Arizona governor: Long voting lines 'unacceptable'

At one downtown Phoenix polling place, the last ballot was cast at 12:19 a.m. Wednesday, by a voter who had waited in line more than four hours.

Ducey's statement doesn't mention the county's 70 percent reduction in polling places from the presidential primary four years ago.

The Republican governor's statement - and his implied criticism of Republican County Recorder Helen Purcell, the county's top elections official -- is a sign that the voting fiasco during the Arizona primary is a bipartisan issue. Voting waits were long all day long in Democratic and well as Republican districts.

http://www.12news.com/news/local/arizon ... e/98310621

Depends on the State.
Voters in some States are treated differently then in other States.

GMTom wrote:if that story is true, 20 minutes to process HUNDREDS of people in line seems quite reasonable. This is a sample of the odd and unusual, a very black community that has not voted much in the past, suddenly they are voting like never before. No doubt the polling station was set up for the norm and had trouble with the huge throngs of new voters.
But I also find it hard to believe they had hundreds of people lined up before 5AM to vote, but assuming it's true only points out how abnormal this was! If you have several hundred people lined up to vote hours before the place even opens, how can you expect anything but massive delays?

It's not normal and an example of something VERY out of the normal that simply could not be predicted or even handled well even if predicted. Again, the numbers don't make any sense though.

example
This one woman showed up at 5AM
she was behind a couple hundred people
In Michigan the polling stations open at 7AM
I have to think that line grew at least some in the two hours? (and who would show up 2+ hours before it opened ....in the dark no less?)
but by 8:20 they were down to a 20 minute wait? The people started flowing in at a slower pace after it opened?

No... that's not what she said. She left having not voted talking about how people who were voting were taking 20 minutes to go through the process. That is not the same as a 20 minute wait in the line. It would, however, explain why she had an 80 minute wait and wasn't actually able to vote before having to leave.

Perhaps people turned up extra early because they'd seen problems in 2008 or for early voting and wanted to get in line early to avoid them? That would make sense. It's a working day, so people who have jobs to go to would want to get it done as early as possible. The polls close at 8pm in Michigan, and so some might not have had the time to vote after work.

No, none of the numbers reported make any sense do they?

It helps if you read it properly.

Also you could have followed the links in the story I linked to. One of them for Detroit mentions long queues for people voting as "absentees" on preceding days. So by the day I would expect the election officials were already aware that a lot of people might turn up.

One major factor (in Michigan at least) is the sheer number of votes per person. As well as Presidential, Congressional and city/county/local elections, there were various referenda proposals (18 for voters in Detroit).

That would slow things down (and accounts for the 20 minutes per person to vote). By contrast, in the UK it is unusual to have ballot proposals (and when we have had national or regional referenda they have tended to be done apart so that they can be focused on), and we tend to have few concurrent elections. Last week, I had two votes - for local council and county police comissioner. Some areas would have had three at most.

danivon wrote:Last week, I had two votes - for local council and county police comissioner. Some areas would have had three at most.

Last month during the primaries I had nothing to vote for on my ballot.

Maybe this example is correct, still doesn't change the fact that this was unusual and long lines with lengthy waits are the exception and not the rule. That exception is also quite rare, posting a few examples doesn't make it true. The reasons for the large Obama turnout energizing a great number of first time black voters is no longer the case in the upcoming elections either.

Back to something Ricky posted
I mentioned the Trump supporters were the more "energized" group, he posted polling information to dispute that sense that I felt.

First off the poll he provided shows Trump supporters are indeed a lot more energized than are Clinton's supporters, he freaking agrees with me yet posts it as some sort of reason I am wrong? In that very poll Trump supporters are 65% enthusiastic vs Clinton's 54%
But it's at least closer than I "feel"

But that same poll shows Clinton supporters are more enthusiastic than are sanders supporters, that poll just went in the trash when they try to make that claim! Sanders has a huge group of fans who are rabid, Clinton has her supporters but nothing like Sanders and nothing like Trump. This may sound like a knock on Canada or other countries, it's not!... The problem is he (and others outside the US) are judging these opinions on polls and other such things they READ. But being here in the middle of it, trust me, the two candidates with "energized" supporters are Sanders and Trump and trying to claim Clinton's base is more enthusiastic is a joke to say the least.

Ricky goes further making assumptions that might seem to make sense (based on not actually being here) in saying women as a group will be energized to vote for Clinton is not as true as he thinks. So far I have not spoken to ANY woman who is thrilled about Hillary. I spoke to 10 women here at work, 3 women I was on vacation with, 3 waitresses while on vacation, 6 women my wife works for, 5 wives of friends (and of this total about half were Democrats) that's what 27 women and ZERO liked her, most were going to vote for her over Trump but not a single one even "liked" her let alone were energized to vote for the first woman Prez. Sure, there are some, but the assumption that women would rally behind her like blacks rallied around Obama is a reach at best!

Further he states enthusiasm will be high to vote against Trump.
I seriously doubt people will be "enthusiastic" for an "anti-vote". Apathy will reign supreme in November is more like it. I can only agree on the Hispanics preferring Clinton and her gaining a large majority of that block.

His assumption that white middle class men with lower education levels supporting Trump may very well be correct but don't think that's his only group, Don't forget, a lot of Democrats are ready to vote for Trump as well (I think it was about 25% in West Virginia exit polls?) and there is a huge anti-Clinton group as well! I know a lot of people who simply can't stand her, that isn't reported of course so how would you know about that aspect? Being outside the US all you see is what the mostly left wing mainstream media reports to you. You see redneck hillbillies with no teeth waving American flags for Donald, you don't see the many well educated people who also support him. I think the guy is a jerk, I think he's a bad choice, I think Clinton will beat him, but please do not base your opinions on what the media is feeding you! It's not exactly what you see,
a LOT of people can't stand Clinton, many many Democrats hate her to no end.
A LOT of "normal" people actually support Trump
But what you see on tv is a different story of course!

tom

The problem is he (and others outside the US) are judging these opinions on polls and other such things they READ

I just knew that all that reading of stuff like objective polls and such would get me into trouble...

Sorry pal, but you don't live in the thick of things and trying to pretend you are some sort of expert based on your polls isn't going to make you any smarter. Trust me, Sanders supporters are FAR more enthusiastic than Clinton supporters. That poll is worthless when it says otherwise!

and your "assumptions" are based on polls not being exposed to the real deal, go ahead and think you know more, it only make s you look pretentious. Yep, you know more, hell, polls never lie?

rickyp wrote:tom

The problem is he (and others outside the US) are judging these opinions on polls and other such things they READ

I just knew that all that reading of stuff like objective polls and such would get me into trouble...

So, if there are polls (as I posted in another forum) that show it may not be a cakewalk for Hillary "the walking Felony" Clinton, then what?

as he has shown over and over, he will only listen to things that support his opinions. If you agree with him, he will accept it, if not, then he discards it and will bring up further useless information. For anyone to claim Cinton's supporters are more enthusiastic than are Sanders' supporters, he obviously has not seen many of their rallies has he? I don't care for either, but the rabid base is crazy for Bernie, no such enthusiasm for Mrs Clinton. Similar with the Donald, he has a great many very rabid fans (as his poll even suggests)

Hey Ricky
Right now Trump and Clinton are practically tied in the 3 key swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. How's that fit your view? Or are those Quinipiac polls just nonsense to be ignored? Even in three states when Trump is only just now gaining some steam, It's going to get a lot closer than you seem to think. (again, please do not read into this as me being a Trump supporter, I can't stand him but you see, I'm a realist and see both sides, I figure someone has to explain the positions you don't agree with)

I think it is still early to look at the national Clinton v Trump polling, a lot can happen in the next six months. Clinton is generally ahead, but I would want to see what the unknowns look like.

At the moment, the latest polls I saw from Quinnipac are also still asking about Sanders v Trump as well.

agreed 100%
a lot can happen, especially when it gets down to concentrating on only the two candidates. Some things come more together, some get ripped farther apart. Who knows what will happen a few months down the road?

Yes, Clinton is the leader, she will likely win but to declare this a landslide win for her based on early polls, that's just goofy talk! Obama was trailing Clinton by almost 25% early January 2008, look what happened there! She could very well tank just the same as she did then? Not likely but certainly very possible!

GMTom wrote:agreed 100%
a lot can happen, especially when it gets down to concentrating on only the two candidates. Some things come more together, some get ripped farther apart. Who knows what will happen a few months down the road?

Yes, Clinton is the leader, she will likely win but to declare this a landslide win for her based on early polls, that's just goofy talk! Obama was trailing Clinton by almost 25% early January 2008, look what happened there! She could very well tank just the same as she did then? Not likely but certainly very possible!

I think it's way too soon to know, but if I don't refute rickyp's polls with polls . . . he thinks he has a "fact."

Frankly, if I was a Trump supporter, I'd be encouraged that he's not 20 behind.

danivon

I think it is still early to look at the national Clinton v Trump polling, a lot can happen in the next six months

.
You'd think. But Trump has been ahead in preferential polls for the republican nomination since July 19, 2015. The polls said all along that he was favored, it was only pundits who thought he wouldimplode somewhere along the way who got it wrong. (Based on predecessors like Bachman and Cain and Carson there was some evidence for this...)

tom

Yep, you know more, hell, polls never lie?

Smetimes they get thigns wrong... But, as long as they are well contructed with good methodolgies and samples, they are a lot better indicator of probable out comes then what people "feel".

tom

Even in three states when Trump is only just now gaining some steam

Is he really?

and I just read Trump does not plan on releasing his tax return. He wants us to believe he can't because they are being audited!? While he does not need to do so, he is assuredly trying to hide something no doubt! That too will come back to bite him, at least it should, this guy keeps doing everything wrong, he get's called on it in spades every time yet it doesn't seem to matter.

GMTom wrote:and I just read Trump does not plan on releasing his tax return. He wants us to believe he can't because they are being audited!? While he does not need to do so, he is assuredly trying to hide something no doubt! That too will come back to bite him, at least it should, this guy keeps doing everything wrong, he get's called on it in spades every time yet it doesn't seem to matter.

It's like none of his supporters care. I don't think he was lying when he boasted about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave in broad daylight. The Trumpeters don't care.

Then again, no one on the Left seems to care about Clinton's foibles either.

cross posting with Ricky...
Yes he is gaining steam, just watch. Now he may very well self implode, he has done everything to do so for oh-so long now and while the media have been good at reporting his foolish behavior, they will soon go overboard doing so. Make no mistake, you may want to argue otherwise but most US news and media outlets are left leaning and even FOX can't ignore his gaffes, he will be skewered by the media! But maybe, just maybe that will help him in some crazy way? Playing the "left wing media" card might hit a chord with some if they get TOO nasty?

Isn't it kinda funny how the Conservatives here and elsewhere seem to see the situation clearly? The GOP candidate has a lot of flaws, we see them, we admit them. (and did so for McCain, For Romney and yes, even Bush) Yet the liberals fail to accept any shortcomings of Clinton (failed to see them in Obama, failed to see them in Gore), it's like she was chosen by God himself (if they believed in that sort of thing of course)