Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
424 bytes added ,  02:41, November 23, 2012
→‎How exactly does it disenfranchise?: Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing
Line 60: Line 60:  
:Not "more sancrosanct," but more informed to vote on [[Election Day]].  If 99% of the electorate vote early before campaigns are over, then the conscientious voter who does his due diligence by voting on Election Day has been disenfranchised from his vote being meaningful.  To the extent early voting is less than 99%, the degree of disenfranchisement scales accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)
 
:Not "more sancrosanct," but more informed to vote on [[Election Day]].  If 99% of the electorate vote early before campaigns are over, then the conscientious voter who does his due diligence by voting on Election Day has been disenfranchised from his vote being meaningful.  To the extent early voting is less than 99%, the degree of disenfranchisement scales accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)
 
::You keep claiming that those who vote on Election Day are more informed, but that's hogwash. Campaigns are largely meaningless, you know who you are going to vote for by and large before the conventions. Anyone who hasn't formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn't paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around. And really, how many of those who vote early are going to change their mind? I would probably say almost none, and therefore it's hardly "disenfranchising" for the results to be moved up a month. Seriously, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that large swaths of people change their minds in September and October. For the VAST majority (I can confidently say at least 80-90 percent) the decision isn't changing, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote early? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:34, 22 November 2012 (EST)
 
::You keep claiming that those who vote on Election Day are more informed, but that's hogwash. Campaigns are largely meaningless, you know who you are going to vote for by and large before the conventions. Anyone who hasn't formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn't paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around. And really, how many of those who vote early are going to change their mind? I would probably say almost none, and therefore it's hardly "disenfranchising" for the results to be moved up a month. Seriously, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that large swaths of people change their minds in September and October. For the VAST majority (I can confidently say at least 80-90 percent) the decision isn't changing, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote early? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:34, 22 November 2012 (EST)
 +
 +
:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns.  Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early.  Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,337

edits

Navigation menu