Roll Call: Who is voting early? Who is waiting til Nov. 5 (and why?)

superrific said:
No offense, but doesn't this sorta miss the point of early voting? I thought the point was to prevent people from having to wait in line. Maybe that was originally the point, and then they started to close polling locations in reliance on early voting?
Click to expand...
Polling locations for Election Day voting haven't been closed, you have to have a polling location for every precinct on Election Day. Where polling locations have been closed in some places are for early voting. There have also been examples of heavy-Dem precincts having their Election Day polling locations placed in hard-to-reach or otherwise difficult locations.

The point of early voting is to give people options to vote other than one single day and to alleviate some of the amount of folks trying to vote in one day to reduce wait times.
 
superrific said:
No offense, but doesn't this sorta miss the point of early voting? I thought the point was to prevent people from having to wait in line. Maybe that was originally the point, and then they started to close polling locations in reliance on early voting?
Click to expand...
The point was to give flexibility. And it does decrease wait times
 
fsclark1 said:
Just voted today, Wake County. Took over an hour, but not a huge deal. Straight Dem, Yes on the bond issues, No on the Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
What don’t you support about the constitutional amendment? I was reading my sample ballot and the amendment seemed like something I would hope almost anyone would support. Did I miss something?
 
Maybe or you're hoping to deflect others from noticing that it's unnecessary under current law and raises the possibility of challenging naturalized citizens that current law doesn't.

Did you miss something?
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
What don’t you support about the constitutional amendment? I was reading my sample ballot and the amendment seemed like something I would hope almost anyone would support. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
1. There’s already a federal law barring non-citizens from voting, so the amendment is redundant.

2. I believe the voting age should be 16, so I don’t want a constitutional amendment saying that the voting age in NC is 18.

3. I believe that non-citizens should be able to vote in local elections if that locality wants it to be that way. The amendment would prevent that.

4. History shows the North Carolina Republican Party and their supermajority in the GA will use this constitutional amendment to continue their campaign of voter suppression and intimidation.
 
If I lived in North Carolina, I'd probably vote no on the constitutional amendment, too. Not because I disagree with the notion that only citizens are eligible to vote in elections- obviously I do not disagree with that at all- but because 1. the law is already on the books in NC, 2. it's one of those really weird performative Republican solutions in search of a problem, and 3. because it's a needless change in the language of a law that already exists and isn't being proposed to be changed.
 
Paine said:
1. There’s already a federal law barring non-citizens from voting, so the amendment is redundant.

2. I believe the voting age should be 16, so I don’t want a constitutional amendment saying that the voting age in NC is 18.

3. I believe that non-citizens should be able to vote in local elections if that locality wants it to be that way. The amendment would prevent that.

4. History shows the North Carolina Republican Party and their supermajority in the GA will use this constitutional amendment to continue their campaign of voter suppression and intimidation.
Click to expand...
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
Click to expand...
I expect it to pass as well because of the wording and most people won’t look into it enough to care what the consequences may be.

I haven’t seen any messaging from the NC Democratic Party specifically to vote no, but I haven’t sought it out either.
 
Paine said:
I expect it to pass as well because of the wording and most people won’t look into it enough to care what the consequences may be.

I haven’t seen any messaging from the NC Democratic Party specifically to vote no, but I haven’t sought it out either.
Click to expand...
Democrats are messaging to vote no. I voted no because it just seems like an opportunity to go back and add additional qualifiers to the language as they see fit.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I guess this goes to show you that it’s hard to have a large consensus on anything in politics. For whatever it’s worth, with the wording of that amendment I’m expecting it to pass with relative ease. Maybe not the high degree of consensus that I was expecting. But can’t imagine 50+% of people voting no for a proposal that only legal citizens be able to vote…..I agree it’s somewhat redundant but also just seems like such common sense.

Are Democrats encouraging their voters to vote no on the amendment?
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's just possible that Republicans in NC think that modifying the state constitution for total non issues that serve primarily to alienate and demean is a fun sport?
 
wmheel1287 said:
Or maybe it's just possible that Republicans in NC think that modifying the state constitution for total non issues that serve primarily to alienate and demean is a fun sport?
Click to expand...
That’s not how I see it but you’re welcome to vote your conscience. Ok to disagree. But it seems like a silly thing to be against.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
That’s not how I see it but you’re welcome to vote your conscience. Ok to disagree. But it seems like a silly thing to be against.
Click to expand...
It seems silly to be against treating the state's constitution like partisan toilet paper to gin up some kind of angst that something needs to be done about this scourge of voting which isn't actually happening?

Why would you equate voting against the amendment to be against the issue? If that's the case, shouldn't we line up amendments about drunk driving? Hell, to my knowledge, the state constitution doesn't even address rape! We definitely need an amendment for that too, don't you think?
 
dukeman92 said:
North Carolina (and everywhere else that uses paper ballots) could speed up the process exponentially by having computerized voting machines. That seems so much quicker than coloring in every individual square.
Click to expand...
I want paper ballots that are fed into machines that count the votes.

Restore the ability to vote straight party - that’ll speed up voting for 40+ percent.

Or, be like Oregon - go to vote by mail. They have great turn-out by US standards and negligible fraud.
 
Last edited:
wmheel1287 said:
It seems silly to be against treating the state's constitution like partisan toilet paper to gin up some kind of angst that something needs to be done about this scourge of voting which isn't actually happening?

Why would you equate voting against the amendment to be against the issue? If that's the case, shouldn't we line up amendments about drunk driving? Hell, to my knowledge, the state constitution doesn't even address rape! We definitely need an amendment for that too, don't you think?
Click to expand...
There is nothing partisan about people needing to be citizens ages 18 and up in order to vote. The fact this is considered partisan highlights why Democrats poll so poorly on immigration.

And yeah, if there was an amendment that said drunk driving or rape was bad, I wouldn’t twist myself in a pretzel to find a way to oppose it.
 
What is the reason to change from a law that works to one that is untested and claims not to be greatly different.

Iow, since you're a fan. what specifically is the improvement over the current law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top