Election Day Poll

[Callie]

All votes are anonymous. Unfortunately, this poll isn't of the incredibly comprehensive variety, but I wanted to keep it simple. I thought about having different answers for those that did and did not vote, but I doubted the benefit of any added complexity. I could have added other meaningful questions, but I felt that any of the questions I thought of had been adequately covered in other threads.

 

And of course, feel free to discuss the results of the election.

[keira]

I haven't voted yet, but I am tomorrow and it's not like i'm going to wake up a republican so

[Cairo Jim]

Wow, I musn't be paying much attention today. First Melbourne Cup (which I don't care about anyways) and this. I completely forgot or something about both until after it happened.

[Callie]

Wow, I musn't be paying much attention today. First Melbourne Cup (which I don't care about anyways) and this. I completely forgot or something about both until after it happened.

Oh, the election in the US hasn't happened yet; I just posted the poll a bit prematurely.

[Cairo Jim]

I could of sworn I heard something about it being today. Could of just been my imagination.

[Aran]

I haven't voted yet, but I am tomorrow and it's not like i'm going to wake up a republican so

 

As Sylae awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, she found herself transformed in her bed into---

 

(Apologies to Kafka.)

 

[Tyranicus]

I could of sworn I heard something about it being today. Could of just been my imagination.

It is in fact today, but at the time Excalibur posted that, the polls were not yet open.

I intend to vote this afternoon, and I will be voting for Obama as a registered Democrat.

[Dikiyoba]

Oregon does all voting through mail-in ballots, so Dikiyoba voted that way. It's a really great system, and more states should adopt it.

[Balladeer]

Mail-in ballots sound interesting. How do people get the ballots to mail in? I expect either they go somewhere and pick one up or have it mailed to them? I lean towards the first considering the homeless, though also hope the shut-ins are considered... Both?

[keira]

All three of my roommates mailed-in ballots absentee, and they got them in the mail from their county. Also, a quick Google suggests that the homeless can designate a shelter or a bench or something as their residence for voting purposes.

[Dikiyoba]

How do people get the ballots to mail in?

The ballots are mailed to people. There are provisions for homeless people, although Dikiyoba doesn't know how effective those provisions are.

[The Reverend]

Washington also does mail-in ballots, with the option to drop them off at a drop box to save the stamp. Since there's a convenient drop-box near my office, I dropped mine off there yesterday. I've also heard that many people like the feeling of putting their ballot in a box rather mailing it in - it reminds them of going to the polling place (which I admit I used to love to do - the old ladies who volunteered there were always so friendly, and made you feel good for voting).

 

My drop box was fine yesterday (no line), but apparently there were long lines at some drop boxes yesterday, and difficulty finding parking - I guess everyone wanted to drop theirs off a day early to avoid lines, and it backfired.

[Actaeon]

As Sylae awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, she found herself transformed in her bed into---

 

(Apologies to Kafka.)

 

I want it on record that Aran compared Republicans to vermin.

 

Anyway, I put myself on the permanent mail-in list so I can vote in my home county while I'm away at school. It has the added benefit of letting me research each candidate and issue with the ballot right there in front of me. They usually mail it to me, but since you can pick up a replacement at the courthouse, I would imagine you could get your primary ballot there if you lacked a physical address or PO box.

[Death Knight]

Just voted a couple hours ago. To be honest, I just want this election to end and hopefully the next person does a good job. I'm almost at the point where I don't care who wins.

[Rowen]

Does anyone here participate in vote swapping?

 

Also, tomorrow is the start of a new campaigning season. (Enter name here) 2016!

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

Registered independant, as I openly disagree on significant issues with both major parties., voted in person at a booth for Romney.

Not sure if I'm going to regret it. Time will tell.

---

The Silent Assassin knows that time will tell all, and thus has every clock in the neighborhood under regular recording surveillance, in the hopes that one of them will slip and reveal things early.

[Jerakeen]

Registered independant, as I openly disagree on significant issues with both major parties., voted in person at a booth for Romney.

Not sure if I'm going to regret it. Time will tell.

 

 

Since Romney isn't going to win New Jersey anyway, I'd guess not.

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

Since Romney isn't going to win New Jersey anyway, I'd guess not.

Yeah, I know. Most of the areas that aren't union-controlled are heavily reliant on government aid. I've mentioned elsewhere, the Republicans don't even have an established presence in my area, and local elections are most frequently decided with the Dem primary.

But it's as much the principle of the act, isn't it?

[Lilith]

Washington also does mail-in ballots, with the option to drop them off at a drop box to save the stamp.

 

we vote by mail for state elections here in victoria too. over here they just include a prepaid and addressed envelope for you to to put the ballot in along with the ballot itself

[Dikiyoba]

we vote by mail for state elections here in victoria too. over here they just include a prepaid and addressed envelope for you to to put the ballot in along with the ballot itself

That would be nice. In Oregon (and I'm assuming Washington too) the ballot comes with a special envelope with a return address and space for a signature to make it official, but not prepaid.

 

Dikiyoba doesn't know why the return ballots aren't prepaid. Maybe the state(s) can't justify the cost with so many registered voters either not voting or using the drop boxes instead of the mail?

[The Reverend]

we vote by mail for state elections here in victoria too. over here they just include a prepaid and addressed envelope for you to to put the ballot in along with the ballot itself

They give us an addressed envelope, but it's not prepaid - you have to buy the stamp yourself! Or just use the drop box. If they didn't have the drop boxes, some might argue that requiring you to buy your own stamp constituted a poll tax ...

 

Edit: Too slow ...

[A less presumptuous name.]

I'm in Illinois for college, so I had to vote by mail. My return envelope was prepaid, although it said that some postage may be required for out-of-country mailing. At least, I hope that's all it said...

[Aran]

 

 

I want it on record that Aran compared Republicans to vermin.

 

To be accurate, I didn't compare. I used a metaphorical allegory.

 

But seriously, I just like Kafka

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

There's a rumor going around the office right now that the states hit by Sandy are going to be arranging for absentee and late ballots. I'm about to run off, can anyone confirm that?

[Callie]

The Associated Press has called the election for Obama.

[Jerakeen]

Everyone, including Fox, has called the election for Obama, but team Romney is refusing to concede.

[keira]

dammit romney, just give up. throw in the towel and save a little dignity.

 

in related news, my facebook feed is filled with comments about how america is ruined. I really need to re-evaluate who is on there.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Sylae
but yay human rights

[Enraged Slith]

While I am incredibly happy that Obama won, my state is still largely in the hands of the GOP. I am not looking forward to the next few years.

[keira]

Montana has Tester (D senate) and Bullock (D guvnuh) ahead, but Daines (R rep) ahead. It's only like 15% reporting so far, but 'eh.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Sylae
I'm not too sad that Daines is ahead, it was worse off in the hands of Rehburg, and in any case, he can only do 1/435 of damage, right?

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

in related news, my facebook feed is filled with comments about how america is ruined. I really need to re-evaluate who is on there.

I'd say that I'd be completely avoiding Facebook on account of that, but really, the people who did all of the complaining in 2008 never quite stopped.

So here's to another six months of "'til he's gone" countdowns clogging up our social news feeds, to the tireless complaining of sore losers who may never understand the groupthink in which they are embroiled, and to the gloating of those who will once again claim the President is our messiah and await his great peace on the earth.

 

As for the rest of us... hey, anyone else glad it's over?

 

---

The Silent Assassin is calling all Spiderwebbers who are interested in making good on the claims to hunt down Actaeon for his last poll.

Meet him in the Richard White forum three weeks ago.

[Aran]

Quick, let me google for 2016 polls.

[Lilith]

Quick, let me google for 2016 polls.

 

isn't one poll enough

[Randomizer]

It's too early for 2016. At least give it a few days for the official numbers to be announced.

 

*goes out and kicks another campaign worker for 2016 away from the front door.*

[Balladeer]

As for the rest of us... hey, anyone else glad it's over?

 

---

The Silent Assassin is calling all Spiderwebbers who are interested in making good on the claims to hunt down Actaeon for his last poll.

Meet him in the Richard White forum three weeks ago.

 

Glad it's over. Glad most of my SW friends are happy. Wish I could find the results for the referendum that was on my ballot... It was just a recommendation thing to start the ball rolling on whether or not free speech should only be granted to individuals and not corporations, unions, etc. I voted to not limit free speech and I'm hoping that's how the majority of people feel but I'd like to see the results for it. It was worded very oddly... Said 'Should campaign fund giving be limited by allowing only individuals to have freedom of speech?' Or something to that effect and I was like, "What does campaign fund giving have to do with it? No one's freedom of speech, corporate entity or otherwise, should be limited. Period."

 

---

I was there. Actaeon has been located 9 days ago. Paradox plan to eliminate him before he creates said poll is underway.

[Tyranicus]

 

 

Glad it's over. Glad most of my SW friends are happy. Wish I could find the results for the referendum that was on my ballot... It was just a recommendation thing to start the ball rolling on whether or not free speech should only be granted to individuals and not corporations, unions, etc. I voted to not limit free speech and I'm hoping that's how the majority of people feel but I'd like to see the results for it. It was worded very oddly... Said 'Should campaign fund giving be limited by allowing only individuals to have freedom of speech?' Or something to that effect and I was like, "What does campaign fund giving have to do with it? No one's freedom of speech, corporate entity or otherwise, should be limited. Period."[/size]

I haven't seen the actual referendum, but I presume it refers to whether corporations can give donations to campaigns or not. This is protected for individuals as a form of free expression.

[Balladeer]

Right, well, once they take away the freedom of speech for corporations you know it's not going to stop at only their right to give donations to campaigns.

[Death Knight]

Regardless of winning the election or losing it, I wonder if Donald Trump will ever get over this. He's saying he will march onto washington, lol.

[Aran]

So let's assume it went further than campaign donations. Would limiting the freedom of expression for corporations lead to stricter advertising standards and factual reporting by news organizations? How would that be a bad thing?

 

I'm not someone who considers corporations the root of all evil or something. I just don't see how society benefits from the legal fiction that they are persons, and lots of ways in which it actively harms society.

[Jerakeen]

It doesn't matter which way that referendum went - the supreme court already settled the issue with the Citizens United decision.

[Balladeer]

The referendum was spawned because of the Citizens United decision, so I read. They want the decision taken out of the the supreme court's hands and put into the hands of the people, I guess.. Not sure on the details.

 

@Aran: ... Yes there could be benefits to limiting businesses free speech but it is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what businesses can say or not? When the country is so split on political views, which half gets to tell the other half their businesses have to shut up?

 

People have a right to be abrasive and say unpopular things and not be thrown in jail for it, right? They can have their opinions and their perceptions and share them for the most part without legal fear. (Yes I know there are exceptions. Tell the gov't you have a bomb at your own risk.) You take away the corporation's freedom of speech and you open the door to them being legally penalized for saying something or endorsing something that the people or the government doesn't want to hear about. I really don't want to go back down the religious road but its the best example I have. Without free speech the issue with Chick-fil-A would have been over before it started. Businesses that are faith-based may be forbidden to say they are faith-based or forbidden to have a bible verse up on their wall as a decoration or forbidden to make a charitable donation to another faith-based organization.

 

Catholic hospitals are already being forced to choose between serving only professing Catholics; staying open to the public and providing contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and abortion inducing drugs against their religion; or closing their doors. Next step, if they did stay open to the public (which they wouldn't be able to and still claim to be Catholic) they wouldn't be able to encourage patients to not use these procedures. In fact, they could be forced to offer them as options. Down the road they may be forced to offer abortions themselves and what about the individuals working there? Could they be forced to choose between performing the procedure and losing their profession? Potentially it threatens faith-based radio and television as well, even the pulpit. It may look like I'm stretching - looking at the worst case scenario, but Catholic hospitals being forced to provide services against their faith already proves that freedom of religion is being chipped away at. One step at a time the burner is being turned up and taking freedom of speech away from businesses is just one notch.

[Alorael at Large]

It's not a slippery slope. The reasoning seems quite limited and sound to me: money is not speech, and corporations are not people. There are already hefty regulations on federal employees on what they can say, do, and even wear with political themes in the workplace. Similar reasoning can be applied even-handedly to corporations, but at a basic level the country and its elections were not broken before Citizens United and are arguably more broken since. Actual speech has been taken out of the equation and replaced with cash.

 

On hospitals, faith is no shield from having to follow best medical practices, period. That is a slippery slope to medical abuse in the name of religion. If your religion blocks you from keeping up with medicine, you are no longer following the Hippocratic Oath—something has come before "do no harm" in your priorities—and have no business being a doctor. Without doctors you can't have a hospital.

 

—Alorael, who sympathizes with the struggle to reconcile faith and profession. But for medicine, you knew what you were getting into. You don't get to put yourself first. You don't get to limit patients with your beliefs. You can't cry foul now.

[keira]

Yes, those sort of referendums are to determine how much money corporations can spend. I don't care if Chick-fil-A says their company's beliefs, but I damn well have a problem when they can buy the ballot with ridiculous amounts of money. Corporations are not people, corporations are corporations. The people who work for corporations are people. Those people should donate, the corp should not.

[Callie]

In other news Puerto Rico has voted 54-46 that it does not wish to maintain its current status. Puerto Rico's nonvoting commissioner will introduce legislation in Congress to admit the territory as a state. Obama has said he will support statehood, and I would be surprised if any significant opposition occurs in the House of Representatives. There's some problems with the way the referendum works, so who knows what will happen?

 

 

Wish I could find the results for the referendum that was on my ballot...

You should be able to find the results from your secretary of state's website, along with all other results in your state.

[Lilith]

I'm not someone who considers corporations the root of all evil or something. I just don't see how society benefits from the legal fiction that they are persons, and lots of ways in which it actively harms society.

 

if corporations weren't legally persons you wouldn't be allowed to sue them when they did something harmful, so there's that

[Aran]

So you'd have to sue whoever was in charge? (Though I admit keeping track of individual responsibility inside a corporation would be difficult at best.)

[Lilith]

So you'd have to sue whoever was in charge? (Though I admit keeping track of individual responsibility inside a corporation would be difficult at best.)

 

It's the second part that's the problem, yeah. You'd have to find a specific person to sue who was personally liable for whatever way in which the corporation harmed you. Also, if the person most directly responsible was a low-level employee with no money, you'd be out of luck.

 

Like, suppose a cleaner at a McDonalds store maintains the coffee machine improperly and it explodes in the face of a server, causing horrible burns. Even if the cleaner is found responsible in a court of law, where's he going to get the money to make the server whole? Under current law, McDonalds is expected to take responsibility for its employees' mistakes, and the server can recover his medical bills from the corporation. Without corporate personhood, "McDonalds" ceases to be a legal entity that you can interact with in court: that's what personhood means. Unless you think it's feasible to take the cost of every mistake that every employee ever makes directly out of the CEO's own assets, I'm not sure what other solution you're proposing.

[Alorael at Large]

Still, it's quite possible to maintain the legal fiction that corporations are legal entities one can sue separate from the idea that corporations have all the rights of actual human beings. We do this on a routine basis without any troube. Corporations cannot become citizens, nor can they vote. They're a separate class of entity, and I don't understand why blurring the line between actual human beings and fictions of convenience struck anyone as a necessary step.

 

—Alorael, who can think of several fictions he'd grant true personhood to first. Literature is teeming with poor souls just yearning to be naturalized into the American canon.

[Lilith]

Still, it's quite possible to maintain the legal fiction that corporations are legal entities one can sue separate from the idea that corporations have all the rights of actual human beings. We do this on a routine basis without any troube. Corporations cannot become citizens, nor can they vote. They're a separate class of entity, and I don't understand why blurring the line between actual human beings and fictions of convenience struck anyone as a necessary step.

 

corporations don't have all the rights of natural persons but they do need to have some of them. for example the idea of suing a corporation makes no sense unless corporations have the right to own property. and if they have the right to own property you have to decide just how far those rights go and under what circumstances they can be infringed upon. in most situations the simplest and best solution really is to say that corporations have the same rights as natural persons

 

if you think Citizens United was decided wrongly, chances are your problem is with what you see as overbroad interpretation of the first amendment, not with corporate personhood. think of it this way: would the CU decision have been any less objectionable to you if it had been one billionaire paying out of his own pocket to advertise his political documentary instead of a political activist organisation doing it with funds that had been donated for exactly the kind of purpose for which they ended up being used? i don't really see a particularly meaningful difference, when the content of the advertising and documentary could be the same either way. if you're concerned about money distorting politics then that's a problem whether the money is in the hands of rich individuals or rich corporations

[Student of Trinity]

The other point about corporations being persons is that it empowers human beings to create something bigger than they are. If a rich person endows an institute to do research in some hot topic of today, for instance, then making the institute be a legal person in its own right lets the institute hang onto its funds even if the original donor goes bust (which is awfully good for the Perimeter Institute, for example: it's a private theoretical physics think tank founded by one of the founders of RIM) and also decide someday to shift its research focus away from its original goal (which might also be a good idea for the Perimeter Institute, since the three narrow topics to which it has been dedicated are beginning to look like dead ends).

 

Legal systems that do not give corporations person-like status make it harder for people to create anything that can outlast themselves. One serious theory for why natural science arose in backward western Europe rather than in the more advanced Chinese or Islamic empires is that the non-European legal systems lacked corporate personhood. The western cathedral schools originally set up to train priests in canon law had enough autonomy to morph into universities. The many scholarly foundations established in the contemporary Muslim world were, in contrast, strictly tied to the letter of their founders' bequests. In China there was a dire unintended consequence of the enlightened effort at intellectual meritocracy. Appointments to the imperial bureaucracy were made according to written examinations that were open to all citizens, but because only the government had any legal autonomy, this led to virtually all intellectual activity in imperial China becoming dedicated to government.

 

I think the point is that it may be good for corporations to be persons in some respects, but they don't necessarily have to entirely equivalent to human beings in every respect.

[Lilith]

I think the point is that it may be good for corporations to be persons in some respects, but they don't necessarily have to entirely equivalent to human beings in every respect.

 

and, as previously pointed out in the thread, they already aren't. but my suspicion is that there aren't very many conceivable restrictions on speech that would be appropriate for corporations but wouldn't be equally appropriate for individuals in the same circumstances, and thus the whole "corporate personhood" thing is a distraction