Election Day – Red State Blue State Voting Differences
I have lived in and voted in both red and blue states. The changes associated with voting here in MA verses TX were surprising.
TX
MA
Registration
same
same
Ballot
E machine
Paper
Parties
multiple
One
ID required
yes
no
Poll watchers
yes
no
Vote soliciting within
no
yes
100 feet of polls
Police inside Poll
no
yes
Station
I was really surprised by the differences. I know that I moved into a one party state, but I hadn’t considered how much it would impact voting procedures.
I was shocked to learn that in order to turn in my ballot, I had to be checked out by a uniformed Boston Police Officer. I can’t imagine the outcry in TX if people were vetted by the state prior to turning in their vote.
We went all mail in, several years ago. I used to be an election judge/worker (precinct worker) in my old neighborhood, just to visit with old friends. Kind of miss it, but it was a 6AM to 9PM job, and was a little blurry by end of the day.
I don't like the voter solicitation and I find it weird not having to show ID, but then we get checked out after by a police officer - that concept just always seems weird to me.
__________________ I Will Try
Open Competition Log
That's what I guessed you meant but wanted to be sure.
We have that in California for primary elections (but obviously not for the general election). You register with a party and your primary ballot has only the choices for your party (for party offices) and then any other ballot measures or judges or whatever are on all ballots.
I don't like the voter solicitation and I find it weird not having to show ID, but then we get checked out after by a police officer - that concept just always seems weird to me.
It seems very banana republic. If I were a "protected class" voter (as opposed to being in the minority) this would be seen as somewhat discriminatory in much of the country.
Ours is pretty relaxed here in PA. Every now and then you get some pushy solicitors who try to pick arguments with you as you're walking in, but no policemen in the room with you while you vote.
We vote on Diebold machines, which is weird. You're just taking it on faith that it's properly programmed and that your vote will be tabulated accurately. The only physical proof that you showed up to vote is the sign-in book. I assume somebody checks the books against the machines to make sure that the number of ballots matches the number of voters, but I don't really know.
We don't have a one-party state, but we do have a one-issue state. For Republicans, it's all taxes, all the time. (Pat Toomey, former president of Club for Growth and the guy who drove Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party, is a local.) Virtually anybody off the streets can win in our local elections if he's a Republican who promises to cut taxes.
On our school board, we have a kid who:
a) doesn't have kids in our schools;
b) doesn't own property, which means he doesn't pay property taxes;
c) has never held a job;
d) has never been to college.
But he's on the school board because he ran as an anti-tax Republican. For today's election, local progressives made sure we had a slate of qualified school-board candidates -- people with a stake in preserving the quality of our school system.
If they win, they have to sit on the board with a surly kid whose only goal is to obstruct everything the district wants to accomplish so he can fight to cut taxes he doesn't pay in the first place. And of course he couldn't care less about the quality of the schools -- he's made that clear -- because he doesn't have kids who would be harmed, or own property that would lose value if the schools declined.
That's what I guessed you meant but wanted to be sure.
We have that in California for primary elections (but obviously not for the general election). You register with a party and your primary ballot has only the choices for your party (for party offices) and then any other ballot measures or judges or whatever are on all ballots.
Actually, the terms they use here are Closed Primary, Open Primary or Modified Open (or else it is Modified Closed) Primary.
In a closed, your primary ballot has only candidates from your registered party for the primary races.
In an open, your primary ballot would have all party candidates in primary races.
In the modified, if you are affiliated with party you get that party's ballot. If you are a "decline to state" registrant, you can either take a ballot with no party primary races or you can request a party affiliated ballot from a party who has chosen to allow "decline to state" to vote in their race.
California is currently Modified. But only 1 of the major parties in the last big primary had allowed the decline to state-ers to request their ballot.
Lisa, Thanks for the info. Today was our General Election, not a primary. It is just that the City is so one party there were no other choices on the ballot.
No communists. After all, communists have an ideology and organizational outcome they prefer. Boston politicos only care about lining their own pockets.
In our local district justice election the Republican candidate who had convictions for DUI and passing bad checks beat the Democrat who had none of those things. The district justice, among other things, conducts hearings on DUI and bad check charges. So he may send people to jail for the same things he was convicted of.
At least he can empathise.
Following up on my post about our local school board:
One of the Republicans voted onto the board is a guy who recently moved here from New Jersey. He lives in a retirement community. He has no no kids in our schools, and no ties to our district. He ran on one issue -- he won't raise taxes -- and got all the people in the retirement community to come out and vote for him. In an off-year election, those few hundred votes made the difference.
I see things like this and I think, this isn't conservatism. It's nihilism.
Following up on my post about our local school board:
One of the Republicans voted onto the board is a guy who recently moved here from New Jersey. He lives in a retirement community. He has no no kids in our schools, and no ties to our district. He ran on one issue -- he won't raise taxes -- and got all the people in the retirement community to come out and vote for him. In an off-year election, those few hundred votes made the difference.
I see things like this and I think, this isn't conservatism. It's nihilism.
Lou - you live in a fairly moderate state. Is this just an indicator of the frustration people have with their current and expected tax burden? Is there any accountability for the administration of the school? I have seen this before in Texas. But with a good super and some good principals, they turned around the community viewpoint.
Lou - you live in a fairly moderate state. Is this just an indicator of the frustration people have with their current and expected tax burden? Is there any accountability for the administration of the school? I have seen this before in Texas. But with a good super and some good principals, they turned around the community viewpoint.
Tom, that's a good question. Our school district actually delivers a lot of value. Our per-pupil expenses are slightly lower than average for our state, while test scores are way above average. And our high school has hugely successful sports programs.
When we moved here 11 years ago, those were major selling points -- it's one of the two best school districts in our area, but a lot more affordable than the other one.
So people in our district are already getting a good return on our tax dollars.
That's why it's so bewildering that people with no connections to the district, no kids in the schools, and/or no property on which they pay taxes would take the time and energy to run for the school board.
I understand why they win. I've met enough people involved in local politics to know that our seniors always vote for whoever promises to cut their taxes, and in off-year elections, the seniors are the most dependable voting bloc.
So the state as a whole might be moderate, but our seniors are pure Tea Party.
Following up on my post about our local school board:
One of the Republicans voted onto the board is a guy who recently moved here from New Jersey. He lives in a retirement community. He has no no kids in our schools, and no ties to our district. He ran on one issue -- he won't raise taxes -- and got all the people in the retirement community to come out and vote for him. In an off-year election, those few hundred votes made the difference.
I see things like this and I think, this isn't conservatism. It's nihilism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomK
Lou - you live in a fairly moderate state. Is this just an indicator of the frustration people have with their current and expected tax burden? Is there any accountability for the administration of the school? I have seen this before in Texas. But with a good super and some good principals, they turned around the community viewpoint.
This is going to continue as long as our legislature keeps the funding of our schools tied to property taxes. Many of our elderly are forced out of homes that they built and lived in for years because they cannot afford ever rising property taxes after they retire. No thinking person questions the need to fund our schools, but it is clear to me that the method of that funding must be changed. Basically, if you have been a hard working citizen and bought a home, you are saddled with ever escalating taxes on that home in perpetuity.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
This is going to continue as long as our legislature keeps the funding of our schools tied to property taxes. Many of our elderly are forced out of homes that they built and lived in for years because they cannot afford ever rising property taxes after they retire. No thinking person questions the need to fund our schools, but it is clear to me that the method of that funding must be changed. Basically, if you have been a hard working citizen and bought a home, you are saddled with ever escalating taxes on that home in perpetuity.
Creating a direct link between educational funding and property taxes is one of the more clearly observable disconnects in tax theory. You are correct that the most "affluent" in terms of Property / Asset value are the long term owners of housing. Hence, they see their nominal tax payments increase even as they lose a direct connection with the schools.
A more optimal local tax structure would be to pool all revenues (property, sales, excise, etc) against all expenditures (police, fire, water schools). That would allow better budgeting.
Does PA use "Robin Hood" taxes for schools (e.g. property tax rich districts transfer funds to poorer districts)?
Following up on my post about our local school board:
One of the Republicans voted onto the board is a guy who recently moved here from New Jersey. He lives in a retirement community. He has no no kids in our schools, and no ties to our district. He ran on one issue -- he won't raise taxes -- and got all the people in the retirement community to come out and vote for him. In an off-year election, those few hundred votes made the difference.
I see things like this and I think, this isn't conservatism. It's nihilism.
I hear ya.
Florida is full of these people.
They come down here to retire and they vote against every tax there is.
Then they piss and moan about how they had all these really great government services back home and why can't Florida get it's ass in gear and do the same.
My favorite though is the old "Why should I have to pay school taxes? I don't have any kids in school"
Well, because kids need to get a decent education so they can go out and be productive members of society and pay the taxes that pay for your Social Security and Medicare so you won't starve to death. That's why idiots.
This is going to continue as long as our legislature keeps the funding of our schools tied to property taxes. Many of our elderly are forced out of homes that they built and lived in for years because they cannot afford ever rising property taxes after they retire. No thinking person questions the need to fund our schools, but it is clear to me that the method of that funding must be changed. Basically, if you have been a hard working citizen and bought a home, you are saddled with ever escalating taxes on that home in perpetuity.
We have a problem in Alabama where too much of the schools budget comes from sales tax. Since the income from that changes so often there are problems with not having enough money to finish up the required budgets for the school year. It causes huge problems with pro-rations.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
Election Day – Red State Blue State Voting Differences
Linear Mode
