Pre-vote?

A lot of people I know voted ahead of time. It's some kind of new program or something, I don't know if it's just an easier way to do absentee voting, or what.

My question is: is this the new way in every state? How many vote early?

I'm a procrastinator, so I only vote on election day, but I know my precinct opens at 6:30. I'll be there around 7.

I think it's great if more people can cast a vote, legally, with more options available for personal schedules.

How goes it in your state?

Oregon has a mail-in ballot for all elections --> 70+ % voter participation, with essentially no voter fraud or intimidation.

Unregistered citizens can register anytime, even on election day.
Ballots have to be received on or before election day.
So if it's too late to mail you drop off your ballot at certain local sites (library, fire dept, etc)

The "ballot" is in a "secrecy envelope", with no way to identify the voter.
The secrecy envelope is inside the mailing envelope which has the voter's name, address, precinct and signature.

The outer envelopes are are checked for signatures,
and then the secrecy envelopes opened,
and the ballots counted by scanning equipment.

A really great system because all ballots for the entire state,
including measures, are usually counted and reported by midnight.

We've been using the mail-in ballot for a few years. We voted about a week ago.

I just wish there was a way to stop getting political calls once you've voted.

Our local voting place was in a church, and I never felt comfortable going in there. All those crosses make me nervous.

Our church is a precinct polling place, but it's not my voting precinct.

I voted about 2 weeks ago.

You mean ya'll ony vote once??l

Being very proud of the election system here in Oregon, I described it in my earlier post as
"usually" having the results by midnight because the ballots have to be received,
not just post-marked, on election day.

Today, I'm embarrassed to say there is still one election that is still undecided.
(Metro President - a 600 lead out of 1.3M votes cast)

We would have probably been in the same situation for the Governor's race
if the Republican (Dudly) had not conceded Thursday pm.
He gained respect by conceding and not asking for a recount at a time when
he was actually ahead in the counting, but knew Portland's voting record.

It's very hard to be a elected Republican in Oregon because just 2 cities (Portland and Eugene)
essentially control outcomes for the entire state.
Washington, Multnomah, and Lane Counties are more densely populated and heavily Demoncratic.
Here are the results for Governor in Multnomah County...

Lamplighter;693061 wrote:

It's very hard to be a elected Republican in Oregon because just 2 cities (Portland and Eugene)
essentially control outcomes for the entire state.

Thank God for the Electoral College in the Presidential elections...

What Lamplighter described is amplified, not mitigated, by the electoral college.

The electoral college give a collective vote to the unpopulated areas, not the other way around. His graph indicates that the predom Democratic areas, which are the most populated, control the vote. The electoral college was designed to eliminate that on a national level.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

All of Oregon's electoral college votes go to the Democrat.

But on a larger national scale, unpopulated states get a vote that they would not otherwise get. That was my point. This lopsided representation is avoided on a national level. Republic vs Democracy.

I'm one of the greatest beneficiaries of that system (only Wyoming has a lower population than DC), and I'm ambivalent on that. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concept, but the arguments for it all seem to be "why should states get more power just because they have more people? And that seems to be a stupid question. A better question seems to be "Why should a New Yorker's vote count less than one from Wyoming?