Join 3,561 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Should Election Day be a holiday?
July 30, 2001 5:14 PM   Subscribe

Should Election Day be a holiday? Vote, then do some barbecue and watch fireworks... Will this be the development that could increase voter turnout, or will people just waste the day away? How else could voter turnout be improved?
posted by owillis (63 comments total)

 
"How else could voter turnout be improved" HARD LIQUOR AND HANDGUN NIGHT. kiddin. I believe auto workers get the day off.(at least G.M.)
posted by clavdivs at 5:39 PM on July 30, 2001


If I had the day off to vote, you better bet I'd be good and drunk when I went to the polls.
posted by dogmatic at 5:42 PM on July 30, 2001


I think it's a wonderful idea. Employers are supposed to allow employees time to vote, of course, but in many cases--especially in service industries or where people are on commission--it just doesn't work. This would be a major first step to reforming the election process.

Generally speaking, the other recommendations look pretty good as well. And, folks, maybe get yourselves hammered after you go to vote? That'll help ease the pain as the results come in...
posted by mrbula at 5:44 PM on July 30, 2001


Why can't election day be always on a Sunday, as common in most of Europe? While it would not give everybody the day off to vote, it would be at least a step into the right direction, no?
posted by noom at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2001


Why can't election day be always on a Sunday, as common in most of Europe? While it would not give everybody the day off to vote, it would be at least a step into the right direction, no?

Because that is the day that a minority of the country imposes on the remainder as a religious sabbath. ;-)
posted by nathan_teske at 6:00 PM on July 30, 2001


This would never work because the largest block of voters that stay away stay away for a reason. They work jobs that pay an hourly wage, and cannot afford to take the time to vote. It's not like if you made this a holiday then all the supermarkets, hospitals, gas stations, convenience stores would shut down. They rarely, if ever do that. It's just a stupid idea. The real solution to solving low voter turnout is wiping out voter apathy. Provide smarter candidates with better ideas, less corruption, and plans that make the apathetic voter want to join the process. Then we might have over 2/3 voting for a change.
posted by themikeb at 6:04 PM on July 30, 2001


The real solution to solving low voter turnout is wiping out voter apathy. Provide smarter candidates with better ideas, less corruption, and plans that make the apathetic voter want to join the process.

This would never work because the largest block of voters that stay away stay away for a reason. They work jobs that pay an hourly wage, and cannot afford to take the time to vote. It's not like if you made the candidates interesting then all the supermarkets, hospitals, gas stations, convenience stores would shut down. They rarely, if ever do that.
posted by kindall at 6:14 PM on July 30, 2001


How about making elections compulsory? Apparently it works in Belgium [pdf]and a great many other countries.
posted by noom at 6:15 PM on July 30, 2001


Same-day voter registration would do wonders. We have been the only country that required advance registration. That requirement has been identified as the biggest single obstacle to voter participation. Motor voter helped, and this would too.
posted by gwyon at 6:16 PM on July 30, 2001


How could voter turnout be improved? I wish I knew.

I worked in politics for years. The single most effective way I found to get people to vote was to nag them. That usually worked best on people I knew (as opposed to election-day call centers) because my scorn for their excuses mattered to them. Peer pressure, basically.

What I heard most often was either, "Fsck that, they're all crooks," or, "I vote with my pocketbook."

And that's for the general election. Off-year and down-ballot elections get almost no turnout, even here in liberal-Democrat Massachusetts.
posted by swerve at 6:16 PM on July 30, 2001


We now have a precedent: simply let the Supreme Court pick their choice and save the money of campaigning, ads, speeches, counting what ballots may or may not be allowed, etc
posted by Postroad at 6:23 PM on July 30, 2001


Was I the only one in this country with a Civics teacher (that was a Vietnam Vet) in eighth grade that guilted us into becoming lifetime voters with phrases such as "I almost DIED so you could vote. Don't take it lightly."
posted by mathowie at 6:26 PM on July 30, 2001


"How else could voter turnout be improved?"

hook us up with some good choices homie!

:)
posted by jcterminal at 6:26 PM on July 30, 2001


online voting!

I consider myself pretty politically aware, involved, and interested (maybe because I've only been able to vote for two years so far), but even I found myself dragging my feet when it came time to vote in local elections. and I had plenty of time in the middle of the day after my morning classes to walk two blocks to the local elementary school and vote, so I have no excuse there. I just didn't want to bother. (I did, but more out of a sense of obligation than anything else.) if it had been something on the internet, though, it never would have occurred to me not to.
posted by rabi at 6:30 PM on July 30, 2001


Ralph Nader is big on making election day a national holiday. I think its a great idea. I also think busing high school seniors to the polls on election day would be an effective way to get more people involved.

I don't know how why we can bank online but voting online is considered too susceptible to fraud. If you could vote through an ATM a lot more people would vote.

Election day should be a holiday. Cherish democracy is a mantra often heard. Lets celebrate it as well.
posted by keithl at 6:49 PM on July 30, 2001


Same-day voter registration would do wonders.

Hmph! As badly as the government has botched the instant background checks for gun purchases I wouldn't think that's such a good idea. If they had the same record for voter registration we'd have people bitching after every election about voter fraud, etc. Advance registration is in place to help prevent fraudulent voting and I don't understand what the big deal about it is - it's not like you need to register every year.

And anyway, if somebody can't get off their ass and register at some point during the entire year, who cares what they think on Election Day? I certainly don't...
posted by RevGreg at 6:52 PM on July 30, 2001


Proportional representation (liberals in Bob Barr's district, for example, have very little reason to go vote, neither do conservatives in practically any Massachusetts Congressional election).
A voting day holiday would help, worthwhile candidates would also help. (Perhaps some of those same people who think politicians are all crooks could run but, given the cost, that gets me into campaign finance reform, public funding being my particular preference, and we don't need more argument about that.) Mandatory voting is often said to be unconstitutional but I don't know why people should expect to get the benefits of government without its responsibilities. (There should be a none-of-the-above option for those who don't vote as a political statement but I doubt there are many of them. If NONE actually wins; new vote, new candidates)
posted by Octaviuz at 6:57 PM on July 30, 2001


Make it on a Saturday like in Australia
(and ah oh yes make it compulsory too)
posted by lagado at 7:49 PM on July 30, 2001


Here in Canada you get 4 consecutive hours off by law on voting day. The polls are usually open late, though, so the earliest I've ever left work is 4pm.

That being said, voter turnout is similar here to in the US, so I don't know how much it actually helps.
posted by sauril at 7:57 PM on July 30, 2001


Improving the quality of the candidates is wishful thinking, but improving the quality of the voting experience is another matter. First of all, I like the holiday idea, and to make it fair for those who work in the service industries, and who would work on those days regardless, how about allowing for voting throughout the entire day, i.e. polls open for 24 hours.

I that the logistics of this are certainly complicated and expensive, but if 7-11 can do it, I think the US government could hack it for one day. And, given the latest debacle here in the U.S. *cough*president-select*cough*, we owe it to ourselves as a country (in order to preserve unity and to preserve faith in the idea of participatory democracy) to keep those polls open to let every last willing person into those booths.

During the recent election, I was saddened to hear that judges in Missouri had ordered the polls in that state to close exactly at 7pm, even when there were people waiting in line outside the polls to vote.

We certainly don't make it easy for ourselves...and somehow we still get surprised by low voter turnouts.
posted by thewittyname at 8:09 PM on July 30, 2001


Hmmm...maybe not having the right to vote would motivate some people. I'm not sure how we could revoke it exactly, but the one thing that keeps me going back to the polls again and again is knowing that many women before me didn't have this right and some still don't.
posted by megnut at 8:14 PM on July 30, 2001


No need to make it a holiday. If you care at all about it, you'll make that effort & take time to vote. As far as I know, the polls are open for at least 12 hours or more. That's plenty of time to get to the voting booth either before or after work. If you know that you are not going to be able to make it on Election Day, there's always the absentee ballot. You don't have to be out of town to invoke this right, just request the ballot according to the policies of your local election board.

Having said that, I can accept the argument for the polls to be open for 24 hours. What I'd like to see is voting taking place during the same time period across the nation (including Alaska & Hawaii) so that the western states are not influenced by the exit poll predictions from the East Coast. with a 24 hour voting period starting & ending at the same moment across all states & territories, the population would have the greatest chance of casting ballots at their convenience.
posted by topless at 9:04 PM on July 30, 2001


I reject the premise that we should make voting easier. If people can't be bothered to vote chances are pretty good they won't be bothered to learn about the issues and make an informed choice either. Rather than making voting easier, I think we need to make it harder.
posted by willnot at 9:11 PM on July 30, 2001


Harder? Howzabout literacy tests and poll taxes? Yeah, that'll show 'em!
posted by aramaic at 9:37 PM on July 30, 2001


I'd say make proof of voting a requirement for all sorts of government services. No welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid for those who could care less.

Also abolish birth (and/or marriage) right citizenship and turn American Citizenship something akin to a driver's license. Anyone who has not voted in at least 3 of the preceding 4 elections would not be allowed to renew their citizenship and would be deported to a country of their choice.

Only that kind of strong arm democracy would make people turn out to vote. This is what the Founding Fathers would've wanted too.
posted by tamim at 9:41 PM on July 30, 2001


Harder? Howzabout literacy tests and poll taxes? Yeah, that'll show 'em!

Well, as I'm sure you know those particular obstacles were used primarily to discourage people of color from voting which makes those pretty untenable.

However, I don't think it's going too far to say if you want to vote you have to be able to pass the same test that immigrants must pass before becoming US citizens. How many naturally born citizens do you suppose would be able to pass that test? Not many without studying, but there are plenty people who barely speak English as a second much less first language who are able to prove they care enough to learn what they need to know to pass that test.

I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect naturally born citizens to show they have the same level of commitment to participating in the democratic process. I also would be willing to bet that money spent on TV ads and sound bites would become dramatically less important as a result. It might just take big money right out of politics and make our representatives more responsive to the will of the citizens.
posted by willnot at 10:21 PM on July 30, 2001


> How could voter turnout be improved?

Cash + Saturday Elections.

Add 50 bucks to everyone's tax bill. You have to vote to get it back, but when you do get it back, it is in cash and immediate, as soon as you step out of the voting booth. Then you walk to the pub. You drink. Because your country blows.
posted by pracowity at 11:45 PM on July 30, 2001


Why is low voter turnout necessarily a bad thing? Those who care, turn up. Those who don't, shouldn't be voting in the first place. Simple.

I usually stay home, though, because I honestly don't see the difference between the two major parties in this country. Increased government interference in the economy, or in my private life? Gee, that's a simple choice. Not.
posted by dagny at 2:05 AM on July 31, 2001


I'd say make proof of voting a requirement for all sorts of government services. No welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid for those who could care less.

Also abolish birth (and/or marriage) right citizenship and turn American Citizenship something akin to a driver's license. Anyone who has not voted in at least 3 of the preceding 4 elections would not be allowed to renew their citizenship and would be deported to a country of their choice.

Only that kind of strong arm democracy would make people turn out to vote. This is what the Founding Fathers would've wanted too.


Yeah, that's got freedom written all over it. "Strong arm" democracy? It's called facism...
posted by RevGreg at 3:11 AM on July 31, 2001


I usually stay home, though, because I honestly don't see the difference between the two major parties in this country.

And apparently, so do a large number of your compatriots. And guess what, if you all voted for the "can't see the difference party", you'd most likely win.

My suggestion: a more proportional voting system, and "none of the above" on the voting slip.
posted by holgate at 4:28 AM on July 31, 2001


Hmmm...maybe not having the right to vote would motivate some people. I'm not sure how we could revoke it exactly ...

That's easy -- as the Republicans are demonstrating in Florida. Keep toughening up the laws so that everything's a felony. Then don't let convicted felons vote.
posted by rcade at 5:17 AM on July 31, 2001


Perhaps we could do something to make sure our vote counts when we cast it. Like make us all Extreme Court Justices.

"..there is no right to suffrage.." -Antonin Scalia 12-2000
posted by nofundy at 5:22 AM on July 31, 2001


However, I don't think it's going too far to say if you want to vote you have to be able to pass the same test that immigrants must pass before becoming US citizens.

Requiring voters to pass a test beforehand is unconstitutional.
posted by rcade at 5:29 AM on July 31, 2001


Keeping poles open 24 hours, as they are currently run, would be impossible. They have a very hard time trying to find people to work as it is. The Holiday (make it a monday, 3 day weekend!) might help in this area too.
posted by Mick at 6:01 AM on July 31, 2001


The Holiday (make it a monday, 3 day weekend!) might help in this area too.

Yeah, that would really boost voter turnout.

"Vote? I was at the beach! It was a 3 day weekend!"
posted by straight at 6:15 AM on July 31, 2001


I honestly think that money is the best incentive. Take an extra 50 dollars in taxes from everyone, but refund it immediately, in cash, when the voter leaves the booth.

People do have opinions and do prefer one candidate over another. Almost everyone you meet has a political opinion. Only half of them vote, but the opinions of nonvoters are no less valid than the opinions of those who vote. Many of the stay-at-homes may be stupid and uninformed, but they aren't necessarily stupider or less informed than Joe Patriot who tramps downtown every election day to make his bias is heard.

People who still refuse to vote would benefit the country by donating 50 dollars toward debt reduction.

And if that's unconstitutional, change the damned constitution.
posted by pracowity at 6:30 AM on July 31, 2001


Wait, we're still allowed to vote?
posted by Outlawyr at 6:40 AM on July 31, 2001


That's easy -- as the Republicans are demonstrating in Florida. Keep toughening up the laws so that everything's a felony. Then don't let convicted felons vote.

Ha. Plenty of felons voted in Florida. They just didn't vote Republican.

"..there is no right to suffrage.." -Antonin Scalia 12-2000

You sure are obsessed with taking a quote out of context. Scalia said there was no right to suffrage in the federal Constitution, but that suffrage rights are administered by the states.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:53 AM on July 31, 2001


I'm with Dagny -- I don't see why we should do anything artificial to increase turnout. Those who care about the political choices on offer will vote, those who don't, won't. Absentee ballots are available for those who cannot get the day off. After all, I don't want vegetarians having a say in the variety of hamburgers I can order at McDonalds.

I oppose same-day registration for the same reason: voting should reflect deliberation and investment in the community in which one resides, all of which required that one have made a decision to be an involved voter prior to the day of the election.

I am (guardedly) in favor of on-line voting if it can be assured to be reasonably secure and subject to off-line audits.
posted by MattD at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2001


Keeping poles open 24 hours, as they are currently run, would be impossible. They have a very hard time trying to find people to work as it is. The Holiday (make it a monday, 3 day weekend!) might help in this area too.

While keeping the polls open 24 hours would be impossible, they should be open much earlier and close much later. I would recommend opening at 5 AM and closing at midnight. This would have the added advantage of cutting down on the election night speculation by the media, as polls would not close until long after primetime.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:07 AM on July 31, 2001


Advance registration is in place to help prevent fraudulent voting and I don't understand what the big deal about it is - it's not like you need to register every year.

It is necessary for some people to register every year: the poor. They have the highest rate of address change per year, as they are often on the run from rent collectors, rising rents or are always searching for a better rate. In a city like New York, where moving just a block can put you in a different congressional district, you might have to re-register every single time you move. I've registered five times since January 1993.

Not only that, but as happened in Florida, it is common for names to be struck from the voting rolls based upon a challenge. In largely Democractic New York City, a Republican-conservative faction in the election commission challenges as many registrations and currently enrolled voters as possible every year, particularly in truly liberal areas like the Upper West Side. That, too, has happened to me. I arrived at the poll to find my signature missing. I filled out the paperwork on the spot to re-active my voting privileges, but six weeks later I got a letter back (a crappily copied, unsigned form letter, mind you) saying my vote had been annulled. I was a registered voter who had not moved since the previous election.

If they had the same record for voter registration we'd have people bitching after every election about voter fraud, etc.

This is a rather blind view of reality. Voter fraud is largely caused (these days, anyway), by preventing people from voting, not by people voting repeatedly or when they shouldn't. If my existence and identification can be validated by a simple credit card machine in every store in the country, by every customs booth in every International airport in the land, by automatic teller machines from here to San Diego, why, then, is on-the-spot registration such a big deal? Not only that, but in New York City registration amounts to filling out a piece of paper with your name, address and signature. What kind of validation or verification is that? None, none at all.

Advance registration is a barrier to voting and should be eliminated.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:43 AM on July 31, 2001



The biggest obstacle to turnout is not Election Day, its registration. Let people register two weeks before the election. That's when people become most interested....
posted by brucec at 7:51 AM on July 31, 2001


In case anyone is interested in taking a naturalization test, here is a link to the one the INS offers prospective citizens for practice.

Just to add my two cents - although I think a voting holiday is a good idea, I think most people would treat it about the same way they treat Memorial Day or Veteran's Day - a long weekend with no particular meaning. How many average Americans know what Labor Day commemorates? How many visit a war vet's grave on Veteran's Day or Memorial Day? As has been mentioned several times, I don't think the problem is lack of time to vote, I think it's lack of incentive, because our choices generally suck.
posted by jennaratrix at 8:03 AM on July 31, 2001


Make it on a Saturday like in Australia
(and ah oh yes make it compulsory too)


And then all religious Jews would either have to break the law by not voting or break the sabbath by voting. Hmm, which to choose? I know which way I'd go.

Clearly Saturday/Sunday voting is not the answer. Whether the general MeFi population respects or reflects it, this is still a very religious nation and there will never be a consensus toward choosing any major religion's day of sabbath as an election day.

If there is really a necessity to increase open poll time to increase voter turnout, then why not do what some nations do - have 3 weekdays, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and have the polls open 7 am to 9 pm each of those days. That would eliminate the need for anyone to miss work, school or other obligations, violate their religious principles and would likewise eliminate the complaint that there wasn't enough time to get to the polls.

Advance registration is a barrier to voting and should be eliminated.

I would agree, but considering that your place of residence is almost as important as your identity in determining your eligibility to vote in a particular precinct, and since precinct lines can be redefined between elections for local, state and national offices, there has to be some method of matching voter to voting place that would be inherently difficult at the time of voting without demanding that every voter also maintain some official proof of residence, which can typically only be found on a driver's license or state-issued identification.

It's one thing to say that everyone must mail/turn in a form within 45 days of the election. Everyone who would have the (physical and mental) ability to vote, either by normal means or absentee ballot would have the ability to procure and return a registration form. But not everyone who has the ability to vote has or has the means to procure a driver's license or state issued ID card. What would be feasible alternatives?
posted by Dreama at 8:15 AM on July 31, 2001


People who still refuse to vote would benefit the country by donating 50 dollars toward debt reduction.
I think donating should be in quotes.
posted by thirteen at 8:48 AM on July 31, 2001


Requiring voters to pass a test beforehand is unconstitutional

I'm not constitutional scholar, but can you source that for me?

The only place I could find that might suggest that as a violation would be the 14th amendment. However, we obviously still needed the 15th to specifically give rights of suffrage to persons of color or former slaves, the 19th to specifically give rights of suffrage to women and the 24th to eliminate poll taxes.

I only reviewed the text very quickly, but given that, and the fact that I was unable to find anyplace where the right to vote (in particular for President) was specifically provided to every citizen, I'm not sure that this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

is as broad in granting protection from tests as it might seem.
posted by willnot at 8:51 AM on July 31, 2001


A missed point: Republicans favor low voter turnout. Why? 'Cause most of those who stay home are working class, disenfranchised people who, if presented with a good candidate and with easier access to polls, would overwhelming vote left (not necessarily Democratic, as the DNC is much more akin to the GOP these days.) That's why none of the reforms proposed will pass in the GOP-controlled House.
posted by mapalm at 9:13 AM on July 31, 2001


A missed point: Republicans favor low voter turnout

Also missed: incumbents favor low voter turnout because it gives them an advantage in making use of motivated supporters at the polls.

The electoral process in this country has been shaped by 200+ years of incumbent elected officials more interested in retaining their own power than in enfranchisement of the masses. Elections are held on inconvenient days at limited times with restrictive registration rules to disincent as many voters as possible. Barring that, elected officials also have managed to leave as many opportunities for fraud into the vote-tallying process as possible, again to give them the advantage.

Dubya himself said it the other day: "dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier". Our esteemed elected officials at every level of government, regardless of party, seem to agree.
posted by briank at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2001


Willnot: I can't remember the name of the case, but I'm thinking of a Supreme Court decision from the '60s that declared tests that measure civics understanding unconstitutional. Literacy tests were also prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
posted by rcade at 10:15 AM on July 31, 2001


Hello. Federal Holiday? Yes, lets shoot ourselves in the foot. No federal/state/city employees means no public transportation, noone working the polls, noone making sure that voting is going as planned.

But. As mentioned, the grocery stores would still be open, gas stations, hospitals, airports etc. It wouldn't help those people.

We have the right to demand time off during elections. Perhaps we could make it paid (I actually thought it already was, but can't find it in writing), make it easier to take ballots home and send them in later.

But a holiday seems it would actually create more hassle and less incentive to go out and vote.
posted by witchycal at 11:32 AM on July 31, 2001


Add 50 bucks to everyone's tax bill.

Problem: Not everyone that is legally enfranchised pays taxes. My sister, who's 18, voted in the 2001 election buy she doesn't pay any taxes. (why? She doesn't have a job; she spends all her free time working with disabled children.) People who are absolutely destitute don't pay taxes either, but are still allowed to vote.

A $50 deposit on voting sets up an un-Constitutional restraint on voting eligibility---if you don't have $50, you don't get to vote.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:51 AM on July 31, 2001


Hello. Federal Holiday? Yes, lets shoot ourselves in the foot. No federal/state/city employees means no public transportation, noone working the polls, noone making sure that voting is going as planned.

But. As mentioned, the grocery stores would still be open, gas stations, hospitals, airports etc. It wouldn't help those people.


Just because a day is a federal holiday does not mean that all government workers must be given the day off. All election days are county holidays where I reside, however the county employees who are directly responsible for voting-related matters must work. They are given another day off or comp time in exchange.

Similarly, I don't know of any local transport that is shut down because it is a federal holiday. Reduced in scope, perhaps, but shut down entirely? Not in any city large enough to necessitate public transport to get to a polling place. Most urban-dwelling Americans vote within 2 miles of their homes, after all.

As for the others, some places cannot ever fully close, like hospitals and airports. That does not mean that the granting of holiday status wouldn't allow for non-essential personnel to have the day off. Nor does it mean that accomodations couldn't be made to allow essential persons to have time off to go to the polls.

Btw, what the hell does noone mean? Gah, 'net shorthand sucks.
posted by Dreama at 12:03 PM on July 31, 2001


It's a word in need of an umlaut.
posted by Octaviuz at 12:07 PM on July 31, 2001


correction: no one. easier?
posted by witchycal at 12:28 PM on July 31, 2001


>>Make it on a Saturday like in Australia

>And then all religious Jews would either have to break >the law by not voting or break the sabbath by voting. >Hmm, which to choose? I know which way I'd go.
>Clearly Saturday/Sunday voting is not the answer.

Clearly religion is the problem. Note to the religious, stop using your faith as an excuse not to perform your democratic and patriotic duties.

And stop slacking off! Get a job.
posted by lagado at 4:41 PM on July 31, 2001


> A $50 deposit on voting sets up an un-Constitutional
> restraint on voting eligibility---if you don't have $50,
> you don't get to vote.

No, it doesn't. If someone's that poor, the government is probably already supporting you. It could also pay them to vote.
posted by pracowity at 10:58 PM on July 31, 2001


I think tamim is on to something. Requiring proof of vote for driver's licenses and gun ownership sounds interesting. That isn't saying that you must vote for a candidate, the poll must also include "none of the above" as a choice.
posted by johnnyace at 3:44 AM on August 1, 2001


pracowity: It is only the reality that your plan will never be adopted, that is keeping my brain from popping. Taxing people to control their behavior is a bad idea, and corrupt to the core.
posted by thirteen at 9:01 AM on August 1, 2001


> It is only the reality that your plan will never be
> adopted, that is keeping my brain from popping.

If that's all that's holding things back, you can be sure I'll work extra hard to get it adopted.
posted by pracowity at 10:47 PM on August 1, 2001


you can be sure I'll work extra hard to get it adopted.
You are sweeter than sugar. Here is a big stone for you to push uphill too.
posted by thirteen at 1:53 PM on August 2, 2001


It is a VIRTUAL stone!!!
posted by thirteen at 1:55 PM on August 2, 2001


Yeaaahhh. I didn't think so.
posted by thirteen at 4:19 PM on August 5, 2001


hey buddy, over here...(WAM)
posted by clavdivs at 5:20 PM on August 5, 2001


« Older Vegas Hotel Testing Video in E-Mail Campaign...  |  Code Red.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments