My voting method

[john5746]

I voted for Obama today - early voting. I relocated recently and I have never been very active in local politics. Consequently, I really was not familiar with the local candidates.

 

With the positions that I was not familiar with, I decided to choose the candidates with this method:

 

If one candidate was female and the other male, I chose female

If one candidate had Jr. or a numeral after their name, I didn't chose them

If the two did not apply, I chose democrat.

 

My wife told me she mixed it up with the parties, but leaned towards libertarian locally. After further reflection, this seemed to make more sense. See why I chose more females?

 

Hopefully, I will be a less ignorant voter next time around.

[bascule]

I'm going to do early voting as well (it starts on Monday in Colorado). Colorado has an awesome early voting system. For the next two weeks you can walk into the County Clerk's office whenever you want between the hours of 9-5 and vote. It's two weeks, all day every day. I wonder... if every state did voting like that, how much it could improve turnouts.

 

Anyway I'll be reviewing the ballot ahead of time and putting together what I'd like to vote for so I can pull it up on my phone and copy it onto my ballot.

 

In terms of the local candidates for the most part I'll just be voting down party lines. The amendments/ballot initiatives I'll decide for myself, and the judges I'll generally go with what the ACLU has to say.

[john5746]

I voted in North Carolina - there was a man outside handing out a cheat sheet for the democratic vote. Pretty good traffic.

 

I voted in the Planetarium.

[Pangloss]

Under the watchful eye of a Zeiss Mark VI overhead projector?

[JohnB]

I thought this was just a Presidential election, as in separate from the electing of Congressional Representatives.

 

What other elections are decided on the Presidential ballot day? Could someone please expand?

[iNow]

The general election ballot has president, senator, representative (for the House of Reps), Federal Judges, District Attorneys, Sheriffs, etc.

 

We also get a local ballot for local propositions and changes to governance measures.

 

 

Here's how it looks where I am in Texas. This link has a .pdf example of what both ballots look like this year:

 

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/county_clerk/election/20081104/sample.asp

[jackson33]

I thought this was just a Presidential election, as in separate from the electing of Congressional Representatives.

 

What other elections are decided on the Presidential ballot day? Could someone please expand?

 

Technically, there is no National Election, or is the popular vote of all citizens important to the only truly 2 National Candidates. When a person votes in any of the States they are voting for an 'Elector' which has been chose by a party or legislature of that State. The procedure leading up to the closing of any States voting are different and at that pointed time, NO further casting is allowed.

 

Whatever district you live in (US House) someone has been assigned that will represent the various parties, after the final votes are compiled and confirmed. They in turn meet (usually where State Government convenes) and votes for their district (This year Dec. 15). Those results and from all States are then sent to the US Congress, where they are officially tallied by both chambers, this cycle Jan. 8th 2009.

 

The current electoral system, formed from how the first presidents were picked. The then State Legislatures, chose the electors for President and they met in Washington DC. Second place in the vote was automatically the VP for that first pick. In those days and to today, there is no requirement for the electors or the Congress to confirm the picks, but generally have. Ironically the Senators in the early days were also picked by State Legislatures and no popular vote taken.

 

The short answer then; States and today the parties choose how they pick the the P/VP and are only held to minimal qualifications (35YO etc) and dates to complete, first Tuesday November...All States have adopted that Tuesday for all elections, whether the P/VP is involved or not. For the record the States are not required, except under their laws, to place any one individual party on the ballot and don't...

[iNow]

Jackson,

 

It's not obvious to me that you were aware of this whilst posting, but to ensure clarity I wanted to share with you that John doesn't live in the US.

[jackson33]

Jackson,

 

It's not obvious to me that you were aware of this whilst posting, but to ensure clarity I wanted to share with you that John doesn't live in the US.

 

Didn't realize I was not to respond to people not from the US!!! Actually figured he was from outside the US, or wouldn't have tried so hard to explain the system...Its actually much more complicated than my explanation and the concept of State (50), Party(appx 6) politics is difficult to explain. No one State operates exactly like any other...

[iNow]

Didn't realize I was not to respond to people not from the US!!!

 

Who suggested any such thing?

[JohnB]

Thanks, both of you, it really is a very different system from ours. How do you keep track of whether or not Joe Bloggs will make a good judge? Or DA, or whatever?

Here's how it looks where I am in Texas. This link has a .pdf example of what both ballots look like this year:

Bloody hell. (Although I do like the idea of spelling out the tax proposals.)

[Pangloss]

You generally don't, which is part of the problem. Sometimes news organizations will set up features in which they spotlight smaller races, but it's more the exception than the rule. There's also Google and Google News, of course, and the Wikipedia -- if you find a small-time politician in there it's generally a bad thing!

 

Ballot initiatives generally have some Web support, at least in my experience. We have six ballot issues to consider here in Florida this year, btw. They range in issues from gay marriage to property ownership by illegal aliens.

 

I was checking out this site the other day and it seemed promising for this sort of thing:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

 

I like the way it puts a bit of national perspective on local issues, saying things like "18 other states have passed similar measures", etc.

[iNow]

Interesting link, but they didn't have anything current for TX unfortunately.

[jackson33]

Thanks, both of you, it really is a very different system from ours. How do you keep track of whether or not Joe Bloggs will make a good judge? Or DA, or whatever?

 

Federal Judges are 100% nominated by our 'Executive Branch' and all MUST be confirmed by Congress. On the local level, well they are local people, but even here most people will pick by their party affiliation. Its said up to 30% of each parties members will vote a straight ticket...All the Dem's or Rep's, with very little representation other than those two.

 

Keep in mind, Travis County, Texas alone may have more than one district involved and each district has a different ballot, think 35 in Texas, 53 in California (LA and Orange County alone have about 20 districts) and seven states have only one district. Some State also use the Nomination of their Governors to determine Judgeships, and some are termed, some for life.

 

It like 50 different countries, each with its own system. Top that off with 435 districts and you end up with the confusion you usually see at the end of any Presidential Election...But its worked many times and transfer of power has peacefully occurred 42 times and counting.

[npts2020]

Actually federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by a simple majority of the Senate (which in reality needs more support if a filibuster is threatened). Every state has its own system though, some elected, some appointed.

[waitforufo]

Washington State has mail in ballots. I have had mine for about a week now, so I can vote any time up to Election Day. If I don't want to pay for a stamp there are local drop off locations.

 

This is a great system. You look through the ballot and vote the things you know and then you have time to sort out the rest. The state mails out a voter pamphlet where the candidates make their pitches and their opponents make their rebuttals. Similar with issue oriented contests. If that’s not enough you can look on line, or my favorite you can call the candidate's election office. I just love to here them choke when I say "I'm holding my ballot in my hand right now, why should I vote for your candidate or issue?" Another favorite is "Obviously you're just paid to answer the phone, is there someone there that actually knows the candidate's positions?"

 

I find judge positions to be the hardest to vote for. It's almost impossible to find information. Giving out real information would show the judge is not impartial. So, I guess if you like how their picture looks, you vote that way. Okay, if they are running for re-election, and if you dig hard enough, you can at least find a few of their important decisions and decide if you agree or not. If their not standing judges, you can look for cases they represented as lawyers and base your decision on that. But you really have to dig, and what you find is often quite obtuse. I don't know how people did it before the internet.

[john5746]

But you really have to dig, and what you find is often quite obtuse. I don't know how people did it before the internet.

 

They went to the courthouse or asked Betsy, the church pianist. She knew all the gossip about everyone.

[ParanoiA]

I wonder why they keep doing it this way. I've never actually talked with someone that had a good process of estimation for judges. I usually always vote out the incumbent unless I know something about the guy. That's really the safest decision for those of us who are empowered with ignorance and impelled to wield it.

 

Seems to me it would be better for them to be appointed. May be interesting to check into my state's government structure and its history, to see where we've been on this.

[bascule]

I wonder why they keep doing it this way. I've never actually talked with someone that had a good process of estimation for judges. I usually always vote out the incumbent unless I know something about the guy. That's really the safest decision for those of us who are empowered with ignorance and impelled to wield it.

 

Voting not to retain judges out of ignorance is not a particularly good policy either. For all you know, the judge you're voting out agrees with you completely, and the judge waiting to replace him you'd hate.

 

The best methodology I've found for making determinations about judges is finding a policy organization or institute with many local chapters who's able to give recommendations for your state/county. If their reasoning is sound, go with it, otherwise don't vote.

 

I'm looking for judges with a sound respect for the civil liberties granted to us by the Constitution. In order to determine that, you really need a civil libertarian with a sound knowledge of Constitutional Law to review their case history and make a recommendation.

[JohnB]

Wild.

 

Can you do a partial vote? As in only fill in some of the boxes, or is it fill in the lot or don't vote?

 

Can you just leave out say, the Judges section?

[john5746]

Wild.

 

Can you do a partial vote? As in only fill in some of the boxes, or is it fill in the lot or don't vote?

 

Can you just leave out say, the Judges section?

 

Rules are slightly different by state, but I'm pretty sure you can leave anything blank and not invalidate the whole ballot. You could leave the President blank and vote for judges, for example.

[ParanoiA]

The best methodology I've found for making determinations about judges is finding a policy organization or institute with many local chapters who's able to give recommendations for your state/county. If their reasoning is sound' date=' go with it, otherwise don't vote.

 

I'm looking for judges with a sound respect for the civil liberties granted to us by the Constitution. In order to determine that, you really need a civil libertarian with a sound knowledge of Constitutional Law to review their case history and make a recommendation.[/quote']

 

Hmm, cool process. I will give this a try. This makes sense.

[Pangloss]

Wild.

 

Can you do a partial vote? As in only fill in some of the boxes, or is it fill in the lot or don't vote?

 

Can you just leave out say, the Judges section?

Yes. That produced some of the famous consternation during the Florida recount in 2000, because of difficulties in determining whether some ballots were unmarked or the voter had simply not pressed down hard enough on the puncher. It was less significant than the "hanging chad" issue, iirc.

[waitforufo]

Wild.

 

Can you do a partial vote? As in only fill in some of the boxes, or is it fill in the lot or don't vote?

 

Can you just leave out say, the Judges section?

 

If this was a question to me, based on my post 16, then yes you can choose not to vote for particular races or issues.

[bascule]

Hmm, cool process. I will give this a try. This makes sense.

 

Yeah, it's a cool process, until you realize that in pretty much all cases the recommendation is to retain the judge.

 

I voted against retaining this judge, though:

 

Unfortunately, her weaknesses far outweigh her strengths and we believe are damaging to the public’s trust in the judicial system as a whole. Over 50 responses to surveys, including both attorneys and non-attorneys were extremely critical. Words similar to poor people skills, bad demeanor, impatient, not friendly, rude, unsympathetic, belittling and harsh were used more than once in describing her. Multiple responders, including both attorneys and non-attorneys, stated that she had no strengths.