voting in casinos VS voting in schools VS voting wherever lots of people work?

[Essene]

Excuse me, but since when was having polling stations where a lot of middle/working class people work somehow "wrong" or unethical or "unfair?"

Public schools, fire stations, libraries, casinos, retirement homes, hotels... all out the window as polling stations because some of the people who work there might not like your candidate???

I see these boards filled with people defending the suppression of working class votes in Nevada. There's the law and folks agreed to use casinos for polling. This was all arranged and agreed to early LAST year. And the Nevada teacher's union didn't seem to have a problem with this for an entire year... until another union endorsed a candidate they didn't. Huh?

How many places around the USA use schools for polling?

Should we argue against that, too?

I expect voter suppression tactics and challenges to working class voter turn-out from the GOP. I would expect them to make these arguments, saying we can't use schools and other unionized locations for polling... because that would be "unfair." No more fire stations, libraries, public schools, casinos, retirement homes, hotels, etc.

In fact, let's have polling stations in the lowest populated areas using private, non-unionized corporate space.

This primary is shredding the core principles of the Democratic Party.

[sufrommich]

1. That argument only makes sense if you believe

that school employess vote in the schools they work in,or even the school districts they work in.Same for any other polling station.

[Essene]

3. Your point is?

Casino workers still have to vote in their precincts.

Are you suggesting teachers never vote in schools?

Are you suggesting the GOP doesn't use these types of silly arguments to attack voter turn-out?

[sufrommich]

4. My point is that ,outside of Nevada Casinos,

people vote in the precincts nearest their homes,regardless of what they do for a living.

[Essene]

6. what are you talking about? nevada precincts are based on home address. just stop.

You vote based on your HOME address... not place of employment.

Just stop.

Work-shift voting is not a big deal.

[sufrommich]

10. Casino workers are not required to vote based on their

home address:
"Unlike primaries in which people can vote all day, caucuses in Nevada, as in Iowa and elsewhere, require voters to show up at a specified time. To enable participation by those voters who will be working at the scheduled caucus time, the party created the new precincts using a formula based on districts with more than 4,000 shift workers who could not leave work to vote, rather than one based on residency.

The new at-large precincts are all inside the Las Vegas Strip hotels. Workers attending the hotel caucuses will have to provide identification showing them to be a shift worker and sign a declaration stating they can't attend their "home" caucus because of their work schedule. "



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896

[Essene]

12. An exception for SHIFT-based workers (in the commercial center) having a RIGHT to vote.

What's confusing here?

The Clinton's are pretending that this gives them a "special" priviledge by being able to vote where they work.

That's bogus. That argument falls on its face.

The issue is that a lot of poorer, working-class people have very long shifts and literally CANNOT vote if they are required to drive to their home precincts. So, they added some local at-large polling stations right where most people work - at or around the big hotels/casinos.

[sufrommich]

14. What does any of that have to do with your

original OP?
I'm not arguing what advantage it has for either candidate.You OP is trying to argue that the casino polling stations are no different than any other polling station.Clearly,they are.

And yes,many working people will not be able to attend the caucuses,many who have no connection to the casino industry.

[Essene]

16. These people WORK on saturday and cannot get home to vote because of their shifts.

[sufrommich]

19. And lots of people in Iowa worked nights

and couldn't attend the caucuses there. Again,what does that have to do with your original OP claiming that people voting in schools in their home precincts is exactly the same as workers voting in casinos.

[Essene]

25. Right. The point of the OP is making this about "where" folks vote is nonsense

This story is about the NEA and Hillary camp trying to suppress working-class voters.

[Essene]

13. Point 2: If voting took place during school hours...

You can bet your ass that this same Teacher Union would be screaming it's voter suppression NOT to allow them to vote when/where they can.

And ask yourself which union has Saturdays off...

[ursi]

2. People, I have to ask you all to put this in perspective. This is Nevada.

We hold high school religious ceremonies like baccalaurettes in casinos. Weddings are in casinos. I could go on.

We have brothels in Nevada where women use beds to earn a living. Nothing is sacred here. This is the most conservative state in the nation that is in bed with every vice known to man ...

This is no big deal AND remember, there are convention meeting rooms in casinos. They aren't caucusing in the slot machine area.

AND, forgot a casino employee being able to leave their place of employment on the busy Strip for one hour and get out of it, to their car and to their precinct in that hour. Never gonna happen and Harry Reid didn't want to alienate those people.

AND remember, teachers are not working today. In fact, they have Monday off for Martin Luther King Day. They have a three day weekend off unlike low income casino workers.

[Adelante]

5. AND this deal was cut by Clinton supporters in the first place

Because they were so sure that, when the time came, Clinton would have the blessing of the Culinary Workers. The best laid plans of mice and men, etc. If Clinton had gotten that endorsement, it all would have gone merrily along and nobody would have noticed workplace caucuses existed except the people who would now be allowed to exercise their voting rights. No dishonest lawsuit. No raising of false flags about voter intimidation. No white collar against blue collar attacks. No disruption of Nevada's first major caucus for the Democratic Party. Clinton would have won in a breeze. The thing is, she is likely to win, anyway, and could have done it without the nastiness and lies. It's the cynicism. Bleh.

[Essene]

7. Exactly. They only sued after the endorsement. They'd have no problem with school shift work votes

[blondeatlast]

8. Having negotiated the Strip at all hours of the day and night, I applaud the NV party's

compromise. I've been trumpeting that fact every chance I get.

Nowhere I've ever seen has a 5 MPH traffic jam 24/7 like the LV Strip. Until one's been in the thick of it, one can't possibly know what it's like.

[suston96]

9. It's really not about where they vote, but caucusing in their workplace with....

...their union leaders and work supervisors watching is a slam on the right to a secret ballot - the vital basis of any system of self-governance.

Maybe when these primaries are over people can take a little time and learn something about elections and voting in a democratic republic.

[Essene]

11. So, you're pre-emptively saying the entire campaign is engaged in illegal activity? OK

Nobody denies there are risks to such organized voting efforts.

Instead of posturing and lecturing us on this, consider the fact that this type of union organizing happens everywhere already... and that the solution to deserved cynicism is accountability, public oversight and transparency.

NOT voter suppression.

[durrrty libby]

15. If you had ever been a member of a big macho union as I have,

you would be laughing at the naiveté and inanity of your statements

[Essene]

17. Assume more. No... really... please do.

[suston96]

18. Read my post. I am on the side of secret ballots and could give a shit about unions and .....

....gambling casinos.

I spent many years of my life "lecturing" and activating for voting rights and I am repulsed by watching citizens having to publicly display how and for whom they vote. Matter of fact, in my long and dreary life I remember vividly how unions did everything they could to "arrange" the outcomes of elections. Some things never change.

Consider the repugnancy of this public voting process no matter who your candidate is. The secret ballot is the life blood of our democratic elections. Study some history on the subject and you won't need to be lectured.

[durrrty libby]

20. It is mind boggling that people support this type of "democracy"

I was a member of the AFL-CIO and every boss was an intimidating asshole


Even the Christmas parties were mandatory.

[bluedog]

26. know that feeling.....

some don't realize it.but the Union workers must have a Union stewart on the premises at all times.....yes these Stewart's are suppose to represent You the worker.....but many many times they kiss the asses of the Union higher-ups.....

Unions can and do intimidate its workers...its really too bad for these voters....that their votes could have not have not been private.........and here we have people yelling and screaming about "invasion" of privacy with our phone calls.....how about the votes?

[Essene]

30. Let's be honest tho... this was a union vs union lawsuit

Teachers union... mostly white... middle/uppermiddle class professionals. Don't work on saturday caucus time.

Culinary Union... mostly hispanic... mostly working poor... casino and hotel workers. Work on saturdays during caucus time and many wouldnt be able to vote without a shift-friendly polling station close to work.


As mentioned above... the underlying problem here is the lack of secret ballots and the attempt to disenfranchise working voters.

[Essene]

27. Agreed 100% regarding Secret Ballots. That's the real issue here along with shift-work options

We need secret balloting and we need the idea of shift-work options to be wide-spread in caucus-type situations.

[hughee99]

29. When did a caucus become a secret ballot?

In a caucus, everyone knows who you vote for, don't they?

[Essene]

31. which is half the problem... it's not a secret ballot (n/t)

[zalinda]

21. I certainly wouldn't be against this if

this was a primary. But, as a caucus, many people will be "threatened" to caucus for a candidate they may not want. For example: If your bosses caucus for candidate X, would you walk over and caucus for candidate Y? No. If you really need your job, you will probably caucus the same way as your bosses caucus, especially when this is the first caucus held. Iowa is used to the caucus, Nevada isn't, and I'm sure there will quite a bit of silent arm twisting.

zalinda

[boston bean]

22. This post is just a strawman. I don't even know why I should comment.

Most people caucus near where they live, not work, period.

[ursi]

23. This is Nevada. It's not for anyone else to judge. Let us have our caucus.

[durrrty libby]

24. Like it or not, everyone is watching and it will be judged

And I hate to tell you Nevada is part of the US, so it is not yours, but ours

[suston96]

28. Yours? I hate to tell you...

YOU and YOURS are part of the process that elect MY - OUR President. And I don't like YOUR undemocratic and easily corrupted caucuses by union leaders and employers.

[durrrty libby]

32. I don't think you meant to reply to my post

[suston96]

33. Probably not. I am old and confused. And the OP changed content.