Voting should be one day and in person, here's why:

[911Sparky]

Exactly, but you have a year, so quit whining!

I already voted by mail, it sounds like you who are whining.

 

[HonestJoe]

What say you ?

I don't know if it's already been said (I stopped reading the thread when it seemed to run off-topic), but this is essentially how it works in the UK (and a lot of other countries I believe). We do have mail-in voting for those with a valid reason, such as the elderly and infirm or those who will be away from home on the day, and there is a similar equivalent for military and government staff based abroad, and I do think that is necessary. Most people who vote still do so in person though.

It isn't a national holiday but one key difference with the US is that we have around double the number of poling stations/places per head which means, unless you live somewhere extremely remote, you'll always have your poling station within walking distance (I've always lived in towns or cities but have never been more than 5 minutes away). They're open 7am through to 10pm so even those working full-time should be able to find time to vote.

When I was office-based for work, I'd typically vote in the morning before going to work, or in the evening after coming back (I work from home now, so can go pretty much whenever I want). There is very rarely any queue and the longest I've ever waited was around 10 minutes (and there were political reasons for a big turnout in that area that election).

I've long thought that the key difference between the UK and US is that the whole election process, from registration to results, is managed by an entirely independent Electoral Commission and so there is limited scope for partisan political interference with the processes. I do think the US could do with something similar (presumably at State Level, though maybe with an national element for oversight and consistency). Most of the difficulties with improving your election system (regardless of how you might personal think that could be done) is that the politicians who control the system are only interested in making changes they think will benefit them and their parties.

 

[Brack]

I never once had a problem voting, or submitting a absentee ballot when I was stationed overseas, or on the ship when I was overseas, and I have been voting since 1976.

Democrats have invented new scenarios to cry about voting laws because they know that a larger part can't be bothered to show up to the polls.

Arizona has had no-excuse mail-in voting since the early 1990s. The Democrats don't control this state.

"Republicans made Arizona an early vote-by-mail innovator in 1991, enacting one of the first laws in the country permitting voters to send in a mail ballot early without an excuse." - Link

 

[BirdinHand]

I don't know if it's already been said (I stopped reading the thread when it seemed to run off-topic), but this is essentially how it works in the UK (and a lot of other countries I believe). We do have mail-in voting for those with a valid reason, such as the elderly and infirm or those who will be away from home on the day, and there is a similar equivalent for military and government staff based abroad, and I do think that is necessary. Most people who vote still do so in person though.

It isn't a national holiday but one key difference with the US is that we have around double the number of poling stations/places per head which means, unless you live somewhere extremely remote, you'll always have your poling station within walking distance (I've always lived in towns or cities but have never been more than 5 minutes away). They're open 7am through to 10pm so even those working full-time should be able to find time to vote.

When I was office-based for work, I'd typically vote in the morning before going to work, or in the evening after coming back (I work from home now, so can go pretty much whenever I want). There is very rarely any queue and the longest I've ever waited was around 10 minutes (and there were political reasons for a big turnout in that area that election).

I've long thought that the key difference between the UK and US is that the whole election process, from registration to results, is managed by an entirely independent Electoral Commission and so there is limited scope for partisan political interference with the processes. I do think the US could do with something similar (presumably at State Level, though maybe with an national element for oversight and consistency). Most of the difficulties with improving your election system (regardless of how you might personal think that could be done) is that the politicians who control the system are only interested in making changes they think will benefit them and their parties.

And the fact that UK is about the size and population of a single US state.

Which makes comparison between the two difficult simply because of the world of differences - geographically, economically, local weather, culturally, etc. - which come into play in the US.

Early voting and mail in voting assure more Americans can cast their ballots.

 

[911Sparky]

I accept democracy if only those with skin in the game and maturity can vote.
That isn't too much to ask.

I bought my first home when I was 22 years old, did I have enough skin in the game?

 

[Queen Margo]

I already voted by mail, it sounds like you who are whining.

I am not whining, I am going to go vote in person on voting day with proper ID in hand, thank you!

 

[ecofarm]

The OP is impossibly stupid.

 

[pocket aces]

I am not whining, I am going to go vote in person on voting day with proper ID in hand, thank you!

Should be easy for unemployed Trumpers. They have time to burn between wellfare checks.

 

[HonestJoe]

And the fact that UK is about the size and population of a single US state.

Which makes comparison between the two difficult simply because of the world of differences - geographically, economically, local weather, culturally, etc. - which come into play in the US.

Early voting and mail in voting assure more Americans can cast their ballots.

Sure, but elections in the US are handled at a state level so it is comparable. The UK does have much of the economic, geographic and cultural variations and can have different weather extremes too.

It is clearly possible to do it differently, as lots of different countries (and indeed different US states) do, but the idea that it would be impractical for US states to move to electoral systems much more like the UK uses is simply wrong.

Also, if the guiding motive in the US to to assure more Americans can vote easily and effectively, why are there routinely massive queues for votes (even with early voting) and why is there so much political pushback against this like mail-in voting? Isn't the fundamental issue here is that the system in the US isn't actually working to simply allow people to vote but is actually all about politicians manipulating the system to favour themselves and their parties while trying to convince voters that whatever they propose is best for the people?

 

[jcgriff2]

30 minutes? Maybe to get there. All these people are standing in line to vote.

View attachment 67419183View attachment 67419184View attachment 67419184

That's Biden's district.

Biden was holding up the line.

 

[noonereal]

If you're away on vacation or business on voting day - TOUGH LUCK.

LOL

This is a most interesting post, top to bottom, but this gen really is special.

 

[lwf]

I bet if you had ONE day to claim a million dollar lottery ticket, the winner would be there. Enough said!

We don't require lottery winners for this to be a free and democratic country. We do require that people vote for this to be the case.

 

[Queen Margo]

We don't require lottery winners for this to be a free and democratic country. We do require that people vote for this to be the case.

Sorry, you missed my point!

 

[lwf]

Sorry, you missed my point!

Your point is that if voting was so important, people would find a way to do it no matter how many hoops they had to jump through.

My point is that voting IS important, and anyone who believes this would be in favor of making it as painless as possible in order to encourage as many Americans as possible to participate in the democratic process. When a political party doesn't want more people to be voting, when they reduce the options people have of voting in order to suppress the votes of those they presume will vote for their opponent, they are walking the path of authoritarianism.

 

[Queen Margo]

Your point is that if voting was so important, people would find a way to do it no matter how many hoops they had to jump through.

My point is that voting IS important, and anyone who believes this would be in favor of making it as painless as possible in order to encourage as many Americans as possible to participate in the democratic process. When a political party doesn't want more people to be voting, when they reduce the options people have of voting in order to suppress the votes of those they presume will vote for their opponent, they are walking the path of authoritarianism.

No, it just opens up the doors for various manipulation and fraud.

 

[roguenuke]

I don't know if it's already been said (I stopped reading the thread when it seemed to run off-topic), but this is essentially how it works in the UK (and a lot of other countries I believe). We do have mail-in voting for those with a valid reason, such as the elderly and infirm or those who will be away from home on the day, and there is a similar equivalent for military and government staff based abroad, and I do think that is necessary. Most people who vote still do so in person though.

It isn't a national holiday but one key difference with the US is that we have around double the number of poling stations/places per head which means, unless you live somewhere extremely remote, you'll always have your poling station within walking distance (I've always lived in towns or cities but have never been more than 5 minutes away). They're open 7am through to 10pm so even those working full-time should be able to find time to vote.

When I was office-based for work, I'd typically vote in the morning before going to work, or in the evening after coming back (I work from home now, so can go pretty much whenever I want). There is very rarely any queue and the longest I've ever waited was around 10 minutes (and there were political reasons for a big turnout in that area that election).

I've long thought that the key difference between the UK and US is that the whole election process, from registration to results, is managed by an entirely independent Electoral Commission and so there is limited scope for partisan political interference with the processes. I do think the US could do with something similar (presumably at State Level, though maybe with an national element for oversight and consistency). Most of the difficulties with improving your election system (regardless of how you might personal think that could be done) is that the politicians who control the system are only interested in making changes they think will benefit them and their parties.

Tell me something, how many things, politicians or policies do you vote for at a single time? How many boxes do you normally have to check on each ballot?

 

[HonestJoe]

Tell me something, how many things, politicians or policies do you vote for at a single time? How many boxes do you normally have to check on each ballot?

For General Elections, it will be a single vote for the MP (Member of Parliament) to represent your constituency, equivalent to Congressperson in the US. Those elections will often coincide with local elections for regional councillors, mayors and the like. We used to also elect MEPs (Member of the European Parliament), who were regional representatives in the EU, but obviously we don't have them any more.

We don't have a history of direct votes on policies like the propositions we often hear about in the US, Brexit and Scottish Independence being the only direct democracy in the UK in recent years (which have probably turned the British voter even further against the idea ). We also generally don't have directly elected positions for things like judges, prosecutors or police chiefs etc., those posts being appointed to by other elected officials or bodies.

 

[roguenuke]

For General Elections, it will be a single vote for the MP (Member of Parliament) to represent your constituency, equivalent to Congressperson in the US. Those elections will often coincide with local elections for regional councillors, mayors and the like. We used to also elect MEPs (Member of the European Parliament), who were regional representatives in the EU, but obviously we don't have them any more.

We don't have a history of direct votes on policies like the propositions we often hear about in the US, Brexit and Scottish Independence being the only direct democracy in the UK in recent years (which have probably turned the British voter even further against the idea ). We also generally don't have directly elected positions for things like judges, prosecutors or police chiefs etc., those posts being appointed to by other elected officials or bodies.

Actually, if there's only a single office, position, seat being voted for(normally), that is much different than our elections and one reason why ours are so massive. (I asked to verify because I've read of other countries in Europe simply planning on having elections whenever one is needed rather than how we do it). And it is a huge thing that many miss when they attempt to compare our elections (in the US) to most other places. From what I've read, few if any other places have so many elections and measures to choose from in a single election or in so few elections (maybe 2 a year in most places, and generally you will be voting for multiple things on both). My ballot is always pretty large.

I hate ballot initiatives. I don't think they are a good idea for most things we do them for. Many people have no idea how to actually vote on them and the waters get really muddied when one side uses reverse psychology type undermining tactics, claiming that a vote their way (whether yes or no) will do the opposite of what it does.