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

Calheel said:
In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's virtue signaling while at the same time trying to highlight the extremism of X% of voters in the other party. It'll be funny to see how many people vote against the amendment which simply codifies that a person must be an 18 year old US citizen in order to vote.

As the one poster above said, the main reason many will vote no is because Republicans will be voting yes. They want to own the Pubs above all else!
 
Calheel said:
In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).
Click to expand...
If there’s a law already protecting gay marriage I wouldn’t care if someone voted for or against another law saying the same thing. HY is all up in his feels calling people crazy for not going along with the virtue signaling. It’s this MAGA activation that he falls for time and time again.
 
Calheel said:
In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).
Click to expand...
These two situations are not the same. The California constitution does not already contain language making clear that gay marriage is legal. In fact, California Proposition 8 is still on the books, a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional but is still on the books. This new amendment would repeal Prop 8 and enshrine gay marriage in the California constitution so that it is constitutionally protected in the state in the event Obergfell is repealed at the national level.

By contrast, the NC Constitution ALREADY LIMITS VOTING TO CITIZENS 18 OR OLDER. The amendment makes no change to the state constitution other than semantics.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Exactly. It's virtue signaling while at the same time trying to highlight the extremism of X% of voters in the other party. It'll be funny to see how many people vote against the amendment which simply codifies that a person must be an 18 year old US citizen in order to vote.

As the one poster above said, the main reason many will vote no is because Republicans will be voting yes. They want to own the Pubs above all else!
Click to expand...
So even if you think the NC and California situations are the same (which, as I’ve already said, they aren’t) you are admitting that NC Republicans are just pointlessly virtue signaling the same as “woke” California. And you still aren't offended by that?
 
The constitution shouldn’t consist of a list of rules regarding what we the people aren’t allowed to do. That’s what statutes are for. The constitution should serve two primary functions: (2) to define the roles of our government institutions , and (2) to identify the rights of the citizens that are to be protected.
 
rodoheel said:
These two situations are not the same. The California constitution does not already contain language making clear that gay marriage is legal. In fact, California Proposition 8 is still on the books, a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional but is still on the books. This new amendment would repeal Prop 8 and enshrine gay marriage in the California constitution so that it is constitutionally protected in the state in the event Obergfell is repealed at the national level.

By contrast, the NC Constitution ALREADY LIMITS VOTING TO CITIZENS 18 OR OLDER. The amendment makes no change to the state constitution other than semantics.
Click to expand...

So in conclusion…do what?
 
superrific said:
Where, and source? Is it that same Suffolk poll I cited?
Click to expand...
A USA TODAY/Suffolk poll shows the presidential race tied, but there's a divide between early voters and those who plan to wait for Nov. 5.
Harris leads Trump 2-1 among the earliest voters, many driven by abortion access: new poll

www.the-independent.com

Harris holds 2:1 lead in early voting – as poll goers cite abortion as a main issue

Early voters tend to favor the Democratic candidate, and those waiting until Election Day will tend to favor her Republican opponent, according to a recent poll
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com
 
Several other sources report 2-1 Harris lead thus far, including Newsweek…. And I also heard it on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert so it must be true…. Just like Facebook. You see something there and you just KNOW it’s true! 😜
 
Rather than pay $1.77 to mail my wife's absentee ballot I decided to drop it off yesterday and vote early while I was there. I turned into Lake Lynn Community Center off of Ray Road and the traffic was backed up all the way out. I did a three point turn and left. Apparently 3:30 pm on a Tuesday isn't a good time to early vote. I may try again today.
 
BubbaOtis said:
Rather than pay $1.77 to mail my wife's absentee ballot I decided to drop it off yesterday and vote early while I was there. I turned into Lake Lynn Community Center off of Ray Road and the traffic was backed up all the way out. I did a three point turn and left. Apparently 3:30 pm on a Tuesday isn't a good time to early vote. I may try again today.
Click to expand...
Isn’t postage waived on election mail?
 
rodoheel said:
That is a complete non-answer. Let me try again. What do you understand will be changed or benefitted by the amendment? Do you even know what the state constitution already says?

here is the current language:

"Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided."

Here is the proposed amended language:

"Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State."

So what change do you think is being made? And why do you think the ballot initiative doesn't even include the current language or tell voters that this is amending language that already exists in the Constitution? Why do you think Republicans feel the need to mislead voters about the need for this amendment?
Click to expand...
The proposed Amendment takes the qualifications away from the Constitution (striking the language about "in this Article,") so the qualifications will now be set by the Legislature.

Because who doesn't trust the NCGA to deal fairly with voters? It's not like they are already a slap in the face to the notion of democratic representation, or have a history of targeting voters with "near surgical precision" to remove their rights.
 
StrangePackage said:
The proposed Amendment takes the qualifications away from the Constitution (striking the language about "in this Article,") so the qualifications will now be set by the Legislature.

Because who doesn't trust the NCGA to deal fairly with voters? It's not like they are already a slap in the face to the notion of democratic representation, or have a history of targeting voters with "near surgical precision" to remove their rights.
Click to expand...
There it is ^^^
 
Paine said:
Isn’t postage waived on election mail?
Click to expand...
No. I voted absentee for many years (the business I was in had its conventions/trade shows in Las Vegas every year in late October/early November so for 30 years I was usually in Vegas for Halloween/Election Day) and I remember always stressing over how much postage was needed. Once drop boxes became a thing, I just used that to avoid dealing with the postage issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top