People vote everywhere, but the procedures differ vastly.

We here in Finland just had Local elections, and I'm always fascinated by this picture:
http://dt.iki.fi/stuff/democracy_in_finland.jpg
Those billboards are everywhere! So much to choose from!

The booth was in a public library, and it looked like they were only voluntary workers there. All very casual.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/li...ctions/9555803

So, what is it like in your place?

Moved: This thread is more suitable in <General> and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

In the USA, there is a fairly-obvious issue of geographic area. The country stretches "from sea to shining sea," and it is composed of 48 (continental ...) States "from here to there," and four time zones. In addition to the Federal layer of government, there are additional layers at States, Counties, and sometimes Cities. There are many logistical issues with regards to elections, which occur at various times in all of these layers, and there is not perfect consensus as to the technologies that are used. However, "the sanctity of elections and of the voting process" – whether it actually exists or not – is profoundly important to the psyche of this country.

Many complexities arise from this multi-layered system of governance. City and County councils, State governments, and the Federal government all wrestle over the same issues, and sometimes rely upon Courts to figure it all out. (Before contesting the jurisdiction and/or the decisions of those same Courts!) Nevertheless, "the American Experiment™" still seems to be more-or-less working.

Quite honestly, I think that it really comes down to The People, and to their collective determination "to make(!) <<whatever system they have come up with>> work for them."

At the end of the day ... "do they, as a company of Human Beings, care ... yea, do they passionately(!) care ... about 'their' Country, whether it be 'big' or 'small' or even 'tiny'?"

If they do, then "one way or the other, it will work." ... Indeed, nothing can stop them.

If enough Human Beings(!) are determined ... are determined enough(!) ... to "achieve self-rule," then they will find a way to do it. They will(!) devise a way that pragmatically works for them, in their (geographic and otherwise ...) situation.

as someone said "Democracy" is for people that cannot make up their minds.

thanks for your input, sundialscvs, but I was really interested in more concrete reports (as per thread title), and not opinions.

this.

I must apologize ondoho, I thought you were American and in your other thread (taking about NATO and money creation), I meant "certainly not in America" (but once again at least most other country's, as well). As for your current thread, syg00 has beat me to it and I don't have a better answer for ya, sorry.

http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/oregon...gistration-law

In Oregon, everyone votes by mail, there are no voting booths. However, you can drop off your ballot at a local county elections office or a ballot return box, if you prefer.

Regards...

That one was character building. I voted below the line.

Edit: for non Australians, that originally meant consecutively numbering every candidate (there were just over 100 in Victoria) - the requirement has since been reduced to 12.

My point is that throughout the USA everybody does it differently. There is no national standard with regard to voting equipment or procedures – only certain minimal Federal requirements. Each State (or region) counts and reports its own votes. Some States – notably California – allow "referendums" to be added to the ballot, which become law outright if passed by the voters. Other States do not. Some States allow elected officials to be "recalled" – fired. Other States do not. And, so on.

When electing a President, it is actually the States who vote, through "electors," in a two-tiered election designed to compensate for the vast population difference between the States. (Wyoming has 1% of the population of California, whose population equals that of the next three most-populous States combined.) This is how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote (thanks only to California ...), but lost the election.

In the UK, having first-past-the-post voting keeps the number of parties down, although not the the extent that it does in the USA.

Voting is done with pen and paper, the polling stations are public or church buildings, and the staff are local government officers seconded from their usual jobs. That enables us to have lots of polling stations: unless you live on a farm, you're usually within walking distance and there won't be a queue. And, of course, everyone is registered to vote, so it's your own fault if you don't. You can apply for a postal vote but, unless you're housebound or live halfway up a mountain, that always seems a bit pointless to me.

One odd thing is that we always vote on a Thursday! No-one is quite sure why. It's often said that it was so that country people would be in town (Thursday being a common market day) in the 19th century, but the custom only dates from 1935.

so what's that thick black line in the photo?
and what does "voting below the line" mean?
i didn't quite understand the explanation.

as you can see in my op, there are hundreds of candidates, but i don't see any form of hierarchy there, there's no "top twelve" or anything like that, i don't even see anything like one main candidate per party. they all seem to be totally equal.

The thick black line is "the line" I was talking about. There are two ways of voting for the Senate:

(1) Voting "above the line" where you put a "1" in the box for your preferred party (not candidate) and then your preferences for all the candidates will be determined by the party you just voted for;

(2)Voting "below the line" where you (now) put the numbers 1-12 in the boxes of your 12 most preferred candidates (not parties). When the above/below line system was first introduced if you voted "below the line" you had to put a number in EVERY candiate's box for your vote to be counted. The first Senate election with this system had over 100 candidates for 10 senate seats in my state.

We have a preferential voting system in Australia, and voting is compulsory.

Edit: And any party can field any number of candidates for the Senate.

ok, thanks for the explanation.
i think i like it:
above the line: i can't be arsed to think more than 5min about this whole politics thing
below the line: i have given this lonng thought and know exactly who i want

i also like the implication that parties are only one way of looking at this; after all the parliament is just a bunch of people in a room voting for things, no matter which party they belong to.
you are given the choice to vote either people or parties.

wow.
now that is cool (although i'm sure plenty o'folks complain and find very compelling arguments against it).

And from my point of view none of them are worth voting for. All just want to get their snout in the publicly funded trough - Animal Farm comes to mind. Often.