Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jough]

Don't worry Slink, I'll vote once for you, too.

[Nabubrush]

You all have no idea how much I wish I could vote in this election. I mean, Bush's presidency has had such a huge impact on politics and whatnot over here, and the rest of Europe. I know other Europeans who want to be able to vote in this election too.

And lots of people here don't vote at all. That's so cool. I've never had to wait more than maybe 2 minutes to cast my vote. I had no idea that people had to wait to vote at all. Then I see on the news that people in Florida are waiting three hours to vote, and I'll be brutally honest, I assumed the GOP was trying to steal the election. Hmmm, who is brainwashed now?

[CortJstr]

We had 4 machines. We also had 4 machines last year when nobody gave a damn and like .1% of people turned out.

I heard on MD they're having problems with the smartcards. I seriously still think that the felt-tip pen system works the best and it's more scalable for big elections like this.

[V-Adore]

I, too, have overheard at least one acquaintance with the "the state is already tied up, so why should I vote?" I'm... yeah, fairly angry about that.

Long story short: due to a bizarre series of snafus with the state of Massachusetts, I am not eligible to vote. I'm fairly ashamed of myself for this -- but at least I attempted to register, even if it went horribly wrong. Choosing not to vote just weirds my shit out, although I can handle it if it's an actual moral/principled choice and not just apathy masquerading as political opinion ("the state's already locked" seems like shorthand for "I totally can't be arsed").

(My one comfort is that my vote was almost certainly not the only thing holding Massachusetts for Kerry, but still.)

[AugustWest]

I had about a 30 second wait at the firehouse.  It was pretty busy for us, though.  People coming and going.  Two precincts vote at the Firehouse and there were two people in front of me.  Pouring down rain.

[sjlimmer]

I had about a 30 minute wait at the firehouse, which wasn't too bad (although it was long enough that the 80 year old woman behind me had time to decide she needed to pray for my soul).  It could have gone faster, as only 1/3 of the voting booths were in use at any given moment, but the poll workers were hella slow.  It's just odd to me, because I never had to wait in Seattle.

But at least out here they still use punch cards, so I got to check for chads.  Will the excitement never end?

[wombat]

The spouse had to wait two hours with all the people who were trying to vote before they went to work.  I went at a nice unemployed-person's hour in the early afternoon and it only took 45 minutes but it was very aggravating anyway. Phooey on my fellow citizens.  The woman in front of me complained nonstop the whole time, everyone else kept talking so I couldn't read, even though I had thoughtfully chosen to wear my toothpastefordinner shirt that says SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.  We also had plenty of voting machines but not enough people to process the people in line, so there were machines standing idle while you're waiting around in line doing nothing.

In short, I find that having more people participate in our democracy isn't as great as it sounds.

Next time I will get an absentee ballot.  It's not like there's a Vacation Police who come around to make sure you're really out of town on election day.

[CortJstr]

I know for us they give you a 3 minute course on the machines unless you say "I voted in Arlington last year." So maybe those people were 3 minutes behind because of that. I also paused at one point because the category that I was up to started blinking and I couldn't actually read it until it stopped.

It's times like this that I wish that A) the What the HELL People shirt was done in a respectable font size and B) that I had purchased one.

[jough]

I had to wait about ten seconds to vote.  That's the only advantage of living in this backwater 'burb.

I've been voting on behalf of dead people.  It's amazing that they:

a) do not ask for ID, even when you tell them you are Sheila Waters,

and

b) do not compare your signature with the one on the voter registration card, even though it is right in front of them.

I may head over to a neighbouring district and vote again, although I'm out of recent dead people now.

Also, I have been trying to convince local slackers that they should write me in rather than vote for Kerry or Bush.  I am fairly certain that I've gotten at least four votes, which is a couple more than Nader is likely to get in this state.

The fact that I am not constitutionally eligible to be president until the 2012 election is beside the point.

[wombat]

I'm hoping that Jough is joking.  But they don't even ask us for a voter registration card - just name, address and birthday.  You could definitely vote as all the dead people you wanted.

I don't know what brand of voting machines we had, but it was touchscreen and I think it took me no more than thirty seconds. Admittedly it was a short ballot this time and I skipped some things I wasn't sure of, as usual (I guess I assume they take points off for wrong answers). Insane to have to wait in line that long to do something that took thirty seconds.   I wasn't even there long enough to notice if other people were taking longer.  

It sure couldn't have been easier - one of those rare instances where the computer really did make life better.  Now we just need to figure out a way to replace those people who look up your voter registration - that's what holds the whole thing up.  Couldn't we just have automatic retinal scans or something?

[AlohaDawg]

Arkabee's really cut through to the point here, AD. I don't remember ever voting on a national/state constitutional amendment before, but if I did and later found out that it had been misrepresented on the ballot, boy would I be pissed.

"Shall the constitution be amended so as to provide that all citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"

Amendment text: All citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms. All citizens who wish to do so must undergo thorough background checks and submit complete personal history to the state, along with an application fee equal to one third of applicant's annual income. Any citizen who fails the background check will be arrested and will serve three to five years in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass Prison."

It's a bad example, and I took it too far, but do you see what I mean?

You are right, it's a terrible example. Everyone does have the right to bear arms, but it does not excuse people from responsibility to obey the law nor does it restrict the states's interest in protecting the citizenry with responsible legislation around that right. You have a right to drive your car, too, but not when you're blind drunk. You have the right to free expression but you can't threaten or harrass anyone with it.

On the other hand, Defining marriage does not restrict anyone's behavior. It merely sets a standard by which the State will recognize a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals. You can still have your relationship blessed by the clergyman or clergywoman of your choice; you can still put any part of your body into any part of their body in the privacy of your home.

The state has an interest and right to define and regulate the relationships it sanctions and which can effect things the state has an interest in, such as taxes, probate, and commerce.

If enough people agree with you, the measure goes down. If enough people agree with them, the measure goes through. If a lawyer rights the right case, the measure goes down. Your lines of defense are the electorate and checks and balances - you should contribute money, time and talent to the campaign or the lawyers if you don't agree. I think it might just stand for awhile and we'll all learn a lot in the next few years. This issue is definitely not going away.

[CortJstr]

On the other hand, Defining marriage does not restrict anyone's behavior. It merely sets a standard by which the State will recognize a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals. You can still have your relationship blessed by the clergyman or clergywoman of your choice; you can still put any part of your body into any part of their body in the privacy of your home.

The state has an interest and right to define and regulate the relationships it sanctions and which can effect things the state has an interest in, such as taxes, probate, and commerce.

It completely restricts people's behavior. Two adults who love each other and marry share property, inheritance, have hospital visitation, share common custody of children, ability to adopt, share insurance, and other stuff I can't think of of at the moment. So preventing two people from marrying severely effects their behavior and their rights. Especially if they have children.

[Nabubrush]

ADawg, do you think there is some benefit to prohibiting marriage between homosexuals?

[Choop]

So eliminate federal government from marriage altogether! How's that for a differing viewpoint? True, cribbed from elsewhere (2 points to ye who knows), but somewhat valid: state governments have always been those which administer marriages; the feds jumped on when some candidate for federal office said, "Hey! Don't you want to pay less in taxes when you're married? Huh? Dontcha?" and the masses bit.

Anyway, you're missing my point, and the thread's veering. Back to the topic you've evaded somewhat: The text on the imaginary ballot which I proposed did not represent the amendment in full. My main beef with this? There's plenty of room on the screen/page/paper to print the entire text of the amendment, so why not do it? Toner costs? Oh, please.

[AlohaDawg]

ADawg, do you think there is some benefit to prohibiting marriage between homosexuals?

I think that Marriage is a sanctioned relationship rooted deeply in the state's interest to ensure stable families, succession of property and knowledge of lineage. Most of these predate modern law and also have persisted beyond their specific usefulness since we have so much law around these issues.

Hospital visitation policies have nothing to do with the law. They are the purview of the hospital. Similarly, property accession through instruments like wills and trusts can be assigned to any individual. The ability to adopt already exists in many places for gay couples. There are few to no examples of this supposed 'benefit' of being married. Mainly, it changes your tax status unfavorably. A link to the 'marriage benefit' would be interesting to me; I've seen both sides of that fence and aside from taxes, things didn't change much.

Additionally, once marriage is altered beyond the traditional meaning, a precedent is created by which any two individuals should be able to sue for marriage. Farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against once marriage is open to definition include brothers and sisters marrying, state-sanctioned polygamy,  uncles and nieces, and other less than savory possibilities including individuals 'marrying' animals. All of this sounds silly but once the threshold is broken these challenges will occur. That's just the kind of people we have around this great country of ours and a way to keep  those hosss in the barn is important in order to not let the entire institution of marriage - for anyone - become meaningless.

I think that Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Other sorts of couples who seek some kind of relationship that runs contrary to the values of the majority should be protected if that relationship is legal. I have yet to see a list of 'benefits of marriage' that I can agree with aside from health benefits which I think should be allowable in domestic partner benefits. This, though, should also be allowable if I want to cover my mother under my work-based health insurance. As a Christian and a conservative, I draw a distinction around these relationships that does not allow me to use the term marriage. My guess is that my conservative Christian view still sees homosexuality as a state outside of behavior prescribed by God and I probably won't change my mind about that soon.

I love my gay and lesbian friends but I don't think marriage is the correct term for their relationship. And I understand their love for one another and I've witnessed truly beautiful things (including parenthood) between them - I just look for another word to describe it.

I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...