Talk:Election Day (United States)/Archive 1

"Changes" section
I've deleted the section with the heading "Changes, " which felt redundant in light of the rest of the article. Its text was:

''With the introduction of early voting and widespread absentee voting in many states, Election Day is the only day on which citizens cast their ballots for the Supreme Court Justicises. All of this is covered in the "Objections" section. It might be nice to have a more detailed "History" section, though. --LostLeviathan 04:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November Tuesday
The explanation for why Election Day is the first Tuesday after Nov. 1 is very interesting. Does anyone have a source that can be cited? Theleek 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the U.S. Government may be cited as a source for this information. The following is taken from the United States Election Assistance Commission website (www.eac.gov/faq.asp).

"Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday?  Lawmakers wanted to prevent election day from falling on the first of November for two reasons.  November 1st is All Saints Day, a holy day of obligation for Roman Catholics.  In addition, most merchants were in the habit of doing their books from the preceding month on the 1st. Congress was apparently worried that the economic success or failure of the previous month might influence the vote of the merchants."

Klevenj 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Evenly divisible by four
The article said "additionally, in years divisible by four, for the President and Vice-President." I changed it to say "in years *evenly* divisible by four,". All years are divisible by four, with remainders. The set of US presidential election years is accurately described as "2000 mod 4", as is leap year, BTW. I wonder if that has any cosmic effect on our wacky electios... Marktaff 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the mathematical definition of divisible means that there is no remainder. X is divisible by Y if X = YZ where X, Y and Z are all integers.  Schoop (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell
I'm, from England, and pardon my ignorance but this article is USELESS. Why don't you try to write it so that even the people who don't know what Election Day in the United states can attempt to understand it.


 * How so? What confuses you?  If you give specific critiques, perhaps the article can be improved to your satisfaction. Marktaff 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost we should have a table with columns like: Name of the election, level (city, state or country level, No. of winners allowed (e.g. two for senators), Names of winners (e.g. 'nominee for the party' in case of primaries'), Frequency of election,Date of election and most importantly Who votes for the election (public, some ministers, electoral college, etc). Will someone please add this and probably some more relevant columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.206.81 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a table would require scores if not hundreds of lines to include every local, state, and national election. — Walloon (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

November Tuesday reprise
Walloon changed the discussion of why Election Day falls on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Basically, s/he deleted the reference to All Saints' Day and a few other purported reasons for picking this date. The logic on Walloon's discussion page is based on an old Congressional Research Service source, and the inference that Catholics did not have the political pull in the 1840s to effect this change. But it contradicts the two sources cited on this talk page and in the article's Reference section, that clearly attribute the change to Congress's motive to avoid All Saints' Day. Given that dispute between sources, I thought it should be open to further discussion if anyone else is interested. Theleek 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Walloon has made a comprehensive edit, and I think it fairly sets forth the opposing theories. My only question: 34 or 30 days? The Globe you cite says 30 days (p.14, third column, near the bottom, two lines up from the paragraph beginning "It would be seen"); but the 2nd Congress statute says (as you say) 34 days. (If Nov. 1 is a Tuesday, then Dec. 7 is the first Wednesday in December, i.e., 36 days---violating both a 30-day or 34-day rule.) Is that just an error in the 1845 debate? In any event, thanks, Walloon, for what seems to me an excellent improvement of this article. Theleek 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that mention of 30 days in Rep. Duncan's speech in the Congressional Globe. All I can ascribe it to is an error by either Duncan or the reporter for the Globe. The federal statute of 1792 clearly said 34 days, and elsewhere in the same Congressional debate, 34 days is the period given. — Walloon 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Theleek, I think your math is incorrect. If Nov. 1 is a Tuesday then Election Day would fall on Nov. 8 because it is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, leaving only 29 days till the first Wednesday in December, still in both the 34 and 30 day limits.  But even if Nov. 1 is a Monday (making Election Day Nov. 2) that still leaves 29 days till Dec. 1 (the first Wednesday in December). — LaHarley 10:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another way of looking at the numbers: the first Wednesday of December will fall between December 1 and December 7 (inclusive). If election day is to be a Tuesday then it must happen 1, 8, 15, 22, or 29 days before that, since a week has seven days, and Tuesdays even more distant would violate the 34-day (or 30-day) limit.  Twenty-nine days before the range December 1–7 is the range November 2–8.  That is, the "Tuesday after the first Monday of November" rule guarantees that election day is exactly 29 days prior to the first Wednesday of December, regardless of the year.  Quantling (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Quantling. How do you feel about the more serious balance issue raised below? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

State holiday in NY
This article says that Election Day is a state holiday in NY. I'm not sure if that should really count or not. All New York State offices are open on Election Day, and it is considered a regular working day, but state employees are given a floating holiday to use any time within the next year. Do we really want to count that as a state holiday? — 24.184.64.197 19:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Alaska
"On account of the potential for extremely bad weather in November, Alaska is exempt from holding its national elections on Election Day, and is permitted to vote for Congress and President in October. However, it has never done so." I am removing this unsubstantiated claim. Federal law states simply,"The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter. (2 USCA § 7)" Alaska is not mentioned anywhere in that chapter. Nor in the chapter on presidential elections:"The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. (3 U.S.C.A. § 1)"— Walloon 09:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Leap Year
I removed the references to Leap Year, because they were inaccurate. Every leap year has a presidential election, but not every presidential election is held in a leap year. 1900 and 1800 were not leap years. Schoop (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon's Mail-in Election
In the Objections section, th maria lopy function. Why, I wonder? Why in Oregon? It is often rumored and joked that there are more homeless people in Oregon than most states, though this may be an unfair characterization. Nonetheless, its possible that such a perception could result in an electoral system that is based on having a mailing address in order to be qualified to vote. Does Oregon's political establishment actually work to disenfranchise their homeless from voting (as if such folks needed further discouragement from political participation) in their state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.134.45 (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tuesday
I've added a 'citation needed' and a 'clarify me' to the section:


 * As for the day of the week chosen, in 1845, the United States was an agrarian society. Most people traveled by horse and buggy. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the Sabbath. So that left Tuesday and Wednesday, but Wednesday was market day. So, Tuesday it was.

Firstly, this has no source. Secondly, surely any day from Tuesday to Friday would fulfil this? Or is 'Sabbath' meant to accommodate the Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist sabbaths as well? TSP (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: this is speculative, not sourced. — Walloon (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Federal vs. State?
The article says ... "In a Federal election, all members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms, and members of the Senate are elected ... ". In fact, according to my copy of the constitution, members of the House and Senate (Article I section 4), as well as the President and Vice President (Article II section 1) are elected in state (not "Federal") elections. I find no authorization for the US Federal Government to conduct elections of Representatives, Senators, President or Vice President. This article on US elections is entirely misleading when it states (or strongly implies) that the US House, Senate, Presidential, and Vice Presidential elections are Federal (national - not state) elections. The fact that the elections are state elections is completely ignored in the article as far as I can see.Bsmith0000 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you refer to the text of the US Constitution on the section you cited, it says that Congress can make regulation to those dates. If you continue reading past the section of the article you quote, the statute for the dates that Congressional elections occur have been, indeed, altered by Congress. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me!  /  Talk to me!  ←at≈:→ 23:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you did not understand my comment, as your reply is not responsive to it. I was commenting on the article's misguided references to "Federal election". In the USA there are no Federal elections. Period. Congress may indeed set the date for these elections to be held, but the elections themselves are STATE not FEDERAL elections. The article is deceptive or unclear on the nature of the elections themselves. In fact, states may chose presidential electors by any means they prefer -- they are not required to have an election at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.232.241 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A serious balance issue
I agree with the spirit of Walloon's edit, but I don't think it has gone far enough and a serious WP:Balance problem remains. By putting the speculative "theories" (I really hate the way that word is misused) first, it implicitly gives it more weight. I think the balanced way to present it is to give the reason documented in the Congressional Record first, followed by the speculations. I recommend everyone re-read the Balance section of NPOV, as well as the Due and undue weight section (esp. Giving equal validity) above it. The motives of a 165-year past Congress are lost (I'm sure most Americans have no idea why we vote on the first Tuesday, we just do), to be replaced by speculative history (as used in the WP policy.)

There is also a problem with the USEAC link; it's been moved, and it doesn't look like they have the FAQ page anymore (I couldn't find it.) So the speculations now stand unverifiable.

I also think it's a disgrace that a US government agency would promote speculative history like this, and I think it borders on the insensitive (flirting with anti-Catholic bias.) Remember how similar "theories" about the influence of Jews are generally received.

So perhaps the "theories" reference should be removed altogether? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why still Tuesday?
The article writes Some activists (who exactly?) oppose this date on the grounds that it decreases voter turnout because most citizens work on Tuesdays, and advocate making election day a federal holiday ...

As a European (Austrian, to be more specific) this objection sounds very reasonable to me. It is obvious that there would be opponents to legislating a federal holiday (employers would lose, employees would win), but I would be curious to read about the suggestion that election day be moved from Tuesday to a Sunday. Are there any groups supporting such a change in the constitution? Who would lose from such a change? --194.24.138.4 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Election Day (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730081609/http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html to http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)