Is it time to make Election Day a federal holiday? 🗳️ Some say it would boost voter turnout and align the U.S. with other democracies, while others argue it could create challenges for hourly workers and cost millions. Dive into the debate over whether a federal voting holiday is the best way to strengthen democracy or if there are better solutions. Check out the full breakdown!
Although the federal government cannot require private companies to observe holidays
JFC what a dystopian hellhole. It kills me they are so proud of their shitty living conditions.
Wait really, why coulsnt they force them to?!? In Canada companies that are open pay huge fines. Companies that are deemed essential do not recieve fines but have to pay 2.5 Mult to employees and if the employee does not work they get a days pay.
Money is God in America.
Okay, let’s give everybody holidays off.
…well, I guess we need essential services like police, fire, medical, etc.
…and if they’re going to work, they’re gonna need food, so restaurants should be open too.
…and if they all gotta get to work, we gotta have gas stations open as well.
…and with all these other people off, people are gonna vote then want the rest of the day to do things, so we should probably have stores and entertainment venues open also.
And now all the “minimum wage” people are stuck working on a holiday, while the people who can afford to be off actually get off.
Rinse and repeat for every current holiday.
To be honest i can’t tell if this is satire, spoof or against day off? I mean emergency social services are essential. Food and the rest are not, you do your shopping the day before and bring a lunch, self serve pumps are everywhere anywyas and entertainment services are not essential.
It’s not satire, it’s 100% the reasoning that would be used in this argument. That’s the train of thought that we took towards covid.
In a long period like covid I can see part of the argument, but in a 1 day period food services are not essential. At all. Humans can survive without food for a day if they were dumb enough not to prepare.
Sure, I agree. But the CEOs of McDonalds and Wendy’s don’t want to miss a single day of profits and their wealth gives them a lot more political power than I have.
I used to work in a cinema.
Christmas day was our single busiest day of the year, every year. Even with traditional Christmas activities like having family dinners and gift-giving, people still wanted to go see a movie. They couldn’t stay home with their families for just one day so we minimum wage saps didn’t get to stay home with ours.
Nothing I wrote was satire. This is exactly how it is in the US.
-
If you have a white-collar job, enjoy your day off.
-
If you have a blue-collar job, you might not have to work, depending on what holiday it is.
-
If you have a service job, fuck your holiday because money.
Going to the movies for Christmas is an American Jewish tradition, usually followed up by Chinese food
I’m going to old all over the place. When I was a teen in the late 90s I worked at a grocery store. We were open 24/7 except three times per year. We closed at noon on Thanksgiving (reopened at 5am the next day), noon on Christmas Eve through Christmas Day, and noon on New Years Eve. We always had assholes come in to try to “get one thing that I forgot” but turned them away because they’d inevitably try to load up a full cart. We were given strict instructions to turn everyone away starring at noon sharp.
Now, grocery stores just stay open. Like, really, you can’t close even a couple of times per year to let people be with their families?
-
Tell that to all the companies that were starting black Friday on Thursday night.
Deleted
Oh, we are not proud of it. We’re trying to chip away at the absolutely fucked power structure, but the people in charge of the system have a vested interest in preserving it, with all of its fucked up little idiosyncrasies like this.
All of those drawbacks are bullshit.
Early voting and mail in ballots should be more available to everyone. That’s not a reason not to make it a holiday.
Private employers can’t be forced to observe a holiday. That’s not a reason not to make it a holiday. People required to work could still go before or after work, and would see reduced wait times because public employees would be able to go during work hours.
Finding childcare for the day is a problem anyway, as polling places are often schools, and the kids are sent home anyway. If it was a holiday, you could take your kids with you to the polls and then go to the park. That’s almost a reason not to make it a holiday, but not really.
If banks, post offices, and schools are all closed, a lot of businesses will also close because work slows down. Other employers, like retailers, food service, and entertainment venues like movie theaters would all see an uptick in business, and would probably offer extra pay for those shifts.
Yes to mail in ballots. Yes to early voting. Yes to a national election holiday. Reduce the barriers to voting. No to ID laws. No to voter roll purges. No to proof of citizenship requirements.
Over here all employers have to give employees 4h to vote. So if it’s open from 8 to 8 and you work from 8 to 4 they don’t have to give you time off, but if you work 8 to 6 they have to cut your shift at 4 instead.
That’s a good system. Let’s do that.
I live overseas so I’m eligible for an absentee ballot.
I filled it out and submitted it a few weeks ago.
It was all done through the government website for my state and email.
Couldn’t be easier.
Everyone should be eligible for mail in or early voting.
ID and citizenship requirements seem like pretty basic requisites to voting, what’s wrong with those?
Because not everyone has an ID or proof that they are a citizen, and in the United States, you’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you register to vote, you fill out a form stating you are a citizen and elligible to vote. There are existing mechanisms to check that voters are eligible. If you lie or commit fraud, those are crimes. There’s a paper trail, and if it were an actual problem, there would be proof that it’s happening.
Homeless people have the right to vote. Forgetful and disorganized people have the right to vote. Hermits and people who survive house fires have the right to vote. ID requirements or requiring proof of citizenship creates an unnecessary barrier that disenfranchises more legal voter than the illegal votes it prevents. Because that’s the point of them, they want to stop legal voters from voting.
But you can’t ignore very real problems with increasing the pool of ignorant voters, since whoever has the most access to that pool will have an advantage because these ignorant voters can be taken advantage of simply because they are ignorant. Should people be voting if they don’t know how the system works or what the candidates even stand for? If you can’t be bothered to care about it enough to go through minimal requirements, do we need to go out of our way to shove a ballot in their hands?
And yes, I acknowledge that the kind of thinking I outlined above can be used to repress voters as well. I guess my point is that these policies cut both ways. It’s not such a clear cut answer as “give everyone a ballot”, because that can (and has) very very easily turn into “give them a ballot and suggest who they should vote for”.
Yes, because ensuring everyone can vote is how I know I will always be able to vote. Democracy is about self-determination. There is no competency requirement for people making decisions for themselves.
Now, if you told me we were going to have competency requirements for candidates, thats something I might support, depending on how it’s implemented.
Inconsistent access and inconsistent standards, for the most part.
A classic example is how certain states (Texas, for instance) will assert that gun licenses qualify as a valid ID but state university student IDs will not. Another is in how IDs - like driver’s licenses - have a fee associated with registration and renewal, which amounts to a poll tax. A third is that citizenship isn’t necessarily a prerequisite for voting in municipal and state elections. So requiring someone to be a citizen before accessing a ballot becomes an unconstitutional burden at the state and local level.
Then there’s the fact that we already have a voter id system. It’s called your voter registration card. You typically get one after you’ve registered to vote in your municipality. The fight over voter ID is that you need a second piece of identification on top of the registration card.
Broadly speaking, if everyone was afforded equal access to a single uniform ID document at no cost, there wouldn’t be a problem. But so much of the Voter ID rules don’t establish homogeneous ID requirements. Implementation is left up to the states. So states with a history of hostility towards democratic rule can back-door disenfranchisement into the process of obtaining these documents.
There is currently no voter registration card where I’m from. All you have to do is say your name and they check you off. If you aren’t registered in the area, you can bring a piece of mail with your name and address to prove you live in that precinct, or someone to vouch for you, then you are given a ballot and they add you to the registration for next time. But yes it sounds like there is a lot of variation in how states implement or assure the integrity of their elections, and all of them are prone to certain kinds of abuse, whether it’s discouraging voters or vote harvesting or some other illegal mechanism for influencing elections in favor of the established powers.
Benefits: People get to exercise their constitutional right to participate in democracy without sacrificing their livelihood
Drawbacks: None
Drawbacks: Stockholders don’t like it when the slaves don’t work
Pissing off stockholders is a benefit
I’m all for it as long as bars, restaurants, grocery stores, and shops close down too. Fast food workers and the like shouldn’t have to show up to work when everyone else gets the day off to vote.
This could be easily solved if we simply allowed voting to go on for a week, and mandated that every business must give every employee a day off during that week to go vote. Hell, it could be a month if we wanted. The only reasons to limit voting to a single day are malicious ones.
Yet they’re perfectly willing to shut the entire fucking government down willy-nilly because they didn’t get some piece of pork barrel spending they promised their megadonors. Fucking buffoons.
No. All that needs to be done is make universal vote by mail the standard.
My state has been doing it for 24 years now, this will be the 7th Presidential election (2000, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24) and 13th Congressional election. It works, it increases voter participation, there’s a built in paper trail, there’s nothing to not like about it.
Remember how 2014 had a record low turnout for a mid-term election?
"the lowest it’s been in any election cycle since World War II, according to early projections by the United States Election Project.
Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots as of last Tuesday, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter participation that has spanned several decades. The results are dismal, but not surprising – participation has been dropping since the 1964 election, when voter turnout was at nearly 49 percent."
Meanwhile, in my state:
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2014/11/voter_turnout_of_695_percent_i.html
"Turnout in this fall’s election reached 69.5 percent, just half a percent short of turnout in 2010 and 2006 and 1.5 percent better than in 2002, Secretary of State Kate Brown said Wednesday.
More than 1.5 million Oregonians cast ballots, a record high for a non-presidential election, while nearly 700,000 registered voters sat out."
I got home last night from work, voted, and ate dinner. Got up to go to work and tossed the ballot in my mailbox this morning. It was amazing. Being able to get an absentee ballot in NY has been absolutely wonderful.
I am a bit worried about my signature though lol I can’t remember if I signed with my stupid fresh out of highschool “script” signature on previous ballots that I used on my social security card, or my general signature I’ve been using for everything for decades now…
I mean, if it gets rejected, they will let you know. Good news is you can always re-register and update your signature.
Here, we have the motor voter registration, so it’s the same signature as my drivers license.
There is one argument against everyone voting by mail that I accept:
People could be making “let’s go vote together”-meetups to make sure their friends are voting what they “should” - which would destroy freedom and privacy of the vote which are fundamental.
The same can also happen in abusive relationships where one partner can take away the freedom to vote what they want from the other by standing behind them when they fill out their ballot.Voting by mail is safe, but because of those two it should NEVER be the de-facto standard. It’s great to have more people voting - but whoever can should still vote personally if possible.
I know the setup of the voting booths is way worse in the US than here in Germany so both the way to them and the lines in front of them are longer, so that decision might flip towards voting by mail quicker, but imho voting in person should remain the standard - just because noone can look over your shoulder when you’re making your cross in that setting
Generally, it’s less “lets go vote together!” than it is “lets drop off our ballots together!”
Coercive voting is a crime, in 24 years we haven’t seen an incidence of it yet, but that was one of the FUD arguments when we voted for it.
“What’s to stop an employer from requiring employees to bring in their ballots and vote the company line?”
Well, it’s a crime. If you don’t trust your employees to vote, do you trust that not one will rat you out?
From my point of view both the police and the judges are getting heavily influenced by people with a less democratic agenda in mind.
Something like that would’ve never worked years ago - but with 4 more years of Trump handpicking judges? I wouldn’t even be sure the Supreme Court would strike something lime that down if it’s done subtle enough.
The military has allowed it since the civil war.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/debate-over-mail-voting-dates-back-civil-war-180976091/
Same way for Colorado. It’s all the benefit of electronic voting, but with the added safety of paper ballots. And it’s a format we’re all familiar with from school – bubble in our answer (just with a pen instead of a number 2 pencil), and then turn it in. The counters feed the ballots into the counting machine, which tallies up the votes, then the ballots are stored in nice boxes, which can be retrieved and hand-counted on the off-chance the machines get hacked or otherwise…tampered with (Tina Peters, I’m looking at YOU…as you go to jail for 9 years! :3).
Many argue that advocates should redirect their efforts to create early voting options
Additionally, opponents emphasize that private employers are not required to recognize or give paid time off for federal holidays.
Both arguments against it are whataboutist horseshit. Anyone claiming these as reasons not to also make it a holiday would almost certainly also be against “okay, let’s do all three”, because they are arguing in bad faith.
Can you imagine a world where workers get the day off as a recognized federal holiday but because of early mail in voting they took advantage of they get just a day off during some of the busiest time of the year to get chores and other tasks done and it inspires people to participate more actively and proactively because of the benefits that are overwhelmingly positive?
Its a shame that apparently there might be some lost profits for a day so its apparently impossible, and now we have to make other excuses as if they are legitimate.
If only we could find a way to monotize it and get people buying random low quality junk to trade around so that corps still gets to profit off it.
“Those against making Election Day a federal holiday argue that such a large focus on one day is misguided, since almost 70% of ballots in the 2020 presidential election were cast before Election Day.”
___These are the same people that think that more testing will make the number of COVID cases go up.
My first thought as well. “We don’t need to make it easier to vote on election day, because not many people vote on election day” - let’s stop and think really hard about that for a minute.
Additionally, opponents emphasize that private employers are not required to recognize or give paid time off for federal holidays.
lol “we shouldn’t fix this fucked up thing because this other thing is also fucked up”
that’s a you problem, dog
And the solution is right there in the sentence.
Exactly.
The solution here should be the federal government going, “Ooh! Good catch on that! Here’s a law mandating that private employers give paid holidays for all federal holidays! Thanks for looking out for employees!”
And if not all, at least for the arguably most important day of all in the self declared bastion of democracy.
So many things to fix about our broken democratic institutions. Every state should have mail-in voting as well as early voting. Every state should automate the registration of voters as much as possible as well. And sure, election day should be a federal holiday, or moved to Sunday or Saturday, at least.
Other things to work on: ranked choice voting and getting rid of the nasty racist holdover that is the EC. Also, we need to remove the special privileges that rural land has over people. Way too many ways our current system gives remote areas more representation than they should have…
Good points except for Ranked Choice. That archaic voting system is a sort of poison pill.
It doesn’t actually solve any of the problems proponents claim it does, and it adds complexity and additional points of failure. It was designed in 1788, but rejected for use in France at the time due to the habit of eliminating the Condorcet winner. (The person who would win in a one on one election vs all other candidates)
The bad idea was then reinvented in the early 1800s as the Single Transferrable Vote, with no fixes for that pesky Condorcet issue.
No, the way to go is either the simplicity of Approval, or the more granular STAR. (STAR is the new hotness, designed this century, with the pitfalls of past systems in mind)
Both systems are completely immune to the Spoiler effect while also allowing, or even encouraging the growth of third parties.
My impression is that when most people mention “ranked choice” voting, what they really mean is “ranked choice voting with instant runoff” which is functionally identical to STAR voting.
The two are not functionally identical at all.
Ranked Choice is a broken Ordinal voting system.
All Ordinal voting systems are flawed, because when you have to rank A over B, you will eventually reach a point where C can become a spoiler candidate.
Cardinal voting systems are immune from this, because you rate the candidates independent of each other. It doesn’t matter how many candidates are on the ballot, because you’re rating them vs your support, not their rank vs each other.
Cardinal systems allow you to rate two candidates the same, either with full support or full disdain.
Do you have a link that explains what you’re talking about? I’m having a hard time reconciling my understanding of Ranked Choice (with instant runoff) with the downfalls you describe.
Edit: I came across this: https://betterchoices.vote/Cardinal It explains the spoiler problem with Ordinal voting systems, but also illustrates problems with Cardinal voting systems. Interesting stuff.
I’m so glad I found this site! I think I’ve been converted to a Consensus Voting proponent instead of Instant Runoff.
You can read more about it here: https://betterchoices.vote/ConsensusVoting
Ahh, the bullshit “bullet voting” nonsense.
That’s a sort of made up problem with cardinal systems that ignores one tiny little issue. Approval, is a Cardinal voting method that is 100% bullet voting, because there’s no scale. Just a simple yes and no per candidate.
It gives better results than every single Ordinal system.
These geeks study election systems in far too much detail. And have a handy little chart of Baysian Regret Basically they did math and computer shit to figure out how “happy” people would be with the results of a set number of simulated elections with roughly identical factors except the voting system used and how honestly vs strategic you are in your voting,
Approval, which is 100% bullet voting, and still comes out better for overall satisfaction of results than its closest Ordinal competitor.
Consensus is just Condorcet voting. Technically, Approval is Condorcet compliant. It might actually be the only true way to find the Condorcet winner.
Anyway, there’s more, and I should link more.
How do you counter the arguments about strategic votes in Cardinal voting systems? Those arguments are explained here: https://betterchoices.vote/Cardinal
Put simply, Approval is still subject to strategic voting that undermines the purpose of the system. In practice, nobody is going to approve of a centrist candidate from the other party because that approval vote might be the only reason that their party loses.
Strategic voting in cardinal systems is just voting.
You have to decide if you like someone enough to vote for them or not.
Unlike Ordinal voting systems where you must rank someone above or below someone else, Cardinal systems count votes for candidates independently of each other.
Your main avenue for strategy is deciding if you support someone or not. Being honest is best, but at times you might decide to include someone who you don’t necessarily love, but find acceptable.
So, your example of the centrist. You might feel like they have a chance of beating someone worse, and thus you can mark yes on them. That doesn’t negate the yes you gave to the candidate you actually love.
And if your guy doesn’t win, well, that’s an election. Sometimes your side loses, and nothing you do can change that. I will say, under Approval or STAR, you literally cannot cause your side to lose by supporting them.
(Causing your side to lose because you supported them is something that happens with regularity under Ordinal voting systems, often referred to as the Spoiler Effect)
Also, that site seems to ignore the fact that you can rate candidates the same under Cardinal systems, It’s pretending that everything is Borda Count, which is an overly complex system that’s only barely a cardinal system. All because their favorite system is Condorcet voting. A system with some serious flaws, but not as many as something like IRV.
Hell, their Range voting example is just fucking weird. Why would you have to choose to rate the candidates lower? If the two candidates are equally appealing to Dems, why didn’t they both get equally high scores?
It’s all nonsense. Just vote how you want under Cardinal systems because strategic voting only hurts you. Seriously, that’s the take away of that site. Be honest and be rewarded, be contrived and “strategic” and you lose.
Rated voting Main article: Rated voting
Because rated voting methods are not affected by Arrow’s theorem, they can be both spoilerproof (satisfy IIA) and ensure positive vote weights at the same time. Taken together, these properties imply that increasing the rating of a favorite candidate can never change the result, except by causing the favorite candidate to win; therefore, giving a favorite candidate the maximum level of support is always the optimal strategy.
Examples of systems that are both spoilerproof and monotonic include score voting, approval voting, and highest medians.
Specifically, which problem do you think that ranked choice proponents are incorrect about?
Ranked choice voting does one thing, allows people to vote for the candidates they actually want and that’s it. All kinds of people try to shoehorn in other ideas, but at the end of the day the one and only problem its intensed to solve is people having to vote for candidates they don’t like.
See, it’s that one thing you mentioned.
The voting for the candidates people actually want.
That’s what it doesn’t actually do.
What Ranked Choice actually does is remove non-viable third parties from the election. That’s it. You can throw a sympathy vote over to the third party of your choice, but the next line on the ballot will be the major party candidate, because you certainly don’t want the other side to win. Say you throw a vote for the Greens, but your next choice is going to be the main ticket Dem, or else you risk the Republicans winning.
The problem comes when that third party just reaches viability. See, if the Greens are eliminated first, all the votes on the ticket then go to the Dem, but if somehow the Greens slip past the Dems, then the Dems are eliminated first, and the Dem first voters likely didn’t list the Greens as their next choice.
And here’s the thing. Republicans know that if the Greens knock out the Dems, then Republicans win. So a chunk of the Republican base strategically vote for the Greens as their first choice, and Republican as their second. And by lowering the support for their own candidate, they’ve secured the election for that candidate. This is the only voting system in existence that lets you show less support to a candidate to help that candidate win.
Tell me that shit isn’t broken, and I’ll call you a liar.
And that’s just one of a dozen show stopping faults in that voting system.
The next is ballot exhaustion.
If you rate A then B then C, but they get knocked off the ballot B then C and then A, your votes for B and C are thrown out completely. So if literally every single vote listed B as their second choice, B would be eliminated even if they were universally acceptable to the voting public. But it doesn’t matter, they were eliminated in an earlier round so universal support just isn’t looked at.
And finally, what’s the little issue of the rankings themselves. All we know is that you prefer A to B, and B to C. But how much do you actually prefer A to B by. and is that the same amount that you prefer B to C by.
Do you rate A and B as mostly the same but then rate C as a sort of horrible monster who you only begrudgingly support? We don’t know because that info isn’t collected on the ballot. STAR fixes that one, each candidate can have the same score in STAR, and with the scale going 0-5 you can get somewhat granular with your preferences.
If a majority of people vote Republican and they win, that’s a good thing. It seems like you don’t really understand ranked choice voting. It’s not perfect but it’s absolutely better than our current system.
I do understand Ranked Choice, and understand that it’s actually worse than our current system except for one small area. And that’s the elimination of non-viable spoiler parties.
Ranked Choice eliminates them from consideration.
As to its real world application, Ranked Choice is constantly fucking up elections.
https://electowiki.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_election
If you’ll notice in that breakdown, the number of exhausted ballots was twice the margin of victory.
All this stems from the fact that RCV is really just First Past the Post, but done a bunch of times on a single ballot.
You cannot solve the problems of plurality by iterating plurality.
It’s a bad system that is, in many ways, worse than the one we already have.
Opponents counter that a holiday may not significantly increase turnout and could even create challenges for some workers.
Ok well can we collectively agree that the opponents to this are full of shit? Like, this is less than a no brainer. This is a negative brainer. In that to oppose a national election day holiday, your aim must be less people voting. There’s one party that does well when less working people vote, and surprise surprise, it’s the party that keeps denying us a federal election day holiday. GEE, I CAN’T IMAGINE WHY.
Trump said this week of Democratic voting proposals. “They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
From a 2020 Vanity Fair Article, discussing how Democrats wanted to make it easier/safer for people to vote during the pandemic.
Easier solution than trying to have a single day off for everyone:
Since early voting is a thing, all employers should be required to give workers 1 paid flex day during voting season so they can vote.
They can even tie the flex day to evidence that they actually voted, so it truly encourages voting instead of just being an extra day off.
I don’t really think we need to police the extra day off. If someone was unable to vote that day for some reason, they shouldn’t be penalized.
While I agree we should police it, have you ever worked for a big corporation, they are going to police it…
The law can be written to prevent that easily. One flex day off for every employee during the election season is mandatory to give people the opportunity to vote.
That is how every other major holiday is handled. Just because I get a winter holiday break every year doesn’t mean that my employer checks to see if I was Santa eligible before I get the vacation.
The goal isn’t to get people an extra day off, it’s to get them to vote.
When I go to a conference or take paid time for education I’m required to prove what I was doing.
We should also fight to get people more general vacation time, sure. But as far as mandating days off for voting I think it makes sense to make sure that they use that day to vote.
Otherwise we’ll just end up with a lot of cheap weekend cruises popping up to take advantage of all the extra holiday time around elections with no increase in voter turnout.
God forbid Americans get more holiday time, especially considering that the rest of the developed world tends to get a lot more than we do.
The purpose of a day off for election day is to get people to vote. Tying it to a requirement to actually vote (not even necessarily on the same day) gives an incentive to vote instead of just another day off.
They should be getting an extra month of vacation time in general, absolutely, but that has nothing to do with incentivizing voting.
I got extra time off work for having a Covid vaccination. Since I was getting vaccinated anyway, it was just more time off just like a voting day would be. But for some people, the extra time off was enough incentive to get them to go to Walgreens and get a shot. If they’d just given everybody extra time off for Covid vaccinations without us having to prove that we did it, then those who weren’t planning to get the shot still wouldn’t have. And the point was to get people vaccinated for public health.
The problem with that is that it incentivizes people who are uninformed about politics to vote randomly for a day off. Our issue is not that everyone needs to vote, but that everyone who chooses to is able to and not hindered by a company.
If they want to incentivize people to get informed and get involved, then they should abolish the electoral college so people will feel like their votes count in states where they are a minority. Reinstating voting rights for felons would also get people motivated, because people who have been burned by the system may want to work to change it.
Even with all that, there will be people who do not care, do not learn, and will not want to vote, and they should be given that option. They have deemed themselves unqualified, and that should be believed.
It’s perfectly legal to turn in a blank ballot. When there’s an uncontested candidate running for office in my area that I do not support our I don’t know the difference between the candidates I simply don’t select a candidate for that position while voting for the candidates and issues I do understand.
Yes, but if someone intends not to vote at all, why waste their time and make lines longer by having them turn in a totally blank ballot?
God, Americans are so cucked when it comes to employee rights (I’m an American). Oh no, someone might get an extra day off!? Disgusting!
I get your point, and yes people should use the day to vote. But trying to mandate it, or police it in some way to make sure you didn’t accidentally give your employee a day off for “no reason,” is fucking absurd.
I imagine in most cases, it would probably even cost more to monitor, than the amount they lost for not having that employee for one day.
This isn’t about making sure businesses make more money. It’s about incentivizing people to vote.
My business gave extra time off to people who got Covid vaccines because it incentivizes people to do something that’s good for them and for society. For people who were already getting the vaccines it was a bonus day, and it gave the push for people on the fence.
It should be the same with voting. The reality is most people do have the opportunity to vote, but choose not to take the time to do it. An extra holiday won’t change that.
Giving them an extra day off no-strings attached is a good thing. They should get an extra month. But if we are specifically trying to get people to vote, then that particular day off should come with strings just like my vaccine day.
Your response to me saying how cucked we are here with regards to employee rights is this?
My business gave extra time off to people who got Covid vaccines because it incentivizes people to do something that’s good for them and for society. For people who were already getting the vaccines it was a bonus day, and it gave the push for people on the fence.
Wow, how magnanimous of them! I’m sure that having a vaccinated work force during a global pandemic that was killing millions to prevent your employees from dropping like flies had nothing to do with it… They just wanted to give you guys that “bonus” day. How sweet of them.
Yeah - how dare they do something that’s good for the employees AND their bottom line! The nerve!
Though actually not true because I work in municipal government where there is no profit or shareholders. If we get extra money it goes into things like overdue infrastructure repair.
It’s not good for all employees, only the ones who vote.
Makes me think of the people who want to enforce drug testing on welfare recipients. Costs more money to enforce than if they had just given them the benefits in the first place. But then we would be giving it to “people who ‘shouldn’t’ have it,” or “don’t deserve it,” and we just can’t have that can we?
It’s just a bullshit worldview.
Give everyone the day off, encourage voting and make sure that they know that it’s literally the reason they have that day off from work. Because of the people that were voted in, etc. Show them how important it is… Then hope they vote. Change the culture around it.
Again, unless you want to do it like Australia and make it compulsory.
Other than that, you’re literally just wasting money just to make sure a bunch of people don’t have off work who (you deem) “don’t deserve it.” Nah, fuck all that. Just let people enjoy their fucking life, Jesus Christ.
Edit: now that I think about it… I have to wonder how you’d feel if this were a religious holiday, and only the people who observe (and we’re talking, go to services, etc.) and can prove it, get those days off… Sorry atheists and agnostics, no Christmas or Easter holidays for you. And only the kids of the practicing Jews get off school for Ros Hashanah.
Or to keep it secular, only black people should get off for Martin Luther King Day right? Or to be even more specific, black Americans who are descendants of slaves. If you cannot prove that, sorry, no MLK Day for you.
Let’s just start an entire new federal agency meant to confirm that only the people who are associated with each holiday can get that day off. Because there’s gonna be a whole lot of paperwork. Lots of jobs though, I guess!
How are you going to have evidence of voting?
Everyone that votes gets some variant of “i voted” sticker already, that changes every where, sooooo…
I think I’ve gotten one of those stickers once in my decades of voting. I never outright ask, and most times they’re out on the table or whatever… But no, they don’t give them out like they’re receipts.
However, giving each person a receipt would probably be pretty trivial…
weird, I’ve gotten one of those stickers every time i’ve voted my entire life. i thought it was just a given.
I’ve only ever gotten a sticker twice…plus you can buy rolls of them online.
Who cares about evidence of voting, you work enough days of the year, just take it for heavens sake. If I add up all days there are federal holidays in my country I get nearly 2 months worth and that is without paid or unpaid leave days you get from the employer
None of which was the point of the question, but thanks for the added perspective.
It’s not about getting the day off: the goal is getting people to vote. Tying an extra day off to actually voting is more likely to get people to the polls
Yes, you give them the day off for election day. They know why they are off. If they’re going to vote, they’re going to vote. Simply giving everyone the day off is “getting people to vote.”
Some sort of monitoring to make sure people are actually voting on the day is an absurd and pointless idea. If we’re going that far, then just do what Australia does and make it compulsory.
Look at it like vaccine mandates. They’re difficult politically and legally. I live in Texas where businesses were explicitly banned from requiring Covid vaccinations.
So lots of businesses in Texas instead tied extra “personal holiday” days to showing evidence of vaccination. It wasn’t a requirement to be vaccinated, but a bonus incentive.
I’d be totally onboard with a system where they ran it as a tax incentive to vote. Better yet if it were a flat, fixed amount.
Like, in every precinct, you get your name checked off in the voter roll when you vote. It makes no record of who you vote for, only that you did, in fact, go to the polls and exercised your right.
Somehow export that data, send it to the IRS for cross referencing, and at tax time, if you voted in that year, it adds $100 to your tax return. Not a percentage of your income (which benefits the wealthy more than the poor) just a flat amount that basically is the government thanking you for voting. If you didn’t vote there’s no penalty… there’s just no reward.
…that said, this system would depend completely on having election day become a national holiday with businesses closed, etc. Or at the very least, mandating that employers nationwide must schedule every worker for a half day, maximum, on election day, with the other half day being a paid holiday…which would cause an absolute uproar in American politics.
Don’t do it on Election Day. Have our spread across early voting and election day. It’ll alleviate the long waits on election day itself and allow employers to stay open since not everyone is off the same day.
As it is, they record who votes. It’s how you can have multiple polling locations avaialbe but can only vote once.
It’s not a huge leap from that to being able to prove to your employer that you voted.
Unless the day off can only be used on voting day I think people will use it for their own purposes.
In Germany we always have elections on Sundays so it’s basically a public holiday (unlike in the US where stores are still open). There are enough places to vote (though you’re assigned to the one in your district for statistical reasons) so you rarely have to stand in line. I’ve seen pictures of voting lines in the US and was shocked…
Mail-in votes are available to everyone and it’s being used a lot but for many people going to the voting place in person has more meaning to it. Some even put on a suit, but that could also be because they are on the way to church.
Electronic voting was discussed but the consensus is that it’s not safe enough.
The question if it should be a public holiday in the US is weird to me as it is a very clear YES and also YES people should definitely always get a day off on public holidays wtf
I’ve seen pictures of voting lines in the US and was shocked…
Yeah, but those aren’t ubiquitous.
If you live in a suburb or rural area you can count on a dozen nearby polling stations and a 5 minute in and out.
If you live anywhere that supported the confederacy and might vote blue then you might have to deal with a 4-5 hour wait, coupled with provisional ballots that are not counted, voting roll purges, and other minor issues.
I guess what I’m saying is those crazy lines aren’t too much of an issue so long as you try to vote in a part of the country Hitler himself didn’t write of as an example of genetic enforcement to follow in Mein Kampf.
Thanks for the clarification!
In France, voting day is always a Sunday. And if you work on a Sunday (most people don’t), your boss has to schedule your working day so that you can go and vote.
Yeah, because in France they’re a hair trigger away from setting shit on fire, like all the time.
If that’s what it takes, I guess
This is a popular wish from MAGA types who have been told that mail and early voting is fraudulent, which isn’t supported by evidence.
If you can vote early or by mail, there is no need for a holiday on the one voting day.
At the same time, we can’t expect every grocery store worker, police officer, air traffic controller, and truck driver, and everyone else, to be off simultaneously on the same day.
I’m pretty far from a maga, and I fully support a federal holiday for it. It accentuates the importance of voting for democracy to thrive, IMO.
But I also think mail-in and early voting options should be a federal requirement as well. Right now states can impose limits on who is eligible for mail in, and that’s a huge problem.
To me its not one or the other, I think both should be done.
At the same time, we can’t expect every grocery store worker, police officer, air traffic controller, and truck driver, and everyone else, to be off simultaneously on the same day.
Here in BC, in Canada, you’re just guaranteed four hours off to vote. I think that with easier mail-in-voting (also easy to do here) would help you guys a lot.
You can instead have elections on the weekend, which gives more opportunity to vote without requiring a public holiday. Nobody would choose Tuesday if they were designing the system today.
And yes, early and mail voting should be universally implemented as well.
as a retail worker, i don’t ever get any other holidays off, why would my employer (or the insame amount of entitled shoppers) respect some new holiday?
They probably won’t, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This improves the situation. Just because it doesn’t help everyone isn’t a good enough reason not to do it at all.
If only we had some type of… I don’t know what the word for it would be… Well, some sort of system that the people in a society agree to be governed by that could force these businesses to respect this holiday…
Oh well.
Do you get any extra pay for working on a holiday?
Hah!
Good one!
Having worked retail in my younger days it’s maybe the worst role I’ve ever had (tied with the sales aspect of a job I had later on in my career).
Shit pay, shit hours, ever changing schedules, horrible management, toxic work environment, frequent abuses of employees (shit like working long hours with no breaks, surprise shift extensions because someone else called off, etc.), ridiculously petty rules and policies, etc.
The idea of any sort of pay for anything other than working the equivalent hours (or more…retail is notorious for trying to get free labor off the clock) is a fairy tale.
Never got paid holiday pay as a medic, firefighter, or county technical rescue. It was all just another day - 24/7/365…
In Australia we have pre-poll voting (early voting), mail-in ballots, and every election day is a Saturday - with democracy sausages.
And, importantly, preferential voting.
glancing at the current crop of Australian politicians
Seems like the system is still fucked.
Well, yes. Preferential voting is one key component, the other being a decent media so the public have an idea of what’s going on. Unfortunately Murdoch owns just about everything, and it’s a problem we’re still battling against.
a decent media so the public have an idea of what’s going on
You can’t have a decent media if it has been privatized, monopolized, and staffed with reactionaries.
it’s a problem we’re still battling against.
The problem is - as it has always been - a problem of moral hazard with regards to private interests generating income from public expenditures. The Murdochs aren’t simply ideological. Their control of the press affords an enormous windfall of state money via state contracts and grants, tax abatements, and revenue from privatized land and industry.
