I'm not reffering to early voting. I mean actually extending normal voting. Isn't it ridiculous that 250 million people are expected to all vote in less than 24 hours?
2007-03-28 02:39:57 · 19 answers · asked by tHEwISE 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Early voting is understaffed and not benificial to people who work. The hours are not sufficient.
2007-03-28 02:51:13 · update #1
I completely agree, an election week would be perfect to meet almost everyone's schedule. Why do you think they won't change it....
2007-03-28 02:42:52 · answer #1 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably not, BECAUSE of early voting. Yes, it is ridiculous for 250 million people to be expected to vote in less than 24 hours, but they're not! They have early voting, which IS an extension of "normal" voting. It's even more accessible, since you don't have to vote at your polling place, you can vote at any one of many early voting places. Early voting sort of invalidates your whole question!
Just curious ... how can you disregard early voting in the context of your question?
Thanks for the details. In my town, early voting is 7 am to 7 pm, includes weekends, and is in many convenient public areas. It's always been staffed well in my experience, and there has never been a wait at the mall where I've gone. I've only voted on actual election day once, in a local election last year. The line was 45 minutes long, and it was totally disorganized! Never again! Maybe more people should use early voting.
2007-03-28 09:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by Bad Kitty! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The one day of voting should be sufficient. What about the mail in ballots for those that can not or unable to make it to the polling place to vote? I would hope these two options would work. Besides we need more people to Really get involved with the process now.
2007-03-28 10:16:36 · answer #3 · answered by KRISTEN S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If definitely would. But may be one more day. But still all the 250 million people might not be in a position to vote in 48 hours.
2007-03-28 09:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by cidyah 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe by a few votes, but the problem is would exit polls and early returns from the day before, affect how next day voters responded? I would be in favor of extra time, only if NO results, polls, opinions, or news commentary, would be allowed until ALL voting is finished, and polling places are closed.
2007-03-28 09:49:58 · answer #5 · answered by John B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would only increase the uninformed vote. I think you have the right to vote, and the obligation to be informed. If you can't remember, or make time there is also absentee voting. If after that you still can't make it, the country is probably better off without your opinion.
2007-03-28 20:13:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Voting is your right, its up to you to exercise that right or not. Also if you want to vote you make time for it. It will not take you a day to vote and your job allowed you to go and vote. The voting place is open from 7am to 9pm. plenty of time for them to vote.
2007-03-28 12:47:53 · answer #7 · answered by Sun Valley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the polls should be open from Friday night thru Sunday evening. That would increase voting.
2007-03-28 09:44:46 · answer #8 · answered by Mavrik 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think most people vote when it is convient for them. If they were to give it a two day period I think people would still end up waiting until the last second to vote. Maybe the number of voters would increase, but not significantly.
2007-03-28 09:43:16 · answer #9 · answered by Tammy T 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If we waited on people to vote, the results would never come in. I think it's a great idea we have just ONE day of voting. Why should I have to wait for Joe Schmo just because it's inconvenient for him to vote on election day.
2007-03-28 09:42:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would increase the numbers, yes. It might make more of a difference if national elections were held on weekends, though.
2007-03-28 10:05:22 · answer #11 · answered by Clutchitude 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋