note: This is sort of cross posted from my blog, but I thought it might make for a worthy debate topic.


Change Election Day to Election Weekend

Three basic principles would be enacted.

First, instead of the elections being held on the first Tuesday of November, the election will be a three day weekend starting with the first full weekend in November. Exit polls will only be published Sunday morning (this part probably needs some work).

Second, this weekend will have a Federal holiday designation for the purposes of recognition, but not sufficient to shut down any business that would normally operate during those times. IE, banks are still open on Fridays, etc.

Finally, the three day weekend will be marked with community based parties and events (similar to Independence Day) celebrating our democratic process. After all, its called the Democratic and Grand Old Party for a reason, right? I haven't thought of a name yet, but something along the lines of America's Democratic Carnvial/Festival, you get the idea. Admission is of course, free.

A couple of restrictions on this, however:

First, absolutely no campaigning whatsoever during or on the event grounds. We're celebrating democracy in action, not a person, party, or platform. Discussion at the events are certainly permitted, even encouraged.

Second, no alcohol. Yeah, yeah, I know. But have you ever gotten into a political discussion with a drunk? Its not pretty. Plus I don't want any VUI or VWI citations. Get drunk after you vote, just not on my nickel/tax dollar.

This is admittedly a raw concept, but I thought I would share. The goal in all of this is, of course, to encourage participation in our system of government and hopefully get more people interested.

Questions for Debate:
1) Would these changes improve voter participation? Why or why not?

2) What changes (if any) could improve this proposal? Are there alternatives to this (if you find it without merit) that would improve voter turnout?

3) Optional: any idea what to call this three day celebration? Positive ideas please.

Commendable, Doc, but I think there are many weaknesses here.

First off, the three day change. Elections are done by volunteers and some polling locations are wanting for volunteers already so how they could fill these positions for three days would be difficult.

Second, polling locations are not on public places, they are in school gymnasiums, party rooms and such. Occupying these public places for three days would be next to impossible.

Three extra holidays? That is .8% of the work year and would cost the country on the order of $100 billion dollars in lost productivity (0.8% of $13 trillion) and the government about $30 billion in tax revenue. Plus how can we say that these people must work (banks) but others don't have to... A sticky question at best.

No alcohol? This is the US of A we're talking about. Any large gathering has alcohol.

Where would this be held? How could we get 8 million New Yawkers to come to a smaller set of places than they already vote in? The logistics would be very very complex.

The payoff would be (presumably) higher turnout? More pride in our democratic process? Less informed people voting? I'm not sure what the upside is here.

1) Would these changes improve voter participation? Why or why not?

I highly doubt it. Most people don't vote due to apathy, not lack of access. The fun factor would actually reduce the seriousness of the process, in my opinion.

2) What changes (if any) could improve this proposal? Are there alternatives to this (if you find it without merit) that would improve voter turnout?

Why should voter turnout be improved? The apathetic have made their choice.

1) Would these changes improve voter participation? Why or why not?

Maybe. See below

2) What changes (if any) could improve this proposal? Are there alternatives to this (if you find it without merit) that would improve voter turnout?

I've often wondered about this myself.

I think there is some merit in a bicameral legislature having one house elected on first past the post, as Brit and US elections currently work, and the other house elected on some form of proportional system (so people who don't support either of the two main parties can vote for a minor party candidate without feeling their vote is wasted)*.

I like the idea of an extended poll - the British habit of only holding elections on a normal working Thursday is bound to produce lower turnouts than using a weekend or just having a national holiday, so I assume the same might be true of the USA.

But, when I've thought about it before, I've wondered whether it might not be best to link extended polling to some kind of quorum idea (e.g. the polls stay open for x days, or until 70% of the electorate have voted, whichever is sooner). And I've always thought it's worth considering some element of compulsion but only if there is an option on all voting forms for "none of the above".

This last idea would, I think, give the lie to the idea parroted by politicians and commentators that people who don't vote are mostly just apathetic, rather than deeply disaffected by those same politicians and commentators. While I'm sure that many people really are truly apathetic when it comes to politics, I don't think it's true that all non-voters are.

3) Optional: any idea what to call this three day celebration? Positive ideas please.

The election? I don't think there needs to be a special name for it.


* Though my personal favourite, in the UK at least, would be for the Lords to be replaced by a "house" made up of juries selected from the public themselves. Direct democracy, rather than representative, fully funded and legislated for so that most people (except maybe the self employed or the very wealthy) would not be financially disadvantaged by taking part. Sovereignty would be deemed to rest with these juries in seniority to Parliament, so no more self-regulation for MPs. That, and the removal of the Royal Prerogative from Cabinet Ministers, and a proper Freedom of Information Act that Parliament and Government cannot weasel out of, would go a long way towards improving the quality of public life and Government here in Blighty, I reckon.

In the democratic tradtion, I'll second that notion. For voters, there shouldn't be a "three-day weekend" for discussing matters of public policy (especially not right before election day). It should instead be an ongoing, daily affair. If you vote, it's incumbent on you to pay attention to the news and to apply critical thinking to it, continuously. If it just doesn't interest you, or you find it all "too depressing" or whatever, that's fine, just please stay away from the polls on election day. Running the country should be left to those who actually have an interest in it.

My heart sank. The apathetic have made their choice: quite often it was choice between a day's pay and the right to exercise one's rights... example, how many of you have ever tried to line up to vote after five in a major metropolitan area, especially one in a state where voting centers are unequally distributed relative to population?

I think that's careless thought on behalf of both of ya. Come on, you've seen images of urban polling places after work hours... it's quite often madness. The easiest, and sometimes only reasonable time to vote in urban areas is in the mornings, except a great deal of "apathetic" voters are also tied down to a job they can't afford to slip out of. A waitress can't go line up in front of a poll for an hour. A bus driver can't pull the number 27 over to poke the chad of his choice.

At the same time, I agree with many of the arguments against this proposal-- I think a three-day weekend would be a cumbersome affair to staff, and more importantly, it would interfere with the democratic process. You'd have all kinds of Matt Drudge reports with wild statistics claiming victory for whoever, it would be tense and hysterical.

So why not just have a one-day event, but not on Tuesday? How about we vote on Sunday, or if that's too religious, what about Saturday? Personally, I don't think the lost production resulting from a national holiday would hurt all that bad, either. And why in November, in the cold? Why not on Labor Day, or Memorial Day?

Secondly, I would ask: what if we had run-off elections? I've always thought that, in states where the final margin of victory lies between, say, less than two percent of the vote, we should have a run-off. A presidency should never hinge on 537 rapidly hand-counted votes, especially not votes from MIAMI DADE COUNTY, what a horrible population to put such a momentous decision off on. ::shudders:: We should be certain as a people who we have elected, if only because the immediate aftermath of a close election says a great deal about a candidate: you'll recall Gore was a conciliatory loser, and Bush rushed to push a questionable victory through the supreme court. Says volumes about the eight years to come.

I could be seriously mistaken here, but I've never heard of anyone who wanted to vote complaining that he or she was unable to. If it does happen, I have a hard time believing it's common enough to have any likely effect on the outcome of any election.


I'd be fine with moving it to Memorial Day. Quite a good idea, actually.


Well, first of all, I'd question the "questionability" of Bush's victory. But as to your more central point, all I would say very briefly, without straying too far off-topic, is that I'd support runoff elections for Representative races, but I think too much attention is focused on presidential elections as it is, and that's not healthy. Self-government ceases to be a process and instead is reduced to a single quadrennial popularity contest.

I think the most important voting issues that would better America are:

1) Get Instant Runoff Elections, This will allow Americans to vote for whom they really
think is the best person for the job and not be black mailed into voting for
the Lesser of Two Evils.
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

2) Eliminate the Electoral College (It is now obsolete) or at least make it a law that
requires the E.C. to vote according to the "Peoples" vote.

3) If the E.C. is not Eliminated then we need to end "The Winner Take All" Rule
(Created by the REPS&DEMS to gain a monopoly on the US Government!)

If these things were implemented the average American would have more reason to feel
that their input really counts and is far more meaningful. In turn they would have more
reason to come out and vote.

Because right now the system is so rigged that if you don't vote for a DEM or REP you
will not have any representation in Government. This is not an attribute of a "Free and
Open Democracy"
(i.e. R. Perot in 92' got ~19% of the American Vote but 0% of the E.C. Votes!
And Clinton "ONLY" got ~42% of the American Vote BUT 70% of the E.C. Vote!!!!!
If you passed the 4th Grade you know that 42% is not a Majority!)

Actually, I'd suggest to you that eliminating the winner-take-all rule would strengthen that monopoly. Currently, in states like Massachusetts (consistently votes Democrat) and Wyoming (consistently votes Republican), it's usually pretty safe to vote for a third-party candidate, even in a close election nationally, because it won't affect your state's choice of electors, and hence won't have an effect on the national election. But if that rule is eliminated, then everyone throughout the country would be afraid to vote third-party in anything resembling a close election, for fear that doing so would deprive them of the ability to influence the outcome of the election.

That does sound likely. But then is what you're really saying is that Americans
should not stand up for what's good and just be black mailed in to voting for
the Lesser of Two Evils?

I think the last 110yrs have been enough time for the REPS&DEMS to show America
that they can or "Can Not" properly run America!

I agree, actually. That's one of my arguments against a 3-day process. Presidential contests are too sensationalized as is. Personally, I blame to crud-ification of local news. Those little state representative races are important! Don't forget about your school board!!!

I fear that a 3 day process would create pandemonium. Matt Drudge could say "Neo-Nazi wins Colorado," and create a stampede of voters pulling a lever for the lesser evil they think is most likely to win, rather than the lesser evil of their choice. All kinds of campaign manipulation could occur.

At the same time, I don't think the sensationalization of american presidential races is an excuse to not have run-off elections. Seriously, there is a huge problem with having a president determined by a margin of 536 people. Run-offs serve a vital purpose, and I think we should have them on the presidential level, too. I say that in full knowledge that we democrats might have never enjoyed a John F. Kennedy with a run-off.

This will just give people an extra day to goof off. Are you trying to find a way to
get more people tp vote or to get more people involved in politics>


I'm sure this will give more people time to vote, but not "REASON TO VOTE"



If America wanted to be Democratic and have Americans feel that they could vote their
conscience, with out being blackmailed in to picking the lesser of two evils. We should
1) Have instant run off elections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
2) End the "WINNER TAKE ALL" rule that the REPS&DEMS made.
3) End the Electoral College or revamp it and legally bind it to the popular vote!




"Save America from the REP-DEM Monopoly"

Dictatorship = 1 party
USA = 2 parties
We are half way there!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) I believe so. People like my parents both lead incredibly productive and active lives and cannot always take the time to go and vote, as horrible as that sounds. Providing the additional days for vote would increase turnout but perhaps have some negative side effects if voter fraud increased because of the greater time votes are in circulation. All in all, there is nothing barring democracy from taking a little while [see United States Congress]. Why should voting be any different?

2.) Well, as a total aside, abolishing the Electoral College would certainly aid in the whole democratic process. But for the purpose of this particular debate, Voter I.D. would be essential to protect against Voter A voting on Friday then coming back for another go on Sunday.

3.) Voteapalooza.

No. Apathy isn't likely to be increased by vacation time. I would have voted but I took the family to Disney

Compulsory voting.

Lesser Day. (As in the Lesser Of Two Evils.)