My polling place was at Dulaney High. I was actually surprised by how many people were already there - the side parking lot was about 2/3rds full and there were people walking in and out of the building. Last election the place was just DEAD.
There were two people standing on the curb handing out fliers - one was a young guy in a "Doors" t-shirt, the other was an older man in a green jacket. Don't know who the younger guy was pitching for, but the old guy gave me a Dutch Ruppersberger flier (he's running for the House of Rep).
I walked into Dulaney. Now, I've never GONE to Dulaney High, so I don't know if this is the lobby or what. It almost looks like the entry to the cafeteria or maybe an auditorium. Well, whatever. Went over to the table that said "A-C" and I pulled out my driver's license. When it was my turn, I handed my license over to the woman who looked quite surprised that I had it ready.
She flipped though a box of forms and produced one. "Is the information correct?" she asked me. Well, my address was wrong, so she crossed it out and wrote in the new one. I actually moved closer to Dulaney then I had lived during '02 when our state elected Bob Ehrlich. Two more years, and we'll get a chance to correct that mistake.
Once I'd signed the form, I moved to the guy seated at her right. He marked something off on his page, and noticed my party affiliation, which was listed as "GRN." "What does that mean?" he asked, and I told him: Green Party. He said 'oh, okay' and handed me a plastic keycard and gave me instructions on how to use the voting machine. "Insert until you hear a click, and then follow the instructions."
There was an open voting machine so I was able to get to it quickly. I was a little nervous, and read the instruction page twice. I made my votes, and another screen opened, showing who I had voted for.
Yay! I mastered electronic voting!
And then I pummeled to death an old lady who wanted to know why Eisenhower wasn't up for reelection.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Whats the big deal with electronic voting anyways? (aside from having fun security issues, programming bugs and such) Is it supposed to save money or something?
At least here in Canada, the whole thing is paper and we get results the night of, practically as the polls close, so it can't be a speed thing. As for cost, I can find a cost of the Canadian election since we have a federal agency in charge of the whole thing...but it doesn't look like there's a US counterpart since everything is run state by state it seems. However, from a common sense POV, I would think that the biggest costs for a US election would be campaigning and advertising by far, not the simple act of counting votes.
They have your party affiliation at the polls? Why do they have it?
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
And how come you can STATE your affiliation out loud? In Argentina, any open declaration of political affiliation at the voting table would inhibit you to vote.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
He asked me a question: "What does this stand for?" I told him. You'll note I didn't VOTE the way I'm affiliated.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You'll note I didn't VOTE the way I'm affiliated."
Well, for all we knew, you might have, since you didn't say HOW you voted, only THAT you voted. Do you now see?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh. Er. Sorry.
Kerry. Mikulski. Ruppersberger.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I wanted to vote for myself. They told me that any ballots with write-ins not on the pre-approved list would be destroyed. So... what's the point of a write-in, again?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
See, I just meant, why should they have your party affiliation listed at the polling station anyways? It doesn't seem to add anything to the process and it seems open to abuse.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Whats the big deal with electronic voting anyways? (aside from having fun security issues, programming bugs and such) Is it supposed to save money or something?"
It's more reliable.
This is where we pause for a moment, and then all burst into raucous laughter.
"They told me that any ballots with write-ins not on the pre-approved list would be destroyed."
That doesn't sound legal. I mean, I don't know enough about the relevant laws, but I don't see why there wouldn't be one against that.
"They have your party affiliation at the polls? Why do they have it?"
So that they know what party you'll be voting for during the primaries/caucuses. Some states make you register with a party ahead of time. Others let you just pick one at the time that you vote. It isn't really applicable at a general election like this. But, since it was on record, it probably just printed out on the voter list by default.
I'm more worried by the fact that the guy couldn't figure out what "GRN" stood for.
"In Argentina, any open declaration of political affiliation at the voting table would inhibit you to vote."
So, does that mean people who run for office can't vote? Because, obviously, they will have stated their party affiliation rather publicly...
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
My voting place was at somebody's garage a block away from my house. I am now rather Libertarian-leaning, but I'll register as Repub. or Dem. before the next presidential election so I can vote in the primaries (as I'm now a registered Independent).
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
"So, does that mean people who run for office can't vote? Because, obviously, they will have stated their party affiliation rather publicly..."
Well, in fact they do. But they don't have to be affiliated to a party to run. And affiliation is not listed at the polling list.
This comes from the times before 1914's electoral law. Before that, people said their vote out loud. Of course, each election was won with fraud. Then, secret (and mandatory) voting was imposed. Including, not being able to wear party distinctives or stating party affiliation at the polling place, campaining during the 48 hours prior to election day, public meetings of more than three people during election day, no alcohol in sale from 8 PM the day before, etc.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, what you're saying is that the people who wrote your election laws were just a tad bit insane, then...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Election results are looking baaaaad just now.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Are they going to declare anything more in the next hour or can I go to bed...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
We've just given up and gone to bed ourselves.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well then, to the bed mobile!
At least with Bush in power the Canadian Dollar has gone up...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I tried. I can't sleep.
WHAT THE FUCK? WHAT THE ... FUCK?!
Can I just go back in time to 4pm and STAY THERE?
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, what you're saying is that the people who wrote your election laws were just a tad bit insane, then...
Your country voted for Bush again, and it's the people in my country who were crazy. Yeah, right.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What IS the point of being affililated with a party!?! It seems pointless - I'm gathering it's so you can vote in the Primaries to decide who is going to be put up to run as president.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's the football supporter mentality, it seems. You don't look at the candidates and chose who you think is best; you "support" a team, and then vote for whoever that team elects as Captain.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sounds like the Electoral College in general.
I've yet to hear talk of any lawsuits or even of any "blame it on Nader" nonsense yet.
It looks like Bush won by a narrow (but fair) margin (so far).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...you 'support' a team, and then vote for whoever that team elects as Captain."
Well, no, actually, it's what Andrew said. You "support" the team, and then you and the other supporters elect the "Captain".
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ahh, right. Does that carry through to the election? Were you voting for Bush/Kerry, or Republican/Democrat? Over here, you vote for the party, and that party can change their leader at any time, for any reason.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wow: that's crap, Liam. Here you can split your votes up however you like: only suckers (or the uninformed) vote along party lines.
I voted on many local issues this year: two people I voted for were republicans (their counterparts were either shills or ran really dirty campaigns- I dont trust anyone that needs to resort to slander) but I voted for Kerry.
You can be registered with any party and still split your vote however: it's just demographics here.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
We don't register with parties though, so that whole part of the equation doesn't exist.
And we don't directly vote for a party, as such. We vote for our local Member of Parliamnent, who is suppossed to reflect the views of his constituency in the House Of Commons. The party with the most seats in the House of Commons picks the PM, Foreign Secretary, and so on, but votes still have to be agreed by people from all parties, and quite often Labour MPs won't vote in ways that Blair would like them to (and the same with the Tories).
So, technically you are voting for a person - your MP. But the general effect of that is that you are voting for which party runs the House Of Commons.
Oh, and there are Council elections where you vote for the people who will actually run your local council. You can have a Tory council and a Labour MP, although it's not overly common.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And over here, it's different yet again. The different parties come up with lists of candidates (they have no connection to political subdivisions or anything like that), and you can vote for one of these people.
It doesn't really matter which MP of a single party you vote for, it's more important that you vote for the party you think will do the best.
Then, the Monarch appoints a 'formateur' whose job it is to come up with a viable coalition government and an accord between the governing parties. The government can in theory be any combination of parties, but it helps an awful lot if this combination has a majority of seats in parliament.
This formation process can be quite a difficult one, as was the case last time, when Labour and the Christian Democrats didn't want to be in one government. Which was a bit of a shame, since the voters seemed to *want* a Christian Democrat/Labour government.
There are those who would like to see a republican form of government, without a Queen and with a President. But those ideas have never really gotten anywhere.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...it seems kind of indirect to me. Here, we vote directly for the person that will hold the office (and we hold them accountable thusly).
What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
We don't really have 'an office'. The PM has no real powers beyond being 'the face' of the Government and being responsible for the actions of the rest of the Government (that includes the Queen). He is also the Minister for General Affairs.
And AFAIK, there is no limit on the amount of times someone can become PM. There are elections every four years, and it is up to formateur and the parties to decide who gets what Ministry.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
I'm not sure if Harry's referring to us or them, but there is no length of time someone can be PM. Maggie was in charge for 11 years (imagine 11 years of Bush. Scary).
Blair has said that he wants to run for one more term, and then step down, so no, he's not a lame duck. In any case, that term isnt' as applicable as it is in the US, since the PM can change at any time.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Canada's system is the same as the UK, understandably. Witness the retirement of Chretien and Paul Martin becoming PM, then we had an election that kept him there.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
I'm not sure if Harry's referring to us or them, but there is no length of time someone can be PM. Maggie was in charge for 11 years (imagine 11 years of Bush. Scary).
Like I dont have enough trouble sleeping.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
I'm not sure if Harry's referring to us or them, but there is no length of time someone can be PM. Maggie was in charge for 11 years (imagine 11 years of Bush. Scary).
Like I dont have enough trouble sleeping.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Wow: that's crap, Liam. Here you can split your votes up however you like: only suckers (or the uninformed) vote along party lines.
You can be registered with any party and still split your vote however: it's just demographics here.
So - what, then, is the POINT of being 'registered' as a voter of ANY party? Sounds superfluous to me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Because, as I believe I mentioned earlier, it determines how you vote in the primaries/caucuses. In a primary/caucus, the members of each party vote on who they want their party's candidate to be in the general election. Some states make you register with a party ahead of time. Others (like Missouri, where I live) let you pick your party at the time of the primary. (I recently found out that Washington state is weird about primaries, but you can ask Simon about that.)
By the way, in the US, you don't technically vote for parties or for candidates. You vote for electors, who are then supposed to vote for a predetermined candidate (but they aren't technically required to). But, as far as the general public is concerned, they think they're voting directly for a candidate, not just for a party.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I thought that this might be interesting reading. Particularly, this part:
quote: Common sense may tell you that China prefers a Democrat. If so, common sense is wrong. By and large China's "socialist" rulers prefer Republicans. And George W Bush is no different.
No, they do not like his war in Iraq. They positively hate it. Nor do they like Mr Bush's far too cosy relationship with Taiwan. He just sold the island $18bn worth of high-tech weapons.
But on the other big issues - trade and human rights, Republicans are much preferable to meddling Democrats.
In the last four years China has seen its trade surplus with America balloon to over $120bn a year. From the White House there has been barely a squeak of protest.
Human rights used to be a huge thorn in the side of US-China relations. But post 9/11 China has become a valued ally in the war on terror. Questions of human rights abuses have quietly disappeared from the agenda.
They may not say so in public, but today in Beijing they will be quietly raising a few glasses to "four more years"!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:However, there are others who hold George Bush responsible for the mess the country is in today, and would rather that he was not leading the US for another four years. Zenab Hussein, who works in a hotel bar, said: " Our situation is so bad. We now live like the Palestinians.
Fucking hysterical.
With Arafat on his way to whatever awaits him in the next life, the Palestenians might actually have more of a shot at peace.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
The world hurts my brain
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Mucus enclosed:
quote:today in Beijing they will be quietly raising a few glasses to "four more years"!
I got really angry when Arnold started rhytmically and pompously chanting that to the crowd, he plays the Terminator-angle for all it's worth. Reminds me of the 30:th of November each year, where misguided youths and neonazis gather in King's Garden in Stockholm to commemorate our Karl XII, wishing for a new Swedish superpower that will conquer Europe again.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: America has spoken. The rest of the world should listen
Okay.. I respect the democratic freedom of the American people, but Blair's talking bollocks there.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Problem solved: Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Because, as I believe I mentioned earlier, it determines how you vote in the primaries/caucuses. In a primary/caucus, the members of each party vote on who they want their party's candidate to be in the general election. Some states make you register with a party ahead of time. Others (like Missouri, where I live) let you pick your party at the time of the primary. (I recently found out that Washington state is weird about primaries, but you can ask Simon about that.)
OK, understood, but it's just for the purpose of choosing who is going to 'lead' at the next election... So, WHY ask for your registered party when you go to vote, as I think Jason said he did...
dddddddddddda By the way, in the US, you don't technically vote for parties or for candidates. You vote for electors, who are then supposed to vote for a predetermined candidate (but they aren't technically required to). But, as far as the general public is concerned, they think they're voting directly for a candidate, not just for a party.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
7000+ posts and you still don't know how to format?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: 7000+ posts and you still don't know how to format?
He's Australian, they're still 15 years behind the rest of us.... Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
P.S.
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Problem solved:
You really might want to consider adding Michigan to that....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: 7000+ posts and you still don't know how to format?
He's Australian, they're still 15 years behind the rest of us....
He's still waiting to download the basics...along with season three of Enterprise. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: P.S.
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Problem solved:
You really might want to consider adding Michigan to that....
Why in fuck is Alaska included in "Jesusland"? If anyone would stray from conservitive bible teachings of the south, I'd think it'd be them (what with their wig-wams, totem-poles and heathean ways ).
I think Southern California would definitely be in "Jesusland" though.
I guess Hawaii is just one big hotel at this point and does not count as a state at all...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Alaska is included because they vote Republican.
Andrew: The guy didn't ask Jason for his party affiliation. His party affiliation was printed next to his name on the voter roll. But the election worker was too dumb to figure out that "GRN" was an abbreviation for "Green", so he asked about it out of his own curiosity.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Umm... Michigan IS included in the USC on that map...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Stupid South. I've never been to a place so conservative and Republican. But in South Carolina they consider mudslinging to include saying the other candidate supports Kerry or some other liberal Democratic ideal.
People make fun of the South as being the slow backward redneck retards and the trailer park of the USA. While southerners fight that stereotype it's well deserved. That's why I've enjoyed the chance to move away and live in San Diego, CA.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Umm... Michigan IS included in the USC on that map...
Ok????
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: While southerners fight that stereotype it's well deserved. That's why I've enjoyed the chance to move away and live in San Diego, CA.
Except that San Diego is largly Republican.
Oddly, those "redneck values" are all farther north of Florida.
The farthest point south in the US is Key West: not what you'd call a stronghold of conservative ideals. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, the most southerly point in the US is the southernmost tip of Hawai'i.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)