Is there any point in voting (in America) this year?

In Russia, there is (or was, until recently) an option to vote "against all candidates", and the stats for such ballots were tallied and published (if doctored just a wee bet beforehand).

I rocked my vote this morning before work. One important local issue, the need to elect representation that would honor the state's voters(two key "liberal" ballot initiatives have failed to get ratified, yet there was a speed lane on barring benefits to gay couples) two big state issues, and an attempt to run a State Supreme Court judge off took me there.

Looking at the previous decade, there were much sexier issues-Medical Marijuana, funding for stemcell research, too me out in years past. If he is all he claims to be, the state senator I voted for should get the ball rolling on much needed environmental, financial, policy.

Regardless of what you think of voting for people into federal office, LOCAL candidates affect your life much more directly and DO represent key differences in philosophy-- nearly every (if not every) state in the union is facing serious budget deficit issues, and these are the people who are going to be deciding on those courses of action.

There are several "what Obama and the Democrats have done since 2008" videos/bogs floating around right now, and they've been very interesting to me. Whether you support those choices or not, MANY things have been accomplished these past two years. Looking at that list, do we really think it "doesn't matter" which party is in charge? Would any of those things exist if the other party had been in control?

I mailed in my ballot Saturday morning, and I was as-ever thankful that we do vote by mail in Oregon. There were several candidates for city and state positions that I was not familiar with, so I was able to do some internet research and figure out who was my best-fit.

Our ballot measures were rather lackluster this year as well. The only one that really rose above noise level was a measure allowing medical marijuana farmers to sell to licensed dispensaries.

From DE: I did my part to keep Christ(ine O'Donnell) out of government.

That was my main reason for voting - to keep Delaware from becoming a national embarassment by putting an ignorant anti-mastrubationist in the Senate. I didn't care about who was running against her.

I voted today. Mostly to flip over the ballot and vote about judge retention. Here in Iowa there as been a big push to remove judges who voted against the gay marriage ban. I am personally happy about that but I think it is a bigger issue. To toss out judges simply because they don't vote how you like is just silly. In every case there are people unhappy with the verdict. We cannot let the law be decided by who has the most money to get judges they like elected.

Voting for judges is hard. You have to parse through the cliche-filled campaign blurbs to figure out which ones are nutcases. On top of that one of the judge seats I had to vote for today had 24 candidates. What the hell!

I think a better strategy is to vote for the independent candidate that best represents your liberal, centrist, or conservative principles. I happen to be a republican that always votes democratic because I want legal pot, decriminalization of drug possession, legally recognized gay marriage, real informative sex. ed. in schools, science in the classroom, and safe legal access to abortions and birth control, as well as, universal health care. But, to support those issues I need to vote Democratic. If a republican in my district came out in support of those issues, okay they probably would not get on board with government health care, but if they would at least take a REAL conservative stance on abortion, gay marriage, religion in public schools (evolution and sex. ed.), and drug use, I would support them.

I'll take a Barry Goldwater clone, basically. Well, one that, in an alternate universe, would have actually supported the Civil Rights Act.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Voting for judges is hard. You have to parse through the cliche-filled campaign blurbs to figure out which ones are nutcases. On top of that one of the judge seats I had to vote for today had 24 candidates. What the hell!

Yeah that one judge seat ( I'm in MN too) was crazy. Every judge seat had one or two candidates, but that one seat was 24.

Nevin73 wrote:

From DE: I did my part to keep Christ(ine O'Donnell) out of government.

That was my main reason for voting - to keep Delaware from becoming a national embarassment by putting an ignorant anti-mastrubationist in the Senate. I didn't care about who was running against her.

I would have too if I hadn't just recently moved. Thanks for helping out my friends still in the state.

Christine, you are NOT me. I masturbate. Furiously. To pictures of you in a witch outfit.

Not really.

Spoiler:

Yes, really.

Yoreel wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Voting for judges is hard. You have to parse through the cliche-filled campaign blurbs to figure out which ones are nutcases. On top of that one of the judge seats I had to vote for today had 24 candidates. What the hell!

Yeah that one judge seat ( I'm in MN too) was crazy. Every judge seat had one or two candidates, but that one seat was 24.

Back when I worked with many a juvenile delinquent, myself and the entire staff made sure to vote for the judge the kids most feared.

Mixolyde wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

From DE: I did my part to keep Christ(ine O'Donnell) out of government.

That was my main reason for voting - to keep Delaware from becoming a national embarassment by putting an ignorant anti-mastrubationist in the Senate. I didn't care about who was running against her.

I would have too if I hadn't just recently moved. Thanks for helping out my friends still in the state.

Christine, you are NOT me. I masturbate. Furiously. To pictures of you in a witch outfit.

Not really.

Spoiler:

Yes, really.

What about her, in her lady bug costume?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

From DE: I did my part to keep Christ(ine O'Donnell) out of government.

That was my main reason for voting - to keep Delaware from becoming a national embarassment by putting an ignorant anti-mastrubationist in the Senate. I didn't care about who was running against her.

I would have too if I hadn't just recently moved. Thanks for helping out my friends still in the state.

Christine, you are NOT me. I masturbate. Furiously. To pictures of you in a witch outfit.

Not really.

Spoiler:

Yes, really.

What about her, in her lady bug costume?

I love the story about the guy who claimed he almost got her in a one night stand...and that she was rockin' the seventies. The last part I believe.

farley3k wrote:

We cannot let the law be decided by who has the most money to get judges they like elected.

I wholeheartedly agree and voted accordingly. I hope none of the judges were also nut-cases.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

(I canvassed for Obama. Though I am disappointed with his choices on a number of fronts, I am happy that he's in the White House, given the alternative).

I know this is from way earlier in the thread, but I think the bolded part is the biggest problem we have. The two party system is just completely broken. That there are only two or three candidates for any given office race is so very stupid.

What is a person suppose to do when the choices are vote for the insane temperamental old guy or the obvious liar who's never actually done anything?

You vote for the guy who's never done anything in the hopes that he might actually do something this time? Well, that option sucks, but hey, it's slightly less sh*tty than the other option.

That essentially all of our elections for every office boil down to questions like that makes the whole thing incredibly depressing.

Here in Iowa 3 of the judges ruling in favor of equal marriage rights didn't make the cut. The vote seemed split right down the middle for each of them with just 3% more in the No column. Looks like the majority gets to dictate legislative interpretation from now on.

I was more saddened by that then anything else. So now if you have enough money you can not only make laws but get them upheld. Words fail me.

Thin_J wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

(I canvassed for Obama. Though I am disappointed with his choices on a number of fronts, I am happy that he's in the White House, given the alternative).

I know this is from way earlier in the thread, but I think the bolded part is the biggest problem we have. The two party system is just completely broken. That there are only two or three candidates for any given office race is so very stupid.

What is a person suppose to do when the choices are vote for the insane temperamental old guy or the obvious liar who's never actually done anything?

You vote for the guy who's never done anything in the hopes that he might actually do something this time? Well, that option sucks, but hey, it's slightly less sh*tty than the other option.

That essentially all of our elections for every office boil down to questions like that makes the whole thing incredibly depressing.

Except that in the primaries, you also had the choice of the adulterer, the President's wife, the creepy robot, Law and Order guy, the lunatic from Texas, and Jesus-buddy, among others

Thin_J wrote:

That essentially all of our elections for every office boil down to questions like that makes the whole thing incredibly depressing.

The most important thing to understand about this phenomenon is that it is not an accident. It's not something that just happened. It's a combination of the R/D stranglehold over things like redistricting and the prevailing political wisdom of the "wasted vote".

For example, take a look at the North Carolina U.S. House races. Of the 13 districts, only 5 of the races were even within 10 points, and only one race was really close - Etheridge-Ellmers. The rest were blowouts, like Mel Watt in the 12th District, winning by 30 points. Can you honestly look at the 12th District and think that this district represents a community?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/find...

So if you want to fix the issue of choice, the way to do it is to get involved with ballot access activities and activism, and to pursue things like California's redistricting committee that just passed (Prop 20). The LP and Greens just finished up an NC Supreme Court case on ballot access that we're hoping will break down some of those barriers, but there's lots left to do.

farley3k wrote:

I was more saddened by that then anything else. So now if you have enough money you can not only make laws but get them upheld. Words fail me.

Gotta love upholding the principle of "Tyranny of the Majority", eh?

I remember a while back reading that the average retention rate (somewhere in the neighborhood of 95%) in the House/Senate was better than the Kremlin. The system is definitely been rigged to favor incumbents. It is why it is so amazing when the other party can take over a seat. It is always historic.

Over the years I have been coming to the conclusion that I should no longer make the "lesser of two evils" choice. I think we need to make politicians really fear for their jobs. Most don't. Problem is all the non- Democrat/Republican candidates are usually nutjobs or extremely left or right of center.

If a social progressive republican or a fiscally conservative democrat ran as an independent...I would vote for them twice.

...even if they would be wasted votes.

I really think the Dems. lost this round because they completely lack the ability to unify behind the policy promises that got them elected. Everyone was excited when Obama took office and the democrats took some seats from the repubs., but then it all fell to making deals instead get into dog fights.

One thing you can say about the Republicans is that they go for the jugular and don't let go.

Well, they lost because the GOP never stopped campaigning from 2008. They planned for this election. And the only thing a democrat "super majority" got was a train wreck of a healthcare bill that they did a terrible job explaining but a good job patting their own backs.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well, they lost because the GOP never stopped campaigning from 2008. They planned for this election. And the only thing a democrat "super majority" got was a train wreck of a healthcare bill that they did a terrible job explaining but a good job patting their own backs.

Yeah. All those "accomplishments" will be rolled back and all the things Obama could have done are missed opportunities. No prosecutions of the criminals. No rolling back the police state. No real financial reform. Just a Fed with trillions of dollars of toxic assets on the books and a whole lot of post-partisanship.

Well, I would say GM and Chrysler worked out OK. It was no Hoover Dam, but there is a good chance at there being a return on investment.

This American Life had a great episode recently called "This Party Sucks" that had a great analysis of what the Dems failed to do and at least one strategists reasons as to why.

I think the current shift in balance can work for the best. Power imbalances always work well for the minority party, since they have a strong incentive to sabotage any bill, then blame the majority party for the inevitable failure. Now that the republicans have a majority in the House, they will also have to account for bad policies, sabotaged reforms, politically motivated attacks, etc.

Clinton and Reagan both worked under a similar system and both were fairly successful at enacting the policies they wanted. Also, the Senate Dems. might grow a pair now that they have someone else to stand up and take credit/blame for the stuff Congress passes in the next two years.

We'll see, though. I doubt that we will move as strongly to the right as some democrats (usually the ones who like to say they are moving to Canada...for real this time!) have posited. We might actually get a better functioning more competent government as a result.

heavyfeul wrote:

We'll see, though. I doubt that we will move as strongly to the right as some democrats (usually the ones who like to say they are moving to Canada...for real this time!) have posited. We might actually get a better functioning more competent government as a result.

When the party leadership has come out saying their #1 goal is to roll back healthcare AND continue to stonewall on anything Obama wants, I don't see how we can logically assume that the GOP are suddenly going to come to the table willing to negotiate.

DSGamer wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well, they lost because the GOP never stopped campaigning from 2008. They planned for this election. And the only thing a democrat "super majority" got was a train wreck of a healthcare bill that they did a terrible job explaining but a good job patting their own backs.

Yeah. All those "accomplishments" will be rolled back and all the things Obama could have done are missed opportunities. No prosecutions of the criminals. No rolling back the police state. No real financial reform. Just a Fed with trillions of dollars of toxic assets on the books and a whole lot of post-partisanship.

If those ""accomplishments"" could be rolled back, why couldn't these specific issues of YOURS be rolled back?

Had the Obama Justice Department prosecuted crimes and rolled us back to a pre-9/11 rule of law that would be extremely hard to undo by act of Congress.