I heard on the radio that in Galveston, more people have already voted early than voted in total in the 2000 election. Maybe we are finally getting some participation in our political process. I think that early voting should go on in every single state. What possible reason could we have for not allowing people to vote 2-3 weeks before Election Day?
I saw on the news this morning that in alot of polling places,they are talking about a 1-1.5 hour wait to vote on this last day of early voting. Im really thinking about doing it today....since I dont want anything to possibly slow me down getting to Live on Tues. I think we are going to see some record numbers at the polls this year.
I read yesterday that 11% of likely voters have already voted and they expect another 11% will before Tuesday! That's roughly quarter of all voters! Amazing!
I early voted yesterday at the Power Center, South Main & South Post Oak. I showed up at 4PM. There were about 150 people in line. The line moved quickly. I waited maybe 30 minutes to vote. The line was longer when I left. The turnout for this election is going to be much larger than 2000. I don't recall having to wait that long to vote in any other Presidential election I've voted in, whether I early voted or did it on Election day.
I agree. I can't remember waiting in line longer than 10 minutes in any election I have ever participated in.
yea....in 2K, I had to wait maybe 10 minutes...and that was in the middle of the afternoon the day of.. it is absolutely incredible the sheer number of people that are turning out for this one. so...that leads to the automatic followup question.... If we get unprecedented voter turnout, who does that benefit most?
the candidate of the unwashed masses who are the product of a crappy education system that both candidates say they want to fix. i'm totally kidding...nobody freak out!!!!!
Democrats, usually benefit the most since they are fair weather voters. W can thank W for motivating the Democrats this time round.
They would just back-date them to September surprises, I guess... "September Surprises" does offer a nice alliteration.
Yeah, but such a "surprise" would have far less impact on potential voters who would still have over a month to vote. They certainly wouldn't have the same kind of impact as a surprise announcement a day or two before a general election in which nobody can vote before election day.
That's an excellent question. mc mark's, "The American Public!" is a great answer. "Conventional wisdom" would lead one to think that a higher turnout would benefit Democrats. I don't know how many times I've heard that expressed, over the years. This year? I just don't know. I can't remember the country being as polarized as it is today. Even in the late '60's, when I was fervently against the Vietnam War, and participated in demonstrations before I was even able to vote, the feeling in the country was different. You had millions of parents of draftees, who had been for the War, that came to change their views on just how necessary it was, just how much we truly were wanted there, and whether it was being run in a fashion that made any sense at all. To cut to the chase, whether it justified seeing their drafted son, and the sons of their friends and relatives, sent to Southeast Asia on what more and more of them came to see not only as a fools errand, but a damned deadly one, up close and personal. People tend to forget that the war was highly popular with the public in the early to mid-'60's, before the thousands of body bags started flowing home, the same mantra of, "We're turning the corner" had been repeated to often, when that corner plainly hadn't been turned, and stories from returning soldiers of what it was really like began to filter through the populace... combined with ever increasing, and frequently excellent, coverage by the networks, shown on the nightly news to millions across the country at 5:30 pm, Central Standard Time, here in Texas. Even then, when things had heated up at home and in Vietnam, there was a great "middle" of the country, who were wrestling over whether we should be there, for the reasons I mentioned, and some I'm sure I've forgotten at the moment, who considered themselves "Independent" voters. That huge group were the Americans, in my opinion, who ultimately came to a collective decision to end the war. That end didn't play out at all like most of them imagined, but the weight of their opinion tipped the vote to Nixon in '68, although Robert Kennedy would have easily won election that year, had he lived, and would have ended the war sooner than Nixon, in my opinion. Humphrey, an intelligent and decent man, who I would love to see at the top of my party's ticket today, were that possible, was too closely associated with LBJ's failed policies in Vietnam. The debacle of the '68 Democratic Convention, while not Humphrey's fault, in my opinion, nudged the '68 election to Tricky Dick, in a very close vote. That great "middle" of independent voters doesn't exist today. Neither does the kind of media coverage we had then. We just don't see, read, and listen to that kind of coverage, because it just doesn't, in the main, exist any longer. The vast background of experience so many in the news had then has been devalued by their employers. Today, it is more about the "pretty face" and "charisma" to connect with viewers, and to get the ratings the news corporations are looking for, to bump up their bottom line. If you think I'm wrong, then google up some photos of the three journalists I mentioned in another thread. Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley. What they looked like had nothing to do with why they got their jobs. Keep D&D Civil!!
Deckard, compare and contrast GWB's reelection versus Clinton's. Clinton was totally hated by the right, but the voter turnout was usual. GWB is totally hated by the left AND the voter turnout will likely be one of the largest in recent history.
It wasnt too bad...I went at lunch to vote...and while the line was pretty long(50 yards or so)...it only took about 30 minutes to get into the room...and another 10 to do my thing. The eslates are easy to use... overall... a pretty easy experience. Ive done my part...I educated myself on the issues and the facts...tried not to listen to much to obvious partisan sources....and went and voted my conscience... I encourage all of you to do the same... btw...a big thanks to the many in here from both sides that have pulled out every story on God's green earth for me to read...I managed to seperate the wheat from the chaff and hope I made a reasonable and intelligent decision(s) .
despite what the freaks here would have you believe...a vote for either could be characterized as reasonable and intelligent. we'd like to pretend the candidates are far apart...that they'll do entirely different things...but in my experience, that's never been the case. each will disappoint you equally!
I early voted yesterday. I first went to the Marriot on Dairy Ashford and I-10. There were close to 200 people. I was told the wait would be 1.5 hrs. So I left and then went to the Tracy Gee Center instead on Richmond. The line there had about 15 people in line, and took about 10 minutes tops.
i went there the 2nd day of early voting. waited for 45 minutes. my wife went there yesterday and waited 30 mins.
I went this morning to the polling station on W. Gray... got there a bit before 7, got out a bit before 8... glad I missed the rain and won't have to go on Tuesday...
