Conference turris::womannotes-v2

      
    Boy, its stuff like this that makes me not want to vote at all.
    
    this is a society of human beings and i think we should vote as
    such.  i mean isn't right right, or is there a right thing for
    women and a right thing for men?
    why don't we just have seperate places for men and women to vote?
    then we could go even further and have men live on the east half
    of the country and women on the west half.
    
    Bob  (who didn't get enough sleep last night)

    I'm a bit puzzled as to how anyone would be able to correlate
    "last-hour" votes with the voter's sex.  Only exit polls would be
    able to do this, but I don't think they care about WHEN you voted.
    
    Also, the three-hour time zone difference across the country would
    dilute any "statement" this would make.
    
    I think BPW should simply be urging women to vote - no matter when
    in the day they do it - rather than playing silly games like this.
    
    				Steve

    Actually, I think it sounds a good idea.  Women are rather often told
    that, e.g., if we had really wanted the ERA we could have seen it
    ratified because we have 52% of the vote.  I think we've been
    politically invisible so long that we don't really have a sense of how
    powerful that 52% would be if we really got together and voted en bloc.
    This might be a very good way of getting a hint.
    
    						=maggie 

    re .1,.2
    
    Yes, I agree that it's silly to divide by sexes BUT too often women
    are overlooked as having political clout.  The intent is to have
    attention to the number of women who have a voice, through the
    right to vote.
    
    The last hours of the polls were chosen, because that is the time
    when the media starts naming the victor.  No big deal when you're
    on the east coast, but frustrating when you're on the west coast.
    
    This is probably going to open a pandora's box of political views.
    The intent of the note is to propose a manner in which women can
    make a difference.  I hope the day will come when this type of
    segregation is not necessary in order to be heard.
    
    Judi
    

If I may be permitted a cynical viewpoint for a moment...

1. Assume that the "business and professional women's vote" is Democratic.

2. Assume that the Democratic candidate is predicted to lose by the
   pre-election polls.

3. Assume that exit polling (during the morning/afternoon) shows the
   Republicans are ahead.

Then.

4. Republican voters, assuming it's all over and they're not needed, go
   back to sleep.

5. Democrats turn out at the last minute, when their votes will count,
   but not be registered in the exit polls.

6. The Dewey vs. Truman election of 1948 repeats itself.

Dukakis has hinted that this election may be a repeat of 1960, when
Kennedy won by a margin of about 8,000 votes in Illinois.  1960 offers
other parallels: the Republican was the vice-president of a well-loved
grandfatherly figure who served two full terms.

Martin.

re .5

>Dukakis has hinted that this election may be a repeat of 1960, when
>Kennedy won by a margin of about 8,000 votes in Illinois.  1960 offers
>other parallels: the Republican was the vice-president of a well-loved
>grandfatherly figure who served two full terms.

	But will Dukakis garner the Cook County graveyard vote that propelled
	Kennedy into the Presidency?

	To push the parallel further, does this mean that the Duke will not
	serve out his term, and his successor will get us into a decade long
	land war?


						Tom_K

Re: .5

>4. Republican voters, assuming it's all over and they're not needed, go
>   back to sleep.

  My fear is that the exact opposite will occur.
  If East Coast Democrats (expected to lose the election) don't
  vote early in the day, the media's announcements of their
  predictions of a Republican victory may make the West Coast
  Democrats feel that the Democrats are too far behind, and that
  "my vote won't make a difference", and , therefore they might not
  bother to vote. It would be a shame to lose the election in this
  manner.

    How about if none of us vote untill the last three hours??

    This approach could backfire in either (or both) of two ways.
    
    First, as mentioned in .8, people are swayed by media projections,
    and a deferred block of votes could convince a large number of
    people not to vote if the results look sealed up early.
    
    Second, there's the very real risk that women following this
    advice would get effectively disinfranchised by missing the window:
    if there are sufficient crowds at the last minute, there might
    not be room indoors for everybody who wants to vote before they
    shut the doors at closing time; further, if you time it that
    finely and then get delayed you might simply arrive too late
    to vote.
    
    Since poll takers generally distinguish among the various
    demographic groupings anyway, the way women vote should be clearly
    understood - so why take the risk?

Er, when _are_ the last 3 hours? Or do all towns/states have different
hours?

>    Since poll takers generally distinguish among the various
>    demographic groupings anyway, the way women vote should be clearly
>    understood - so why take the risk?

I'm sorry Paul, but it's obvious to me that nothing about women is clearly
communicated by the media. I enjoy trying new things and taking risks. Smashing
the patriarchy is all about taking risks.

	Mez

    
    52% of vote is powerful indeed.  But the problem is women have
    different opinion on every issue, especially on women's issue,
    like ERA and abortion.
    
    So the last three hours vote won't help to tell any difference.
    Actually most of working men will vote in the last three hours.

    Re: .11
    
    "smashing the patriarchy"??????????

    I had thought that the media were generally prohibited from reporting
    results until after ALL the polls had closed.  This was to prevent
    exactly the sort of thing suggested by .5.  Am I mistaken?
    
    				Steve

    RE: .14
    
    Steve, the way it works, I believe, is that each state must wait
    until the last polling place within the state has closed, until
    votes are counted/reported.
    
    However, what's been happening the last few elections is that the
    networks have been conducting "exit" interviews. They ask a sample
    of the voters leaving the polls what candidates they voted for
    and some demographic info.
    
    Then they feed this information into some computerized model, and
    make their projections.
    
      Alan

    I withdraw my objection to the BPW organization trying to entice
    women to vote at a specific time.  (Actually, I didn't object, I just
    thought it was silly.)
    
    It occurs to me that this game may actually encourage some women
    to vote who might not otherwise have done so, and thus it has a
    net positive effect.  I don't see any possible negative effect.
    
    I still think that it is naive to believe that voting at a certain
    time will have any discernable effect.
    
    				Steve

    There aren't any laws prohibiting early announcement of election
    results, but they've more-or-less agreed to not announce the results on
    the east coast until the polls have closed on the west.

    I think that it would be a good idea to vote as a bloc (how about
    friends-of-women voting the three hours before that?). I've also always
    had a fanatasy of being polled by an exit poller. This year I'd tell
    them that I voted a write-in for Dan Quale...

    					-- hs

    Re: -.1
    
      How true.  Given the current race and ignoring some of the polls
    it wouldn't be hard to imagine this being one of those rare elections
    where the popular vote indicates a different winner than the electoral
    vote.  Its sad how the electoral votes currently look, considering
    most polls have them essentially running neck and neck.
    
    Bush: 200-250
    Duke: 100-150  *sigh*

       A group that has political clout is much more likely to be heard
       and heeded by people who make the laws.  In the US, the groups
       with clout are the ones that give lots of money to political
       campaigns and the groups who vote in large enough numbers to
       affect an election.   So, if women either contribute lots of money
       as a group (is there a women's PAC?) or speak with a unified voice
       at the polls, then politicians would be more careful to listen to
       their agenda.
       
       In terms of voting, though, women have not spoken with a unified
       voice.  Dukakis certainly seems to have a higher rating among
       women than among men, but Bush still is favored by 45% or more
       women.  The conclusion is that a lot of women who disgaree with
       Bush on some traditional "women's issues" (abortion, ERA) have
       made their presidential choice based on other issues -- economy,
       fear that the Commies will land on the shores of Texas, or
       whatever.   Women voters in the US have clearly shown that they'll
       not vote as a bloc for or against candidates based on issues such
       as ERA and abortion -- there is no other way to explain away
       the failure of ERA to be passed by 38 legislatures in 14 years.
       
       Even in this conference -- and I doubt that anyone would seriously
       contend that the women who contribute to and moderate this
       conference represent an accurate cross-section and representation
       of socio-political thinking among women -- you'll not find
       unanimity (or near-unanimity) among women's political views. And,
       unlike ethnic groups who often vote as blocs for a candidate who
       represents that group, women have not voted overwhelmingly for
       candidates just because they were female.
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: The idea of voting "in the last three hours" is, to be kind,
       stupid, dumb, and silly.  First of all, the networks only project
       state-by-state winners based on actual votes counted after the
       polls close.  When a national winner is projected, it is based on
       one candidate winning an insuperable majority of electoral votes
       in those states _where the polls have already closed_, and nothing
       that might happen in those states where the polls are still open
       would alter the overall result.  Moreover, the "last three hours"
       business would apply only to voters in the Pacific states. 
       
       Political parties and news organization will determine how women
       and other groups voted, and they'll use exit polls to get the
       information. 

    
    	This election may hinge on how California and Texas vote,
    	so, hopefully, there won't be too much early projecting.
    
    	I read recently about how we ended up with the electoral
    	college, as opposed to the popular vote.  Times have
    	changed, maybe this is something that should change too.
    
    	Sharon

    re: .22
    
    I work in the Los Angeles office.  FWIW, most of my women friends
    are voting for Dukakis...  I know I am.
    
    Colleen

    Mr. Topaz,
    
    You wondered why the ERA had not been passed by sufficient states
    to become part of the U.S. Constitution.
    
    If every man [sic] who had run for office on a pro-ERA platform,
    and had accepted pro-ERA money, and had been elected to that office
    had actually voted FOR the ERA, it would be the law of the land
    today.
    
    Eleven male elected officials went back on their word  (How
    extraordinary!) when there was no longer time to vote them out of
    office, put in someone new, and try again.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .25
    
    Ann,
    
    My recollection is that the ERA failed largely because it was
    voted down in referendum ballots in many states.  Yes, some states
    did rescind their ratification - an event I find mind-boggling.
    But I don't see how individual politicians can be blamed for the
    defeat.  Can you elaborate?
    
    				Steve

    The ERA would have passed in *enough* states if those eleven
    officials (spread over several states, with close ratification
    fights) had voted as they had said they would.
    
    Do you understand now?
    
    							Ann B.

    re .23:
    
    > ... would indicate that a popular vote
    > was considered.  The framers of the Constitution never even considered
    > such a radical idea!
    
    Wrong. See The Federalist Papers. There is frequent discussion of
    the various forms of government from pure Grecian democracy to
    despotic tyrrany.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
               
                     

       re .25:
       
       Ann --
       
       No, you're mistaken, I did not wonder why the ERA wasn't passed.
       The point of my note was to suggest that even during the years
       that ERA was before the state legislatures, there was no bloc vote
       based on women's issues. 

       My contention is that the 10 or 12 (or however many) years that
       the ERA was before the state legislatures was an opportunity for
       women to consolidate their votes and make ratification of the ERA
       their #1 priority in elections.  This simply didn't happen;
       legislatures in at least 18 states did not ratify the amendment.
       No doubt many people in those states worked long and hard for
       ratification and some voters made their decision based on
       candidates' stands on the ERA, but I don't see any evidence that a
       women's bloc manifested itself, certainly not anywhere close to
       the sense of the bloc votes for which many ethnic groups are
       known.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

        You may not be able to show a trend among women voters by voting
    during the last three hours, but would absentee ballots show such
    a trend among women voters?
    
    ASP

Re:  .31

>  ... would absentee ballots show such a trend among women voters?

Absentee ballots are the most likely ballots to be counted late or not at all.
(They have to be counted by hand, and it's a rather cumbersome and somewhat
error-prone procedure.)  The best way to show a trend is just to vote in
large numbers in a perfectly normal way.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)