![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 2nd, 2004 10:02 amI don't know if it's just the way Illinois precincts work out, or that we're not a swing state (and, indeed, none of the races in my precinct are very close), or what, but my wait to vote was about two minutes. I've never really had to wait in Illinois to vote, not more than 5 minutes.
But I voted. Yay voting. I keep hearing that people think there's not a lot of difference between the candidates. I wish they could vote in our Senatorial election, where there is nooooo way to say that there is no difference. For instance, Barack Obama is pro-choice, and Alan Keyes is pro-life. Obama believes in equal rights for gay families, and Alan Keyes opposes this. Barack Obama is sane, and Alan Keyes is a raging lunatic nutball. So, you see, there's differences.
I like Illinois' voting system. They use a numbered punch-card. Since most of the voting guides (and campaign commercials) have a punch number in addition to the candidate name, it makes it easy to check. There's also an optical card reader to make sure that you didn't over- or under-vote.
I'd like to see some reform of the voting process. First, I'd change the primary process. I'd break the country up into four sections of roughly equal population. Each section would hold their presidential primary on the same day. One primary would have section 1 go first, the next primary would have section 2 go first, etc. This would make it so that the whole country has a say in who would win a primary instead of having Iowa and New Hampshire have a first crack at it.
Second, I'd reform the electoral college. Since the number of electors is made up of the number of senators plus the number of congressional representatives, I would break the electors up the same way: Each congressional district gets an elector, and each state gets two electors based on the popular vote on that state. I believe that this gives more power to the voter without diminishing the power of the state. I don't think it's fair that 50% of the vote gets 100% of a state's electorate. And it'll make polls and exit polling so much more difficult, which I think is a good thing. Of course, an argument against this would surely be that it takes power away from the state to decide how to handle their electorate, but since it's a national office, I think that argument is moot. Mooooooooot.
I put on my Obama for Senate button this morning, and Elsie Moo-Cow bit me. Clearly she's an ultra-Conservative. That would also explain the "Kitty Kats for Keyes" bumper sticker I found.
On the first Tuesday of every month, they do a test of the civil service alarms throughout the state. I think they should have cancelled today's.
But I voted. Yay voting. I keep hearing that people think there's not a lot of difference between the candidates. I wish they could vote in our Senatorial election, where there is nooooo way to say that there is no difference. For instance, Barack Obama is pro-choice, and Alan Keyes is pro-life. Obama believes in equal rights for gay families, and Alan Keyes opposes this. Barack Obama is sane, and Alan Keyes is a raging lunatic nutball. So, you see, there's differences.
I like Illinois' voting system. They use a numbered punch-card. Since most of the voting guides (and campaign commercials) have a punch number in addition to the candidate name, it makes it easy to check. There's also an optical card reader to make sure that you didn't over- or under-vote.
I'd like to see some reform of the voting process. First, I'd change the primary process. I'd break the country up into four sections of roughly equal population. Each section would hold their presidential primary on the same day. One primary would have section 1 go first, the next primary would have section 2 go first, etc. This would make it so that the whole country has a say in who would win a primary instead of having Iowa and New Hampshire have a first crack at it.
Second, I'd reform the electoral college. Since the number of electors is made up of the number of senators plus the number of congressional representatives, I would break the electors up the same way: Each congressional district gets an elector, and each state gets two electors based on the popular vote on that state. I believe that this gives more power to the voter without diminishing the power of the state. I don't think it's fair that 50% of the vote gets 100% of a state's electorate. And it'll make polls and exit polling so much more difficult, which I think is a good thing. Of course, an argument against this would surely be that it takes power away from the state to decide how to handle their electorate, but since it's a national office, I think that argument is moot. Mooooooooot.
I put on my Obama for Senate button this morning, and Elsie Moo-Cow bit me. Clearly she's an ultra-Conservative. That would also explain the "Kitty Kats for Keyes" bumper sticker I found.
On the first Tuesday of every month, they do a test of the civil service alarms throughout the state. I think they should have cancelled today's.
