6 ms·

This article is an incredibly misleading, fake positive framing of what is in reality a rapidly failing democratic system. An 11-hour wait to vote is absolutely

by 0x262d 6y ago

This article is an incredibly misleading, fake positive framing of what is in reality a rapidly failing democratic system. An 11-hour wait to vote is absolutely prohibitive to many of the people who most need change, on top of being terrible for everyone else; not that that is anything new for the US. It's basically a poll tax, which is one of the most regressively anti-democratic tools, but applied unevenly by location. There is not close to a technical need for this, even if we used completely low-tech voting and had all the necessary COVID-19 safety measures. As Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "Few things function efficiently in Brazil. And yet -- in a country just a little smaller & way poorer than the US -- elections work smoothly. Held on a Sunday, mandatory voting, automatic registration at 16, polls open at 7am, close at 5pm, all votes reliably counted by 8:30 pm." The article is the election version of "feel-good" stories about people who work into their late 80s or 90s in low-paying jobs and are given some token gift like a car by their boss, in response for years and years of life stolen from them. Infuriating.

wutbrodo 6y ago
What on Earth are you talking about? The headline, first paragraph, and last two thirds of the article are all about _criticism_ of long voting lines. The fact that they spend part of the article acknowledging that some in the US take pride in coming out to vote in the face of long lines doesn't mean that they're taking this position, especially given that most of the article is dedicated to criticism of the conditions.
- 0x262d 6y ago
  Hm, I skimmed this but might have come away with a skewed sense of the balance between reactions to it.
sumtechguy 6y ago
Early voting is always hit or miss on the first day. Did a 4 hour stint once myself years ago. Couple of dudes went the next day and got in and out. Voting on the proper day is usually fairly easy enough. Most employers work with you to do so. One time it was a 1 hour wait on election day. Few years later it took less than 20 mins total from parking going in and driving off. All at the same location. Early voting locations have a secondary issue as they usually have an amalgamation of several districts. So the biggest hold up is making sure you have the correct ballot. As depending on where you are at you may have a different ballot per precinct. I may be in district 'xyz' for this congress man but not on the ballot for the mayor of the city because I do not live in a city. That sort of thing.
leetcrew 6y ago
mandatory voting doesn't sound very good to me for a few reasons. winning with 30% of eligible votes is functionally equivalent to winning with 51% (ie, you still get the office), but looks a lot different. forcing people to pick one seems like a way to make the strongest of several weak candidates appear more legitimate. as misguided as it may be, I think individuals ought to have the option to signal their dissatisfaction (or apathy) with all the viable candidates by abstaining entirely. one final thought: someone who cares so little about voting that they would only do it under compulsion seems like someone I would probably prefer not to vote. this is assuming, of course, that the reason they don't want to vote is not because of procedural obstacles. if you don't know anything about the candidates other than their names, your vote probably does not contribute much to the democratic process.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I'm fine with "mandatory like the flag code". I'm not fine with "mandatory like the speed limit".
- 0x262d 6y ago
  Mandatory voting doesn't preclude writing in nothing if you prefer. And for people who are uninformed, well, having to go through the motion helps that some. More than anything else, this would force the government to make it possible, easy, and routine for current non-voters to vote, which would dramatically shift election results to the left economically.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Ultimately partisans of either persuasion portray opposing voters as uninformed. I'd even suggest that a healthy portion of voters on any side have poorly formed reasoning skills. What is the standard for being an informed voter? I can easily imagine the backlash if there were a test for competence wherein voters were required to identify fallacious arguments.
    - 0x262d 6y ago

by 0x262d 6y ago

wutbrodo 6y ago

What on Earth are you talking about? The headline, first paragraph, and last two thirds of the article are all about _criticism_ of long voting lines. The fact that they spend part of the article acknowledging that some in the US take pride in coming out to vote in the face of long lines doesn't mean that they're taking this position, especially given that most of the article is dedicated to criticism of the conditions.

0x262d 6y ago
Hm, I skimmed this but might have come away with a skewed sense of the balance between reactions to it.

sumtechguy 6y ago

Early voting is always hit or miss on the first day. Did a 4 hour stint once myself years ago. Couple of dudes went the next day and got in and out. Voting on the proper day is usually fairly easy enough. Most employers work with you to do so. One time it was a 1 hour wait on election day. Few years later it took less than 20 mins total from parking going in and driving off. All at the same location. Early voting locations have a secondary issue as they usually have an amalgamation of several districts. So the biggest hold up is making sure you have the correct ballot. As depending on where you are at you may have a different ballot per precinct. I may be in district 'xyz' for this congress man but not on the ballot for the mayor of the city because I do not live in a city. That sort of thing.

leetcrew 6y ago

mandatory voting doesn't sound very good to me for a few reasons. winning with 30% of eligible votes is functionally equivalent to winning with 51% (ie, you still get the office), but looks a lot different. forcing people to pick one seems like a way to make the strongest of several weak candidates appear more legitimate. as misguided as it may be, I think individuals ought to have the option to signal their dissatisfaction (or apathy) with all the viable candidates by abstaining entirely. one final thought: someone who cares so little about voting that they would only do it under compulsion seems like someone I would probably prefer not to vote. this is assuming, of course, that the reason they don't want to vote is not because of procedural obstacles. if you don't know anything about the candidates other than their names, your vote probably does not contribute much to the democratic process.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I'm fine with "mandatory like the flag code". I'm not fine with "mandatory like the speed limit".
0x262d 6y ago
Mandatory voting doesn't preclude writing in nothing if you prefer. And for people who are uninformed, well, having to go through the motion helps that some. More than anything else, this would force the government to make it possible, easy, and routine for current non-voters to vote, which would dramatically shift election results to the left economically.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Ultimately partisans of either persuasion portray opposing voters as uninformed. I'd even suggest that a healthy portion of voters on any side have poorly formed reasoning skills. What is the standard for being an informed voter? I can easily imagine the backlash if there were a test for competence wherein voters were required to identify fallacious arguments.
  - 0x262d 6y ago