|More Ohio entertainment!
||[Oct. 19th, 2006|12:50 pm]
The saga of Ted Strickland's voter registration, which I mentioned Tuesday, continues. If you recall, the issue of whether to hold a hearing about his residency was split along party lines, and his opponent in the gubernatorial race, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, was to cast the deciding vote.
Well. Blackwell handed off the decision to his assistant secretary, Monty Lobb, who cast a vote for holding a hearing. Yeah, because that made in unpolitical, right?
Now, experts claim that while his right to vote in this election may be lost, it is unlikely to disqualify him from the ballot. But why would anyone go to this much trouble just to keep one guy from voting?
And I thought Alaska politics was an amusing spectator sport....
Hopefully there will be a suitable voter backlash... I remember in 2000 people were trying to get Dick Cheney disqualified based on Texas vs Wyoming residency, and it just made them seem desperate and petty. I assume folks are thinking the same thing about this disqualification effort.
It isn't even rising to the level of watercooler talk around the office. It's very petty.
Okay, so I'm a registered Republican, but more and more I'm becoming increasingly disgusted by the antics being perpetrated by the Republican party. I consider myself a conservative more than a Republican, and I've had about enough of these losers. I'm really considering exercising my right not to vote this time around. I can't see myself voting for ANYONE in all good conscience.
I'm firm enough about voting being a responsibility (though I stop short of agreeing, with Australia, that it should be compulsory) that I go to the polls even when there's nobody I can bring myself to vote for. Last time my choice was between the incumbent and two loony independent challengers -- there was no real viable opposition. I voted "no".
Put another way: in case there's anybody listening, I don't want them to confuse my dissatisfaction and disgust for mere apathy.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
There should be a voting option..."Y'all suck!"
2006-10-21 03:05 am (UTC)
I'd actually like an "anyone but THIS guy/gal" vote. As in, for every office, you could either vote for one candidate, or against one candidate, but not both. Each candidate would have the "no votes" subtracted from the "yes votes", and the person with the highest total at the end wins.
Because honestly, I'd much rather vote against Ken Blackwell than vote for Ted Strickland. Contrast this to the Brown-DeWine race, where I'd be more inclined to vote for Brown than against DeWine.
And before anyone says that there's no difference between voting against one person and for his or her opponent, let me assure you that there's a huge difference. Not just psychologically, but also in terms of measuring voter mood. And it would remove the last major philosophical reason for abstention, as expressed earlier in the comments-- people who say, "These guys all suck so much I'm just not going to bother". I've been there and done that. But I betcha that, in those cases, I'd have gotten my ass to a polling station if I'd had the opportunity to say: "Anyone but this schmuck".
I couldn't care less about the topic, but I am smitten by your icon.
Thank the fabulous cleolinda
. She makes the best icons.