|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 08 2016 23:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 23:17 LegalLord wrote:On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug That's nothing, my ballot had about 150 choices in all. I had to search up the candidates before casting a vote. Most of the time I voted party-line unless it was obvious that the opposite candidate was substantially more qualified. For a lot of them the candidates were obscure but there was only one candidate that seemed competent. Ballotpedia is a good place to start, but also local news reports tend to have a decent position paper on each candidate if you care enough to look. It's actually not that hard, you just have to do it. Most of the time the choice there is really easy. Nobody is going to study the candidates for 150 different positions. This seems to defeat the entire purpose of having elected officials: either you just vote party line and hope for the best (in which case you might just as well vote for a party and save yourself the trouble of having to tick the same box 150 times), or you leave them blank, but having to inform yourself of the best person for the job for 150 different positions seems nuts.
Half of them are "should we retain our judges" questions, which is an automatic "yes" because I don't believe in voting on judges. About 5 or so are ones that people care deeply about, including propositions, president, governors, and Congress. The rest are various local offices, some partisan some not, and that's where things get weird. Some are state legislature positions, some are various local officials that do important work. I'm sure people don't really think about what they're voting for but it really is quite easy to choose between them because usually it's like one candidate that knows what they're doing, and the rest are bozos. Like a school board position, might have a candidate whose bio is "I don't have any kids in this school district, I don't have any prior experience, I don't really know what I'm doing, but I want you to vote for me!" That is an instant nope and those kind of candidates make it really easy to prune through the ballot.
|
On November 09 2016 00:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think that's how you celebrate a victory don. well, maybe it's exclusive coverage by trumptv?
This is a play that we sort of all saw coming. Win or lose, Trump is going to make an enemy of the press and attack whomever he can.
|
On November 09 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 23:39 Acrofales wrote:On November 08 2016 23:17 LegalLord wrote:On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug That's nothing, my ballot had about 150 choices in all. I had to search up the candidates before casting a vote. Most of the time I voted party-line unless it was obvious that the opposite candidate was substantially more qualified. For a lot of them the candidates were obscure but there was only one candidate that seemed competent. Ballotpedia is a good place to start, but also local news reports tend to have a decent position paper on each candidate if you care enough to look. It's actually not that hard, you just have to do it. Most of the time the choice there is really easy. Nobody is going to study the candidates for 150 different positions. This seems to defeat the entire purpose of having elected officials: either you just vote party line and hope for the best (in which case you might just as well vote for a party and save yourself the trouble of having to tick the same box 150 times), or you leave them blank, but having to inform yourself of the best person for the job for 150 different positions seems nuts. Half of them are "should we retain our judges" questions, which is an automatic "yes" because I don't believe in voting on judges. About 5 or so are ones that people care deeply about, including propositions, president, governors, and Congress. The rest are various local offices, some partisan some not, and that's where things get weird. Some are state legislature positions, some are various local officials that do important work. I'm sure people don't really think about what they're voting for but it really is quite easy to choose between them because usually it's like one candidate that knows what they're doing, and the rest are bozos. Like a school board position, might have a candidate whose bio is "I don't have any kids in this school district, I don't have any prior experience, I don't really know what I'm doing, but I want you to vote for me!" That is an instant nope and those kind of candidates make it really easy to prune through the ballot.
I voted early, but there were a couple interesting items that were described pretty ambiguously - one was about allowing the state to intervene (ie takeover) chronically failing schools as part of an opportunity school district and the other was about reforming the judicial oversight committee. The former I guess you could possible make a decision based on your opinion of state intervention but the former left you wondering why the heck the committee needed reforming in the first place and if it meant expanding or decreasing its powers. Seems like it'd be hard to make a decision without doing a little research beforehand.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 09 2016 00:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 08 2016 23:39 Acrofales wrote:On November 08 2016 23:17 LegalLord wrote:On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug That's nothing, my ballot had about 150 choices in all. I had to search up the candidates before casting a vote. Most of the time I voted party-line unless it was obvious that the opposite candidate was substantially more qualified. For a lot of them the candidates were obscure but there was only one candidate that seemed competent. Ballotpedia is a good place to start, but also local news reports tend to have a decent position paper on each candidate if you care enough to look. It's actually not that hard, you just have to do it. Most of the time the choice there is really easy. Nobody is going to study the candidates for 150 different positions. This seems to defeat the entire purpose of having elected officials: either you just vote party line and hope for the best (in which case you might just as well vote for a party and save yourself the trouble of having to tick the same box 150 times), or you leave them blank, but having to inform yourself of the best person for the job for 150 different positions seems nuts. Half of them are "should we retain our judges" questions, which is an automatic "yes" because I don't believe in voting on judges. About 5 or so are ones that people care deeply about, including propositions, president, governors, and Congress. The rest are various local offices, some partisan some not, and that's where things get weird. Some are state legislature positions, some are various local officials that do important work. I'm sure people don't really think about what they're voting for but it really is quite easy to choose between them because usually it's like one candidate that knows what they're doing, and the rest are bozos. Like a school board position, might have a candidate whose bio is "I don't have any kids in this school district, I don't have any prior experience, I don't really know what I'm doing, but I want you to vote for me!" That is an instant nope and those kind of candidates make it really easy to prune through the ballot. I voted early, but there were a couple interesting items that were described pretty ambiguously - one was about allowing the state to intervene (ie takeover) chronically failing schools as part of an opportunity school district and the other was about reforming the judicial oversight committee. The former I guess you could possible make a decision based on your opinion of state intervention but the former left you wondering why the heck the committee needed reforming in the first place and if it meant expanding or decreasing its powers. Seems like it'd be hard to make a decision without doing a little research beforehand.
Precisely why I sit down and do that.
They really should just toss in a brief on all the candidates running (a 1-2 page summary for the huge offices, a 1-2 paragraph summary for the pleb offices) with the ballot. That would really help a lot.
|
On November 09 2016 00:17 Plansix wrote:This is a play that we sort of all saw coming. Win or lose, Trump is going to make an enemy of the press and attack whomever he can.
I can't find any actual news story about this. So I see no reason to believe unverified anonymous 'Dirty Fishgrease' on twitter
|
If he loses expect a rant of epic proportions, if he decides to give a speech that is.
|
Wondering if this election is going to have record turnout.
|
On November 09 2016 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Wondering if this election is going to have record turnout.
I really hope so. I dont know if alot of the reports of long wait times at the poles are standard situations being overreported or an actual increase in voter turnout.
|
It's already shattered some turnout records in early voting in a few swing states that I've seen scrutinized, especially when you split out demographics.
|
United States42654 Posts
More early/absentee votes in Florida already than there were total votes in 2000.
|
On November 08 2016 21:20 kwizach wrote:
Almost zero, I'd say. Ryan, though, that's a different story.
Am I really the only one who hasn't forgotten Paul Ryan's tax plan? Joe Biden body slammed that dipshit repeatedly over his nonsense tax scheme. Paul Ryan managed to be stupid before the GOP went full on stupid. He only has his position because he appealed to what was, a year ago, the far right tea party crowd. Is that crowd not the losing crowd?
|
On November 09 2016 00:28 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Wondering if this election is going to have record turnout. I really hope so. I dont know if alot of the reports of long wait times at the poles are standard situations being overreported or an actual increase in voter turnout.
Considering the very real effort made to prevent people from voting. Yes long lines are standard, its an attempt to get people to give up and leave rather then vote.
|
I'm one of those absentee ballots in Florida. Making history confirmed
|
On November 09 2016 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 21:20 kwizach wrote:
Almost zero, I'd say. Ryan, though, that's a different story. Am I really the only one who hasn't forgotten Paul Ryan's tax plan? Joe Biden body slammed that dipshit repeatedly over his nonsense tax scheme. Paul Ryan managed to be stupid before the GOP went full on stupid. He only has his position because he appealed to what was, a year ago, the far right tea party crowd. Is that crowd not the losing crowd?
No, you aren't, though it'd be a mistake to assume that economic plan viability is a prominent Republican voting point. In other words, Ryan's policy weakness won't really figure into the feasibility of his candidacy.
|
United States42654 Posts
On November 09 2016 00:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On November 08 2016 21:20 kwizach wrote:
Almost zero, I'd say. Ryan, though, that's a different story. Am I really the only one who hasn't forgotten Paul Ryan's tax plan? Joe Biden body slammed that dipshit repeatedly over his nonsense tax scheme. Paul Ryan managed to be stupid before the GOP went full on stupid. He only has his position because he appealed to what was, a year ago, the far right tea party crowd. Is that crowd not the losing crowd? No, you aren't, though it'd be a mistake to assume that economic plan viability is a prominent Republican voting point. In other words, Ryan's policy weakness won't really figure into the feasibility of his candidacy.
The only reason Ryan's numbers didn't add up is because he didn't include that Mexico would be made to cover any shortfall. That hole in the platform has subsequently been fixed and now Republican budget math is beyond question.
|
On November 08 2016 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's time! Get out there and vote!
I voted nearly a month ago with a mail in ballot. I wish more people were aware of them. You don't have to go in early and stand there and deal with anyone.
State sends you ballot, you fill it out at your desk or on your gazebo or in a bar or wherever you're comfortable, then you mail it back.
ezpz lmn sqzy
On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug
This is why I always vote by mail.
I have no fuck idea who these people are. But there's plenty of information online. Good information. Interviews and shit.
Most people do as you do and vote by party because they don't know.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 09 2016 01:00 Probe1 wrote:
This is why I always vote by mail.
I have no fuck idea who these people are. But there's plenty of information online. Good information. Interviews and shit.
Most people do as you do and vote by party because they don't know.
Kind of gives you some appreciation for how easy it is to actually buy those seats, doesn't it?
|
On November 09 2016 01:00 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's time! Get out there and vote! I voted nearly a month ago with a mail in ballot. I wish more people were aware of them. You don't have to go in early and stand there and deal with anyone. State sends you ballot, you fill it out at your desk or on your gazebo or in a bar or wherever you're comfortable, then you mail it back. ezpz lmn sqzy Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug This is why I always vote by mail. I have no fuck idea who these people are. But there's plenty of information online. Good information. Interviews and shit. Most people do as you do and vote by party because they don't know.
its not ezpz to get in every state.
|
On November 09 2016 01:08 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 01:00 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's time! Get out there and vote! I voted nearly a month ago with a mail in ballot. I wish more people were aware of them. You don't have to go in early and stand there and deal with anyone. State sends you ballot, you fill it out at your desk or on your gazebo or in a bar or wherever you're comfortable, then you mail it back. ezpz lmn sqzy On November 08 2016 20:45 riotjune wrote:
So aside from President, Senator, and Representative, there were six other positions to be filled on my ballot with a bunch of candidates whose names I don't know. There were Councilman, District Attorney, and a Supreme Court thingy (get to vote twice for this) among other stuff. Not knowing what these positions do nor what the candidates stood for, I just voted the same/similar party across the board for the most part. Probably should've left those blank? *shrug This is why I always vote by mail. I have no fuck idea who these people are. But there's plenty of information online. Good information. Interviews and shit. Most people do as you do and vote by party because they don't know. its not ezpz to get in every state.
it was harder to get an absentee ballot for LA than to register to voter in GA, so i did the latter. ive been here for 5 years for school and my license was expiring anyways so it made sense to do it.
|
On November 09 2016 00:28 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Wondering if this election is going to have record turnout. I really hope so. I dont know if alot of the reports of long wait times at the poles are standard situations being overreported or an actual increase in voter turnout.
I voted 30 minutes after the polls opened and I was the first person to use that voting booth, they made me check the ballot box to ensure it was empty. Not in a swing state though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
