Online Ballot Preview

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:54 am

Here is something new to me: online ballot. In Michigan you cannow view the ballot you'll be voting on come November.

That's the ballot I will be voting on.

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:31 am

So, how ya votin' on prop. 2 (gay marriage ban, for the non-Michiganders)?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:41 am

I think I will vote yes.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:01 am

Serious Paul wrote:I think I will vote yes.

I was going to let it drop, but I couldn't resist asking why.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:30 am

In Florida they have electronic vooting booths this time around. [url=mms://streamingmedia.cyso.nl/cyso.nl/Voting_Machine.wmv]Here's an example.[/url] And here's an example in QuickTime.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm

mrmooky wrote:I was going to let it drop, but I couldn't resist asking why.

The best answer I have as to why is this: I don't care if homosexuals get equal rights or not. I do not believe it to be a genetic trait, anymore than I believe alcoholism to be one, or drug usage.

While I am making myself look real right and bigoted, I don't believe in affirmative action, welfare, government assistance of most types, or the ERA. Feel free to send me a fire bomb via email.

Elldren · Post by **Elldren** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:14 pm

Serious Paul wrote:I don't believe in... the ERA.

Why the hell not? It might not make much sense, but it's the best single measure of just how good a pitcher is.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:18 pm

That first link doesn't work.

There's no way I could vote yes on 2. Regardless of my feelings towards homosexuals (though my position just furthers my yes on two), this would be creating the first section in the entire Constitution that actually denies something to a certain group of individuals. I thought it was supposed to grant us our rights, not say "Well, this group can do this, but this group can't." Bloody ridiculous, in my opinion, and lays out a welcome mat that says "Bring it on, Slippery Slope!" I just cannot support something like that.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:27 pm

My point of view has always been that if you don't like gay marriages, don't have one.

I think marriage needs to be divided in two ways: "state," and "church." Churches should have the right to approve or deny the marriage of anyone they choose, but this church marriage has no legal force; it's a contract between some people [usually two] and their god.

State marriages should be a contract between two [or more, whatever] people, which grants you the legal rights marriage deserves. [Whatever those may be.]

I don't understand why it can't be this simple.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:31 pm

And in another startling display of how I can easily change my mind, or be of two minds on one issue-I change my vote on this Prop. After speaking with 3278, and realizing just how stupid I was being I will likely vote no on both Proposals.

Never say I don't listen.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:39 pm

Elledren wrote:Why the hell not? It might not make much sense, but it's the best single measure of just how good a pitcher is.

Seriously, I am against the government regulating our thoughts on anything. Perosnally I am bit surprised anyone would want to legislate our thoughts on any thing-if you have to make a law making people be nice then there's a fundamental problem in your society no law will cure.

Frankly I think this is no where as off the deep end as advocating armed force to remove religion form society. I just want people to be responsible for themselves, and their government to be there for only those things necassary, absolutely necassary.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:50 pm

Just out of curiosity, what did he say?

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:56 pm

I see two, but why no on One if you want less government regulation of the public?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:04 pm

Cash: Check the France thread.

Because apaprently I misunderstood Proposal one, as well. I was under the impression it was to work like this:

People in county X want gambling, people in county X vote, and if it passes, county X gets Keno or whatever. And each county could make its own choice.

Instead, I guess it is to work like this:

Joes Bar wants Keno, they need to get a state wide vote to have it, each and every time. The state as a whole makes choices for individual communities.

Which of course means a few religous groups that weild a lot of voter turn out will run this proposal, and who gets gambling.

I think thats silly.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:53 pm

As it turns out, actually, my father appears to be wrong. It appears that the prospective gambling venue must pass both a state /and/ a local vote. Still seeking more information. A link to the proposal would help, since I'm real lazy. I mean, /real/ lazy. I'm so lazy that, even though during the time I spent writing this, I could have gotten the answer, I /still/ won't look it up for myself. It's like spending five minutes picking something up with your foot instead of bending over and using your hands. Which I also do.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:10 am

Proposal One and links to Proposal Two, and the ballot guide. I am not sure why that first link quit working.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:37 am

Well, then you said it yourself, in your post in the Prop. 1 thread: the proposal does the following:

Require voter approval of any form of gambling authorized by law after January 1, 2004.
Require voter approval of any new state lottery games utilizing "table games" or "player operated mechanical or electronic devices" introduced after January 1, 2004.
Provide that when voter approval is required, both statewide voter approval and voter approval in the city or township where gambling will take place must be obtained.
Specify that the voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming or gambling in up to three casinos located in the City of Detroit.

So, there must be statewide approval and city or township [whichever is applicable]. Interestingly, it applies to "any form of gambling authorized by law," as well as lottery games including table games and mechanical/electronic games.

What I think is most interesting is bullet four: "up to three" casinos in Detroit? Why are "up to three casinos" in Detroit legal /without/ voter approval?

I also find the wording of bullet one interesting, when contrasted with bullet two: "Require voter approval of any form of gambling..." versus, "Require voter approval of any new state lottery games..." I also think specifying only "state lottery games utilizing 'table games' or 'player operated mechanical or electronic devices'" leaves a gap I could drive a truck through: basically, the state is free to dream up any kind of lottery that /isn't/ table or mechanic/electrical, and not require a vote on that. Notice also any mechanical or electrical game that /isn't/ player operated doesn't require a vote.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:29 am

Serious Paul wrote:While I am making myself look real right and bigoted, I don't believe in affirmative action, welfare, government assistance of most types, or the ERA. Feel free to send me a fire bomb via email.

What is ERA?

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:35 am

lorg wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:While I am making myself look real right and bigoted, I don't believe in affirmative action, welfare, government assistance of most types, or the ERA. Feel free to send me a fire bomb via email.
What is ERA?

At a guess I'd say he means the Equal Rights Amendment.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:52 am

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:59 pm

lorg wrote:What is ERA?

A really pisspoor laundry detergent.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:05 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Seriously, I am against the government regulating our thoughts on anything. Perosnally I am bit surprised anyone would want to legislate our thoughts on any thing-if you have to make a law making people be nice then there's a fundamental problem in your society no law will cure.

Frankly I think this is no where as off the deep end as advocating armed force to remove religion form society. I just want people to be responsible for themselves, and their government to be there for only those things necassary, absolutely necassary.

I don't see the ERA as regulating thoughts at all.

Seriously.

ERA wrote: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

It says the government can't start legislating that women need to wear skirts unless men are equally required to wear skirts. It doesn't say that you personally need to allow women into your men club, and it doesn't apply to anything outside of sex (which is not gender). If Alabama has some law on the books barring women from serving in some position, then the national government can pass legislation forcing Alabama to change their laws.

Interestingly enough, it has been ratified by 35 out of a required 38 states. List of remaining states:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Teehee.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:30 pm

That protection already exists in our law, and in our Constitution, and doesn't merely apply to gender. Seems like a waste of time and money, to me.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:34 pm

lorg wrote:What is ERA?

Earned Run Average

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:06 pm

3278 wrote:That protection already exists in our law, and in our Constitution, and doesn't merely apply to gender. Seems like a waste of time and money, to me.

In 1923, when the Amendment was first proposed, it clearly did not exist in either law or Constitution. The Constitution has not been altered to include such verbiage since then (i.e. by including this Amendment). Therefore, it does not explicitly exist. I don't see that we need the ERA now... but I also don't see any good reason to prevent it from being put in if people want to have it there explicitly.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:28 pm

You're quite right that such protection did not exist in the Constitution; on the other hand, equality for all is explicitly given as one of our founding principles. What's more, it's no longer 1923, and such provisions have been made in law since, making the ERA effectively only windowdressing. There's no constitutional provision against murder, either, but we don't need an amendment for it, since it's already illegal. A constitutional amendment granting equality to women, when it's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, is unnecessary and purely cosmetic. [I think.] So much time and money has already gone into this that, in a way, we'd probably be better off ratifying it and moving on, but I hesitate to throw good money after bad.

[edit: Are you sure it's 1923? I thought the ERA was first proposed to legislature in 1972.]

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:08 pm

3278 wrote:[edit: Are you sure it's 1923? I thought the ERA was first proposed to legislature in 1972.]

No, I'm not. But the linked website is. And I'm too lazy to look it up anywhere else.