Ohio Early Voting Will No Longer Take Place On Sundays, Weekday Evenings

[Fern]

Ohio adopted 35 days of early voting after 2004 when people waited for up to 7 hours. The results were so good in 2008 what did they do? Start cutting it back.
-snip-

Originally Posted by emperus View Post
Help me understand two things.

1.) If you had 6 hour waits during the last election, one would think you would increase not cut the voting hours right? So why would u cut them?
-snip-

So, emperus' claim was wrong. Figures.

Fern

 

[Fern]

its immoral to wait in line 7 hours to vote.

Yes, but what's that have to do with the issue at hand?

Are you claiming that 29 days of voting will result in 7 hour waits? If so, that's an unbelievable claim and requires some proof or at least an explanation.

Fern

 

[Thebobo]

Lol like there is ANY confusion as to the reason why this is happening.

silly humans

 

[Fern]

Did you mean this post?



1.) You do know absentee ballot request forms are not absentee ballot forms. Right?

2.) You do know the law makes it illegal for anyone to send an unrequested absentee ballot form right?
3.) And you do know that in 2012 they also mailed everyone absentee ballot request forms and some counties even mailed actual absentee ballot forms and yet there were still 7 hour wait times. Yet, they decided to cut the voting hours and made sure no counties sent out unsolicited absentee ballot forms this year. That makes sense to you?


But you don't know all that. But that doesn't stop you from defending a bill you haven't even read. I wonder why that is?

Instead of destroying my argument you seem to have you just made yourself look a little bit more silly.. Again.

No, we don't know that.

And unless you can show some proof that the 7 hr delays were in 2012 (and not just '04) you don't know it either.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The county next to mine is also reducing their early voting days. (The decision is made at the county level and not the state level like in Ohio.)

That county is uber liberal. They promote themselves as the 'San Francisco of the East Coast'.

I was listening to a radio station out of that county and they said a study was done and found that the vast majority of voting takes place at the beginning and the end of the voting period. I.e., condensing the voting period will have little-to-no effect on voting.

Fern

 

[emperus]

No, we don't know that.

And unless you can show some proof that the 7 hr delays were in 2012 (and not just '04) you don't know it either.

Fern

edit

 

[emperus]

The county next to mine is also reducing their early voting days. (The decision is made at the county level and not the state level like in Ohio.)

That county is uber liberal. They promote themselves as the 'San Francisco of the East Coast'.

I was listening to a radio station out of that county and they said a study was done and found that the vast majority of voting takes place at the beginning and the end of the voting period. I.e., condensing the voting period will have little-to-no effect on voting.

Fern

And? Unless you can tell me that the avg. wait time before the change was 7 hours or even 3 hours. A county deciding to cut voting days is not noteworthy.

I can probably agree with that study. So, if you agree as well, I'm sure you find it equally egregious that they decided to stop early voting the Sunday before the election. Am you would also probably agree that it is idiotic to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you mean this post?



1.) You do know absentee ballot request forms are not absentee ballot forms. Right?

2.) You do know the law makes it illegal for anyone to send an unrequested absentee ballot form right?
3.) And you do know that in 2012 they also mailed everyone absentee ballot request forms and some counties even mailed actual absentee ballot forms and yet there were still 7 hour wait times. Yet, they decided to cut the voting hours and made sure no counties sent out unsolicited absentee ballot forms this year. That makes sense to you?


But you don't know all that. But that doesn't stop you from defending a bill you haven't even read. I wonder why that is?

Instead of destroying my argument you seem to have you just made yourself look a little bit more silly.. Again.

So Ohio voters won't actually receive mail in ballots unless they request them, and they may or may not receive a form to request one.

Which makes the whole effort retrograde from my perspective, from the perspective of getting more people to vote.

Thank you for correcting my misperception.

 

[Jhhnn]

The county next to mine is also reducing their early voting days. (The decision is made at the county level and not the state level like in Ohio.)

That county is uber liberal. They promote themselves as the 'San Francisco of the East Coast'.

I was listening to a radio station out of that county and they said a study was done and found that the vast majority of voting takes place at the beginning and the end of the voting period. I.e., condensing the voting period will have little-to-no effect on voting.

Fern

Did they determine that wrt the Sunday before the election? Probably not. I think that's clearly a targeted exclusion, aimed towards church groups in general.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol like there is ANY confusion as to the reason why this is happening.

silly humans

Vast right wing conspiracy for sure!

 

[emperus]

Vast right wing conspiracy for sure!

This is all part and parcel of a bigger strategy. It's actually been written about a lot. Why do you think the GOP won less votes then the Dems last election and still picked up seats?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is all part and parcel of a bigger strategy. It's actually been written about a lot. Why do you think the GOP won less votes then the Dems last election and still picked up seats?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

Democrats would never try to do that!

 

[Moonbeam]

Democrats would never try to do that!

There you go again, always the other guy. Which party is always talking about values and taking responsibility for ones actions. I can understand why morally adrift democrats might slip into gerrymandering, but, Republicans, never.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There you go again, always the other guy. Which party is always talking about values and taking responsibility for ones actions. I can understand why morally adrift democrats might slip into gerrymandering, but, Republicans, never.

There you go again, always the other guy.

 

[boomerang]

This is all part and parcel of a bigger strategy. It's actually been written about a lot. Why do you think the GOP won less votes then the Dems last election and still picked up seats?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

It's difficult to take an article seriously that starts with:

"As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of the government,"

Right off the bat you know that everything else is going to be trumped up bullshit because the opening words are...trumped up bullshit. And then I read the following and I knew it was truly not worth reading.

"unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate"

Using this story as an argument puts a label on the linker and it's not flattering. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of people in the nation that cannot determine when they are reading propaganda.

 

[emperus]

It's difficult to take an article seriously that starts with:

"As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of the government,"

Right off the bat you know that everything else is going to be trumped up bullshit because the opening words are...trumped up bullshit. And then I read the following and I knew it was truly not worth reading.

"unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate"

Using this story as an argument puts a label on the linker and it's not flattering. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of people in the nation that cannot determine when they are reading propaganda.

It was a Republican shutdown of the government. Who else shut down the government? Or basically you are saying that if parts of the article don't lie into ur propagandized views, the article is dubious?

And did you forget this?

It's actually been written about a lot

I used that story as it was the first one I found and I had previously read it and thought it did a good job of describing the overarching strategy and how everything fit together.

Well try these: Or are you going to find more ad hominem ways to dismiss them?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...icting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ican-redistricting-wins-are-hurting-the-party

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/u...s-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html


Now reread the first article and tell me what facts and conclusions the writer derived that were trumped up bullshit. What's even funny is that if you googled "Republican redistricting" you would have found those articles. But I assume ur research is either limited to people/sites who agree with you or just non existent.

 

[boomerang]

<snip>

You're a genius and you're accomplishing wonderful things here at the forums. I think you're about to change the course of the nation.

 

[emperus]

It's difficult to take an article seriously that starts with:

"As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of the government,"

Right off the bat you know that everything else is going to be trumped up bullshit because the opening words are...trumped up bullshit. And then I read the following and I knew it was truly not worth reading.

"unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate"

Using this story as an argument puts a label on the linker and it's not flattering. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of people in the nation that cannot determine when they are reading propaganda.

You're a genius and you're accomplishing wonderful things here at the forums. I think you're about to change the course of the nation.

Look at your last two posts. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

Ad hominem away...

Edit: So I point out an issue that should be bi-partisan and you are attacking me.... for what exactly?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's difficult to take an article seriously that starts with:

"As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of the government,"

Right off the bat you know that everything else is going to be trumped up bullshit because the opening words are...trumped up bullshit. And then I read the following and I knew it was truly not worth reading.

"unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate"

Using this story as an argument puts a label on the linker and it's not flattering. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of people in the nation that cannot determine when they are reading propaganda.

It's the Rolling Stone...'nuff said.

 

[boomerang]

It's the Rolling Stone...'nuff said.

No shit. When I was young and dumb, Rolling Stone was cool. Of course Cracked and Mad Magazine were cool before that. Throw in the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers too. I eventually outgrew them all.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's the Rolling Stone...'nuff said.

No shit. When I was young and dumb, Rolling Stone was cool. Of course Cracked and Mad Magazine were cool before that. Throw in the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers too. I eventually outgrew them all.

Lame. He posted four other sources offering similar information. That you choose to ignore them and instead attack the one source you can easily dismiss suggests you know you have nothing.

Your deflections about what the Dems did are equally weaksauce, Two wrongs still don't make a right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lame. He posted four other sources offering similar information. That you choose to ignore them and instead attack the one source you can easily dismiss suggests you know you have nothing.

Your deflections about what the Dems did are equally weaksauce, Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Agree, both sides do it and it's wrong...but emperus should know better than to use a Rolling Stone op-ed as a source which was my point in case you missed it.

 

[boomerang]

Lame. He posted four other sources offering similar information. That you choose to ignore them and instead attack the one source you can easily dismiss suggests you know you have nothing.

Your deflections about what the Dems did are equally weaksauce, Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Your assumption that I give a shit would be an incorrect one but thanks for sharing. Your rage against the "Republican machine" has no relevance for me.

 

[TerryMathews]

It was a Republican shutdown of the government. Who else shut down the government? Or basically you are saying that if parts of the article don't lie into ur propagandized views, the article is dubious?

Technically, Obama shut down the government. Boehner sent funding bills over, they just weren't to Obama's specifications.

 

[emperus]

Agree, both sides do it and it's wrong...but emperus should know better than to use a Rolling Stone op-ed as a source which was my point in case you missed it.

The conservative brain at work... Lol.

I gave you 4 other articles saying the exact same thing, yet you have found one ridiculous reason to try to dismiss one of them and so then therefore that means you can dismiss all of them and therefore dismiss my point? Jesus. That is breathtakingly dishonest.

Try this, Read the Rolling Stone article assuming it has a liberal slant. And ask yourself how that assumed liberal slant affected the story. Now seeing that 4 other papers wrote the same thing. You should have your answer.

You guys should try harder to pretend you have come at a reasoned articulated position. It just seems like you are marching in lock step with the Republican party without nary an understanding as to why.