Vote!

[shoothoops]

100,000,000 voters have voted, 73% of the 137.1 million voters of 2016.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1323594659717914631?s=19

[shoothoops]

If you know anyone in these 20 states not registered to vote, they can get registered today and vote today:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

and soon to be a state, Washington D.C.

[Galway Eagle]

Wishing everyone a safe voting experience today left or right

[GooooMarquette]

If you know anyone in these 20 states not registered to vote, they can get registered today and vote today:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

and soon to be a state, Washington D.C.

Good list. I would also point out that eligible voters don't need to register to vote in North Dakota; they simply need to show up at the polls with a legal form of identification.

[GooooMarquette]

On an individual state basis, more than 100% of the total voters from 2016 have already voted early/absentee in three states: Texas, Montana and Washington state. And more than 90% have already voted in another eight states: Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida.

Wherever you are, if you're eligible and haven't voted yet, get out there today!

[jesmu84]

So, generally speaking, why do states or local governments try to create barriers to voting? Don't we want as many people as possible voting? Don't we want to make the process easy?

As long as everything is legal, of course.

[Uncle Rico]

So, generally speaking, why do states or local governments try to create barriers to voting? Don't we want as many people as possible voting? Don't we want to make the process easy?

As long as everything is legal, of course.

Because higher voter turnout tends to favor one party.  It’s like gerrymandering for voting.  It’s the Wisconsin creed.

[shoothoops]

Because higher voter turnout tends to favor one party.  It’s like gerrymandering for voting.  It’s the Wisconsin creed.

It's also why, laughably, there is still an Electoral College.

[BrewCity83]

It's also why, laughably, there is still an Electoral College.

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

[Pakuni]

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

I don't think you know what "disenfranchised" means.
Under the current system, some citizens' votes are more valuable than others.
Without the EC, all votes would count the same.
So, which method is really disenfranchising voters?

[Hards Alumni]

“
Not only did I not “cry“ about peaceful protests, I (and every Conservative I know) supported the protesters rights. When cops started getting attacked or shot, when businesses were burned and looted (and the “peaceful protesters” defended the destruction and looting as “reparations” that were justified) - and we heard crickets from folks like you and the “these are mostly peaceful protests, nothing to see here” media- you lost us.

No no, you were lost a long time ago, old man.

[Pakuni]

But, but antifa...

@gwupoe: Exclusive: This morning, FBI arrested Timothy Watson, a purported boogaloo member for selling “portable wall hangers” which can be converted to make a gun automatic. According to docs, he has sold to a number of Boogaloo members including one who shot and killed law enforcement

[#UnleashSean]

It's also why, laughably, there is still an Electoral College.

I mean... It's laughable if you want the us to forget about everyone but coastal states.

[GooooMarquette]

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

The Electoral College is a good thing if you think the value an individual's vote should be affected by where he or she lives.

I would prefer that each individual's vote count equally, but I know others disagree.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

So everyone's vote would count equally and the winner of the election would be the one that got the most votes?

That does sound horrible.

[DegenerateDish]

Interesting day the market is having so far.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I mean... It's laughable if you want the us to forget about everyone but coastal states.

How is counting everyone equally "forgetting" about anyone?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Personally I have lived in states where the winner take all nature of the electoral college has made me feel equally disenfranchised (because of insurmountable majority by a party on both ends of the spectrum).  It's our system, but it's not ridiculous to challenge it and it had nothing to do with living on a coast.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You know I knew this already, but I don't think I've ever put together how astonishing this is. Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 elections but have only won the presidency in 4 out of the last 7 elections.

I wonder what would happen if the tables were turned?

[Pakuni]

I mean... It's laughable if you want the us to forget about everyone but coastal states.

Residents of Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, etc., would still get to vote, I believe. Plus, the Senate would still give inordinate power to small states.
And, of course, all coastal states share a hive mind. California is just like Georgia.  Oregon is exactly like New Jersey. Florida and Washington couldn't be more alike.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

This statement always bothers me greatly.  As I've never once thought or heard this nor seen anyone else or read anywhere on "the coast" utter anything remotely similar.  It some center of the USA population disinformation statement that is no where near correct.

[shoothoops]

Nothing laughable about the Electoral College.  Without it, California, New York, and Chicago would decide the elections and the great "flyover states" would become disenfranchised.

Why should a vote count more in flyover states (Illinois is a flyover state btw) than elsewhere? Spoiler alert it shouldn't.

4.5 million California votes in 2016 for Trump.

Almost 3 million in NY in 2016 for Trump.

Wisconsin had 1.4 million votes for DT.

So those far less Trump Wisconsin votes should count more than some other places elsewhere? Why? Isn't each person entitled to equal opportunity and representation regardless of their geography? People vote, not land.

One person, one vote.

We don't use the Electoral College system to decide state and other races. It isn't used in other countries.

This has the feel of Stick to sports when someone disagrees with someone's opinion on a non sports topic.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Personally I have lived in states where the winner take all nature of the electoral college has made me feel equally disenfranchised.  It's our system, but it's not ridiculous to challenge it and it had nothing to do with living on a coast.

This. During my lifetime I have lived in three traditional battleground states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota), one Democratic stronghold (Washington), and two traditional Republican strongholds (Utah and Texas). Personally, I always vote, but when I lived in the strongholds, I knew many people whose political views were opposite the state they lived in who never bother to vote because they feel like their vote is worthless. Its an unintended consequence of the electoral college.

My bold prediction is that within the next 20 years, Texas is going to become a democratic stronghold. The rural areas here are dying and the major cities are some of the fastest growing in the country. The rate of immigration and transplants from other states far exceeds the birth rate of native Texans. If that does happen, Democrats will start every election with close to 200 electoral votes in the bag. At that point, I think we will see some major changes to the current party systems.

[Pakuni]

This statement always bothers me greatly.  As I've never once thought or heard this nor seen anyone else or read anywhere on "the coast" utter anything remotely similar.  It some center of the USA population disinformation statement that is no where near correct.

Jonah Goldberg had a good line in a column I linked earlier in the thread:

Real America is “flyover country,” a term used more by those who resent it than by those who actually use it as a term of derision. In today’s Republican mythology, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco and other major cities are home to the elites — or, if you include the shores of Lake Michigan, the even more hated “coastal elites.”

[TSmith34, Inc.]

A voter in Vermont has 3.67 times more Electoral power than a voter in Texas.
A voter in Wyoming has 3.72 times more Electoral power than a voter in California.

Time to end a process that is more outdated than a rotary landline.