[ArtK78]

1eyedjack, on 2012-November-06, 15:19, said:

I was reading an article on why the election is always on a Tuesday. To those where it is closer to home it is probably obvious or taught in schools or whatnot.

Anyway, the article is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-20072338

from which I quote:

"Saturday was a workday on the farm, travel on Sunday was out, and Wednesday was a market day. That left Tuesday."

Ummm, duh!! "That left Tuesday"?? Yes. And Monday, Thursday and Friday. And if Saturday was a workday, then so was (I imagine) Tuesday, so that also leaves Saturday.

No doubt there was a reason for Tuesday, but as a piece of journalism I say again, Duh!

I found this transcript of a presentation on NPR about voting on Tuesday - specifically, the first Tuesday in November after the first Monday in November, which is what the law states is the day for the US General Election.

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

As voters all over the country mark their ballots today, we revisit a story from NPR's Selena Simmons-Duffin, who wondered: Why do Americans vote on Tuesday?

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: The answer, turns out, is a little obscure. Senate Historian Don Ritchie had to dig through some historical documents so he could explain.

DON RITCHIE: In the early 19th century, basically it was a crazy quilt of elections.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: He says, the Constitutional Convention didn't get to some key details, leaving states to set their own voting dates, which meant several decades of electoral chaos.

RITCHIE: So finally in 1845, Congress passed a law.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Which set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day.

If it were Monday, they reasoned, people would have to travel in their buggies on Sunday, traditionally, a day of rest. And in a mostly farming society, Wednesday was out because that was often market day.

Tuesday was the day, and that seemed to work great.

RITCHIE: In the 1840s, elections were a big to-do. There was a lot of hoopla. There were parades. Whole families would come on wagons from the farms. People would get dressed up for the occasion.

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, that may have made sense in 1845, but the world has moved on. Democracies have moved on. And so Congress should move on and make it easier for people to vote.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Now that there are no buggies or market days, Democratic congressman Steve Israel of New York says Tuesday no longer works. It isn't exactly a convenient day for a lot of folks.

KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: When the Census has surveyed people about why they don't vote? One in four people says they're too busy or their schedules don't allow them to get to the polls.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Now, many states have other options, like early voting, but not all, says Jacob Soboroff with advocacy group, Why Tuesday?

JACOB SOBOROFF: In 15 states, you do not have an opportunity to vote early or with an absentee ballot or by mail, which means you have to vote on Tuesday.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Soboroff and congressman Israel say this bars access to democracy. They say it keeps America's voter turnout chronically low. But moving Election Day from Tuesday turns out to be no easy task.

RITCHIE: We're a very traditional country and that became a tradition in a lot of ways.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Historian Don Ritchie says people can set their calendars to it, they can count on it, they're used to it. And though congressman Israel has been introducing and reintroducing a bill to move voting to the weekend, it keeps dying in committee.

ISRAEL: I'm not giving up. I think it's just that important.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: It's not exactly a very sexy issue. It's a little bit technical.

ISRAEL: You know, some people would say it's a rather arcane issue, but I think it's a rather profound issue. I can't think of anything more important than making sure that people have an opportunity to cast their votes.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: For this election, the date is set. So, as in every presidential election since the 1840s, Tuesday is the day to vote.

Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

MONTAGNE: You're listening to MORNING EDITION from NPR News.

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

[ArtK78]

wyman, on 2012-November-06, 15:09, said:

I actually think that the statewide constitutional amendment ballot initiative is rather interesting.

Background: NJ Legislature passed a bill that changed the pension withholding from govt employees' paychecks. A judge or justice (I forget which) sued because NJ has a clause in the NJ constitution that says that the legislature can't change the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary. This argument held up through a few rds of appeals, so Christie is pushing for a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to change the salaries of sitting members of the judiciary.

My commentary:
1) I believe that it would be fine to increase the withholding from these paychecks.

2) I don't think that this is an issue that warrants a constitutional amendment, since these judges/justices will retire eventually, after which this is a non-issue until the legislature wants to change tack. This incentivizes the legislature to get "it" right the first time.

3) This is a small issue, not warranting an amendment, because the judiciary is a small fraction of NJ gov't employees.

4) Allowing the legislature to alter the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary compromises the checks and balances we have in place.

5) And this I believe is the most interesting point: Ostensibly, the Republican party should be against adding massive complexity to the lawbooks, and especially the constitution. We shouldn't be amending the constitution over small things. Yet, this is somehow important enough to CC that he's willing to push for it. This seems extremely strange to me and is an example of how Republican politics has (d)evolved.

I voted against it for the reasons above, even though I agree in principle with CC on the matter....

Interesting analysis.

I also voted against this proposed amendment. But my reason was a little different. I think that judges deserve to have their pensions paid for by the State rather than out of their own salaries. Unlike many states, judges are not elected in New Jersey - they are appointed. The appointments are scrutinized by the State Bar Association before the confirmation process beings in the Legislature. This results in a very high-quality judiciary. In fact, in the legal community, the New Jersey Supreme Court (and the New Jersey judiciary in general) is regarded as one of the best, if not the best, in the nation.

Given the salaries of the judges in New Jersey, and what they would probably make in private practice, I view any reduction in their salary to be inappropriate.

By the way, members of the New Jersey Supreme Court are referred to as justices. All judges in lower courts are referred to as judges. I don't believe that the plaintiff in the action against the State of New Jersey was a member of the Supreme Court.

[VMars]

luke warm, on 2012-November-06, 12:48, said:

i'm not saying the republicans have the answers... in many ways they are as much the problem as their liberal counterparts... imo, gingrich was right when he said that social engineering from the right is just as much social engineering as that from the left... taking just one example, the defense of marriage act is just as wrong as any other federal law that limits the power of the states to decide for themselves, as determined by the people who reside in those states... if MA wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be legal in MA - imo neither LA nor MS nor the fed gov't should have the power to interfere in that... however, the same goes for abortion... we can't have it both ways, and both liberals and conservatives think they can

by the same token, the fact that MA passes universal healthcare for the citizens of that state is a perfectly acceptable action... but to do so on a nat'l scale is, to me, an unwarranted interference by the fed gov't - a breech of liberty, not to sound too melodramatic

The difference between your first example and your second is that states are expected to recognize marriages performed by other states. If not, am I suddenly single when I leave one state and move to another? Also, there are federal "benefits" to being married (I put benefits in quotes, because they are not all necessarily monetary or recognized as benefits by all, such as being able to file taxes jointly).

I (and perhaps many people) view marriage as a civil right, and I do not believe that civil rights can be left to the states to decide on. Your argument could be extended to slavery too. Should states be able to decide for themselves if slavery is legal? And I agree with you that abortion could fall under the same argument: it should not be up to the states to decide on what rights women have over their own bodies. We seem to disagree what stance the federal government should take.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-November-06, 14:18, said:

Even if they allow their religious beliefs to bias their decisions?

I'm all for religious tolerance, as long as their belief doesn't affect other people.

I say this as an agnostic, but if a religious persons beliefs do not affect their decisions, what exactly is the point of religion.

[Vampyr]

wyman, on 2012-November-06, 14:52, said:

I thought it was pretty clear that he was referring to the two sides' caricatures of the opposition candidates (Obama as a Muslim socialist, Romney as a predatory venture capitalist). Maybe if you're subjected to the adverts, punditry, and "news" day in and day out, it is far clearer.

So calling Obama a Muslim is supposed to be insulting? I don't have any respect for religion, but still I think this is sick.

[wyman]

No, but it is certainly viewed as anti-American in embarrassingly large parts of the country.

In any case, It took us a fairly long time before we had a black president, so even if Islam were viewed as less anti-US, I still think this -- like many other religions that are not prevalent here (e.g., Buddhism, Shintoism, heck even atheism) -- would be a huge barrier to election.

Moreover, since Obama has repeatedly said he's not Muslim, this is a way of calling him a liar and unamerican at the same time.

Yes, this should make you sick.

[barmar]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-06, 16:06, said:

I say this as an agnostic, but if a religious persons beliefs do not affect their decisions, what exactly is the point of religion.

Well, that's part of the problem with religion, isn't it?

But I think there are many people who are able to compartmentalize: their religion informs their personal activities, but they're able to make public decisions without being overly influenced by it.

For instance, I would hardly be surprised to learn that the judge in the Dover case about teaching Intelligent Design goes to church regularly.

[PassedOut]

wyman, on 2012-November-06, 16:20, said:

In any case, It took us a fairly long time before we had a black president, so even if Islam were viewed as less anti-US, I still think this -- like many other religions that are not prevalent here (e.g., Buddhism, Shintoism, heck even atheism) -- would be a huge barrier to election.

In Minnesota you can elect a Muslim representative.

[kenberg]

For me, the issue is not whether a belief arises from a religious conviction. If someone opposes capital punishment I don't all that much care if this is because he thinks it goes against the teachings of Jesus, or against the teachings of Moses, or is simply morally wrong without any reference to theology. Rather the question is whether a great many opinions are simply non-negotiable. Over the last four years, Republicans made in clear in both word and action that their first priority was to make Obama a one term president. As far as I know, this position did not derive from Biblical teachings, but it made them really difficult to work with.

It's a somewhat tricky business. We respect people of principle. But we also have to negotiate to get things done. Religious belief could interfere with that, but really you do not have to be religious to be intransigent.

So bottom line: If a person comes with a large set of very detailed principles that are beyond negotiation, we might well want to look elsewhere.

[phil_20686]

nigel_k, on 2012-November-06, 13:57, said:

This is something I don't understand about the US. According to this link, in New Zealand's 2005 election we had 6094 polling stations for a population of about 4.1 million so a ratio of 673:1, three times better than your 'very lucky' town. It also says: '71% of voters voted in less than 5 minutes and 92% in less than 10 minutes. 98% of voters are satisfied with the waiting time.'

If people complain about disenfranchisement from voters having to prove who they are, how much worse is it when people choose not to vote because they aren't willing to wait in line for 2 hours?

I was thinking this. I have never seen a polling station with a queue. I think if I had to stand outside in UK weather I would just go home, and then write to my MP to complain.

[luke warm]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-06, 15:05, said:

The simple conclusion: If the USA would be a little more like Europe, the world would be financially considerably sounder.

Rik

then i guess things i've been reading have been wrong... you know, greece, spain, ireland, even france... i wasn't aware that they were so financially better off than we are

[luke warm]

VMars, on 2012-November-06, 15:58, said:

The difference between your first example and your second is that states are expected to recognize marriages performed by other states. If not, am I suddenly single when I leave one state and move to another?

yes... that is done presently... if you live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to one that does not (or even one that has laws preventing it, as some do), you do not have the same rights... insurance, for example... in a state that has laws preventing same sex marriages, same sex spouses can't always be covered as a dependent on some policies

Quote

Your argument could be extended to slavery too. Should states be able to decide for themselves if slavery is legal?

of course not... we have a constitutional amendment on that

Quote

And I agree with you that abortion could fall under the same argument: it should not be up to the states to decide on what rights women have over their own bodies.

how far do you want to take that faulty reasoning? in any case, i'm not in disagreement with you, totally... presently you (we) give the ability to control all sorts of things, including what a woman can do with her body, to both the fed and state gov't... the argument is to which authority one grants this right, not whether or not it exists... i frankly believe there should be no laws at all on this, either at the state or federal level, outside of health laws

Quote

We seem to disagree what stance the federal government should take.

i'd say so... in any case, it looks as if there will be record turnouts in several states, maybe nationally... that's good, it means the system is working... whatever happens, whoever wins, maybe those who govern will make the best decisions possible for the governed

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-November-06, 16:23, said:

(1) Well, that's part of the problem with religion, isn't it?

(2) But I think there are many people who are able to compartmentalize: their religion informs their personal activities, but they're able to make public decisions without being overly influenced by it.

(3) For instance, I would hardly be surprised to learn that the judge in the Dover case about teaching Intelligent Design goes to church regularly.

(1) It irritates me that people think this is a rational belief. When you say that religion "influences behaviour" you must be comparing it to some standard, naturally as an atheist you simply compare it to your beliefs and behaviour, but it makes equally as much sense to say that atheism is what is influencing your behaviour. So basically what you said is "I have no problem with people having different beliefs, provided, as a practical point, they make exactly the same choices and have exactly the same views as I do". Surely you can see how ridiculous that is?

(2) Religion, essentially, is a commitment to a set of metaphysical statements as being true. There are a great many, perhaps most, actions and decisions where the evaluation of the correct course will not at all be affected by these philosophical predilections. However, there are also issues which will be almost entirely determined by these philosophical statements. Abortion and Euthanasia most obviously, but things like views on incarceration, and gun regulation also (if you believe strongly in free will you are likely to give little weight to the argument that having lethal weapons lying around increases the chance of arguments getting out of hand).

(3) I am constantly amazed by the continuing existence of Young Earth Creationists, it doesn't even make sense Theologically.

[VMars]

luke warm, on 2012-November-06, 17:30, said:

yes... that is done presently... if you live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to one that does not (or even one that has laws preventing it, as some do), you do not have the same rights... insurance, for example... in a state that has laws preventing same sex marriages, same sex spouses can't always be covered as a dependent on some policies

My spouse is of the opposite gender. Why should I have the right to have all my rights transferable from state-to-state, and other people who are married to someone of the same gender not have his/her rights transferable?

You say these facts. I agree that this is what is happening now. My point is that this is actually a BAD thing, and a reason it should not be left to states because then some states will be allowed to discriminate.

Quote

of course not... we have a constitutional amendment on that

So before we had the constitutional amendment, it was okay?

And constitutional amendments happen in a vacuum? No more should ever be made?

[phil_20686]

PS: According to to be BBC turnout looks to be much higher than any polls were predicting. This puts all the state wide results in doubt imo.

[phil_20686]

BBC calling indiana 60-40 to mitt romney. Also Kentucky 70-30 to romney, vermont to obama .

[phil_20686]

Virginia 49-49 according to a CNN exit poll.

[hrothgar]

Interesting article for the poll watchers

http://www.tnr.com/b...ction-day-guide

Quote

Quote

most of the big eastern battleground states close at 7 and 7:30 p.m., be prepared for Obama to take an early lead in Ohio, Florida, and even North Carolina, where early votes will probably represent a disproportionate share of initial returns. As Election Day ballots are tabulated, Romney will begin to make inroads and perhaps ultimately overcome Obama’s advantage in early votes. Conversely, expect Romney to open up a big early lead in Virginia, where rural, Republican counties in western Virginia report quickly. Even if Obama ultimately wins Virginia by a modest margin, Romney will likely lead the state for most of the night. Obama won Virginia by 6 points in 2008, but it wasn’t called until more than 90 percent of precincts were reported because Democratic-leaning counties take so much longer to report. In 2008, Obama won the final 600,000 votes by a 170,000 vote margin. For that same reason, Senator Jim Webb didn’t take a lead until 98 percent of precincts reported in the closely contested 2006 midterm election.

As votes are counted across the Republican-leaning eastern two-thirds of the country, Romney is likely to take the lead in the national popular vote, perhaps even a large one. If Obama wins the popular vote, his margin of victory will come from the populous West Coast states and big cities that don’t report until later. In the case of the West Coast, mail-in balloting ensures that full results aren’t in for days or weeks. It is entirely conceivable that Obama could give a victory speech in Chicago while trailing in the popular vote, only to take the lead over the coming hours or even days in an extremely close race.

[Aberlour10]

Alea iacta est!

Anyway, I am going to bed now and I can only hope when I wake up, we are not at the start of The Cold War Ver. 2.0

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-November-06, 17:18, said:

then i guess things i've been reading have been wrong... you know, greece, spain, ireland, even france... i wasn't aware that they were so financially better off than we are

As I recall, Greece's population is about 5% of the EU.

Its ridiculous to judge an entire continent by one of its most backwards states...
It would be like judging the US based on Mississippi or Louisiana.