Arizona Electoral College delegates (ten total) aren’t /bound/ to a specific candidate after a Presidential election so it’s all moot (seriously). The Mayor of Phoenix should probably be more concerned about that.
There’s really good “turnout” in states with mail-in ballots. But, you know, poor, homebound people might vote if that happened and we wouldn’t want that…
put fewer presidential primary polling locations in areas where voters are mostly poor or not white
But more poor voters would likely have increased Trump’s numbers and more minority voters would have increased Clinton’s numbers. I can understand the necessity of running an election in a fair manner, but I don’t think this affected the outcome, did it?
New York Times called the race for Clinton when 1% of results were in. WTF?
We have thousands of people who have waited in line, maybe for hours, and you tell them the race is over before its even counted?
In all of American history, only one elector has ever reneged. I think it was the 70s and one Republican elector picked Reagan instead of… maybe Ford?
It’s a sampling thing. It’s the same way market research works. Anything beyond about 1200-people means my margin of error will be -1/+1 (roughly) and with a margin of error that small a company can sell you (everything is sales… even elections) the best 2-ply, lotion-soaked, ocean-breeze scented toilet paper into your bathroom for when you shit blood on Election Day because your candidate didn’t win. In Arizona that one-percent would be 3,254 voters, Exit polling in 2016 is pretty accurate because none of it involves people answering their phones (which people stopped doing sometime around 1997).
You’re referring to a (semi)-hypothetical example which would have cost Ford the election. Ford was still short a little over 18,000 votes. However… if it had actually gone down that way as both Carter and Ford would not have had 270-electoral college votes it would have been tossed to the House of Representatives.
It’s Arizona, wait ten minutes and they’ll blame the Latino population. It works the rest of the time.
This isn’t the November election, it’s the primary, so electoral college delegates are 100% irrelevant to yesterday’s fiasco.
Arizona offered early election mail-in ballots for this election. Speaking very generally, low income and low information voters don’t opt in for early ballots (or don’t know how). They’re very valuable but so are polling locations. What I don’t understand is why we’re still in the Stone Age when it comes to election procedures.
I’m a very well informed voter that didn’t pay enough attention and not only missed the early ballot, but also missed the fact that even though Arizona is an open primary state, THIS WASN’T A PRIMARY. It was a “presidential preference election” which is code speak for “closed primary in an open primary state”. I was an independent up until yesterday; won’t make that mistake again.
The real problem many people encountered is that their party preferences were marked incorrectly or had been changed… the problem was widespread in both Maricopa and Pima counties. Disenfranchisement seems like an understatement.
One elector voted for Reagan in 76, but there have been others, although never enough to make a difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors
Including someone in 1968 who though Nixon and Agnew weren’t big enough crooks and voted for George Wallace!
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton wants the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the possibility that Maricopa County elections officials illegally put fewer presidential primary polling locations in areas where voters are mostly poor or not white.
Some things never get old.
Assuming a random sample
If the before-work voters are significantly different from the early-morning voters, the lunch voters, the after-school voters, or the evening voters, you’ve got a serious problem.
They got in their practice for November.
The approach of Lorre, bringing Rains’ winnings, is noticeable but incomplete.
I like your subtle understatement.
You just don’t understand.
They were just sparing those voters from having to wait long hours to choose their candidates.
A proper candidate was chosen for those yet to vote so they could get back to their houses and relax.
Democracy works better without voters who might screw the elections or primaries by voting for the wrong candidate.
Is there any (non racist) reason why voting isn’t federally managed?
This seems like pure bullshit, and it never stops thanks to “states’ rights”
This is false, it has happened a number of times. Wikipedia lists 157 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
At least 40 percent of them were because a candidate died, but lots of others were protest votes.
Not sure how much it matters in practice but calling it early also assumes the all demographics vote with the same distribution of times throughout the day, which seems unlikely.