2007-10-15 05:30:46 · 3 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I strongly disagree. It is difficult for some poor people and some elderly people to travel very far to vote. Sure they could vote by mail but that should be an option not a requirement just because they would have to travel 100 miles to some town because they live in a very rural area or in some little village. What about the Mennonites? They have enough trouble in modern society without traveling great distances for things like that. There are others such as people who are ill who simply can't travel far who would be disenfranchised by requiring such large precincts.
2007-10-15 05:55:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the idea of keeping precincts by size, but 1,000 is too small. If we have 100,000,000 people vote, like in 2004, that would be 100,000 precincts, that is alot of polling places, alot of volunteers.
2007-10-15 05:35:54 · answer #2 · answered by Angelus2007 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously disagree. If you are going to present a suggestion for change, I would suggest including at least one advantage your suggestion has over the status quo. Why bother changing if you don't even have a reason to change?
2007-10-15 05:37:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋