Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Detritus70

^^^^^
It's not that republicans are too incompetent to properly organise voting for "some" areas, they're brilliant at suppressing it and dressing it up as incompetence.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Normally, zero. Because of the COVID problem, the State (more specifically, the Governor, to the concern of one of the Fifth Circuit judges today) expanded voting options for this election, which also allowed for early drop offs, which are the subject of the current dispute.

For this election, few of the 254 had more than one. I don't know if any had zero. I'm in Bexar county, pop about 2mn, we only had one planned. Tarrant county, 2.1mn had one. Dallas county, pop 2.4mn had one (After the governor's order to restrict, Dallas came out saying "Actually, we were planning on adding more" but there was no indication prior to that, and local news articles were saying there would be no effect.) Travis County, pop 1.3mn had two. Both were downtown a few blocks from each other. (Technically four, but three were all different entrances to the same parking structure). Fort Bend (800k) and Galveston (300k) also had more than one.

Really, only Harris county was notably affected with its 12 drop-offs. Pop 4.1mn, in 4,600km2.

Texas is not a vote-by-mail-friendly state. If you're eligible to vote by mail, it's because you are considered to have difficulty getting to a polling station (eg you're infirmed, elderly, out of state student, that sort of thing). So, for example, if you're in the Army and assigned to Ft Wainwright, Alaska, you can get your vote by mail ballot, but you won't be likely dropping it off at the drop box in your home county in Texas no matter how many boxes are around, or if you're in a nursing home, you won't be popping into your car to go drop it off either. So the numbers involved simply don't normally justify much effort in having many drop-boxes. Obviously Harris County disagrees (though with only 12 locations, folks will still need to travel). In any case, if you really do not trust the US postal service, and want to physically hand in your ballot, you can do so on election day at any of the polling sites in your county (In my county, that's 600 locations. I can also vote at any of the 600 locations I choose). We have over 1.1mn registered voters in Bexar county, so far we have a record number of mail-in ballots sent out, 97,000. So of those 97,000, how many are not going to just stick a stamp on their ballot and put it into the mailbox, and instead make the journey to a drop-box, and also be unable or unwilling to make that journey on election day, and all choose to make that trip around the same time on the same day? That's the level of effect we're talking about here.

So in the big scheme of things, it really is of limited effect. That said, the argument about security doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense either from my limited understanding, so I'm really not sure why this is a major issue for either party.

Full legal reasoning from the Fifth Circuit is here. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-50867-CV0.pdf
Perhaps a relevant quote: “As we have explained, the October 1 Proclamation was part of an expansion of absentee voting opportunities beyond what the Texas Election Code provided. The fact that this expansion is not as broad as Plaintiffs would wish does not mean that it has illegally limited their voting rights.“

Its not a mail in state, correct.

But faced with the biggest pandemic the world has seen in 100 years. Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent people voting.

Best to keep the numbers low or lower due to Covid.

Why ? Can we discuss that, because there does not appear to be a rational reason for it. Many other states made changes to ensure the elections in Nov got a good turnout and for want of a better term 'Democracy was not limited'

Can you give your insight on that.

Christy42

CelticRambler wrote: »

For the record: Canterbury, Kent (university campus) 2019 - queues of up to two hours during the day, such that the student union organised a tea-run to warm up those waiting to vote.

Good catch. Looking it up general queues of 30 minutes across the country made the news. Presuming Kent was the worst of it. Definitely a failing.

Hopefully the UK fixes the issues for next time and it is a one off

StringerBell

They got a win in the Supreme Court yesterday with the court allowing them to suspend/stop the census early.

VinLieger

StringerBell wrote: »

They got a win in the Supreme Court yesterday with the court allowing them to suspend/stop the census early.

Jesus i have no hope for them anymore, if barret gets on the court then Biden and Pelosi need to add new justices and introduce term limits.

Quin_Dub

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus i have no hope for them anymore, if barret gets on the court then Biden and Pelosi need to add new justices and introduce term limits.

Adding new Justices just starts an arms race - The GOP will just add a few more next time they get into Power.

Not worth the fight.

An easier and far less controversial solution is introduce term limits with instant application of those terms.

Set it as 20 years , which means that Thomas and Breyer are gone right away ,or at least within a year if you were to say that their seat expires at next anniversary or something.

That way - You are pulling back the balance , but offering up a seat from both sides of the political spectrum , making it far more appealing to the masses and less likely to be a huge mid-term issue.

It would make the next Presidential election consequential as both Alito and Roberts would be next up for expiration , meaning that both sides would be campaigning on the right to seat the Chief Justice , but that's going to happen eventually anyway.

Leroy42

Tjey also need to remove the policital aspect of it. There should at least be minimum qualifying criteria (leght of time as a judge, number of cases, etc) which should be overseen by a judicial committee made up of judges. Then a shortlist is provided to the senate which can interview each and make a decision.

Not I cannot see anyway that that can happen. It is a major selling point of both POTUS and Senators in their reelection bids and they won't give that up.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Tjey also need to remove the policital aspect of it. There should at least be minimum qualifying criteria (leght of time as a judge, number of cases, etc) which should be overseen by a judicial committee made up of judges. Then a shortlist is provided to the senate which can interview each and make a decision.

Not I cannot see anyway that that can happen. It is a major selling point of both POTUS and Senators in their reelection bids and they won't give that up.

Yeah it massively needs to be removed as a political tool, but like you say it wont ever happen.


Term limits are a must for the democrats if they actually win the senate.

L1011

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

weren't his parents traveling due to a census being held by Romans?

Well, no

There was a census during his early lifetime (which is the important thing here of course), but it was 10 years later than the other events its claimed were happening at the same time, and you never had to travel back to your home town to record yourself on a census.

There's some people who think the whole Bethlehem thing never happened at all

Now how the feck do I remember this stuff, that I probably either overheard or read decades ago. I'm not even religious!

Gbear

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Adding new Justices just starts an arms race - The GOP will just add a few more next time they get into Power.

Not worth the fight.

An easier and far less controversial solution is introduce term limits with instant application of those terms.

Set it as 20 years , which means that Thomas and Breyer are gone right away ,or at least within a year if you were to say that their seat expires at next anniversary or something.

That way - You are pulling back the balance , but offering up a seat from both sides of the political spectrum , making it far more appealing to the masses and less likely to be a huge mid-term issue.

It would make the next Presidential election consequential as both Alito and Roberts would be next up for expiration , meaning that both sides would be campaigning on the right to seat the Chief Justice , but that's going to happen eventually anyway.

Anoter one I've heard bandied about is to add two justices per presidential term and not have a limit on the court (but have them cycled out with term limits).

So it might grow to 15, 17 or so, but it'd settle down over time as terms elapsed.

robinph

CelticRambler wrote: »

For the record: Canterbury, Kent (university campus) 2019 - queues of up to two hours during the day, such that the student union organised a tea-run to warm up those waiting to vote.

There were a few cases of queues being seen outside polling stations in the UK during the last couple of elections, but think mostly due to people waiting until Bake Off had finished and then deciding at 9:50pm to pop down to vote as nobody else would possibly have the same idea as them.

More of an issues with people making time to find the spare 5 minutes between 7am and 10pm and all deciding that the last 15 minutes was the best time. Not an actual issue with lack of polling stations.

salmocab

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Adding new Justices just starts an arms race - The GOP will just add a few more next time they get into Power.

Not worth the fight.

An easier and far less controversial solution is introduce term limits with instant application of those terms.

Set it as 20 years , which means that Thomas and Breyer are gone right away ,or at least within a year if you were to say that their seat expires at next anniversary or something.

That way - You are pulling back the balance , but offering up a seat from both sides of the political spectrum , making it far more appealing to the masses and less likely to be a huge mid-term issue.

It would make the next Presidential election consequential as both Alito and Roberts would be next up for expiration , meaning that both sides would be campaigning on the right to seat the Chief Justice , but that's going to happen eventually anyway.

Terms would also cut out the putting in of younger candidates instead of better candidates as I suspect is happening now because she will likely be there for a long time.

Igotadose

salmocab wrote: »

Terms would also cut out the putting in of younger candidates instead of better candidates as I suspect is happening now because she will likely be there for a long time.

It'd take an amendment to do term limits. Not likely.

Quin_Dub

salmocab wrote: »

Terms would also cut out the putting in of younger candidates instead of better candidates as I suspect is happening now because she will likely be there for a long time.

Indeed , it would also largely remove the variability in the vacancies coming up.

Thomas - 2021
Breyer - 2021
Election 2024
Roberts - 2025
Alito - 2026
Election 2028
Sotomayor - 2029
Kagan - 2030
Election 2032
Election 2036
Gorsuch - 2037
Kavanaugh - 2038
Election 2040
Coney-Barrett - 2039
New Thomas - 2041
New Breyer - 2041

There's a bit of a hole in the mid 2030's , but that could be filled by a "natural" departure.

robinph

Set it as 2 longest serving get replaced per presidential term, regardless of how long they have ever actually served, but never more than 2 get replaced. Replace one of them in year 2 of the presidency and the other in year 3, if someone dies in year 4 or 1 then they just have an empty seat for a bit but then means the others already in place get to keep their seats a bit longer.

Quin_Dub

robinph wrote: »

Set it as 2 longest serving get replaced per presidential term, regardless of how long they have ever actually served, but never more than 2 get replaced. Replace one of them in year 2 of the presidency and the other in year 3, if someone dies in year 4 or 1 then they just have an empty seat for a bit but then means the others already in place get to keep their seats a bit longer.

The problem with that is that soon enough you get to a point where you are replacing people every 4 years or so.

4 years is definitely too short a tenure - You want and need tenure and experience on the bench.

robinph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The problem with that is that soon enough you get to a point where you are replacing people every 4 years or so.

4 years is definitely too short a tenure - You want and need tenure and experience on the bench.

Yep, I'd not figured out the maths of it all admittedly to see how it would work long term. Trying to fit in an even number of replacements with an odd number of justices is going to be tricky and I'd leave that for someone else to get their head around.

If it is to remain a political appointment (which is a stupid way to do things) then the potential for gaming the system needs to be removed though by putting on the term limits to even the playing field.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Its not a mail in state, correct.

But faced with the biggest pandemic the world has seen in 100 years. Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent people voting.

Best to keep the numbers low or lower due to Covid.

Why ? Can we discuss that, because there does not appear to be a rational reason for it. Many other states made changes to ensure the elections in Nov got a good turnout and for want of a better term 'Democracy was not limited'

Can you give your insight on that.

I don't have much to contribute on it.
Texas seems to be less restrictive on the matter of voting by mail than Ireland, for example, so if you want to take a random European nation as a baseline, it's not much to complain about. The governor did, regardless, increase options for folks to vote. I'm inclined to agree with Judge Ho's position that he should not have, and should instead have recalled the legislature to change the Elections Code but nobody seemed to be complaining about his exceeding his authority when he was expanding the voting options.

Haven't seen Texas but overall the US is known to be horrific for voting.

Voting in Texas is handled at the county level, the State government does not dictate how many polling sites or where they should be. If people in Houston are suffering long lines compared to people in Corpus Christi, look to the county clerk's office (An elected position). So, in my case, as mentioned, Bexar County, a blueish-purple county, has decided to have almost 600 voting locations (Average of one for every two square miles), and I can choose any one of them. The county may choose to confine people to vote to only their 'home' polling station, or allow voter choice, we have voter choice here. For whatever reason, Harris county has gone with about 350, (one for every five square miles), but, again, voters can go to any location they choose. I don't know how many actual machines or staff are at any of the locations: Note that Jefferson county, KY, had a successful primary a few months ago despite having only one voting location, by making it large, well-staffed, and easy to get to for the 600k population.

In any case, if you see long lines in TX, that's due to the administration of the county in question.

AbusesToilets

Igotadose wrote: »

It'd take an amendment to do term limits. Not likely.

That's an opinion, it's not written anywhere afaik.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't have much to contribute on it.
Texas seems to be less restrictive on the matter of voting by mail than Ireland, for example, so if you want to take a random European nation as a baseline, it's not much to complain about. The governor did, regardless, increase options for folks to vote. I'm inclined to agree with Judge Ho's position that he should not have, and should instead have recalled the legislature to change the Elections Code but nobody seemed to be complaining about his exceeding his authority when he was expanding the voting options.



Voting in Texas is handled at the county level, the State government does not dictate how many polling sites or where they should be. If people in Houston are suffering long lines compared to people in Corpus Christi, look to the county clerk's office (An elected position). So, in my case, as mentioned, Bexar County, a blueish-purple county, has decided to have almost 600 voting locations (Average of one for every two square miles), and I can choose any one of them. The county may choose to confine people to vote to only their 'home' polling station, or allow voter choice, we have voter choice here. For whatever reason, Harris county has gone with about 350, (one for every five square miles), but, again, voters can go to any location they choose. I don't know how many actual machines or staff are at any of the locations: Note that Jefferson county, KY, had a successful primary a few months ago despite having only one voting location, by making it large, well-staffed, and easy to get to for the 600k population.

In any case, if you see long lines in TX, that's due to the administration of the county in question.

I get that , but I guess the underlying question is why it seems that so many counties/districts across the whole of the US seem to be incapable of organising things such that there aren't these queues?

Whether it's more polling places , more polling machines/booths , longer opening hours etc.

Is there no critical analysis that says "Last election the average wait to vote was X hours" , what do we need to do next time to reduce that time by Y amount"?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't have much to contribute on it.
Texas seems to be less restrictive on the matter of voting by mail than Ireland, for example, so if you want to take a random European nation as a baseline, it's not much to complain about. The governor did, regardless, increase options for folks to vote. I'm inclined to agree with Judge Ho's position that he should not have, and should instead have recalled the legislature to change the Elections Code but nobody seemed to be complaining about his exceeding his authority when he was expanding the voting options.



Voting in Texas is handled at the county level, the State government does not dictate how many polling sites or where they should be. If people in Houston are suffering long lines compared to people in Corpus Christi, look to the county clerk's office (An elected position). So, in my case, as mentioned, Bexar County, a blueish-purple county, has decided to have almost 600 voting locations (Average of one for every two square miles), and I can choose any one of them. The county may choose to confine people to vote to only their 'home' polling station, or allow voter choice, we have voter choice here. For whatever reason, Harris county has gone with about 350, (one for every five square miles), but, again, voters can go to any location they choose. I don't know how many actual machines or staff are at any of the locations: Note that Jefferson county, KY, had a successful primary a few months ago despite having only one voting location, by making it large, well-staffed, and easy to get to for the 600k population.

In any case, if you see long lines in TX, that's due to the administration of the county in question.

A very convient line youve used here before

'not our fault, blame the local county'

Over the past decade, Republican elections officials have been shuttering polling places in minority neighborhoods, low-income districts, and on college campuses at a feverish pace. When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the U.S. had more than 132,000 polling places; by the time Donald Trump ascended to the White House, eight years later, more than 15,000 of them had been closed nationwide. After 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court basically lifted federal Voting Rights Act oversight from states that were particularly notorious for racial discrimination in elections—including Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Texas—the pace of poll closures went into hyperdrive. Thanks to Shelby County v. Holder, if you ran elections in a majority-black county in Georgia, or a booming Latino neighborhood in Houston, you no longer had to ask the Department of Justice to approve a change in where people could vote, or to prove the intent wasn’t discriminatory.

While voter ID laws must be passed by lawmakers, guaranteeing news coverage and public debate, it’s a snap to move or close polling locations. In most states, it can be done unilaterally—all that’s required is a local elections board or official with an eye toward giving Republicans an artificial advantage to seize their chance, and then provide some form of public notice. Closing polls or moving them to white neighborhoods (or all the way out of town) is thus the quietest and least visible form of voter suppression. And studies show that it can be startlingly effective in reducing voting rates—largely at the expense of Democrats. In 2018, this insidious form of targeting poor, black, Latino, and young voters could be the hidden factor in delivering a passel of key elections for Congress and governorships to the GOP—just as it boosted Donald Trump’s presidential bid in 2016.

Stick a pin on any map of marquee midterm races this year, and you’ll find poll closures targeting Democratic voters. A lot of them. Texas, where Ted Cruz is struggling to fend off Beto O’Rourke’s Senate challenge—and where Republicans have long feared the rising tide of young Latinos—has closed more than 400 polling places since 2013, leading the nation in that dubious statistic. Arizona, where Latinos are also threatening the GOP’s hegemony and Democrat Krysten Sinema is neck-and-neck against Rep. Martha McSally for Jeff Flake’s abandoned Senate seat, has closed 200, outpacing Texas on a per capita basis.

https://newrepublic.com/article/151966/gops-sneakiest-voter-suppression-tactic

Quin_Dub

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I am not familiar with US constitution but can then not add more judges and then solidify this limit in stone of the constitution. Hence raising the bar.

They could and then the GOP could raise that bar again.

I just think that Term limits would be an easier sell politically and equally a harder one to undo for the same reasons.

It's also fundamentally less partisan.

Igotadose

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's an opinion, it's not written anywhere afaik.

Well, if one branch starts to exert control over another, that at least ends up as a Constitutional question, in the SCOTUS eventually. Congress makes laws following the powers given to them in the Constitution and the various amendments. There's no power to limit terms specified - so it's a constitutional question, solveable by Amendment. One of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet, this isn't the first time it's been brought up, about the umpteenth in my lifetime.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

A very convient line youve used here before

'not our fault, blame the local county'


https://newrepublic.com/article/151966/gops-sneakiest-voter-suppression-tactic

Uh-huh.

Have you noticed that it doesn't say that the Republicans (or State legislature) ordered the closing, or cite any authority for the Republicans (or State legislature) to do so in Texas? It leaves it open to the reader to make the inferrence by saying that the numbers went down.

I've certainly noticed that few people are bothering to look up the law in this thread.
Here's the Texas Elections Code.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?link=EL

More specifically, go to chapters 42 and 43 which cover who gets to draw the precincts (one polling site per precinct) and who gets to select where in the precinct that voting site is.

Oh, look. The county.
As long as they have at least 100 voters per precinct, they can have as many precints (and thus polling sites) as they want. As I understand it, the closure of the overall number of polling sites is because of the move towards 'vote centers', where one can vote anywhere. The added flexibility means less requirement for specific proximity and greater efficiency. As explained, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Voting-centers-popular-as-half-of-Harris-County-14856602.php

Well, if one branch starts to exert control over another, that at least ends up as a Constitutional question, in the SCOTUS eventually. Congress makes laws following the powers given to them in the Constitution and the various amendments. There's no power to limit terms specified - so it's a constitutional question, solveable by Amendment. One of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet, this isn't the first time it's been brought up, about the umpteenth in my lifetime.

The Constitution says that they "shall hold their office during good behaviour", which is being taken to read that they hold their term for life unless recalled due to malfeasance.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Uh-huh.

Have you noticed that it doesn't say that the Republicans (or State legislature) ordered the closing of the sites in Texas, or cite any authority for the Republicans (or State legislature) to do so? It leaves it open to the reader to make the inferrence.

I've certainly noticed that few people are bothering to look up the law in this thread.
Here's the Texas Elections Code.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?link=EL

More specifically, go to chapters 43 and 44, which cover who gets to draw the precincts (one polling site per precinct) and who gets to select where in the precinct that is.

Oh, look. The county.

It is quite literally in the opening line i quoted. They have not left it to the reader to infer.

Over the past decade, Republican elections officials have been shuttering polling places in minority neighborhoods, low-income districts, and on college campuses at a feverish pace.

listermint

Some additional quite odd stats for a state as wealthy as texas.


https://theintercept.com/2020/10/13/texas-republicans-democratic-voters/

“Texas is arguably the most voter-suppressed state in the union,” O’Rourke said, during a break from a 12-hour phone bank with his voter outreach group, Powered by People, on Monday, when they registered 18,000 volunteers to help call 1 million people. “No state tries harder to keep its own people from voting — and specifically Black Texans, Latino Texans, Texans from communities of color. Prior to 2018, we were 50th, dead last, in voter turnout,” O’Rourke said

The very bottom of the rung for turnout. despite wealth in the state and demographic.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

It is quite literally in the opening line i quoted. They have not left it to the reader to infer.

Not in Texas.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Some additional quite odd stats for a state as wealthy as texas.


https://theintercept.com/2020/10/13/texas-republicans-democratic-voters/




The very bottom of the rung for turnout. despite wealth in the state and demographic.

Interestingly, if you go to your article, and follow links, you get here.
https://www.keranews.org/education/2018-10-05/texas-has-the-nations-worst-voter-turnout-and-young-texans-lead-the-way It focuses on voter apathy.

But since then, turnout among young voters has been sliding. The Pew study reports that when Baby Boomers were between 18 and 24 years old, their turnout was 26 percent. Millennials at that age only turned out at 20 percent.

Hunter Whitaker, a 19-year-old student at Eastfield, has no plans to vote this November.

“I'm not really interested in the ballots of people, I don't know,” he said.

No candidates grab Hunter, though younger ones might have a better chance, especially if they shared his interests, which includes education and marijuana legalization, he said.

Hunter is about the only confessed non-voter in Castaneda’s class. Anesa Koldzic, 18, is looking forward to voting for the first time.

But she hasn’t found a candidate who talks about her concerns, either, which include "education rights" and health care reform.

"Just ways it make it easier on us, I guess.”

Koldzic has heard the excuses from non-voters who say they don’t know the issues, don’t feel represented and that their vote doesn’t matter.

She dismisses them. Voting for the first time is a big deal.

“It does make a change, even if your outcome wasn’t what you wanted,” she said.

Karen Bassett wants to reach more young voters like Koldzic, but she’s worried.

“I think that we are losing a generation. This generation has not been educated about civics and that’s not acceptable to me," Bassett said. "I’m the mother to two Millennials, and I want them to be able to participate so that they can be part of what’s coming next.”

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interestingly, if you go to your article, and follow links, you get here.
https://www.keranews.org/education/2018-10-05/texas-has-the-nations-worst-voter-turnout-and-young-texans-lead-the-way It focuses on voter apathy.

But since then, turnout among young voters has been sliding. The Pew study reports that when Baby Boomers were between 18 and 24 years old, their turnout was 26 percent. Millennials at that age only turned out at 20 percent.

Hunter Whitaker, a 19-year-old student at Eastfield, has no plans to vote this November.

“I'm not really interested in the ballots of people, I don't know,” he said.

No candidates grab Hunter, though younger ones might have a better chance, especially if they shared his interests, which includes education and marijuana legalization, he said.

Hunter is about the only confessed non-voter in Castaneda’s class. Anesa Koldzic, 18, is looking forward to voting for the first time.

But she hasn’t found a candidate who talks about her concerns, either, which include "education rights" and health care reform.

"Just ways it make it easier on us, I guess.”

Koldzic has heard the excuses from non-voters who say they don’t know the issues, don’t feel represented and that their vote doesn’t matter.

She dismisses them. Voting for the first time is a big deal.

“It does make a change, even if your outcome wasn’t what you wanted,” she said.

Karen Bassett wants to reach more young voters like Koldzic, but she’s worried.

“I think that we are losing a generation. This generation has not been educated about civics and that’s not acceptable to me," Bassett said. "I’m the mother to two Millennials, and I want them to be able to participate so that they can be part of what’s coming next.”

So voter apathy, puts texas as the 50th state. Does that not two things..

1) seem a bit odd.
2) appear to be a problem since you know democracy should be cherished.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interestingly, if you go to your article, and follow links, you get here.
https://www.keranews.org/education/2018-10-05/texas-has-the-nations-worst-voter-turnout-and-young-texans-lead-the-way It focuses on voter apathy.

But since then, turnout among young voters has been sliding. The Pew study reports that when Baby Boomers were between 18 and 24 years old, their turnout was 26 percent. Millennials at that age only turned out at 20 percent.

Hunter Whitaker, a 19-year-old student at Eastfield, has no plans to vote this November.

“I'm not really interested in the ballots of people, I don't know,” he said.

No candidates grab Hunter, though younger ones might have a better chance, especially if they shared his interests, which includes education and marijuana legalization, he said.

Hunter is about the only confessed non-voter in Castaneda’s class. Anesa Koldzic, 18, is looking forward to voting for the first time.

But she hasn’t found a candidate who talks about her concerns, either, which include "education rights" and health care reform.

"Just ways it make it easier on us, I guess.”

Koldzic has heard the excuses from non-voters who say they don’t know the issues, don’t feel represented and that their vote doesn’t matter.

She dismisses them. Voting for the first time is a big deal.

“It does make a change, even if your outcome wasn’t what you wanted,” she said.

Karen Bassett wants to reach more young voters like Koldzic, but she’s worried.

“I think that we are losing a generation. This generation has not been educated about civics and that’s not acceptable to me," Bassett said. "I’m the mother to two Millennials, and I want them to be able to participate so that they can be part of what’s coming next.”

And yet , even with that typical low turn-out , you still have queues all across the country.

We are still no closer to understanding the structural failings that drive this.

For example , could the Federal Government define a set of guidelines or metrics for Voting , whilst still allowing the voting to be managed at the local level?

e.g. "No voter should typically have to travel more than X miles to vote or typically have wait more than X time to submit their vote"

How that's achieved at the State/County level is up to them - They could chose early/mail-in voting or open more/bigger voting centres etc.