballots. County clerk offices are closed today so NJ people whose voting spots were destroyed from the hurricane now can't vote.

In NYC, they waited until late this morning to bring in the polling machines. As a result, people couldn't vote because they had to work and couldn't just sit there waiting for multiple hours waiting in line.

Not surprising to see heavily Democrat areas getting screwed over.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm sadly sure that this is just one of many reports of such shenanigans we'll be hearing about today. >_<

^-.-^

[Panacea]

They've been trying to close polls early in Florida.

I expect lawyers to try and get judges to order polls be kept open in NY/NJ to allow people to come in and vote.

[Greenday]

You can vote anywhere in the state, but that implies that your area wasn't one of the ones devastated.

[HYHYBT]

...or that you're not in your area, or that you can *get* to an area where you can vote.

This is one benefit of the Electoral College which is usually overlooked, though it would be even better to implement it on a finer scale.

[Nekojin]

This is one benefit of the Electoral College which is usually overlooked, though it would be even better to implement it on a finer scale.

There are a couple of things that would make the EC a bit more palatable. One of which is allowing each district's vote to be independent of the other districts in the state - no awarding the entire state's points en masse to one candidate or the other. I'm not certain that'd actually change the results of elections, but it'd be a good step toward making people feel that their votes actually count, especially in deep red and deep blue states.

[TheHuckster]

There are a couple of things that would make the EC a bit more palatable. One of which is allowing each district's vote to be independent of the other districts in the state - no awarding the entire state's points en masse to one candidate or the other. I'm not certain that'd actually change the results of elections, but it'd be a good step toward making people feel that their votes actually count, especially in deep red and deep blue states.

If you do that, you might as well scrap the whole EC all together, since it then essentially becomes a popular vote.

One thing I would think might be beneficial is to, instead, have the votes be similar to Nebraska's: proportional to the electors. For example, if California has 55 electoral votes and the Democrats got 60% of the vote, then 33 of those votes go to the Democrats and the remainder go to the Republicans.

I've heard some people say that it doesn't matter because the popular vote is very much tied to the electoral vote, except in very close races like 2000's, so "what difference does it make?". I argue that it doesn't account for those who are truly discouraged from voting because they are in a predominantly red or blue state, and that "their vote would only count if they were in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, or Florida." Who the hell knows what our election results would look like if those discouraged voters truly felt that their vote counted.

[s_stabeler]

This should probably go in a separate thread, but I have a couple ideas for reforming the college:

1) have elections for individual electors, not slates of electors. use some form of districting to choose the electors; they're already proportional to population, so it wouldn't be a massive change.
2) why not have at least one extra round of voting instead of having the House appoint the president? As it stands, a tied vote would see Romney become president because the republicans control the House.

[TheHuckster]

2) why not have at least one extra round of voting instead of having the House appoint the president? As it stands, a tied vote would see Romney become president because the republicans control the House.

Having everyone vote again shouldn't change the results, unless something unusual happens to either the voters or the candidate which changes enough of their minds to not make it tied a second time.

[Greenday]

Having everyone vote again shouldn't change the results, unless something unusual happens to either the voters or the candidate which changes enough of their minds to not make it tied a second time.

Let's face it, NJ and NY aren't even close to being swing states so it really shouldn't change much. But I'd be pissed if I was told to vote this way and then found out the people who were supposed to count my vote don't work today.

[Talon]

Not surprising to see heavily Democrat areas getting screwed over.

Nothing to see here citizen. Move on. Now.

[Fire_on_High]

Ugh...I knew there were likely to be severe logistical challenges relating to the storm, but this is all kinds of wrong. They promised and they need to deliver.

[HYHYBT]

1) have elections for individual electors, not slates of electors. use some form of districting to choose the electors; they're already proportional to population, so it wouldn't be a massive change.

It *would* be a massive change, because it would open up presidential elections to the same gerrymandering that plagues congressional and state legislature elections.

What I meant was that the Electoral College helps protect against a regional event cutting into turnout, because the state gets the same number of electoral results regardless of how many people in the state vote. That usage *does* make it more likely that the EC results and the popular vote will be opposite... but only because the EC is essentially including people who otherwise would be disenfranchised by the storm.

If it were up to me, I'd take it down to the precinct level and make it proportional: if, say, there are 1,000 people whose polling place is this fire station, and 55% of the people who vote there pick Rapscallion, then he gets the equivalent effect of 550 people voting for him regardless of how many actually showed up.

[HYHYBT]

Having everyone vote again shouldn't change the results, unless something unusual happens to either the voters or the candidate which changes enough of their minds to not make it tied a second time.

Not a tie; just a case where nobody has an outright majority. A case where local elections would have a runoff between the top two candidates. Since transportation and communication is not the problem it was in 1787, why not have a presidential runoff in that rare situation rather than having the House pick?

[s_stabeler]

Having everyone vote again shouldn't change the results, unless something unusual happens to either the voters or the candidate which changes enough of their minds to not make it tied a second time.

actually, it might. remember, there is usually a fair amount of tactical voting. ( voting for the other side purely to reduce the majority of the candidate you actually support. it's a rather idiotic way of showing minor disapproval of a candidate) which would likely not occur in a second round; further, typically all but the top two candidates are eliminated in the second round, meaning there is almost always a victor.