NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been something weighing on my mind for a while now, and I fear it's time to let it out. This may shock some of you, but here it goes. I, Neo Art, attorney, political scientist, democrat, raving liberal, supporter of the constitution and advocate of democracy...

has never voted.

My first presidental election was Clinton/Dole in 1996. At that point I was in college in Connecticut, and the state was solidly blue.

In 2000 I was still there, and Gore's Connecticut victory, with Lieberman on the ticket, was assured. I could have still registered in NY and vote for Hillary, but frankly, I was so unenthused about her I couldn't make myself do it

2002 saw me in Massachusetts, with Kerry on the ticket, an assured lock, I didn't bother.

By 2004 I was in "better dead than red (and by red we mean Republican)" Massachusetts, with their very own John Kerry on the ticket. Frankly I couldn't be bothered, even moreso.

2006 looked like a year I could get behind, with the candidacy of Deval Patrick for Massachusetts governor, but a bad flu knocked me out and I couldn't make it.

But I have made up my mind this year, both for personal reasons, and to send a message on the political sphere. For the first time in my life I see a candidate WORTH voting for, even if I'm merely adding one drop in the sea of votes Barack Obama will be getting from Massachusetts.

So, that's my confession. Who else here has never voted, but plans to in this election?

edit: of course I'm tired and Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in 2000, not 1998. I don't recall any candidate I could have voted for being up for office in 1998

I've never voted, and I sure as hell don't plan to anytime soon. Of course, I'm just now edging on 21, so I've still got a lot of time to vote once the time comes... But even then, I doubt I will. :p

For what it's worth, I've never voted in those elections either, for many of the same reasons. Sure, I've cast my vote for local and state officials, but I've rarely seen the point in casting one more vote for a man that is expected to receive over 80% of the votes. I cast my 2004 ballot with the presidential section purposefully left blank, and I similarly did not cast a vote for Patrick in 2006, but did vote for my state representative. If I lived in a battleground state, perhaps it would be different, but there's a certain sense of apathy in voting in a state that is so solidly blue.

I have managed to vote in every election since becoming of age except one (including primaries). The only one I have missed is the one that CT didn't send my absentee ballot untill too late (almost a month late, to be exact.)

I have never voted, then again, I don't live in my country and haven't since I was 20 so that's my excuse.

For what it's worth, I've never voted in those elections either, for many of the same reasons. Sure, I've cast my vote for local and state officials, but I've rarely seen the point in casting one more vote for a man that is expected to receive over 80% of the votes. I cast my 2004 ballot with the presidential section purposefully left blank, and I similarly did not cast a vote for Patrick in 2006, but did vote for my state representative. If I lived in a battleground state, perhaps it would be different, but there's a certain sense of apathy in voting in a state that is so solidly blue.

I have no excuse this year...while other years I had to dig up stamps and such, this year, I'm actually registered in MA, and the polling location is literally less than a minute walk from my apartment...plus, there are two ballot initiatives I'm excited about (weed and income tax)

BTW...you or Neo Art...my roommate and I were wondering what kind of voting machines Boston uses...we're both CT transplants, and were just wondering.

weed

Say whatwhatwhat?

*wants more info*

For what it's worth, I've never voted in those elections either, for many of the same reasons. Sure, I've cast my vote for local and state officials, but I've rarely seen the point in casting one more vote for a man that is expected to receive over 80% of the votes. I cast my 2004 ballot with the presidential section purposefully left blank, and I similarly did not cast a vote for Patrick in 2006, but did vote for my state representative. If I lived in a battleground state, perhaps it would be different, but there's a certain sense of apathy in voting in a state that is so solidly blue.

that's the problem with the electoral college isn't it? If you're in a state like MA, or Texas, you know that nothing you do can POSSIBLY change the outcome.

It would be one thing if I was living in red states, then I could at least cast my vote symbolically, against the majority. I didn't even get to enjoy the "I knew I was going to lose but GOD DAMN IT I DID IT ANYWAY!" feeling. Clinton, Gore, the other Clinton, Kerry, Kerry again, and Patrick were all pretty much certain to win the state I could have voted in

YOU SCUM!! You've never voted??!! No more sexy talk for you, you slacker, until you start exercising your damned rights as if they mean something -- which they fucking well do!! Ugh! And to think, I've posted fluffle smilies to you and all the while you were....complacent. Eeeewww!!

I've skipped plenty of local elections, but I have not missed a presidential or Congressional election since Reagan, which is when I came of voting age. Ye gods, I think I would have been disowned by my family if I had ever skipped a presidential election.

Vote, Neo. Just do it. For me.

I don't mean vote for me, because I'm not running -- you know what I mean, do it!

Not to be a complete and total dick, but I have to point out that there are elections every year, not just every other year, so you've actually missed quite a few more than you pointed out (Sorry, but it's true). Also, even the bigger elections with assured to win (or lose) candidates have more than just those candidates on the bill. Local and state officials, ballot initiatves, referendums, etc. Some local ordanances can literally pass or fail on the presence (or absence) of a single vote, and I mean that literally, not just that "every vote counts" schtick we all know is bull. So...yeah, bad civic duty.

Of course, I have yet to vote, either (Except for the primaries a few months ago), so maybe I should just shut my mouth....nah, that's just not fun.

Say whatwhatwhat?

*wants more info*
The state of MA is currently considering decriminalization of marijuana...rather than criminal charges, the charge for 1 oz or less of weed would be to surrender it and pay a $100 fine.

My state is always, always in play, so I have always very much felt it important to vote. I agonized when I was 16 or 17 and votes were taking place on issues where I knew perfectly well that I was better-informed than 99% of voters. The only times I could have voted and didn't since I turned 18 were extremely minor local elections (e.g. the only thing on the ballot was rather or not to reelect the mayor of the town I technically live in, population approximately 600, who was running unopposed). I was actually sick in the hospital during the 2004 election, and I spent the whole morning arguing the doctors into letting me out just long enough to vote.

I have no excuse this year...while other years I had to dig up stamps and such, this year, I'm actually registered in MA, and the polling location is literally less than a minute walk from my apartment...plus, there are two ballot initiatives I'm excited about (weed and income tax)

BTW...you or Neo Art...my roommate and I were wondering what kind of voting machines Boston uses...we're both CT transplants, and were just wondering.

Fuck if I know. All three elections I've been able to vote in, I've been out of state for. I was up in New Hampshire for college in 02 and 04, and was in North Carolina for work in 06. This will be my first election where I actually go to the polling location myself.

Ow, havig by jaw hid de floor lige dat hurds by teef. <gets ice pack>. Since I'm one of those genetically-disposed-to-vote folks, I too am curious to see if anybody else changes their behavior this election.

Say whatwhatwhat?

*wants more info*

There's a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. I think it's an ounce or less will only be a fine.

The state of MA is currently considering decriminalization of marijuana...rather than criminal charges, the charge for 1 oz or less of weed would be to surrender it and pay a $100 fine.

Hey, at least it's one step closer to legalisation...

that's the problem with the electoral college isn't it? If you're in a state like MA, or Texas, you know that nothing you do can POSSIBLY change the outcome.

It would be one thing if I was living in red states, then I could at least cast my vote symbolically, against the majority. I didn't even get to enjoy the "I knew I was going to lose but GOD DAMN IT I DID IT ANYWAY!" feeling. Clinton, Gore, the other Clinton, Kerry, Kerry again, and Patrick were all pretty much certain to win the state I could have voted in
I have a friend who is in a curious spot due to the electoral college. She lives in Boston, and, given our current prop on income taxes, wants to vote no (she is an education graduate, but underemployed with me), but lives in New Hampshire (no longer so much of a swing state by current polls, but enough that she didn't swap registration). Tis a shame that we don't have one more vote to protect the taxes.

I have no excuse this year...while other years I had to dig up stamps and such, this year, I'm actually registered in MA, and the polling location is literally less than a minute walk from my apartment...plus, there are two ballot initiatives I'm excited about (weed and income tax)

BTW...you or Neo Art...my roommate and I were wondering what kind of voting machines Boston uses...we're both CT transplants, and were just wondering.
I hope I'm not wrong but I think all of Mass uses optical scan machines. That's what they use in Somerville, where I live, which is just across the street from Boston (Charlestown).

You fill out a paper ballot and feed it to the machine which scans and counts it.

I am surprised and are the exact opposite. I'm an uneducated stripper, but have never missed an election. However, I'm not sure I'm going to vote this time, but I think its a good thing, as everyone I've ever voted for has lost. So hopefully, by not voting, my candidate will win.

YOU SCUM!! You've never voted??!! No more sexy talk for you, you slacker, until you start exercising your damned rights as if they mean something -- which they fucking well do!! Ugh! And to think, I've posted fluffle smilies to you and all the while you were....complacent. Eeeewww!!

I've skipped plenty of local elections, but I have not missed a presidential or Congressional election since Reagan, which is when I came of voting age. Ye gods, I think I would have been disowned by my family if I had ever skipped a presidential election.

Vote, Neo. Just do it. For me.

I don't mean vote for me, because I'm not running -- you know what I mean, do it!

^ What Mur said.

(Well, except for the Reagan part. I was busy being a little kid then (although I knew my mother thought Reagan was a moron, so I probably would have voted against him if I could and still been better informed than a lot of voters). :tongue: )

that's the problem with the electoral college isn't it? If you're in a state like MA, or Texas, you know that nothing you do can POSSIBLY change the outcome.

It would be one thing if I was living in red states, then I could at least cast my vote symbolically, against the majority. I didn't even get to enjoy the "I knew I was going to lose but GOD DAMN IT I DID IT ANYWAY!" feeling. Clinton, Gore, the other Clinton, Kerry, Kerry again, and Patrick were all pretty much certain to win the state I could have voted in

I don't know if Patrick was a lock, but for all the presidential elections I've been old enough for, there really isn't much motivation to get my vote in.

I mean, our state does things like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/1972_Electoral_Map.png

But I do always participate in local and state elections. Those are far from locks.

I voted for the first time in June, on the remaining primaries date in New Jersey.

Fuck if I know. All three elections I've been able to vote in, I've been out of state for. I was up in New Hampshire for college in 02 and 04, and was in North Carolina for work in 06. This will be my first election where I actually go to the polling location myself.
Where, if you don't mind me asking, are you? I remember you saying you're just outside the city (I think) and I know you go to Ruben...but thats it (tg me if you want, or don't tell me. I can survive. I'm just curious. And curious about how the ink came out)
Hey, at least it's one step closer to legalisation...
better than nothing.
I hope I'm not wrong but I think all of Mass uses optical scan machines. That's what they use in Somerville, where I live, which is just across the street from Boston (Charlestown).

You fill out a paper ballot and feed it to the machine which scans and counts it.
I didn't know you're a slummer.

I'm used to the old school CT machines of flick the switches and pull the levers...so I just don't want to fuck up.


BTW...again, to the greater Boston people...what is with all the Sununu ads? Does the Boston media actually even hit NH?

I don't know if Patrick was a lock, but for all the presidential elections I've been old enough for, there really isn't much motivation to get my vote in.

I mean, our state does things like this:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1972-us-election-results.jpg

But I do always participate in local and state elections. Those are far from locks.

actually I WOULD have voted for Patrick if I were capable of getting out of bed.

Funny in that map how blue is nixon.

BTW...again, to the greater Boston people...what is with all the Sununu ads? Does the Boston media actually even hit NH?

You know, I've been wondering that myself. It's like all those damned Sonic commercials.

When was the last time you saw a Sonic within 500 miles of Massachusetts?

Funny in that map how blue is nixon.

Yeah I found a better one.

I don't know if Patrick was a lock, but for all the presidential elections I've been old enough for, there really isn't much motivation to get my vote in.

I mean, our state does things like this:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1972-us-election-results.jpg

But I do always participate in local and state elections. Those are far from locks.
Were you keeping track of how close the votes in many states were in the last two presidential elections? With the current political divide in the US, every vote does actually count. This is not the time to think "the other guy will take care of it."

and, by the way, holy shit there are a lot of MA folks. We should get together or something.

Eh, it used to be tradition to switch the colors every election, but the media has worked so hard polarize the public that Red and Blue now actually define states, rather than indicate their voting results. Tsk tsk

You know, I've been wondering that myself. It's like all those damned Sonic commercials.

When was the last time you saw a Sonic within 500 miles of Massachusetts?
The closest, according to the Sonic website, is New Jersey. And the food looks amazing.

BTW...again, to the greater Boston people...what is with all the Sununu ads? Does the Boston media actually even hit NH?

Though this wasn't addressed to me, heck yeah. When I was in school in NH I could get WGBH et al. on the TV in the basement using a crappy antenna. What was hard was getting the NH stations.

My confession is that - for all my political talk, I've not voted in almost a decade.

My 'defence' is that I can't vote in my adopted country yet, and choose not to interfere in the politics of the nation where I no longer reside.

So... I don't feel bad :)

Where, if you don't mind me asking, are you? I remember you saying you're just outside the city (I think) and I know you go to Ruben...but thats it (tg me if you want, or don't tell me. I can survive. I'm just curious. And curious about how the ink came out)

BTW...again, to the greater Boston people...what is with all the Sununu ads? Does the Boston media actually even hit NH?

I'm out in Natick now. I was living in the city a few years back, but no longer.

And yes, the Boston stations definitely get all the way up to Manchester. Since I think NH only has maybe an NBC affiliate, Sununu has to run ads on Boston stations. I just wonder why Shaheen hasn't.

You know, I've been wondering that myself. It's like all those damned Sonic commercials.

When was the last time you saw a Sonic within 500 miles of Massachusetts?

You get Sonic commercials? Maybe there is a Sonic hidden somewhere in Boston! Then I could move to Boston and still have Sonic burgers... *dreams*

There has been something weighing on my mind for a while now, and I fear it's time to let it out. This may shock some of you, but here it goes. I, Neo Art, attorney, political scientist, democrat, raving liberal, supporter of the constitution and advocate of democracy...

have never voted.

Fixed. Neurotic.

I've only been old enough to vote in one presidential election (missed 2000 by less than 8 months), but I damn well voted in it--even though I was voting from college in Santa Cruz, commie liberal anarchist mecca of the U.S. I figure, I don't vote, I don't have a right to bitch. And I like to bitch.

"Don't look at me, I didn't fuckin' vote for him."

Can't take the blame for Kerry, either; I voted for Kucinich. :p

and, by the way, holy shit there are a lot of MA folks. We should get together or something.

Potarius is moving to PA soon, and we were talking about meeting up. I vote yes.

Potarius is moving to PA soon, and we were talking about meeting up. I vote yes.

Sweet, Sdaeriji, Mur, what say you?

Fixed. Neurotic.

Don't get all teachery on me, miss teachery mcteachy pants.

Were you keeping track of how close the votes in many states were in the last two presidential elections? With the current political divide in the US, every vote does actually count. This is not the time to think "the other guy will take care of it."

Like I said, maybe if I lived in a state where that was true. But, in the elections I've been able to vote in, the Democrats won the state 62-36 and 60-32, respectively. Kerry won his senate seat in 2002 without even having a Republican challenger. Kennedy won his senate seat in 2006 69-30. National elections in this state are pretty clear cut.

The closest, according to the Sonic website, is New Jersey. And the food looks amazing.

Aw, man, NA gets my hopes up and you dash them to the ground... :(

And indeed, Sonic's burgers, tots, onion rings, and other goodies are delicious. They are pure artery-clogging yumminess.

Sweet, Sdaeriji, Mur, what say you?

not to hijack the thread, but there are several CT people as well. GM and LG come to mind, and I know there is atleast one other that I'm missing.

I haven't missed voting in a Presidential election since 1980. I have sat out one or two mid-term congressional ones though. Most radical vote was for Mary Cal Hollis, Socialist Candidate - she is a personal friend of mine and promised her she'd get at least one vote in her home state (and she got 4, me, her two brothers and her mom).

You get Sonic commercials? Maybe there is a Sonic hidden somewhere in Boston! Then I could move to Boston and still have Sonic burgers... *dreams*

We only wish. I've hoped and wished for this, but it's just not the case. They only get as close as Jersey.

Sweet, Sdaeriji, Mur, what say you?

Darn it, you all should wait until I successfully move back that way! I'm fun, I promise! :p

not to hijack the thread, but there are several CT people as well. GM and LG come to mind, and I know there is atleast one other that I'm missing.

I know there's a bus from hartford that gets to Boston in under 2 hours.

We could seriously gather some folks together.

You get Sonic commercials? Maybe there is a Sonic hidden somewhere in Boston! Then I could move to Boston and still have Sonic burgers... *dreams*

Off-topic: Sonic's national strategy has involved running lots of national ads, which means it's drummed up interest in markets it has no restaurants in, like Boston. Generally people have been going nuts when Sonic actually makes it into the market. Folks around here have been going bonkers now that we (technically) have one in the market, though I'm not so sold on their menu that I'll drive out to Aurora. (Two problems: one, the drive takes forever; two, when you get to Aurora, you're in...Aurora.)

It's like what Krispy Kreme did (before they diluted their brand,) only with TV instead of word-of-mouth and psychics and whatever else KKD used.

I was feeling apathetic about voting in NY, but luckily my college said that I am allowed to vote in Indiana. Whoo swing state!

Out of curiosity to those who have voted, what was the most contested election that you have voted in? Not on a national level (IE, not gore/bush unless you were in florida), but on the state level (senators, the deciding state in a pres election, etc)

mine was lieberman/lamont.




I'm very, very VERY sorry to say I went lieberman, and have been regretful ever since.

The closest, according to the Sonic website, is New Jersey. And the food looks amazing.

I had tater tots from there once. Nothing special. We get the adds all the time too, but the closest one is 30 miles away and there are, like, 8 in the whole of NorCal.

I know there's a bus from hartford that gets to Boston in under 2 hours.

We could seriously gather some folks together.

The Acela stops in New Haven and New London, also.

Don't get all teachery on me, miss teachery mcteachy pants.

I had to miss class today for a long, boring seminar. I couldn't work out my teachery impulses!

I didn't know you're a slummer.

I'm used to the old school CT machines of flick the switches and pull the levers...so I just don't want to fuck up.
We had those in NYC, too. I liked them. Casting one's vote was very satisfying with all those heavy mechanical clunks. I always expected them to tally my votes and spit out a bag of chips.

My polling place is great because it's staffed by the same 150-year-old women every year, who seem somehow to know me (paranoia), and the ballots still freak me out. I make them show me how to do it every election. You give your address/name to the old ladies and get a big giant paper ballot in a big secrecy envelope. You take it to a little cubicle type desk, take it out of the envelope, and fill it out with a provided black marker, by carefully and neatly filling in the middle of an arrow next to the name of your chosen candidate.

Take your time. Do not rush. You don't want to make a mistake.

Then you put it back in the envelope, but with the top sticking out a few inches, and take it to another set of old ladies, give your name/address again, then move to the machine. At this point, I usually make the old ladies help me again to make sure I feed it into the machine right. The machine just sucks it out of the envelope and displays a preliminary count.

Later, the machine tallies all the ballots it has eaten.

BTW...again, to the greater Boston people...what is with all the Sununu ads? Does the Boston media actually even hit NH?
They steal our cable. ;)

*is shocked by irreverent Americans*

*crows over Australian compulsory ballots*

... but even if it wasn't compulsory, I'd vote. Ever since the "pre-electoral rolls" thing came in, I've dragged my kids down to register with the Electoral Commission on their 17th birthday to make sure they're eligible the minute they turn 18.

How could they not vote, when it was so hard for ordinary people like us to get the vote? It's ... it's ... *sputters* ... betrayal of our ancestors!

And if you think your vote doesn't count, it's up to you to get out there and make it count! (I continue, waving a motherly index finger at them). It's like muscles and brains: use it or lose it.

(Of course, there's always the niggling thought that maybe, once those little blighters get into the booth, they don't vote the way I do. But I can always disown them, or blame it on their father.)

Out of curiosity to those who have voted, what was the most contested election that you have voted in? Not on a national level (IE, not gore/bush unless you were in florida), but on the state level (senators, the deciding state in a pres election, etc)

mine was lieberman/lamont.




I'm very, very VERY sorry to say I went lieberman, and have been regretful ever since.

I backed the losing horse in the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election. Romney beat O'Brien 49-45. :(

We had those in NYC, too. I liked them. Casting one's vote was very satisfying with all those heavy mechanical clunks. I always expected them to tally my votes and spit out a bag of chips.

My polling place is great because it's staffed by the same 150-year-old women every year, who seem somehow to know me (paranoia), and the ballots still freak me out. I make them show me how to do it every election. You give your address/name to the old ladies and get a big giant paper ballot in a big secrecy envelope. You take it to a little cubicle type desk, take it out of the envelope, and fill it out with a provided black marker, by carefully and neatly filling in the middle of an arrow next to the name of your chosen candidate.

Take your time. Do not rush. You don't want to make a mistake.

Then you put it back in the envelope, but with the top sticking out a few inches, and take it to another set of old ladies, give your name/address again, then move to the machine. At this point, I usually make the old ladies help me again to make sure I feed it into the machine right. The machine just sucks it out of the envelope and displays a preliminary count.

Later, the machine tallies all the ballots it has eaten.


They steal our cable. ;)

I love the CT voting machines. They really make you feel powerful...pull the lever, there's all kinds of clinking, the curtain closes, you flip a lever or two, pull the big one, more clinking, and the curtain reopens.


And fucking New Hampshireites...

Sweet, Sdaeriji, Mur, what say you?
Say when and where.

Or, I have two art weekend events coming up this month and next. You all could come to those. They're free.

Off-topic: Sonic's national strategy has involved running lots of national ads, which means it's drummed up interest in markets it has no restaurants in, like Boston. Generally people have been going nuts when Sonic actually makes it into the market. Folks around here have been going bonkers now that we (technically) have one in the market, though I'm not so sold on their menu that I'll drive out to Aurora. (Two problems: one, the drive takes forever; two, when you get to Aurora, you're in...Aurora.)

It's like what Krispy Kreme did (before they diluted their brand,) only with TV instead of word-of-mouth and psychics and whatever else KKD used.

Yeah, the closest one here is in Tracy, and who the fuck goes to Tracy voluntarily? For something other than meth? Even then, the meth probably has to be on clearance.

Krispy Kreme was devastating when I finally tried it. So airy and plain. Donuts not made by Cambodians are just not worth eating.

*snip how you vote*

Same here, except that instead of putting that slip in a big machine, they put it in... a black hardtop briefcase with a slit cut in it. No, seriously. This is how we roll in SILICON FUCKING VALLEY.

Out of curiosity to those who have voted, what was the most contested election that you have voted in? Not on a national level (IE, not gore/bush unless you were in florida), but on the state level (senators, the deciding state in a pres election, etc)


It doesn't get much more contested than the 2006 election in Missouri, especially on the two biggest votes of the election - the McCaskill/Talent Senate race and the stem cell research amendment. It was something like 1 AM before any station would call the former, and something like 4 AM before they'd call the latter, given how tight the votes were. I went to bed late but awfully happy that night knowing that I had darn well mattered.

Out of curiosity to those who have voted, what was the most contested election that you have voted in? Not on a national level (IE, not gore/bush unless you were in florida), but on the state level (senators, the deciding state in a pres election, etc)

Good question. On a national-government level, I can't think of any really contested elections I've voted in. A couple at the local level -- there was an election for alderman that was close enough to trigger an automatic revote. We supported the non-incumbent, who won the revote by a razor-thin margin and then proceeded to be only slightly less disappointing than his predecessor. I still vote for whomever's the less connected candidate, but that was the last time I let myself care.

It doesn't get much more contested than the 2006 election in Missouri, especially on the two biggest votes of the election - the McCaskill/Talent Senate race and the stem cell research amendment. It was something like 1 AM before any station would call the former, and something like 4 AM before they'd call the latter, given how tight the votes were. I went to bed late but awfully happy that night knowing that I had darn well mattered.

ours was slightly less contested for the actual election...3 candidates running...the republican had little to no chance, and lieberman/lamont had almost split the dems...it was up to independents (the majority of the state). Lieberman too all of his dem voters, and enough independents to declare a victory.

I will say that my reasoning was sound for voting for the guy...I only wish that he had maintained what I voted for.

I backed the losing horse in the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election. Romney beat O'Brien 49-45. :(
Same here. I was new in the city and knew nothing about O'Brien. All the Bostonians told me she was crooked. But I looked at Romney, listened to him talk, and said, "There is no way I'd vote for that SoB."

Yeah, the closest one here is in Tracy, and who the fuck goes to Tracy voluntarily? For something other than meth? Even then, the meth probably has to be on clearance.

Krispy Kreme was devastating when I finally tried it. So airy and plain. Donuts not made by Cambodians are just not worth eating.
Krispy Kreme are anathema in Massachusetts. This is the sacred homeland of Dunkin' Donuts.

Also they creep me out. The first time I ever had one, it literally deflated between my fingers -- yet somehow, I couldn't pull it apart. It just wasn't natural.

Same here, except that instead of putting that slip in a big machine, they put it in... a black hardtop briefcase with a slit cut in it. No, seriously. This is how we roll in SILICON FUCKING VALLEY.
Is the black briefcase handcuffed to some guy's wrist?

Though this wasn't addressed to me, heck yeah. When I was in school in NH I could get WGBH et al. on the TV in the basement using a crappy antenna. What was hard was getting the NH stations.Interesting.

I'm out in Natick now. I was living in the city a few years back, but no longer.

And yes, the Boston stations definitely get all the way up to Manchester. Since I think NH only has maybe an NBC affiliate, Sununu has to run ads on Boston stations. I just wonder why Shaheen hasn't.
Moving for the twinkies. I see how it is.

Shaheen has had a few ads around here. That's the only way I know what Sununu stands for at all.

You get Sonic commercials? Maybe there is a Sonic hidden somewhere in Boston! Then I could move to Boston and still have Sonic burgers... *dreams*
When you moving here? And what area?

Only once in a Presidential election, 2004. For Badnarik. I don't regret it, I was voting in Illinois and my other option was to vote in Texas.

My polling place is great because it's staffed by the same 150-year-old women every year, who seem somehow to know me (paranoia), and the ballots still freak me out. I make them show me how to do it every election. You give your address/name to the old ladies and get a big giant paper ballot in a big secrecy envelope. You take it to a little cubicle type desk, take it out of the envelope, and fill it out with a provided black marker, by carefully and neatly filling in the middle of an arrow next to the name of your chosen candidate.

Take your time. Do not rush. You don't want to make a mistake.

Then you put it back in the envelope, but with the top sticking out a few inches, and take it to another set of old ladies, give your name/address again, then move to the machine. At this point, I usually make the old ladies help me again to make sure I feed it into the machine right. The machine just sucks it out of the envelope and displays a preliminary count.

Later, the machine tallies all the ballots it has eaten.

Oh, you have the fill-in-the-arrow ballots too? Those seem to work OK as long as your judges aren't idiots (http://www.mndaily.com/2008/02/06/invisible-ink-tornadoes-long-lines-cause-trouble):

Some votes were apparently lost when about 20 folks at a Chicago precinct were given styluses designed for touch-screen machines instead of ink pens. When voters complained the devices made no marks on their paper ballots, a ballot judge told them the markers were full of invisible ink.

"After 20 people experienced the same problem, somebody said 'Wait, we've got 20 ballots where nobody's voted for anything,' " said Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen. Officials were trying to contact the voters; Allen said both the voters and the judge believed the invisible ink theory.

When you moving here? And what area?

Hopefully sometime in the next few months, and I don't know yet. I miss New England dearly, and I recently lost my job here in Kansas City, so I really don't have anything in particular holding me here except for a lack of funds. I've been sending my resume to employers both here and in the greater Boston area, so if one of the latter offers me a job first, I'll be headed out a few days later to crash on friends' couches while I hunt for a cheap apartment. :)

...speaking of which, any of you Boston folks happen to know of someone who'd like a mildly disorganized and promptness-impaired but quite smart and charming employee with great hair? :tongue:

Oh, you have the fill-in-the-arrow ballots too? Those seem to work OK as long as your judges aren't idiots (http://www.mndaily.com/2008/02/06/invisible-ink-tornadoes-long-lines-cause-trouble):
Geez-gods. :rolleyes:

I can only hope such idiocy would not happen in the metro area that houses BOTH Harvard and MIT, among other institutions of higher learning, but one can never be sure.

Hopefully sometime in the next few months, and I don't know yet. I miss New England dearly, and I recently lost my job here in Kansas City, so I really don't have anything in particular holding me here except for a lack of funds. I've been sending my resume to employers both here and in the greater Boston area, so if one of the latter offers me a job first, I'll be headed out a few days later to crash on friends' couches while I hunt for a cheap apartment. :)

...speaking of which, any of you Boston folks happen to know of someone who'd like a mildly disorganized and promptness-impaired but quite smart and charming employee with great hair? :tongue:

No, but if I find them, I'll be sending them my resume.

I do, however, know of a bedroom that will be opening in Allston come December with quite a reasonable rent and two charming, though often drunk, roommates.

Geez-gods. :rolleyes:

I can only hope such idiocy would not happen in the metro area that houses BOTH Harvard and MIT, among other institutions of higher learning, but one can never be sure.

Do you commies over in Cambridge even have elections?

Geez-gods. :rolleyes:

I can only hope such idiocy would not happen in the metro area that houses BOTH Harvard and MIT, among other institutions of higher learning, but one can never be sure.

That would be assuming that academics are less prone to lapses of common sense than other folk, which, sadly, is mere folly. On the plus side, few small-d democratic systems are as aggressively pro-stupid as the one we have in the good ol' County of Cook. Massachusetts voting probably works better simply by being more apathetic by comparison.

You could probably get a UK postal vote if you wanted one. Hurray for Banana republic electoral systems.

I admit I often fail to vote in the local council elections (although this will change for the next ones as I live pretty much right next door to my local polling station) but I always make sure I vote in general elections. Especially as I live in an area where the Lib Dems have half a chance of winning.

I have voted in every issue available since I registered when I was 18. This will be my first year not to vote in the presidential election. I'm still going to vote, because there are some stupid bills on the ballot and also I have to go vote against Kern and Inhofe (like it will matter) but as far as the prez.......my candidate isn't on the ballot so poo.

Being only 21, last presidential election I couldnt vote. And due to a clerical error on behalf of the great and epicly competent (HA!) government of IL, I wasnt officially registered until last year.

Not even kidding.

I can understand your reasoning there; with the electoral college it just doesn't matter sometimes. I have engaged in the opposite sort of behavior. In both 2000 and 2004 I voted for a democrat in the very Republican state of Georgia. I knew my vote would be wasted going into it, but I still went out and voted regardless.

This year I'm in Massachusetts. My vote, again, will likely not matter (but for the opposite reason, obviously). I'm still going to vote, but this year I'm feeling much more excited about it, because of how important I see this election as being.

I also admit that I've never voted, since I signed onto the electoral role too late for the election here (:(), though now I'm signed up I can ride the fun-filled adventure that is Compulsory Voting!

Wow. I'm more American than you.:p

Right now I'm waiting for my absentee ballot so I can go ahead and vote early. Yay voting.

I say He is a smart man

As Democratic elections are just a system of how you choose to face the next several years of damnation under a corrupt piece of *cough*, the best option is simply dont vote

If you vote for side A, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you vote for side B, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you dont vote, yes other people could say that if you voted for the 'other guy' then things wouldnt be so bad, but at least you didnt help vote the crap one in

I say He is a smart man

As Democratic elections are just a system of how you choose to face the next several years of damnation under a corrupt piece of *cough*, the best option is simply dont vote

If you vote for side A, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you vote for side B, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you dont vote, yes other people could say that if you voted for the 'other guy' then things wouldnt be so bad, but at least you didnt help vote the crap one in



How profound. Youre still here?

I have not voted. There were times I was going to vote, but I didn't feel well and I didn't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot.

I have voted in every issue available since I registered when I was 18. This will be my first year not to vote in the presidential election. I'm still going to vote, because there are some stupid bills on the ballot and also I have to go vote against Kern and Inhofe (like it will matter) but as far as the prez.......my candidate isn't on the ballot so poo.
cant you write her in?

i havent been IN the country for the past ....12 november election days and i have still voted in every national election. early voting is the best!

We only wish. I've hoped and wished for this, but it's just not the case. They only get as close as Jersey.

I got you hooked on Sonic :D

cant you write her in?

i havent been IN the country for the past ....12 november election days and i have still voted in every national election. early voting is the best!

We aren't allowed to write on the ballot other than to use the marker to fill in the arrows. Last presidential election there was an arrow of "abstain" though so maybe I'll do that.

We aren't allowed to write on the ballot other than to use the marker to fill in the arrows. Last presidential election there was an arrow of "abstain" though so maybe I'll do that.
wow

it seems undemocratic to not be able to at least write in the name of the candidate of your choice.

I say He is a smart man

As Democratic elections are just a system of how you choose to face the next several years of damnation under a corrupt piece of *cough*, the best option is simply dont vote

If you vote for side A, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you vote for side B, and it goes to crap, you helped vote them in so you get blame
If you dont vote, yes other people could say that if you voted for the 'other guy' then things wouldnt be so bad, but at least you didnt help vote the crap one in

Logic not your strong suit?

Your little 'calculation' doesn't account for voting for a party NOT responsible for it going to crap. If you vote A, and B gets in, and it goes to crap - you were actually part of the attempted fix.

Not voting doesn't absolve you of who gets in - it makes you complicit, because you COULD have voted against them.

wow

it seems undemocratic to not be able to at least write in the name of the candidate of your choice.

Smunkee should sue!

I'll vote on the day there is a worthy candidate. So far I have yet to vote.

I have voted in every single election I have been allowed to since I became enfranchised. Municipal, provincial, federal...union elections, association elections, my nation's elections, etc and so on. I would feel ridiculous if I didn't, and so should you, Neo Art. :P

wow

it seems undemocratic to not be able to at least write in the name of the candidate of your choice.

It certainly does, but apparently that's the case in OK. Sounds like the no-write-in law's been challenged every recent Presidential election cycle, and was just upheld again (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/06/oklahoma-court-denies-injunctive-relief-for-barr/).

Do you commies over in Cambridge even have elections?
Excuse me. Slummerville. Not Cambridge. And I think they call what they do over there "elections."

I have voted in every issue available since I registered when I was 18. This will be my first year not to vote in the presidential election. I'm still going to vote, because there are some stupid bills on the ballot and also I have to go vote against Kern and Inhofe (like it will matter) but as far as the prez.......my candidate isn't on the ballot so poo.
If McCain wins, I'll blame you.

Excuse me. Slummerville. Not Cambridge. And I think they call what they do over there "elections."

Oh. You mentioned Harvard and MIT, so I only assumed.

If McCain wins, I'll blame you.

If McCain wins, we all eat chips! :D

Oh. You mentioned Harvard and MIT, so I only assumed.
Typical. You forget that we're on an international forum and if I'd mentioned Emerson, Tufts, Northeastern, etc., a lot people wouldn't know what those are.

Let's just say the whole metro Boston area is chock-a-block with people who cop an attitude like they can read or something.

If McCain wins, we all eat chips! :D

Make sure that my chips are lead paint chips, dipped in arsenic. It'll ease the pain of a McCain win for me.

Make sure that my chips are lead paint chips, dipped in arsenic. It'll ease the pain of a McCain win for me.

As you wish.

I never vote. The chances of my vote having any affect on the outcome are zero. Where I live is one of the most solid Conservative seats in the whole of Britain, which they would only lose if the party totally collapsed to single figure numbers of seats nationwide. Whats the point? If I want to waste my time, I'll look through Fraiser episodes for bits that are funny.

Actually, Neo, I'm surprised, given your knowledge.

There has been something weighing on my mind for a while now, and I fear it's time to let it out. This may shock some of you, but here it goes. I, Neo Art, attorney, political scientist, democrat, raving liberal, supporter of the constitution and advocate of democracy...

has never voted.

My first presidental election was Clinton/Dole in 1996. At that point I was in college in Connecticut, and the state was solidly blue.

In 2000 I was still there, and Gore's Connecticut victory, with Lieberman on the ticket, was assured. I could have still registered in NY and vote for Hillary, but frankly, I was so unenthused about her I couldn't make myself do it

2002 saw me in Massachusetts, with Kerry on the ticket, an assured lock, I didn't bother.

By 2004 I was in "better dead than red (and by red we mean Republican)" Massachusetts, with their very own John Kerry on the ticket. Frankly I couldn't be bothered, even moreso.

2006 looked like a year I could get behind, with the candidacy of Deval Patrick for Massachusetts governor, but a bad flu knocked me out and I couldn't make it.

But I have made up my mind this year, both for personal reasons, and to send a message on the political sphere. For the first time in my life I see a candidate WORTH voting for, even if I'm merely adding one drop in the sea of votes Barack Obama will be getting from Massachusetts.

So, that's my confession. Who else here has never voted, but plans to in this election?

edit: of course I'm tired and Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in 2000, not 1998. I don't recall any candidate I could have voted for being up for office in 1998

It's OK to like a candidate. But you don't have to vote for him (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/186530/october-01-2008/colbert-teen-talk---voter-abstinence).

Seriously though, this'll be my first time voting too. Seems like it'll be fun.

If McCain wins, I'll blame you.
mccain is up by 31 points in oklahoma.

i wont blame smunkee.

but she should vote.

mccain is up by 31 points in oklahoma.

i wont blame smunkee.

but she should vote.

No shit, its fucking Oklahoma. They all probably still think Obamas a Muslim.

I got you hooked on Sonic :D

When I read Sonic, I thought of Sonic The Hedgehog. Granted, I'm fsrom Finland wouldn't know about anyother kind of Sonic.

From this (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=will_the_novemeber_surprise_be_disenfranchised_voters), it sounds as though voting is a problem even when you want to.

I'm guessing, from reading other articles in The American Prospect by this writer, that the publication is on the left of the American mainstream, so I'm trying to allow for that.

But this seems to paint a picture of, at best, remarkable inefficiency; at worst, of deliberate obstructionism:

... <snipped bit about who's responsible> ... a strategy of putting as many roadblocks between voters and the ballot as it possibly can. These efforts start in the legislature -- for instance, passing laws requiring driver's licenses to vote, which many people don't have, particularly older people, poorer people, and people who live in urban areas. Then there are legally questionable moves such as vote caging, one of a number of techniques used to assemble lists of people whose right to vote can be challenged at the board of elections or at polling places themselves.

And let it not be said that the efforts are not up-to-the-minute. Last month the Michigan Messenger reported that that state's Republican party planned to use lists of foreclosed homes to challenge voters at the polls (the Michigan GOP denied the charge). Finally, there are the Election Day dirty tricks, which we see every two years -- threatening letters sent to black voters telling them that if they have any unpaid parking tickets and they try to vote, they'll be arrested, or flyers put up in black neighborhoods claiming that the election has been delayed, so don't bother going to the polls on Tuesday.

Is it really that bad? Doesn't anybody get fined for this sort of thing? Isn't anyone in charge of running elections over there?

(honest puzzlement -- I checked America.gov, but it didn't help.)

Three of my friends are going to vote either "Slayer" or "FUCKIN' SLAYER!" for president in November. I would yell at them for wasting their votes stupidly, but I have to admit, it won't matter, as California is never really important in the election.

Isn't anyone in charge of running elections over there?

I read on a bit, and now I get it that each state is in charge of its own bit, so that's why things that are OK in one place aren't in another. I guess it's easier to organise in Oz because we've got fewer people and fewer states, and we're a federation that's never had a state vs state war, so state rivalries aren't such a factor.

It still seems a bit chaotic, though, if everyone's voting in the same Presidential election, but doing it under different rules depending on where they live.

Three of my friends are going to vote either "Slayer" or "FUCKIN' SLAYER!" for president in November. I would yell at them for wasting their votes stupidly, but I have to admit, it won't matter, as California is never really important in the election.

Woah. Your friends are awesome.

I guess it's easier to organise in Oz because we've got fewer people and fewer states, and we're a federation that's never had a state vs state war, so state rivalries aren't such a factor.

It helps that we're required to vote as well. Half of these shenanigans are happening in the U.S.A because it's optional there, meaning it's much easier to gear the system towards excluding/tricking people from the vote.

From this (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=will_the_novemeber_surprise_be_disenfranchised_voters), it sounds as though voting is a problem even when you want to.

I'm guessing, from reading other articles in The American Prospect by this writer, that the publication is on the left of the American mainstream, so I'm trying to allow for that.

But this seems to paint a picture of, at best, remarkable inefficiency; at worst, of deliberate obstructionism:
It's not inefficiency. It's election fraud. And at its most extreme, it's a violation of civil rights by disenfranchisement.


Is it really that bad?
Yes.

Doesn't anybody get fined for this sort of thing?
They should go to prison for it, but they don't.

Isn't anyone in charge of running elections over there?
There are federal, state, and local boards of elections. All are underfunded and understaffed. Most do their best to combat such tactics, which is why we know about these tricks at all. However, others do nothing, and still others are guilty of collusion.

American elections have always been crooked. You should read about what went on before there were such things as boards of elections. There's a history behind the old joke, "Vote early. Vote often." It doesn't mean "often" as in "in every election." It refers to the old trick of the same people illegally casting multiple votes -- edit: in the same election.

(honest puzzlement -- I checked America.gov, but it didn't help.)
Ain't American democracy great?

At the 2004 presidential election, we had international observers monitoring several states because such corruption was so bad in the 2000 election. I think we need even more help from the UN this year.

EDIT: This is one of the reason why people who don't vote when they can, or who dick around stupidly with their votes, piss me off. The people committing election fraud really do not need their help.

It helps that we're required to vote as well. Half of these shenanigans are happening in the U.S.A because it's optional there, meaning it's much easier to gear the system towards excluding/tricking people from the vote.


Yeah, that came up earlier. But I don't see optionality as important in organising elections. As in, making sure that, once someone decides they want to vote, the qualifications for voting are the same all round the country. Or making sure that enough ballot papers are printed and that they're efficiently distributed. Or that votes, once cast, are all held to the same standard in assessing their validity.

I don't think any of the non-voters so far have said it was just the physical or organisational difficulty of voting that kept them away. It mostly seems to be a lack of engagement with the process.

But I'm wondering if the difficulty and the uneven -- unpredictable? -- nature of the requirements helps create that lack of engagement.

EDIT: ...There's a history behind the old joke, "Vote early. Vote often." Yeah, or the cemetery vote :) -- I'm not saying Australians never tried to rort elections. It's because everyone was sure the other side would that we've got pretty strict electoral laws.

I read on a bit, and now I get it that each state is in charge of its own bit, so that's why things that are OK in one place aren't in another. I guess it's easier to organise in Oz because we've got fewer people and fewer states, and we're a federation that's never had a state vs state war, so state rivalries aren't such a factor.

It still seems a bit chaotic, though, if everyone's voting in the same Presidential election, but doing it under different rules depending on where they live.
Clarification: None of the stuff you listed is OK anywhere in the US. It's all illegal under the US Constitution. Regardless of how a state organizes and conducts its elections, it is not permitted to put up obstacles to people lawfully voting.

Yeah, that came up earlier. But I don't see optionality as important in organising elections. As in, making sure that, once someone decides they want to vote, the qualifications for voting are the same all round the country. Or making sure that enough ballot papers are printed and that they're efficiently distributed. Or that votes, once cast, are all held to the same standard in assessing their validity.

I don't think any of the non-voters so far have said it was just the physical or organisational difficulty of voting that kept them away. It mostly seems to be a lack of engagement with the process.

But I'm wondering if the difficulty and the uneven -- unpredictable? -- nature of the requirements helps create that lack of engagement.
I meant the optional nature of voting tjere seems to have given rise to "if they come they come, if they don't they don't" system where getting as many people to vote as possible isn't seen as what should be done every time, and is instead seen as a potential ideal. This means they don't have the people, or the proper institutions to get everyone to vote, allowing dirty tricks before, during and after the polls.

Yeah, that came up earlier. But I don't see optionality as important in organising elections. As in, making sure that, once someone decides they want to vote, the qualifications for voting are the same all round the country. Or making sure that enough ballot papers are printed and that they're efficiently distributed. Or that votes, once cast, are all held to the same standard in assessing their validity.

I don't think any of the non-voters so far have said it was just the physical or organisational difficulty of voting that kept them away. It mostly seems to be a lack of engagement with the process.

But I'm wondering if the difficulty and the uneven -- unpredictable? -- nature of the requirements helps create that lack of engagement.
Yes, it does. That's part of the purpose behind it.

The fewer people who vote overall, the easier it is to manipulate, obstruct, mislead those who do (just because there are fewer of them) and the easier it is to manipulate, destroy, disqualify, or "lose" the ballots of those who do (because there are fewer of them).

Americans who refuse to vote, even though they have the right not to vote if they don't want to, are really just playing into the hands of the corrupt political machines they complain about.

When I was a kid, kids playing sports would often - mysteriously, and halfway through a game - start complaining of arbitrary ailments. They weren't feeling very well that day, the wrong shoes, rain on the grass... something.

Then, if they should lose the game, they would blame the obvious handicap for the loss, making it'not their fault[/i]. The US electoral system is set up to have stones in it's shoe, and it's not in any of the players interests to make sure it's a fair game.

The fewer people who vote overall, the easier it is to manipulate, obstruct, mislead those who do (just because there are fewer of them) and the easier it is to manipulate, destroy, disqualify, or "lose" the ballots of those who do (because there are fewer of them).

Though it is a targeted afair (you don't try to stall voting in areas which will benefit your group), not wholesale.

When I was a kid, kids playing sports would often - mysteriously, and halfway through a game - start complaining of arbitrary ailments. They weren't feeling very well that day, the wrong shoes, rain on the grass... something.

Then, if they should lose the game, they would blame the obvious handicap for the loss, making it'not their fault[/i]. The US electoral system is set up to have stones in it's shoe, and it's not in any of the players interests to make sure it's a fair game.
That's actually not true.

The fragmented and chaotic nature of US national elections is something that has been considered and argued over repeatedly for as long as this country has existed -- is this really the best way to do things?

Apparently, the decision has always been that it's not a clean and easy way to run elections (in fact it's a filthy and crazy way to do it), but we prefer it, perhaps culturally, because it puts control of elections closer to being in the hands of the people, rather than the government -- and in this country authority is supposed to come up from the people to the government, not the other way around.

Yes, the chaos does allow corruption into the system, but when American elections are properly run and monitored -- in the usual adversarial, checks-and-balances way that the US does just about everything -- that corruption is limited and offset by legitimate vote casting and counting. Therefore, in the cultural "give me liberty or give me death, and get off my lawn" tradition of the USA, such controlled corruption is seen as an acceptable "cost of doing business." The problem is that, when voter turn out is too low, there is less force of popular volume, as it were, to control the corruption.

The cultural assumption among Americans is that a centralized controlling authority is more likely to generate universal corruption than a decentralized, fragmented system with many independent authorities.

The only "stone in the shoe" of the US voting process that I see -- and it's a big mofo stone -- is the Electoral College, which I think should be done away with. It was nothing but a political compromise made for expediency at a certain time, and over our history it has done nothing but encourage corruption and shenanigans.

Though it is a targeted afair (you don't try to stall voting in areas which will benefit your group), not wholesale.
Of course, to a degree. Hence all the fussing over "swing states" and "battleground states." Also hence why the areas that were the worst affected by election fraud in 2000, and got the international observers in 2004, had fewer problems while other battleground areas with no observers got the exact same BS pulled in 2004.

However, low voter turn out overall, nationally, will still benefit those who wish to manipulate the elections.

EDIT: REMEMBER, THE US DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED VOTES FOR AN ELECTION TO BE VALID. You don't need high turn out. You just need more votes than the other guy.

EDIT2: So, if fewer than half of all Americans vote, that's good for crooked politicians.

That's actually not true.

The fragmented and chaotic nature of US national elections is something that has been considered and argued over repeatedly for as long as this country has existed -- is this really the best way to do things?

Apparently, the decision has always been that it's not a clean and easy way to run elections (in fact it's a filthy and crazy way to do it), but we prefer it, perhaps culturally, because it puts control of elections closer to being in the hands of the people, rather than the government -- and in this country authority is supposed to come up from the people to the government, not the other way around.

Yes, the chaos does allow corruption into the system, but when American elections are properly run and monitored -- in the usual adversarial, checks-and-balances way that the US does just about everything -- that corruption is limited and offset by legitimate vote casting and counting. Therefore, in the cultural "give me liberty or give me death, and get off my lawn" tradition of the USA, such controlled corruption is seen as an acceptable "cost of doing business." The problem is that, when voter turn out is too low, there is less force of popular volume, as it were, to control the corruption.

The cultural assumption among Americans is that a centralized controlling authority is more likely to generate universal corruption than a decentralized, fragmented system with many independent authorities.

The only "stone in the shoe" of the US voting process that I see -- and it's a big mofo stone -- is the Electoral College, which I think should be done away with. It was nothing but a political compromise made for expediency at a certain time, and over our history it has done nothing but encourage corruption and shenanigans.

No - I disagree. Not with the horrendous Electoral College thing, but with the assertion there are no other stones in the shoes.

Both parties are somewhate complicit in allowing these excuses to crop up again and again. Both could crack down hard, neither really seems to care to. And why would they? They both get a little leeway to exploit the system, both get to point to voter fraud and dirty tricks as the reason why x, y and z.

If the US government, collectively WANTED these problems to go away, they largely would.

The cultural assumption among Americans is that a centralized controlling authority is more likely to generate universal corruption than a decentralized, fragmented system with many independent authorities.


I suspect this is why I get so flabbergasted and confused every four years. In Australia's case, the centralised authority has been markedly less corrupt than the decentralised ones (just ask an ageing Queenslander about the Bjelkemander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjelkemander)). We tend to expect the Feds to come in and straighten things out -- except when we're expecting the brave little State guys to stand up to the Canberra bullies.

I guess the Electoral College system more or less demands that ballots be controlled by the individual states, too, since it's state delegates in play.

(Any fellow Ozs who share my trouble in translating the US election into our terms, there's an up-to-date explanation here (http://www.sisr.net/apo/US_election.pdf) from Rodney Tiffen, who's professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.)

No - I disagree. Not with the horrendous Electoral College thing, but with the assertion there are no other stones in the shoes.

Both parties are somewhate complicit in allowing these excuses to crop up again and again. Both could crack down hard, neither really seems to care to. And why would they? They both get a little leeway to exploit the system, both get to point to voter fraud and dirty tricks as the reason why x, y and z.

If the US government, collectively WANTED these problems to go away, they largely would.
I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

I was trying to say that what you described as problems and "stones in the shoe", we see as acceptable costs/risks (of cheating) in running a voting system that we think generates LESS corruption than another kind of system would. That belief is probably based on cultural assumptions. It is not based on the desire of political parties to have cheating room, however.

The point is that that cost/risk of cheating is not built into the system to permit shenanigans (like your proverbial "stone in the shoe" which permitted an excuse for poor play). It is not a desired feature of the system. Rather, it is a tolerated weakness of the system.

EDIT: I think I should point out that your comment that "If the US government, collectively WANTED these problems to go away, they largely would" illustrates the cultural divide here. You are not a product of US culture, so you would have no way of knowing that, reflexively, Americans do not like it when the government, collectively, takes it upon itself to decide that something the people are doing is a problem and make it go away. In our worldview, WE tell the government what the problems are and what to do about it, not the other way around.

I suspect this is why I get so flabbergasted and confused every four years. In Australia's case, the centralised authority has been markedly less corrupt than the decentralised ones (just ask an ageing Queenslander about the Bjelkemander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjelkemander)). We tend to expect the Feds to come in and straighten things out -- except when we're expecting the brave little State guys to stand up to the Canberra bullies.

I guess the Electoral College system more or less demands that ballots be controlled by the individual states, too, since it's state delegates in play.

(Any fellow Ozs who share my trouble in translating the US election into our terms, there's an up-to-date explanation here (http://www.sisr.net/apo/US_election.pdf) from Rodney Tiffen, who's professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.)
One big difference that I've noticed between Americans and many other people is that many, many Americans seem to have a built-in cultural distrust of government and official authority of any kind, at any level. We tend to operate on the assumption that government is likely to be corrupt, clueless, or both, and that any time government gets involved we are going to end up getting screwed somehow.

Government has to prove itself to us constantly. No matter how beneficial a system or program is, the government must package it with all kinds of assurances, safeguards, and checks/balances in order for the people to (grudgingly) accept it. No matter how steady a record of good governance a government may have, it must do that proving for every new measure it wants to introduce. Public trust is a fleeting, fleeting thing.

Of course, once a program is established and proves to be good for us, then woe to the governmental administration that wants to change or eliminate it. The proving they must do for that is almost impossible to achieve. As reluctant as we are to let the government start doing things, we are even more reluctant to let them stop doing things. That's why you keep seeing the same "reform" issues come up in election after election for decades, sometimes generations.

Basically, any time the government comes up with an idea, we automatically don't like it.

This is, I think, why Amerians prefer this crazy quilt of state election systems over a centralized national one, for national elections. Now, in truth, there may very well be a better way to do it, but getting Americans to accept such a change will be no easy matter.

There has been something weighing on my mind for a while now, and I fear it's time to let it out. This may shock some of you, but here it goes. I, Neo Art, attorney, political scientist, democrat, raving liberal, supporter of the constitution and advocate of democracy...

has never voted.

My first presidental election was Clinton/Dole in 1996. At that point I was in college in Connecticut, and the state was solidly blue.

In 2000 I was still there, and Gore's Connecticut victory, with Lieberman on the ticket, was assured. I could have still registered in NY and vote for Hillary, but frankly, I was so unenthused about her I couldn't make myself do it

2002 saw me in Massachusetts, with Kerry on the ticket, an assured lock, I didn't bother.

By 2004 I was in "better dead than red (and by red we mean Republican)" Massachusetts, with their very own John Kerry on the ticket. Frankly I couldn't be bothered, even moreso.

2006 looked like a year I could get behind, with the candidacy of Deval Patrick for Massachusetts governor, but a bad flu knocked me out and I couldn't make it.

But I have made up my mind this year, both for personal reasons, and to send a message on the political sphere. For the first time in my life I see a candidate WORTH voting for, even if I'm merely adding one drop in the sea of votes Barack Obama will be getting from Massachusetts.

So, that's my confession. Who else here has never voted, but plans to in this election?

edit: of course I'm tired and Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in 2000, not 1998. I don't recall any candidate I could have voted for being up for office in 1998
Why were you never interested in local elections -- state offices, city council, county supervisors, school boards, property tax issues? I've found those have as much impact on our daily lives as many national elections.

I guess the Electoral College system more or less demands that ballots be controlled by the individual states, too, since it's state delegates in play.

(Any fellow Ozs who share my trouble in translating the US election into our terms, there's an up-to-date explanation here (http://www.sisr.net/apo/US_election.pdf) from Rodney Tiffen, who's professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.)
I just skimmed that article, and ye gods, we need to get rid of that stupid crazy thing. :D

Why were you never interested in local elections -- state offices, city council, county supervisors, school boards, property tax issues? I've found those have as much impact on our daily lives as many national elections.
I often skip those if there is no competition for the offices (incumbents running unopposed), or if I have not lived in an area long enough to know the players.

Also, in all my life, I have yet to learn what the fuck an ombudsman does. I'm not going to vote for something if I don't know what it is.

(Any fellow Ozs who share my trouble in translating the US election into our terms, there's an up-to-date explanation here (http://www.sisr.net/apo/US_election.pdf) from Rodney Tiffen, who's professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.)

*raises hand*

Yes I do, I don't think we have the same issues with fraud in elections simply because everyone is under one authority which is independent of the government the AEC.

We do have one problem though and that is the way our names are recoded.

Currently you go to a booth you state your name don't even have to show ID your name is crossed out in the book and you go and vote. Now I could go to every booth in the electorate and vote multiple times, or I could get the names of people who have died recently and do the same thing people would have no clue and all my votes are counted for.

*raises hand*

Yes I do, I don't think we have the same issues with fraud in elections simply because everyone is under one authority which is independent of the government the AEC.

We do have one problem though and that is the way our names are recoded.

Currently you go to a booth you state your name don't even have to show ID your name is crossed out in the book and you go and vote. Now I could go to every booth in the electorate and vote multiple times, or I could get the names of people who have died recently and do the same thing people would have no clue and all my votes are counted for.
You just give your name? You don't have to confirm your address, too?

In my town, you go to your polling place and give your street address. The little old ladies find the address in the voter roll for that "ward" and then confirm your name. If address and name don't match up, there's a problem, and you probably aren't going to vote, pal. If address and name are not on their list, then you're likely at the wrong polling place.

The voter rolls are compiled by the city's local board of elections. You get on the rolls the first time you register to vote in the area, and thereafter, you get hounded frequently by the City of Somerville with census forms and Board of Elections forms asking you to confirm your name and address and return the forms, so that they can keep their rolls up to date. One's best bet to make sure one is properly registered to vote and that one knows one's ward and polling place, just in case one forgets to return one of those damned forms, is to vote in lots of elections, because the rolls get updated with every election. (Massachusetts is a big intrusive pain in the ass, compared to other states.)

You just give your name? You don't have to confirm your address, too?

In my town, you go to your polling place and give your street address. The little old ladies find the address in the voter roll for that "ward" and then confirm your name. If address and name don't match up, there's a problem, and you probably aren't going to vote, pal. If address and name are not on their list, then you're likely at the wrong polling place.

The voter rolls are compiled by the city's local board of elections. You get on the rolls the first time you register to vote in the area, and thereafter, you get hounded frequently by the City of Somerville with census forms and Board of Elections forms asking you to confirm your name and address and return the forms, so that they can keep their rolls up to date. One's best bet to make sure one is properly registered to vote and that one knows one's ward and polling place, just in case one forgets to return one of those damned forms, is to vote in lots of elections, because the rolls get updated with every election. (Massachusetts is a big intrusive pain in the ass, compared to other states.)

No you don't that is all done when you enroll to vote. The onus is on you to update your details when you move address particularly if you move electorates. If not then you have to cast an absent vote or if you thought about it ahead of time then you would cast a postal vote. If your name isn't marked off you get a letter from the government fining you a particular amount of money. I also believe (though this my not be true it is from hearsay) that when this happens you are no longer enrolled (an update) and must re enroll before the next election.

The books at the polling booths with the names on are only for that particular electorate so when they go to check you off, if you name isn't in that electorate then you either aren't enrolled or you are in the wrong electorate.

If your name isn't marked off you get a letter from the government fining you a particular amount of money. I also believe (though this my not be true it is from hearsay) that when this happens you are no longer enrolled (an update) and must re enroll before the next election.
All afkaik: You pay a fine of $20, and you're still enrolled (in fact you can never get out of voting, unless you're 'not of sound body or mind' or 'convicted of treason' or not voting for religious reasons (even then I think you're still listed, just marked as not needing to vote).

<snip> ... Now I could go to every booth in the electorate and vote multiple times, or I could get the names of people who have died recently and do the same thing people would have no clue and all my votes are counted for.

You could try, and they might not catch up with you on the day, but ... you think the Spanish Inquisition was relentless? HAH! Amateurs, compared to the AEC!

When you're an old, old man, there'll be that knock on the door. "We've just been crunching the numbers from the 2007 Federal Election again, sir, and we wonder if you could explain this small discrepancy ..." :eek2:

You could try, and they might not catch up with you on the day, but ... you think the Spanish Inquisition was relentless? HAH! Amateurs, compared to the AEC!

When you're an old, old man, there'll be that knock on the door. "We've just been crunching the numbers from the 2007 Federal Election again, sir, and we wonder if you could explain this small discrepancy ..." :eek2:

Oh I know they would see what happened but by that time it would be to late you have been able to vote numerous times and your votes would have been counted and if you live in a very tight seat those votes could make the difference. But they would never know if it was you if you used some dead guys name whose name hadn't been taken off.

But yeah the AEC are relentless and will track you down.

Soleichunn yeah well as I said it was what somebody had told me and I wasn't to sure about it, but I did know you got a fine, I was told by somebody who was in India during one of the elections that her fine was $200 but then again that could have been an exaggeration.

I read on a bit, and now I get it that each state is in charge of its own bit, so that's why things that are OK in one place aren't in another. I guess it's easier to organise in Oz because we've got fewer people and fewer states, and we're a federation that's never had a state vs state war, so state rivalries aren't such a factor.

It still seems a bit chaotic, though, if everyone's voting in the same Presidential election, but doing it under different rules depending on where they live.
yeah it is kind of odd. here in new mexico, for example, we are strong right-to-vote people. if you show up at the wrong precinct, even the wrong town, they will take your vote. it will be provisional but it will get counted in the end (sometimes there are races you arent eligible to vote for and they dont count those votes)

in florida if you knowingly go to the wrong precinct to vote its a CRIME and you can be charged with some kind of voting fraud.

yeah it is kind of odd. here in new mexico, for example, we are strong right-to-vote people. if you show up at the wrong precinct, even the wrong town, they will take your vote. it will be provisional but it will get counted in the end (sometimes there are races you arent eligible to vote for and they dont count those votes)

in florida if you knowingly go to the wrong precinct to vote its a CRIME and you can be charged with some kind of voting fraud.
In Mass, they give you the benefit of the doubt of having made a mistake. They'll use your address to look up your correct polling place and give you directions to it, but they won't take your vote at the wrong polling place.

The closest, according to the Sonic website, is New Jersey. And the food looks amazing.

yea they always show commercials for it- but i can never fucking find one!:headbang:






...and you should vote.

In Mass, they give you the benefit of the doubt of having made a mistake. They'll use your address to look up your correct polling place and give you directions to it, but they won't take your vote at the wrong polling place.
what do they do if its the right polling place but you arent on the voting list?

Three of my friends are going to vote either "Slayer" or "FUCKIN' SLAYER!" for president in November. I would yell at them for wasting their votes stupidly, but I have to admit, it won't matter, as California is never really important in the election.

Im seriously contimplating writing in "That one" when I vote. I live in IL, so its not really a toss up about who is going to win.


In the end though, Ill probably vote for Obama in a way that will actually give him the vote.

Why were you never interested in local elections -- state offices, city council, county supervisors, school boards, property tax issues? I've found those have as much impact on our daily lives as many national elections.

I vote in state elections only so I can vote against the incumbant to the state congress. IL's state government is royally fucked, and none of them deserve reelection.

what do they do if its the right polling place but you arent on the voting list?
Then you're screwed. No vote for you! That's why they constantly bombard us between elections with these forms we have to fill out and return to keep the voting rolls up to date.

Then you're screwed. No vote for you! That's why they constantly bombard us between elections with these forms we have to fill out and return to keep the voting rolls up to date.
new mexico will take your vote provisionally and look up later to see if you were supposed to be on the roles or not.

the last congressional election was so close that they had to go through each and every provisional vote.

I vote in state elections only so I can vote against the incumbant to the state congress. IL's state government is royally fucked, and none of them deserve reelection.

QFT. For a while now I've been waking up, looking at the local news headlines, and grumbling "Look, Universe, I'm sorry I voted for Blagojevich that one time, OK? He seemed like the lesser of two evils. I was wrong. Quit punishing us!"

Living in Chicago I also make it a point to vote against county and city incumbents as well.

One big difference that I've noticed between Americans and many other people is that many, many Americans seem to have a built-in cultural distrust of government and official authority of any kind, at any level. We tend to operate on the assumption that government is likely to be corrupt, clueless, or both, and that any time government gets involved we are going to end up getting screwed somehow.

Government has to prove itself to us constantly. No matter how beneficial a system or program is, the government must package it with all kinds of assurances, safeguards, and checks/balances in order for the people to (grudgingly) accept it. No matter how steady a record of good governance a government may have, it must do that proving for every new measure it wants to introduce. Public trust is a fleeting, fleeting thing.

Of course, once a program is established and proves to be good for us, then woe to the governmental administration that wants to change or eliminate it. The proving they must do for that is almost impossible to achieve. As reluctant as we are to let the government start doing things, we are even more reluctant to let them stop doing things. That's why you keep seeing the same "reform" issues come up in election after election for decades, sometimes generations.

Basically, any time the government comes up with an idea, we automatically don't like it.

This is, I think, why Amerians prefer this crazy quilt of state election systems over a centralized national one, for national elections. Now, in truth, there may very well be a better way to do it, but getting Americans to accept such a change will be no easy matter.

Best illustration I can think of this:

Remember when America was gonna switch to the metric system? We still haven't, entirely because of that inherent distrust of government.

QFT. For a while now I've been waking up, looking at the local news headlines, and grumbling "Look, Universe, I'm sorry I voted for Blagojevich that one time, OK? He seemed like the lesser of two evils. I was wrong. Quit punishing us!"

Living in Chicago I also make it a point to vote against county and city incumbents as well.

Every time someone mentions that election I start feeling proud of realizing there was a third party candidate in that race who didn't suck.

I didn't vote for him because I wasn't old enough to vote, but I got my dad to vote for him.


And to everyone not from here: Illinois (and specifically Chicago) politics is so fucked up that every few years the buses go bankrupt and threaten to cut off huge amounts of bus routes in order to get some goddamn funding. Usually they only get the funding a few days before the deadline they've set, and the legislature gives it to them in a way that will drive them even deeper into debt a few years later. So this whole process starts over again, against all common sense.

QFT. For a while now I've been waking up, looking at the local news headlines, and grumbling "Look, Universe, I'm sorry I voted for Blagojevich that one time, OK? He seemed like the lesser of two evils. I was wrong. Quit punishing us!"

Living in Chicago I also make it a point to vote against county and city incumbents as well.

And to everyone not from here: Illinois (and specifically Chicago) politics is so fucked up that every few years the buses go bankrupt and threaten to cut off huge amounts of bus routes in order to get some goddamn funding. Usually they only get the funding a few days before the deadline they've set, and the legislature gives it to them in a way that will drive them even deeper into debt a few years later. So this whole process starts over again, against all common sense.


Honostly, I hope a third party candidate runs in this next election who doesnt suck. Because otherwise I have no one to vote for.

If a moderate, not gay hating Republican runs, Id even vote for HIM over Blowjobavich.

Best illustration I can think of this:

Remember when America was gonna switch to the metric system? We still haven't, entirely because of that inherent distrust of government.


Please, there are still people who resent the government putting flouride in the water. They're not conspiracy theorists who think it's poison. They know it's fine and dandy and gives us superior dental health. They just hate that the government did it.

What sucks? I was born on election day of 1986. The year I turned 18, election day was 2 days before my birthday.

And they wouldn't let me vote.

This is my first Presidential election where I can, and I already have. I do it by mail.

Smunkee should sue!
If I'm going to sue anyone I'll sue the school board for not following federal law.
It certainly does, but apparently that's the case in OK. Sounds like the no-write-in law's been challenged every recent Presidential election cycle, and was just upheld again (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/06/oklahoma-court-denies-injunctive-relief-for-barr/).
There's no winning. It's a pain in the ass to even get on the ballot here, half the time the incumbents aren't even challenged because democrats can't even get on the ballot........democrats..........not even 'third' parties or whatever.
If McCain wins, I'll blame you.
I have no control over it. Kern, the disgusting, vile, horrible, evil, homophobic, idiot will be re-elected. Inhofe has been re-elected like......a bazillion times. He's an idiot, always has been, and will always be my representative, no matter how many times I try to get rid of him. It's futile.
mccain is up by 31 points in oklahoma.

i wont blame smunkee.

but she should vote.
I am voting.....just not for president.
No shit, its fucking Oklahoma. They all probably still think Obamas a Muslim.
He's a muslim, terrorist, anti-christ and he's going to eat our babies and raise our taxes and take our guns away and socialize everything and make our kids unproud of our country! AND AND he'll be smoking the whole time! The heathen!

If I'm going to sue anyone I'll sue the school board for not following federal law.

There's no winning. It's a pain in the ass to even get on the ballot here, half the time the incumbents aren't even challenged because democrats can't even get on the ballot........democrats..........not even 'third' parties or whatever.

I have no control over it. Kern, the disgusting, vile, horrible, evil, homophobic, idiot will be re-elected. Inhofe has been re-elected like......a bazillion times. He's an idiot, always has been, and will always be my representative, no matter how many times I try to get rid of him. It's futile.

I am voting.....just not for president.

He's a muslim, terrorist, anti-christ and he's going to eat our babies and raise our taxes and take our guns away and socialize everything and make our kids unproud of our country! AND AND he'll be smoking the whole time! The heathen!

Atleast if he eats out babies, there will be no children to make unproud.

Atleast if he eats out babies, there will be no children to make unproud.

He won't eat all the babies.......duh! Just the pre-viable fetuses that are born alive and yet not taken care of because they were supposedly being aborted. He'll let you have one kid, and put it in the meat grinder that is the public school and beat down their spirit until we're all a bunch of commies.

True story.

He won't eat all the babies.......duh! Just the pre-viable fetuses that are born alive and yet not taken care of because they were supposedly being aborted. He'll let you have one kid, and put it in the meat grinder that is the public school and beat down their spirit until we're all a bunch of commies.

True story.
Will Pink Floyd be there? Because if so, I'm totally down...

Will Pink Floyd be there? Because if so, I'm totally down...

:mad: Pink Floyd is the devil. Rock music is the devil.

Seriously though, local radio dumbass hung up on me today.

Radio guy "so, Obama and all his cohorts got us into this mess by lending money to minorities to get them some houses......people on welfare... but Obama doesn't care as long as his black folk got mansions.......oh, we can't mention that Obama is black or we're racists........wait we have a call"
Me "you are racist"
Radio guy "because I said Obama is black?"
Me "because you say racist things"
Radio guy "It's a fact black people on average can't afford houses"
Me "why do you think that is?"
Radio guy "because they are on the whole poor"
Me "why?"
Radio guy "you tell me"
Me "couldn't be the underlying current of industrialized racism inherent in the culture?"
Radio guy "doesn't exist.....you're a liberal right?"
Me "if it doesn't exist then why are black people poor?"
Radio guy "because they are stupid"
Me "so you admit you believe that an entire race of people is inferior to you......and that doesn't make you racist?"
Radio guy "are you a feminist?"
Me "yeah"
Radio guy "bye then" *hangs up* "who let the ugly hags of the world have phones?"

I didn't even call him to talk about that, just got annoyed on hold. I was going to tell him he's a dick for saying that Inhofe should run for president.

:mad: Pink Floyd is the devil. Rock music is the devil.

Seriously though, local radio dumbass hung up on me today.

Radio guy "so, Obama and all his cohorts got us into this mess by lending money to minorities to get them some houses......people on welfare... but Obama doesn't care as long as his black folk got mansions.......oh, we can't mention that Obama is black or we're racists........wait we have a call"
Me "you are racist"
Radio guy "because I said Obama is black?"
Me "because you say racist things"
Radio guy "It's a fact black people on average can't afford houses"
Me "why do you think that is?"
Radio guy "because they are on the whole poor"
Me "why?"
Radio guy "you tell me"
Me "couldn't be the underlying current of industrialized racism inherent in the culture?"
Radio guy "doesn't exist.....you're a liberal right?"
Me "if it doesn't exist then why are black people poor?"
Radio guy "because they are stupid"
Me "so you admit you believe that an entire race of people is inferior to you......and that doesn't make you racist?"
Radio guy "are you a feminist?"
Me "yeah"
Radio guy "bye then" *hangs up* "who let the ugly hags of the world have phones?"

I didn't even call him to talk about that, just got annoyed on hold. I was going to tell him he's a dick for saying that Inhofe should run for president.

can I has their phone number? I cuold have quite the colorful phone call...