Should Poll Duty be like Jury Duty?

nemein · 10-18-04, 08:52 AM

An interesting thought occured to me while listening to someone talk about how volunteers are down and it's hard to find people willing to work the polls. Should people be forced to work the polls occasionally just they are forced into jury duty? On the plus side it'll hopefully get people more involved/learn more about how the system really works, as well as solve the general problem of not having enough people

On the down side it's forcing people to do something they may have no interest in (which could lead to people intentionally or accidentally screwing up the tally), w/o some sort of veting process it's also allowing people access to personal info of those voting (which could potentially cause some problems as well). Just curious what people thought (plus it's conversation/debate we can have that is hopefully non-partisan

).

Groucho · 10-18-04, 08:55 AM

No, but I think they could offer better incentives to volunteers. For example, their votes count twice or something.

Spanky BananaPants · 10-18-04, 12:26 PM

I was an election judge for the '92 election. I seem to remember getting paid $50 for it. Voter turnout was high, so we were busy pretty much all day. I was there from about 7am to well past midnight without a break. It sucked.

I don't regret doing it, but I feel that those who volunteer for poll duty should be compensated better for it. I checked, and now (in my area, at least) they pay $65. Not worth my time, really.

So, no...don't make it compulsory, but make it more attractive for those who do volunteer. Maybe free booze would work.

Red Dog · 10-18-04, 12:28 PM

Where was that thread about how an independent couldn't work the polls?

kenbuzz · 10-18-04, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Dog
Where was that thread about how an independent couldn't work the polls?

Yeah, I think in some state (or states), the rules are written such that only people registered with one of the parties can act as election judges -- so they can ensure an equal number of partisans running things in each precinct, effectively ensuring no partisanship at the polling place. Independents can't be counted on to expouse the party line (since they don't have one), so you don't know if they're a whacko-Liberal or a Conservative nut job, thus introducing an element of unwelcomed randomness into the precincts.

jaeufraser · 10-18-04, 02:51 PM

Na, we don't need to force people to work the polls. If anything, we should do our best to limit what anyone "has" to do. Sure it would educate people more, but coming up with more and more things people are supposed to do with regards to the state is hardly a good idea in my book, as is mandatory military service or any other myriad of govt mandated activities. The right to vote also means the right to not give a shit, regardless of how bad that sounds.

Anyway, like said before, you wouldn't want uninterested people running the polls, and are we really faced with a shortage anyway?

Groucho · 10-18-04, 02:53 PM

Ladies, working the pole shouldn't be a "duty," it should be a pleasure!

dork · 10-18-04, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Groucho
Ladies, working the pole shouldn't be a "duty," it should be a pleasure!

If shutting your eyes and calling us "ladies" makes you feel less ashamed, be my guest.

(Seriously, has any female ever set foot in this forum?)

View Poll Results: ???
Yes	4	40.00%
No	6	60.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

10-18-04, 08:52 AM	#1
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,291	Should Poll Duty be like Jury Duty? An interesting thought occured to me while listening to someone talk about how volunteers are down and it's hard to find people willing to work the polls. Should people be forced to work the polls occasionally just they are forced into jury duty? On the plus side it'll hopefully get people more involved/learn more about how the system really works, as well as solve the general problem of not having enough people On the down side it's forcing people to do something they may have no interest in (which could lead to people intentionally or accidentally screwing up the tally), w/o some sort of veting process it's also allowing people access to personal info of those voting (which could potentially cause some problems as well). Just curious what people thought (plus it's conversation/debate we can have that is hopefully non-partisan ). __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2752 days 18 hours 46 minutes

10-18-04, 08:55 AM	#2
Groucho Moderator Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 62,435	No, but I think they could offer better incentives to volunteers. For example, their votes count twice or something. __________________ Xbox Live: Runner Groucho PSN: RunnerGroucho "The Borg is a species" -- Tracer Bullet (Citation)

10-18-04, 12:28 PM	#4
Red Dog DVD Talk God Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV) Posts: 104,581	Where was that thread about how an independent couldn't work the polls? __________________ "A question for you. Would you rather Bucknell make the NCAA's once every 20 years or so and get ass raped by teams like Kansas in the first round or have them drop down a rung to a confernce where they can compete for a title?" - Josh Hinkle 1st Round Final Scores: Bucknell 64 Kansas 63 \| Bucknell 59 Arkansas 55

10-18-04, 12:26 PM	#3
Spanky BananaPants DVD Talk Special Edition Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 1,152	I was an election judge for the '92 election. I seem to remember getting paid $50 for it. Voter turnout was high, so we were busy pretty much all day. I was there from about 7am to well past midnight without a break. It sucked. I don't regret doing it, but I feel that those who volunteer for poll duty should be compensated better for it. I checked, and now (in my area, at least) they pay $65. Not worth my time, really. So, no...don't make it compulsory, but make it more attractive for those who do volunteer. Maybe free booze would work.

10-18-04, 02:51 PM	#6
jaeufraser DVD Talk Ultimate Edition Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 4,551	Na, we don't need to force people to work the polls. If anything, we should do our best to limit what anyone "has" to do. Sure it would educate people more, but coming up with more and more things people are supposed to do with regards to the state is hardly a good idea in my book, as is mandatory military service or any other myriad of govt mandated activities. The right to vote also means the right to not give a shit, regardless of how bad that sounds. Anyway, like said before, you wouldn't want uninterested people running the polls, and are we really faced with a shortage anyway?

10-18-04, 02:53 PM	#7
Groucho Moderator Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 62,435	Ladies, working the pole shouldn't be a "duty," it should be a pleasure!