It is just a big place with good parking that is empty on Tuesday nights...
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Still, you'd think somebody might have a problem with lining up to vote while surrounded by protestant christian iconography.
Then again, it is rural Texas.
You'd probably be interested in this report:
http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/blumenthalandturnipseed.pdf
But the bottom line is that there's a balance to be maintained between cost, ease of access (ie, they're everywhere), and messages inside the church.
If you eliminate the possibility, not only do the costs go up (churches often rent their buildings for low to no cost for voting activities), but you decrease the frequency of polling places, and thus disenfranchise voters who lack transportation options.
But there's a movement to eliminate churches from the options of polling places, and many articles have been written about those trying to stop the practice. Just be aware that it involves an increase in taxes, particularly in areas where realestate value is high.
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe you should've, hm?
Ref: http://www.espn.com/blog/san-franci...aepernick-not-voting-in-presidential-election
Also why I could vote independent and not have to think strategically about how my vote would matter.
Voting for anyone other than him is voting against him. Being in a blue state meant I could vote against him any way that I preferred.
Technically yes, but if you vote for his strongest opponent your vote may actually be more effective at denying him your electors.
But that's a question of vote efficiency.
True in a battleground state, but strategically voting doesn't do much in a state that is overwhelmingly for the strongest opponent already. That is why Hillary can win the popular vote but lose the election, after all. It also why I framed it as a privilege.
I'm sure that's what people in Wisconsin thought.
Sorry, but you did. When you cast a vote for a candidate that's giving them your support.
GasBandit
Staff member
I haven't looked, but is there a proportionally higher number of the party votes there? or in other non battle ground states? there is a testable hypothesis in three somewhere.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, 35 people did put Plom McFartle as their #1 in the example.
That sounds like a good system, but they probably shouldn't let dingos vote.What we need. Well, one of the things we need.
Because humans always make good decisions at election time.
All good except for the "you have to number all the boxes" part.
If my vote doesn't go to the few people I'm interested in, then I want it to be thrown away at that point, not be given to some candidates I don't like at all.
Given that you can't not vote in Australia I can see why they'd force this, but in the US they'd have to allow a partial ballot with unfolded boxes.
If my vote doesn't go to the few people I'm interested in, then I want it to be thrown away at that point, not be given to some candidates I don't like at all.
Given that you can't not vote in Australia I can see why they'd force this, but in the US they'd have to allow a partial ballot with unfolded boxes.
The only way your vote would go to any of the candidates you don't want would be if all of the candidates you do want lost. So at that point you're just ranking them based on which is less worse, since one of those is going to win.
GasBandit
Staff member
You're ranking the candidates in order of your preference. That includes the candidate you would least prefer. I think this isn't a particularly bitter pill to swallow when compared with the benefits.
I don't know; seems like a dud. After meeting Obama, Trump seems to be backtracking on campaign promises, and it's still two months until he even takes the job. Sounds like he's turning into a politician to me.
His cabinet list is like a list of the most cruel, shitty people in the history of modern politics.