Absentee ballot

[Darius11 12]

I saw a program last night that was showing how the republicans are spending millions of dollars to inform, and try to get people to Vote via an absentee ballot..

I think this is a smart move for the republicans. Not sure if I like the fact that people would make there decision before they see all the facts, but yet a smart move considering how President Bush is doing in the debates.


What do you think? Is it a shady move or just smart?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[wmw999 2,447]

If they're trying to get people to vote absentee who otherwise wouldn't vote, bully for them -- more voters is better.

If they're trying to get people to travel so that they have to vote absentee and won't watch all of the debates, well, I don't think it'll make enough of a difference.

But I think you have to be able to show that you can't make it to the polling place to vote absentee, so there shouldn't be too much overlap.

Wendy W.
edited to add: thanks for the reminder. I just emailed an absentee ballot application form to my son, so voting is now in his lap...

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[juanesky 0]

Darius, Maybe you have missed it, or never or heard of that before, but usually the military are the ones casting the majority of those votes, and most of them favor the GOP.

I think your efforts in finding shady tactics in elections should be focusing in democrats, and their legal fight to have the libertarians, and nader off the Florida polls. IMO.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Darius11 12]

I don't really have any effort to try to focus on shady tactics of any one. It is acutely sad that you are so sure that one side is shady and the other side is not. Any one with an open mind knows nothing is 100% one sided.

I know that the absentee ballot they were speaking of had nothing to do with military and their ability to vote. They were specifically targeting people who they thought would already vote for President Bush. They just wanted to get the votes in a head of time. From what they were saying on the program it is not a common move it is rather unusual to call people, or show up at there house as they were doing just to let them know about that option. That was the reason I asked what people thought.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[juanesky 0]

Well, I will insist that since you are trying to qualify absentee ballots as "shady" is that you can vote that way.


Anyone with an open mind, will see absentee ballot for what it is. I think it is commendable to any side of the political spectrum to remind people that the still HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, even in the event of having to travel somewhere else, and not a shady tactic.

On the other hand, it does democracy worse when you have one of the big contenders, trying to block the little ones on the race. That is in fact a shady tactic. Not the otherway around.

If you have the time check on the absentee ballots figures on the previous elections, and you may well figure out, these facts for yourself.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Zenister 0]

Quote

On the other hand, it does democracy worse when you have one of the big contenders, trying to block the little ones on the race. That is in fact a shady tactic. Not the otherway around.

nothing 'shady' about it... until we have a system that guarantees equal coverage to all opponents, removing the non-contenders (unfortunately, none of them have a chance in hell) that generally 'takes' votes away from one side more than the other, is simply leveling the feild...

the system is broken. In some ways the Dems recognize this, and recognize that they lose far more votes to the smaller parties than the Reps do...

the reality is there are only two choices in this presidential race... any vote NOT for either of the primary candidates is effectively a vote for his opponent.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[juanesky 0]

Men, that was some funny comment. I guess in your point of view, it is broken, as long as the democrats are losing far more votes to actual voters wishes....

I would have thought it is democracy's principle to actually represent the will of the voter, no matter how many choices....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Well, I will insist that since you are trying to qualify absentee ballots as "shady" .

Quote

“What do you think? Is it a shady move or just smart?”


Does that sound like a question or a statement to you? Notice the ? at the end of the sentence.

I am not sure what it is. In my post I also said it was a smart move. I just wanted to know what people think about it.

I wonder why you are so defensive?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Men, that was some funny comment. I guess in your point of view, it is broken, as long as the democrats are losing far more votes to actual voters wishes....

I would have thought it is democracy's principle to actually represent the will of the voter, no matter how many choices....

it doesnt matter which side loses the most votes, the fact that one side loses more than the other skews the results

it is broken because the majority of voters have no idea that there ARE more than two choices and the system does everything it can to keep it that way...

the 'will of the people' is dictated by the media propaganda that informs them.. currently there are only two parties you will hear mentioned in 98% of all election commentary.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[juanesky 0]

Darius, if you actually cared to read my first response, you will find the response to a question.

I don't know if you had too much coffee this morning, but the move to let voters know they can still "HAVE THE RIGHT VOTE" is far from being shady. Maybe if I posted once more, you will actually read it, and understand it.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

I think your efforts in finding shady tactics in elections should be focusing in democrats, and their legal fight to have the libertarians, and nader off the Florida polls. IMO

This statement in your first post is what he's talking about. He's not trying to find shady tactics, he thinks they're smart -- he said so in the original post, and in his followon.

What, besides the presence of the word in the post (by the way, the word "shady" also appears in your post) makes you think he's lying when he says it's smart?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Darius11 12]

what Wendy said.




also thank you for your opinion and i don't drink coffee.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[juanesky 0]

I stand corrected. He thinks it is smart, he posed a question as they are either smart or shady, no other options available, in the meantime, absentee ballots have been around, and is a tool to give you a chance to vote, regardless of where you are.

I don't see that as either smart, nor shady, it is commendable. Do I need to find the definition for you to understand?

Also, knowing on where he stands on most topics here on SC, I find it pertinent to find more relevance in the fact that democrats are incurring in shady tactics by making sure that the little guys can't get on the ballots, the republicans are so expensively (according to him) trying to let people know that they still can vote if they are not phyically available to do so.(Note the fact that they are not trying to INFLUENCE the outcome of these ballots).

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[wmw999 2,447]

So, in other words, you now agree that he said it was smart, but you just want to make sure that people know that he's liberal, and liberals in general are slimy shady folks who just want to steal the election.

Did I get it right?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Zenister 0]

it is the exact same motivation..

if Rep had more to lose by independent candidates they would be blocking them, if the majority of absentee voters voted Dem, you'd see them pushing the absentee vote as well.... nothing 'shady' about either tactic, its simply playing the system for advantage to your cause..

you can label the others side as 'shady' if you wish, but the fact is BOTH parties do whatever they legally can to insure they get the most votes... that isnt 'shady' its POLITICS.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[juanesky 0]

You are far off.

But there is still hope for you that one day you will understand.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[skydyvr 0]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Darius, Maybe you have missed it, or never or heard of that before, but usually the military are the ones casting the majority of those votes, and most of them favor the GOP.

The military is only a tiny segment of absentee voting these days, but the bias is still towards the Republican side.

Lots of people vote absentee not because they're out of town, but to save time on election night. Not much different from filing tax returns before April 15th. I'm a permament absentee voter now - in the 90s I missed one election because work went late and was 40 miles from home. Another I didn't realize until too late that I would in fact be out of the state. Now I'm covered.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

nothing 'shady' about it... until we have a system that guarantees equal coverage to all opponents, removing the non-contenders (unfortunately, none of them have a chance in hell) that generally 'takes' votes away from one side more than the other, is simply leveling the feild...

[InflightSupv 0]

Quote

I saw a program last night that was showing how the republicans are spending millions of dollars to inform, and try to get people to Vote via an absentee ballot..

I think this is a smart move for the republicans. Not sure if I like the fact that people would make there decision before they see all the facts, but yet a smart move considering how President Bush is doing in the debates.


What do you think? Is it a shady move or just smart?

Here in Texas we have early voting, which begins mid Oct and goes through Nov 2nd. That way, its not a big deal to find the time to go and vote. Lines are not as long either. They don't tally until Nov. 2nd though.

As far as absentee voting, who cares as long as they don't count the votes early to influence the election, until the polls close. Absentee voting is fair and gives everyone the opportunity to have their chance to vote. What is not fair, is that the media is starting to predict the election, based on the east coast, while the west coast is still voting. There should be a black out until all polls are closed so as to not influence. Just my 2cents.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Tell that to all the voters here that would like to vote for Nader or Badnarik.

They still can, it's called a write in.

Agreed, but according to Zenister, the non-two-party voters shouldn't be heard. That was my point . . .

. . . and to elaborate, it's funny how partisanship can affect one's opinion as to what's "fair".

Right Zen?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Zenister 0]

wrong..

they should be heard, all the way though the entire election process, not simply another option at the end of it... Anyone who does enough research to know the minor parties exist and what their platforms are can easily write them in.

the current system does not give equal time/exposure/media attention to any candidates other than the majors for 98% of the election, why should they be listed with equal status when it comes down to the final choice?

once all parties are given equal opportunity, equal coverage and attention, to have their platform and candidates on equal footing throughout the entire electorial process then they should be included with equal weight on the ballots... until then its an inherent design flaw in the current system that does nothing to contribute positively to who is actually elected, it a negative that bleeds off votes of those dissatisfied with the choices really offered by the majors..

no minor party has any chance in hell under the current system, the majority of voters cant even name the parties, much less the candidates and platforms

Currently the majority of the 'dissatisfied vote' primarily sides with the Dems... which means inclusion of other 'unknown options' on the ballot hurts Dems more than Rep..and skews the results by diversion, not by choice.

It is irrelevant which party is affected more, the facts are one is 'harmed' more buy their inclusion than the other. It is in effect a 'handicap system', a built in flaw that skews the 'will of the people' by diverting votes that would have otherwise gone to one of the majors...

I honestly want every party on every ballot in the US... and included in every news conference, every debate and every public event... but the two majors dont want to allow that... neither of the majors has any desire to have the minor parties actually participate...until the point that they can help 'sandbag' their opponent by taking away votes... it is a built in handicap that hurts on party more than the other..

Keeping them as write in gives them the same ‘ weight’ and status they are given throughout the entire campaign season, it levels the field....

iirc the Reps made the same fuss about Perot when he was ‘taking’ voters away from them… the flaw is in the ‘marketing system’ before the election…

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.