I Have Done My Research And I Have Made My Choices

Status
Not open for further replies.
gruntlabor said:
Government by the majority is mob rule.

A republic if we can keep it. --Jefferson
Click to expand...
Actually, it was Benjamin Franklin who said "A republic, if you can keep it." And the quote about mob rule does not appear to be from Jefferson.
 

I voted by absentee ballot, after listening and listening to the presidential candidates drive themselves and the general voting public up the wall with their contradicting proposals. Yes, I voted for the candidate that maddens me at times, where the other one just maddens me. But not voting is an anathema to me. (I'll pray a lot for God of the Bible to grant wisdom to whomever wins). (y)
 
Debrah N. said:
Here's a question for you Murmurr. Do you find that checking a candidates voting record is relatively easy? What I mean is, I know you can Google their name and 'voting record', but when you get to that page, do you find that the record is easy to understand? Like the bills are named and explained so that you know what they voted no or yes on?

I find in Canada when I do the same, it takes me to a page and shows a list of bill numbers only (like Bill C19...) and then I have to go to another page which gives this great long explanation on who put the bill forward, the reasons why, the outline, then the details.... Sometimes I feel like it's made to be as tedious an exercise as possible.

I'd love to see a Cliff Notes version that says Bill C19 was to add trans people to the list of identifiable minorities so that their rights to housing, employment, services would not be disregarded. Or something to that effect. And then of course, how my candidate voted on that one specifically. So how is it set up in the USA?
Click to expand...

Cliff-note versions (summaries) of all Bill proposals are in these voter information guide booklets that all registered voters get in the mail several weeks before every state and federal election.

There are probably summaries online....like, there's no doubt something like a voters.org website, and I'm sure both houses have a website, but I read the voters book summaries, and then I enter the Bill number in my search engine if I need more details.

I do find that relatively easy, especially when I can decide yay or nay after looking at only 2 or 3 of the candidate's votes, or seeing that they didn't vote at all on 1 or 2 important issues. I mean, it's not like I have more important things to do in the few weeks before an election. For me, it's totally worth the effort.
 

MarkD said:
Does anyone know anything 100%? The fact checking I’ve seen convinced me it isn’t a credible claim. If there was any good evidence of it we’d be hearing about an actual court result. We don’t generally require anyone to prove the negative. Much more reasonable to ask for solid evidence of even one incidence.
Click to expand...
Kinda hard to prove anything in court when most lawsuits were dismissed by the court for "lack of standing." Fact is, judges are loathe to even hear a case involving election fraud to court. It happens, but rarely.
 
Elsie said:
No, how would that change human nature's tendency to have views/opinions that disagree with each other for which each will fight for?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have any effect on "human nature's tendencies" but that wouldn't be the point. It would send a message to politicians. Specifically, that Americans are dissatisfied with how elections are run, with the candidates the parties choose, and even with the campaigns and committees. It would be a non-violent civil protest for election reform, to have our voices heard, and it would be an extremely effective one.

It would be effective even if voter participation was the lowest ever in the history of voting; like if some people voted, but most didn't. That would scare politicians, and it would effect change. If it just made them stop using meaningless rhetoric and smears against their opponents, and made them be sincere and honest and discuss their actual plans instead, that would be change enough.
 
Murrmurr said:
Yeah, that's a recent thing, and it isn't right.

We have a right to keep our political leaning to ourselves, and we have a right to vote, so having to pick a side in order to vote is unconstitutional in my opinion. Our ballots aren't really secret because we do have to print our names on them and sign them, but that's (ostensibly) only for validating our citizenship status.
Click to expand...
I have never signed a ballot! I sign the register, receive my ballot, vote, and place it in the ballot box. The secret ballot is essential for the security of the voter.
 
dilettante said:
This is called a Personality Contest.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't know the difference between a person with an outgoing personality and a person whose behavior and opinions demonstrate good decent morals.

personality = qualities that make someone interesting or popular

decency = behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.

Many of our celebrities have charming, magnetic personalities but are indecent in their private lives.
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
Trust me, says the spider to the fly
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with putting my info on a mail-in ballot because there's such a thing as mail theft, rampant in my area, and the occasional PO deliverer who seems unable to read addresses and house numbers.

I have a *huge* issue with having to choose a party or else lose my right to vote in a federal election. That is absolutely ludicrous. I wroten my state rep about it 2 years ago and never got a response....maybe because he knew I didn't choose his party.
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
I don't have an issue with putting my info on a mail-in ballot because there's such a thing as mail theft, rampant in my area, and the occasional PO deliverer who seems unable to read addresses and house numbers.

I have a *huge* issue with having to choose a party or else lose my right to vote in a federal election. That is absolutely ludicrous. I wroten my state rep about it 2 years ago and never got a response....maybe because he knew I didn't choose his party.
Click to expand...
I think that was a supreme court decision, happened because in the primaries, voters were crossing over to vote for the enemy's challenger. It was unethical and could have been handled differently.
 
I don't have to say who I'm voting for.

My mom. She passed fourteen years ago this year. When in her 30s, she suffered three miscarriages. Two separate miscarriages were boys, the last one, boy & girl twins. She almost bled to death, was treated at Ft. Hood, Texas Army Hospital, was hospitalized for ten days, where she received a life-saving D&C.

60 years ago she got care NOT allowed today in the state I live in, after #roe was reversed.

I still grieve for my lost siblings. #miscarriage #womenshealthmatters #healthcare #ROE is about more than just abortion. Let's go.
 

Attachments

  • MOM.jpg
    MOM.jpg
    100.3 KB · Views: 5
gruntlabor said:
I think that was a supreme court decision, happened because in the primaries, voters were crossing over to vote for the enemy's challenger. It was unethical and could have been handled differently.
Click to expand...
Crossed over...so what? Maybe their choices in the primaries proved to be poor ones. Doesn't even matter, no citizen who has the right to vote should be prevented from voting in any election. That isn't unethical, it's unconstitutional.

On the ballot I got the first year they did that, I was only given the choice of the two BIG parties. I had to choose either dem or repub. I think the following years, they list 4 parties, which still isn't all of the parties eligible to run for federal/exec offices.

At any rate, I just check a box and then vote however I want. And I have to wonder if my votes even count because I "crossed over" here and there.
 
Murrmurr said:
I don't have an issue with putting my info on a mail-in ballot because there's such a thing as mail theft, rampant in my area, and the occasional PO deliverer who seems unable to read addresses and house numbers.

I have a *huge* issue with having to choose a party or else lose my right to vote in a federal election. That is absolutely ludicrous. I wroten my state rep about it 2 years ago and never got a response....maybe because he knew I didn't choose his party.
Click to expand...
I find this whole registered party voter amazing. All voting in Australia is secret ballot, including postal voting. There are some details required for a postal vote but no party affiliation is asked for. The actual vote is sealed in an envelope which is not opened until the official voting day. A witness is required to testify that what is in the sealed envelope is truly the uncoerced vote of the intended citizen. I performed that duty for my mother when getting her to the polls was too difficult.
 
Warrigal said:
I find this whole registered party voter amazing.
Click to expand...
It concerns the primaries which the political parties put on. The primaries are used to winnow down the field to one candidate from each party to compete in the general election. In the general one can vote for any party w/out restriction.

Some primaries are "open" which means any registered voter from any party can show up on primary voting day and vote for anyone w no party restrictions. Other primaries are "closed" and are restricted to members of it's own party which one must be registered to in advance.

My state has a closed primary so I register in that party that controls the outcome most of the time, otherwise I would get no voice at all into state and some local elections. We have a state-wide ballot measure this year which will, if it passes, change that. The closed primary in our state has led, in one party, to the election of candidates w the most extreme viewpoints; moderates are pushed aside in favor of the extremists. This ballot measure was fought tooth and nail by one party and the state. They love their power and don't mind disenfranchising the citizens to maintain and grow their power.
 
Last edited:
Some of the most extreme politicians from one side are now called "moderate" because they have crossed the line to endorse the anointed (not elected by Primaries/Caucuses) candidate of the opposite Party - in a desperate attempt to foil the will of the people in their own Party who have cast them out.
 
Murrmurr said:
Cliff-note versions (summaries) of all Bill proposals are in these voter information guide booklets that all registered voters get in the mail several weeks before every state and federal election.

There are probably summaries online....like, there's no doubt something like a voters.org website, and I'm sure both houses have a website, but I read the voters book summaries, and then I enter the Bill number in my search engine if I need more details.

I do find that relatively easy, especially when I can decide yay or nay after looking at only 2 or 3 of the candidate's votes, or seeing that they didn't vote at all on 1 or 2 important issues. I mean, it's not like I have more important things to do in the few weeks before an election. For me, it's totally worth the effort.
Click to expand...
That's so great for you that you get summaries of all the bills. That would make it much easier for you to research what a candidates vote was on issues that are important to you. All I've been able to find is the complete list of four years of bills with just Bill #'s beside and that means looking each one up individually to find out what it was about and then looking up the politicians votes.....tedious! I wish Canada did it differently.

What I've been doing instead to keep up with the candidates is whenever one of them does something that irritates me or that I find is a benefit to Canadians, is to add it (along with the date and a link to the credible source news story) to a 'timeline'. And out of that, I've developed a time line that informs me and gives me an understanding of the people who are asking for my vote.
 
Last edited:
dilettante said:
Is it really?

At least one Party seems confident that it is legitimate to swap in different candidates as they go, ignoring the results of their own Primaries and Caucuses. For whatever reasons they might swap in others still, possibly even after the election as long as all votes have not yet been tallied I suppose. Once you're voting for a Party not a representative candidate do you even know what your vote means any more?

I'm uncertain they don't claim the right to do this right down the ballot and across the entire nation.
Click to expand...

At least one Party seems confident that it is legitimate to run a convicted felon at the top of their ticket.
Click to expand...
 
We have a Provincial election , we voted by mail a couple of days ago. We are not physically able to go to the polling place and stand in line. Our son will stand in line on the 19th. We will see how it turns out.
 
Murrmurr said:
Crossed over...so what? Maybe their choices in the primaries proved to be poor ones. Doesn't even matter, no citizen who has the right to vote should be prevented from voting in any election. That isn't unethical, it's unconstitutional.

On the ballot I got the first year they did that, I was only given the choice of the two BIG parties. I had to choose either dem or repub. I think the following years, they list 4 parties, which still isn't all of the parties eligible to run for federal/exec offices.

At any rate, I just check a box and then vote however I want. And I have to wonder if my votes even count because I "crossed over" here and there.
Click to expand...
No, I meant it was unethical of those voters whose purpose was, not to vote for a candidate, but to ensure that the opposite candidate lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top