2. What's up with voter registration? Why does everyone need to be registered, and what is complicated about the process that they need organized drives to do it? (Where I'm coming from: I'm automatically registered via my income tax return, and if I don't show up on the list for some reason I register on election day by showing them appropriate ID.)
3. From Joe Fiorito's latest column:
I know a woman who lives in Mississauga. She is an American. In order to vote she said she had to go to her embassy where, after supplying her ID, she had to state whether she wanted a Democratic or a Republican ballot.
Huh?
Exactly: huh? Or, since the Star is a family newspaper and this isn't a family blog, WTF? Why can't they put everyone on one ballot? What if you want to vote for an independent/fringe candidate? What if you want to vote for some reps and some dems (I think they're generally voting for more than one office)? What if they run out of one kind of ballot?
4. There's this yes/no to Prop 8 thing rattling around the blogosphere, and every time I read about it I have to pause and scrunch up my brain and try to figure out which side is which. So why don't they give the Prop (Proposition? Proposal? Propeller? Prophylactic? Propaganda?) a descriptive name so the answer will be obvious?
5. What's up with the people who are against elitism also being against wealth redistribution? If you're not elite, you don't have wealth and therefore would benefit from wealth redistribution. If you would be hurt by wealth redistribution, you have wealth and therefore are elite. What am I missing?
6 comments:
1. We usually don't have this many people voting, so the lines are usually shorter.
2. Voter registration is handled by thousands of county clerks/recorders/election officials who can't really talk to other governmental entities to get info. There is no equivalent to Elections Canada for running US elections.
3. Looks like she wanted a primary ballot, which would be separated by party. General election ballots list everyone.
4. Prop 8 would amend the California constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Usually they don't get simple name to avoid charges of favoritism from the responsible government official or office.
5. Most of those people who oppose wealth distribution think they will be wealthy themselves one day.
That's helpful, thanks :)
Two questions though:
2. If there is no equivalent to Elections Canada, who organizes the elections?
5. If they think they will be wealthy themselves, why are they against elitism?
2. Usually the Secretary of State for a particular state and the Recorder's Office or some other office office. In my corner of the world, the AZ Secretary of State puts candidates and propositions on the ballot and the Pima County Recorder's Office operates the voting booths and maintains voter registration lists. In other states, like SC, a centralized Elections Commission runs the elections.
5. I think that people who oppose wealth distribution are opposed to intellectual elitism. Some people think it is more likely for them to be rich than smart.
1. In many places, yet. Always low-income areas and/or populations of people of colour. I.e., Democratic voters.
2. It could be much easier. There was a big push to tie registration to driver's licenses, school registration and other opportunities that take in large numbers of people, but the Republicans killed it.
3. That could only be a ballot for the primary, in which you vote for the party you are registered with, if you choose to do that. If he meant the general election, he is wrong.
4. Descriptive names are usually biased. "Patriot Act" - "Unborn Victims of Violence Act". To remove that bias, only a number is used.
5. This is a much more abstract question! Why do people vote against their own economic interests??? Why indeed. Ignorant, misinformed, fearful?
* * * *
Re no Elections Canada, the important take-away from this is that the official overseeing the election belongs to one of the parties. They are NOT non-partisan! Crazy!!
1. In many places, yet.
^^ In many places, yeS.
the important take-away from this is that the official overseeing the election belongs to one of the parties.
Like they necessarily belong to one of the parties, or just that they're allowed to belong to one of the parties?
Post a Comment