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.
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.
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.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
1050 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
601 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
471 Views
Now there's an answer
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
566 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
446 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
479 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
429 Views
Depends where you live.
- 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM
526 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
204 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
569 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
421 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote.
- 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM
425 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
550 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
546 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
476 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
516 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
469 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
251 Views
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
564 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
- 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
296 Views
It is on youtube
- 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM
479 Views
Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM
484 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM
445 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
408 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
425 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
504 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
456 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
514 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
456 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
509 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
526 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
414 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
454 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
478 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
421 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
459 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM
192 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
389 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS
- 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM
407 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs.
- 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM
425 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
418 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM
193 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
182 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake.
- 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM
416 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
408 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
385 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
435 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause.
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
195 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
195 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
393 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
420 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
510 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes.
- 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM
406 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
435 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
400 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
406 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
392 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
402 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
417 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
399 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
185 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
401 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
409 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
511 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true
- 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM
409 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM
173 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
466 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
417 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
574 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
529 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
417 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
431 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM*
- 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM
190 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look.
- 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM
500 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
196 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
173 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
405 Views
