Unless a polling place 10 blocks further away has significantly decreased wait time; or their assigned place was a mile from their home, but now they can vote across the street from work... there are myriad ways for the change to be a net gain.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
No no no, you don't understand. It's only wrong when it negatively affects Republican voting blocks. Every time you change it in Democrat blocks, it's an improvement!
I love how you keep making hypothetical what if arguments to counter constant real world reported instances of 4-8 hour waits
In trying to protect cis women from trans oppression, gender critical radical feminists have decided to argue that women are dumber than men as a sex
Both of which would be hugely unlikely. If a population has grown by thousands, and is then expected to spread over fewer than half as many spots in a single day than they used to, how likely is it that waiting times would decrease rather than increase?
And similarly, if there are fewer than half spread over the same geographic area, how many are likely to be closer rather than further away?
It's odd how far the benefit of the doubt goes... particularly concerning a party with a notable history of voter suppression elsewhere, as your own source pointed out.
I find the presence of the bbq at polling stations to be oddly comforting.
As it should. Someone having a sausage sizzle is the sign that Aussies are taking shit seriously. Unfortunately the smell can cause the Hunger Crankies in the unprepared in long queues.
Honestly more than 5 minutes is way too long to wait just to badly draw cock'n'balls on some ballot papers, especially after dealing with the pamphlet pushers.
I just practice my resting ***** face, makes most of the pamphlet goons leave me alone. There’s always some chances - the Greens and the Christian Party usually - who’ll come brave it but I just bark out “No” and the skitter away.
I posted a similar instance of Democrats in California and gave them the benefit of the doubt. I give nearly everyone the benefit of that doubt.
Well, no, you didn't. You posted it solely to counter the Texas accusation, by saying you could chop-and-change that one just as easily.
But let's compare the two instances.
California: Number of polling places reduced to at least 1 per 10,000, rather than 1 per 1000; how that's implemented is up to County. Stations open for 4 days instead of 1. Every voter has a mail-in ballot by default so doesn't need to travel.
Texas: In 2018, average was 1 per 7,700, with 6 counties at fewer than 1 per 10,000. So even before the closures in Texas, 6 counties in Texas had fewer than the statutory minimum in California after the closures that were implemented there. Only open for 1 day. Mail-in ballots only available for those with specific requirements (over 65, disabled, incarcerated, or out-of-county), they must be requested in advance, and the immunocompromised do not qualify.
So... not really equivalent, then, is it?
And:
The Guardian said:
They are, they are pretty equivalent. The country is collectively moving away from having many local precincts operating for one day and towards alternative voting methods over longer periods. Both these states have weeks long early voting periods. Pointing to polling place statistics is not meaningful in that context.
Doublethink is a hell of a drug, and Republicans are mainlining it.
He ain't gettin' much business in that field with them moobs rolling over that flab.