(no subject)
Nov. 3rd, 2004 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eruthrosTo be honest this is one of the things that's bothering me the most.
The article is about a specific set of three precincts, the smallest with c. 400 registered voters and the largest with thousands. And this:
There were still lines in Cleveland at midnight last night when I went to bed. The polls closed at eight. They're required to let everyone in line vote, but how many people there can afford to stay until one am? Until two? Until three? Through the next day? Your employer is required in many states to let you take time off to vote -- but could you do it two days in a row? What if you take public transportation?
And I'm not joking about two days in a row. Getting sixty percent of that large precinct to vote would take at least fifty hours on two machines. And that is the most conservative estimate I can make with those numbers. Fifty hours. Fifty. The polls were open for twelve.
Why am I getting out the vote if we don't have the infrastructure for people to vote? What does "every vote counts" mean when there were lines miles long in Pennsylvania counties last night at ten pm because people were still waiting? What does "every vote counts" mean when they have to go home? What does "every vote counts" mean if we're making it that damn hard for people?
We were hoping for turnout around 118 or 120 mil. How horrible would it be if the difference between the turnout we hoped for and the turnout we got is the people who had to leave the line and go home?
The article is about a specific set of three precincts, the smallest with c. 400 registered voters and the largest with thousands. And this:
Each precinct had two functioning voting machines. The largest precinct was supposed to have three machines. One was broken at the precinct's opening and later replaced with another machine that also did not function. It's not hard to do the math. Five minutes per voter means 12 voters per machine per hour. Ohio polls were open for 13 hours, for a maximum throughput of 156 voters per machine, or 312 voters per precinct. That's barely enough for a 75 percent turnout in the smallest precinct of the three. For the larger precincts, it was a joke -- on voters.Now, let's think about that. I phoned people for this election. I wanted to get out the vote. I damn well got out the vote.
There were still lines in Cleveland at midnight last night when I went to bed. The polls closed at eight. They're required to let everyone in line vote, but how many people there can afford to stay until one am? Until two? Until three? Through the next day? Your employer is required in many states to let you take time off to vote -- but could you do it two days in a row? What if you take public transportation?
And I'm not joking about two days in a row. Getting sixty percent of that large precinct to vote would take at least fifty hours on two machines. And that is the most conservative estimate I can make with those numbers. Fifty hours. Fifty. The polls were open for twelve.
Why am I getting out the vote if we don't have the infrastructure for people to vote? What does "every vote counts" mean when there were lines miles long in Pennsylvania counties last night at ten pm because people were still waiting? What does "every vote counts" mean when they have to go home? What does "every vote counts" mean if we're making it that damn hard for people?
We were hoping for turnout around 118 or 120 mil. How horrible would it be if the difference between the turnout we hoped for and the turnout we got is the people who had to leave the line and go home?
