43
edits
Changes
→How exactly does it disenfranchise?
:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early. Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early. Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::::Yeah, no, that argument fails on so many levels, most importantly in that a candidate's major goals and beliefs have long since been outlined long before election day. The difference between October and November is a month of gaffes and attack ads that don't sway anyone.
::::See: Luks , Samantha, Joanne Miller, and Lawrence Jacobs . "Who Wins? Campaigns and the Third Party Vote." Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33.1 (2003): 9-30.
::::Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Helen Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice. New York: Duell, Sloane, & Pearce.
::::Most people who vote are doing so for any number of reasons: most of them having to do with partisanship, the economic performance of the previous 18 months, and pervious voting patterns. Honestly, it makes sense, you would never have voted for Obama no matter when you voted, and most people who voted for President made their decision a long time ago. The fact of the matter remains, candidates are not a single decision such as in a trial, but part of a continuum of partisan decisions, with very few exceptions. [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)