|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2016 04:14 puerk wrote:@ mohodoo, lol, no there is no scientific consensus that there is no rent seeking involved in american agriculture and IP-regime regarding GMO there is also no scientific consensus, that the engineering challenges holding back planability, cost effectiveness and the complexity of the fuel cycle are nonissues with nuclear the successrate of new technology reactor projects is attrocious, nuclear is interesting playground for engineers, but from a economic and project planning perspective it is just a straight up grave of time and money with no reward. @ Jormundur you can't be serious with this? he is nothing but illusions of grandeur
Sarcasm. Trump is a garbage spewing robot, but he can at least figure out what people want. He's eaten from a silver spoon his entire life and is still far more capable of empathizing with not-rich not-powerful people than Hillary (Or at least acting like it). Hillary is Cruz levels of not-human. It's like someone who learned english from action movies. There's something just not quite right there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
main competition with nuclear is natural gas, not solar.
the cost issue with nuclear is partially a political creation, so the point of talking about nuclear power would be to change these regulations and lower cost.
countries like france or china, wiht more of a strategic industrial policy, recognize the importance of nuclear power. so this high cost of plants in the u.s. is really a failure of planning. it's simply political fuckery driving up cost and then blaming nuclear for the high cost.
|
On April 01 2016 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote:
It should be a debate of method and policy, now it's complaints (by both sides) about stuff like voter suppression, tactics, honesty, etc.
Not nearly as good for the popcorn industry as the Republican poop-throwing contest though Are you going to seriously tell us you don't think there has been voter suppression this cycle? Or just that we shouldn't talk about it?
I'm happy with discussing voter suppression, something I've dealt with on an extremely personal level for quite some time, in a less politicized way. That hasn't happened though.
On April 01 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others. A significant portion of the democratic party only cares about winning and sees no chance for someone who defends socialism. Defending socialism can not win over the 50+ vote and that's where the train stops. I would love to have Sanders as president and I've donated to his campaign because I appreciate the fact that he has body slammed the national conversation as to what it means to be a democrat. It needed to happen, but it does need to stop at one point. At all costs, Bernie can not be the nominee. I love him having a voice, even if it is blatantly ignorant as is the case with GMOs and nuclear energy. Both parties needed to get body slammed this year and I'm glad it happened. If the democrats can manage to pull it all back in, I think we'll be great. So you'd be perfectly happy with another 8 years of Obama style gridlock where the president is a conservative democrat that the house and senate hate and won't work with? Bernie may be a socialist but he isn't anywhere near the conversation of Hillary in ammunition to use against them in a congressional or senate race. At least with bernie you can shoot for mars and be happy you got to the moon.
A more apt analogy is you shoot for Mars and the rocket blows up on the launchpad. Oh, and Tad Devine gets his company a six figure consulting fee.
Jab aside, in this analogy both people want to go to space. Bernie is going at it with, what is for me and others, a worrisome disregard of the situation and limitations. Hillary is going for it knowing that getting the funding, tech and everything sorted out is hard. That's the fundamental difference in almost all of their plans.
|
yes everything is great in france In 2016 the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs.
it is always the same, nuclear gets huge indirect subventions for building, waste processing and decommissioning, to make it look like a sucess story, that is more a vanity project for the national soul
|
On April 01 2016 04:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote:
It should be a debate of method and policy, now it's complaints (by both sides) about stuff like voter suppression, tactics, honesty, etc.
Not nearly as good for the popcorn industry as the Republican poop-throwing contest though Are you going to seriously tell us you don't think there has been voter suppression this cycle? Or just that we shouldn't talk about it? I'm happy with discussing voter suppression, something I've dealt with on an extremely personal level for quite some time, in a less politicized way. That hasn't happened though. Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others. A significant portion of the democratic party only cares about winning and sees no chance for someone who defends socialism. Defending socialism can not win over the 50+ vote and that's where the train stops. I would love to have Sanders as president and I've donated to his campaign because I appreciate the fact that he has body slammed the national conversation as to what it means to be a democrat. It needed to happen, but it does need to stop at one point. At all costs, Bernie can not be the nominee. I love him having a voice, even if it is blatantly ignorant as is the case with GMOs and nuclear energy. Both parties needed to get body slammed this year and I'm glad it happened. If the democrats can manage to pull it all back in, I think we'll be great. So you'd be perfectly happy with another 8 years of Obama style gridlock where the president is a conservative democrat that the house and senate hate and won't work with? Bernie may be a socialist but he isn't anywhere near the conversation of Hillary in ammunition to use against them in a congressional or senate race. At least with bernie you can shoot for mars and be happy you got to the moon. A more apt analogy is you shoot for the moon and the rocket blows up on the launchpad. Oh, and Tad Devine gets his company a six figure consulting fee.
The DNC and the RNC are intentionally suppressing votes. The DNC in the primary the RNC in the primary and the general.
Do you think 3+ hr lines qualifies as suppressing votes?
You can't possibly be trying to bring up Tad Devine's firm in contrast to Hillary's lobbyist/campaign manager making 6 figures a month individually as a hit against Bernie
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 01 2016 04:38 puerk wrote:yes everything is great in france Show nested quote +In 2016 the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs. it is always the same, nuclear gets huge indirect subventions for building, waste processing and decommissioning, to make it look like a sucess story, that is more a vanity project for the national soul
a lot of this cost is in the goal of rehabilitating the reactor site. just let it be.
also can license plants for longer.
|
On April 01 2016 04:38 puerk wrote:yes everything is great in france Show nested quote +In 2016 the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs. it is always the same, nuclear gets huge indirect subventions for building, waste processing and decommissioning, to make it look like a sucess story, that is more a vanity project for the national soul
Bingo. If Nuclear was such a cost efficient money maker, why aren't capitalists lining up to make more nuclear plants? That capital won't do it without government help reveals that Nuclear can't be as cheap as its advocates say.
And all the cost estimates ignore the utterly unpaid for costs of dealing with the waste when we have nowhere to dispose of it (see: Yucca Mountain failure) and the uninsurable worst case scenario (Fhukushima).
|
On April 01 2016 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 01 2016 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote:
It should be a debate of method and policy, now it's complaints (by both sides) about stuff like voter suppression, tactics, honesty, etc.
Not nearly as good for the popcorn industry as the Republican poop-throwing contest though Are you going to seriously tell us you don't think there has been voter suppression this cycle? Or just that we shouldn't talk about it? I'm happy with discussing voter suppression, something I've dealt with on an extremely personal level for quite some time, in a less politicized way. That hasn't happened though. On April 01 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others. A significant portion of the democratic party only cares about winning and sees no chance for someone who defends socialism. Defending socialism can not win over the 50+ vote and that's where the train stops. I would love to have Sanders as president and I've donated to his campaign because I appreciate the fact that he has body slammed the national conversation as to what it means to be a democrat. It needed to happen, but it does need to stop at one point. At all costs, Bernie can not be the nominee. I love him having a voice, even if it is blatantly ignorant as is the case with GMOs and nuclear energy. Both parties needed to get body slammed this year and I'm glad it happened. If the democrats can manage to pull it all back in, I think we'll be great. So you'd be perfectly happy with another 8 years of Obama style gridlock where the president is a conservative democrat that the house and senate hate and won't work with? Bernie may be a socialist but he isn't anywhere near the conversation of Hillary in ammunition to use against them in a congressional or senate race. At least with bernie you can shoot for mars and be happy you got to the moon. A more apt analogy is you shoot for the moon and the rocket blows up on the launchpad. Oh, and Tad Devine gets his company a six figure consulting fee. The DNC and the RNC are intentionally suppressing votes. The DNC in the primary the RNC in the primary and the general. Do you think 3+ hr lines qualifies as suppressing votes? You can't possibly be trying to bring up Tad Devine's firm in contrast to Hillary's lobbyist/campaign manager making 6 figures a month individually as a hit against Bernie
Without context, I would lean towards that's a ridiculous wait time and probably, but would need more details to make a final judgement. Maybe the network is down, machines malfunctioned or something else happenecd that was out of their control. What actual proof do you have of voter suppression by the DNC? And beyond that, what proof of voter suppression that disproportionately favors one candidate over the other?
Robby Mook doesn't make 6 figures a month. He makes 120K a year, which is a pretty fair amount. It's the same range as most top-level staffers for national campaigns.
Properly sourcing this time
Two things from the list:
1. Sanders' top 10 is a sausagefest
2. "Didn't try in Texas" -> the Texas coordinator is/was one of his highest paid staffers
|
Sea levels could rise far more rapidly than expected in coming decades, according to new research that reveals Antarctica’s vast ice cap is less stable than previously thought.
The UN’s climate science body had predicted up to a metre of sea level rise this century - but it did not anticipate any significant contribution from Antarctica, where increasing snowfall was expected to keep the ice sheet in balance.
According a study, published in the journal Nature, collapsing Antarctic ice sheets are expected to double sea-level rise to two metres by 2100, if carbon emissions are not cut.
Previously, only the passive melting of Antarctic ice by warmer air and seawater was considered but the new work added active processes, such as the disintegration of huge ice cliffs.
“This [doubling] could spell disaster for many low-lying cities,” said Prof Robert DeConto, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the work. He said that if global warming was not halted, the rate of sea-level rise would change from millimetres per year to centimetres a year. “At that point it becomes about retreat [from cities], not engineering of defences.”
As well as rising seas, climate change is also causing storms to become fiercer, forming a highly destructive combination for low-lying cities like New York, Mumbai and Guangzhou. Many coastal cities are growing fast as populations rise and analysis by World Bank and OECD staff has shown that global flood damage could cost them $1tn a year by 2050 unless action is taken.
The cities most at risk in richer nations include Miami, Boston and Nagoya, while cities in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Ivory Coast are among those most in danger in less wealthy countries.
Source
|
On April 01 2016 04:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:38 puerk wrote:yes everything is great in france In 2016 the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs. it is always the same, nuclear gets huge indirect subventions for building, waste processing and decommissioning, to make it look like a sucess story, that is more a vanity project for the national soul Bingo. If Nuclear was such a cost efficient money maker, why aren't capitalists lining up to make more nuclear plants? That capital won't do it without government help reveals that Nuclear can't be as cheap as its advocates say. And all the cost estimates ignore the utterly unpaid for costs of dealing with the waste when we have nowhere to dispose of it (see: Yucca Mountain failure) and the uninsurable worst case scenario (Fhukushima).
Nuclear can range from hyper-economical moneymaker to black hole moneysink depending on how you price the externalities. Most countries, at the moment, with the technical capability to run them are so rich that they price the risk externalities very high (also most regulators are risk-averse).
You can bet in 1900, if they could, people would have been building the crap out of them. Also the push for it is because many countries are also starting to ramp up the price they put on the externalities of other methods of power generation, so even the ridiculously high ones estimated for nuclear appear more attractive.
|
On April 01 2016 04:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 04:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 01 2016 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote:
It should be a debate of method and policy, now it's complaints (by both sides) about stuff like voter suppression, tactics, honesty, etc.
Not nearly as good for the popcorn industry as the Republican poop-throwing contest though Are you going to seriously tell us you don't think there has been voter suppression this cycle? Or just that we shouldn't talk about it? I'm happy with discussing voter suppression, something I've dealt with on an extremely personal level for quite some time, in a less politicized way. That hasn't happened though. On April 01 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 01 2016 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
But as there will likely be similar problems as AZ in CA, NY, PA, (they are already being reported) and beyond, there won't be a Republican party to blame, it will be blatant voter suppression by the Democratic party. Which will beg the question of why, which will be much easier to answer for some than others. A significant portion of the democratic party only cares about winning and sees no chance for someone who defends socialism. Defending socialism can not win over the 50+ vote and that's where the train stops. I would love to have Sanders as president and I've donated to his campaign because I appreciate the fact that he has body slammed the national conversation as to what it means to be a democrat. It needed to happen, but it does need to stop at one point. At all costs, Bernie can not be the nominee. I love him having a voice, even if it is blatantly ignorant as is the case with GMOs and nuclear energy. Both parties needed to get body slammed this year and I'm glad it happened. If the democrats can manage to pull it all back in, I think we'll be great. So you'd be perfectly happy with another 8 years of Obama style gridlock where the president is a conservative democrat that the house and senate hate and won't work with? Bernie may be a socialist but he isn't anywhere near the conversation of Hillary in ammunition to use against them in a congressional or senate race. At least with bernie you can shoot for mars and be happy you got to the moon. A more apt analogy is you shoot for the moon and the rocket blows up on the launchpad. Oh, and Tad Devine gets his company a six figure consulting fee. The DNC and the RNC are intentionally suppressing votes. The DNC in the primary the RNC in the primary and the general. Do you think 3+ hr lines qualifies as suppressing votes? You can't possibly be trying to bring up Tad Devine's firm in contrast to Hillary's lobbyist/campaign manager making 6 figures a month individually as a hit against Bernie Without context, I would lean towards that's a ridiculous wait time and probably, but would need more details to make a final judgement. Maybe the network is down, machines malfunctioned or something else happenecd that was out of their control. What actual proof do you have of voter suppression by the DNC? And beyond that, what proof of voter suppression that disproportionately favors one candidate over the other? Robby Mook doesn't make 6 figures a month. He makes 120K a year, which is a pretty fair amount. It's the same range as most top-level staffers for national campaigns. Properly sourcing this timeTwo things from the list: 1. Sanders' top 10 is a sausagefest 2. "Didn't try in Texas" -> the Texas coordinator is/was one of his highest paid staffers
Considering the list is taking an incredibly narrow look (doesn't include Huma, Podesta, Tad Devine [lol], etc...) I don't even know what to say about it... Your first point clearly wasn't about a gender gap but that Bernie was paying big salaries. But that doesn't match the poor source's point about gender and it's tidbit about pay.
Sixteen people on Clinton’s campaign make over $100,000. That number drops precipitously for the other campaigns: Four people on Kasich’s campaign, and three on Sanders and Cruz’s campaigns respectively, make that much. Only one Rubio staffer makes over $100,000. No one on Trump’s team earns in the six figures.
1. So instead you pivoted to it being a sausage fest. If the criticism is that Bernie could use more highly paid female staffers I'd agree. Though if we're entertaining stupid points about Bernie's "socialism" we can't deny Hillary's supersaturation of women would feed into the white male trauma narrative on the right.
2. On Texas, Bernie put that to rest when asked. That was a case of political folks covering their own asses. What I interpreted it as initially, was pretty much what Bernie said later, in that of course they tried. They tried especially in SC, just to get whooped, but in states like Mississippi they didn't put the resources in.
I'd rather focus on the voter suppression. Like was said let's ignore the candidate specific talk for now and focus on generic voter suppression.
Which states do you know there wasn't extraordinarily long lines (3+hrs)?
|
Tad Devine is a senior advisor, so from what I understand the money going to his firm essentially includes compensation for himself, though it's speculation how much he personally profits. For the others you mentioned, they're compensated by groups other than the campaign.
Original point being, Mook is paid a pretty fair amount that is not anywhere near the hundreds of thousands per month you cited.
I was pointing out a couple facts. This was the first thing that popped up when I googled the topic. Good on you for admitting that about his efforts in various states, better than Tad Devine. Bernie needs to fire Tad Devine by the way, the man is amazingly bad at his job.
I went through some sources, I didn't see much about long lines being a problem. A few comments about having to wait for awhile, but nothing on the scale of AZ:
-some lines in SC in some locations
-some lines in GA
-apparently TX had a really good system (surprise)
-some lines in TN
|
Every state's DMV line are extremely long, is that a driver suppression problem?
In fact, there is not a single government line that I have got into that isn't ridiculously long, when a lot of people want something all at same time, line happens. Everyone who has been voting for a while knows that.
|
On April 01 2016 06:04 ragz_gt wrote:
Every state's DMV line are extremely long, is that a driver suppression problem?
In fact, there is not a single government line that I have got into that isn't ridiculously long, when a lot of people want something all at same time, line happens. Everyone who has been voting for a while knows that.
You do realize that equivocating voting with other government services is a non-starter in both legal and constitutional terms?
|
On April 01 2016 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Tad Devine is a senior advisor, so from what I understand the money going to his firm essentially includes compensation for himself, though it's speculation how much he personally profits. For the others you mentioned, they're compensated by groups other than the campaign.
Original point being, Mook is paid a pretty fair amount that is not anywhere near the hundreds of thousands per month you cited.
I was pointing out a couple facts. This was the first thing that popped up when I googled the topic. Good on you for admitting that about his efforts in various states, better than Tad Devine. Bernie needs to fire Tad Devine by the way, the man is amazingly bad at his job.
I went through some sources, I didn't see much about long lines being a problem. A few comments about having to wait for awhile, but nothing on the scale of AZ:
-some lines in SC in some locations
-some lines in GA
-apparently TX had a really good system (surprise)
-some lines in TN
What does "awhile" mean to you in this context?
So are you operating under the assumption there weren't long lines in other states besides the ones you listed?
|
On April 01 2016 06:04 ragz_gt wrote:
Every state's DMV line are extremely long, is that a driver suppression problem?
In fact, there is not a single government line that I have got into that isn't ridiculously long, when a lot of people want something all at same time, line happens. Everyone who has been voting for a while knows that.
other countries manage....
voting lines at my polling place (inner city, high population density) are on average 3 people long.. you wait like 30 seconds...
other government lines are also fine, you usually draw a number from a ticket system and wait a few minutes, as there are enough local "Bürgerämter" (an (almost) all in one public office (ID, tax ID, acknowlegments for documents, all the local stuff (waste, parking etc), trade registration, change of government documents, criminal record, housing subsidies, tax documents, information on almost every government program....))
p.s. my local Bürgeramt has an online appointment system so you do not even have to wait, and you can look at the live data of waiting time of the in person ticket system, to decide if you can just hop over there or better make an appointment....
|
On April 01 2016 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Tad Devine is a senior advisor, so from what I understand the money going to his firm essentially includes compensation for himself, though it's speculation how much he personally profits. For the others you mentioned, they're compensated by groups other than the campaign.
Original point being, Mook is paid a pretty fair amount that is not anywhere near the hundreds of thousands per month you cited.
I was pointing out a couple facts. This was the first thing that popped up when I googled the topic. Good on you for admitting that about his efforts in various states, better than Tad Devine. Bernie needs to fire Tad Devine by the way, the man is amazingly bad at his job.
I went through some sources, I didn't see much about long lines being a problem. A few comments about having to wait for awhile, but nothing on the scale of AZ:
-some lines in SC in some locations
-some lines in GA
-apparently TX had a really good system (surprise)
-some lines in TN What does "awhile" mean to you in this context? So are you operating under the assumption there weren't long lines in other states besides the ones you listed?
None of the articles I saw gave a number, though they made mentions of old equipment and rain being part of the issue. For AZ specifically, I've seen numbers up to 7 hours.
Based on available information,, it does not seem that the problem was particularly severe. I went through about 10 pages of Google results all dating from before the AZ primary. I dug through a few pages without the filter, but it was literally all stuff about AZ.
|
On April 01 2016 06:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Tad Devine is a senior advisor, so from what I understand the money going to his firm essentially includes compensation for himself, though it's speculation how much he personally profits. For the others you mentioned, they're compensated by groups other than the campaign.
Original point being, Mook is paid a pretty fair amount that is not anywhere near the hundreds of thousands per month you cited.
I was pointing out a couple facts. This was the first thing that popped up when I googled the topic. Good on you for admitting that about his efforts in various states, better than Tad Devine. Bernie needs to fire Tad Devine by the way, the man is amazingly bad at his job.
I went through some sources, I didn't see much about long lines being a problem. A few comments about having to wait for awhile, but nothing on the scale of AZ:
-some lines in SC in some locations
-some lines in GA
-apparently TX had a really good system (surprise)
-some lines in TN What does "awhile" mean to you in this context? So are you operating under the assumption there weren't long lines in other states besides the ones you listed? None of the articles I saw gave a number, though they made mentions of old equipment and rain being part of the issue. For AZ specifically, I've seen numbers up to 7 hours. Based on available information,, it does not seem that the problem was particularly severe. I went through about 10 pages of Google results all dating from before the AZ primary.
Okay, so how long are we talking before we're considering suppression, surely it doesn't have to be 7 hours? I presume that was also a yes to those being the states you were aware of regarding lines.
|
On April 01 2016 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 06:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 01 2016 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2016 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Tad Devine is a senior advisor, so from what I understand the money going to his firm essentially includes compensation for himself, though it's speculation how much he personally profits. For the others you mentioned, they're compensated by groups other than the campaign.
Original point being, Mook is paid a pretty fair amount that is not anywhere near the hundreds of thousands per month you cited.
I was pointing out a couple facts. This was the first thing that popped up when I googled the topic. Good on you for admitting that about his efforts in various states, better than Tad Devine. Bernie needs to fire Tad Devine by the way, the man is amazingly bad at his job.
I went through some sources, I didn't see much about long lines being a problem. A few comments about having to wait for awhile, but nothing on the scale of AZ:
-some lines in SC in some locations
-some lines in GA
-apparently TX had a really good system (surprise)
-some lines in TN What does "awhile" mean to you in this context? So are you operating under the assumption there weren't long lines in other states besides the ones you listed? None of the articles I saw gave a number, though they made mentions of old equipment and rain being part of the issue. For AZ specifically, I've seen numbers up to 7 hours. Based on available information,, it does not seem that the problem was particularly severe. I went through about 10 pages of Google results all dating from before the AZ primary. Okay, so how long are we talking before we're considering suppression, surely it doesn't have to be 7 hours?
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Suppression would, first, have to involve some deliberate action by some group. Long lines in and of themselves are not considered suppression necessarily, as they could result from any number of issues. In a pretty ideal scenario, I'd like lines to be under 10 minutes so people can get in and get out. I'm in no position to judge what could be accomplished on a reasonable budget and other constraints though.
There were comments about how lines were long, but those were comments, not complaints. More like "oh it's kind of chilly" versus "there's a blizzard that wasn't prepared for and it's awful". Do we live in an ideal world? No. But the problems with voting wait time do not seem to have been particularly bad elsewhere.
|
I live in a city of 3 million people, with a dense urban core.
In the last Canadian election, which had record voter turnout, I had to wait approximately 2 minutes for a few people ahead of me to vote. I did vote in the morning, though, so that helped.
There is no excuse for there to be lines longer than 30-45 minutes. That's about the upper limit that I think is acceptable. If there is a line longer than that in one election, there better well not be one as long in the next, because that data is tracked and appropriate resources should be allocated to that region to reduce the wait time.
It can happen once, as an outlier. It better not happen again, or your system is fucking broken (intentionally, in some cases, I am sure).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
