Active Users:225 Time:19/05/2024 08:55:21 PM
Depends where you live. Joel Send a noteboard - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM
You should always turn up and vote, if you have no wish to vote for any of the candidates you can always register your protest by deliberately spoiling your ballot paper. At least that is how it is done in Europe, I don't know if it is possible to spoil your vote in the states considering the machines certain areas use.

Ironically, voters in the Senate Majority Leaders native NV can vote a "nobody" option, and both he and his Scientologist Tea Party opponent are so awful there's been speculation a lot of people will. That's hardly the norm though; most states it'd probably just be tallied as an under or overvote if at all, then discarded. It's up to the states mostly though. The Constitution actually has a section that covers running elections:

Article I, Section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

It's up to each state, and each one has its own laws, which usually get enforced and modified by county and municipal laws. 2010 is actually an important year, because while each state always has 2 Senators, with the census it's time to divide 435 House seats by 310 million people, and each states legislature will do that with however many House seats that gives them by federal law. Texas, for example, is expected to get 3 more House seats, and it was already second behind CA with 34. Interestingly, we're the only state growing that much; CA is expected to stay at 53 after skyrocketing for years, and FL will go from 25 to 26 or 27. The Rust Belt will cost OH 2 more and drop them to 16, plus eight other states lose one and six others gain. That's important both because it's how big each states chunk of the new Congress is, and because state House+Senate seats=Electors in the 2012 Presidential election.

Each states Legislature will then divide up the map into however many Congressional Districts that creates. While they're at it, they'll draw up State Senate and House districts for however many seats they want the next state Legislature to have. Then the cities and counties will draw in their districts (with the same federal census numbers) and each level of government will set dates for its elections, with one big election every second year on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, as fixed by federal law (but not the Constitution).

Incidentally, this means the big plums for 2012 Presidential candidates will be:

CA 55
TX 37
NY 30
FL 29/30
PA 20
IL 20
OH 18
GA 16
NC 16
MI 16

Of those, really only FL, PA, OH and MI are likely to be in play, maybe NC if there's a strong black turnout and low general turnout. The Dems will get CA, NY and Obamas native IL, and probably MI, so that's 121. The Republicans will get TX and GA for sure, and probably OH and NC for 68. After that there's about five states with a dozen Electoral votes, which they'll likely split 2/3, maybe five more with about 10 that'll split much the same, and then it's 30 small state where the Dems need 100 EVs and the Republicans need 150. Trouble is, most of those states are either in the South or the West, and with a few exceptions like NM most of them are deep red. Since the Clinton era Dems have had to be strong enough in FL, OH or PA to win 2 of those 3, but that was when OH and PA had >20 votes and FL only had a little more. Now the big prize is FL, because it'll have almost 30, so it's the biggest state in play, then a big drop to PA and OH. If the Dems can get that and PA that's 50 more EVs and they only need 99 to win.

It is kinda sad though to hope that the Senate Majority Leader loses to a Scientologist just so the guaranteed Democratic Senate picks a firebrand Majority Leader. How far we've come in two years of Obama; now the only reason his seat, the VPs seat AND the Senate Majority Leaders won't go Republican is Christine O'Donnell running for Bidens old job. That's three SOLID Dem Senators gone, plus he pulled three more into Cabinet positions and now those are going Republican. If you really want to know what happened, look there.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
US Constitution, Article I (Congress)
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 802 Views
You don't want her? - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 360 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 244 Views
Now there's an answer - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 341 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 104 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 221 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 209 Views
Issac has a point. - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 222 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 203 Views
Depends where you live. - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 250 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 89 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 194 Views
Exactly. - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 308 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 324 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 190 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 205 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 313 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 237 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 215 Views
It's a valid argument. - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 191 Views
i feel kinda bad for her - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 234 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 245 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 131 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 233 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 96 Views
Yep, this. *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 117 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 95 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 195 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 190 Views
I actually felt bad for her - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 211 Views
She's right. - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 341 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 187 Views
It is on youtube - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 239 Views
Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 244 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 216 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 191 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 194 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 280 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 192 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 218 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 251 Views
Done. - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 193 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 76 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 250 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 192 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 193 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 192 Views
No it does not show that. - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 186 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 169 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 81 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 78 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 183 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 172 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 173 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 195 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 174 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 189 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 172 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 283 Views
She's so... bewildered! - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 183 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 186 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 179 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 175 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 273 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 174 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 223 Views
exactly - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 214 Views
She started out alright - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 175 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 307 Views
Lol. Bush-League. - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 166 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 82 Views

Reply to Message