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 knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas
"When you look really deep, we are all kind of shallow" -- unknown
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.
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
Location: Who Dey Nation (Which is everywhere but the Politics Forum)
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.
__________________ Sweed goes down with an achillies injury. As a Steelers fan, this is great news. - Tarantino, 5-02-10 If Tebow beats the Steelers today, I will post a pic of me Tebow'ing in one of my Pittsburgh jerseys. - Tarantino, 1-08-12 I am glad you've allowed the medical community to try and fix your laziness - aktick, 4-20-16
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?