?

Log in

 

My polling place is magical. It's just for like one condo… - Absorbed

About My polling place is magical. It's just for like one condo…

Previous Entry Nov. 4th, 2008 @ 11:26 am Next Entry
My polling place is magical. It's just for like one condo community so unlike everywhere else that has waiting times of at least a half hour just to get to the table where they make sure you are registered, I was behind three people. Seriously.

Some old guy was on his way out and asked me who I thought was going to win and then he started raving about how electronic voting makes it so much faster for him because after the candidates when he gets to the should judges be retained and ballot issues he just quickly pushed yes on everything. I couldn't help myself I almost fell down laughing. He was very confused but I was taking this statement and combining it w/ when I was trying to explain to Hannah that you can't tell what people voted for and no one sits there w/ a ballot like oh S/A said voted for Jack, Joe and Dave and then said yes 1 no 2 yes 3 etc. If someone actually was reading this ballot given our current ballot issues it would be pretty amazing. I know I'd be like Who IS this guy?!?!?

It got me thinking though. If someone always voted all yes or no (which yes I realize is bad) which would be worse? In MO voting all no would be superior because it'd deny the 3278249732439287 requests for funds for god knows what every election. Do you think someone voting all yes or all no would be better?
Leave a comment
[User Picture Icon]
From:teflonspyder
Date:November 4th, 2008 06:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
All no, definitely. Even with my commie Marxist leftist leanings I just can't condone throwing money at all but one or two of the things I saw on the ballot this morning. What's that, useless commission that has failed to change leadership or produce any reasonable results for the past five years? You want us to give you more money, and you PROMISE it'll be different than the last three times? OKAY!
[User Picture Icon]
From:captiousduality
Date:November 4th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The only thing worth funding there is Metro. You will pay one way or another. Do you want to subsidize transportation to people's jobs or pay their unemployment checks?
[User Picture Icon]
From:teflonspyder
Date:November 4th, 2008 08:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
How about we raise the sales tax on everyone, disproportionately leaning on those closest to ruin (and who coincidentally enough most benefit from the metro system)? Then we can do both!
[User Picture Icon]
From:captiousduality
Date:November 4th, 2008 08:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Nah doesn't work that way. Sucks for them in what they do pay more on but then it's just a roundabout rate increase. But they buy less, so they don't pay as much.
[User Picture Icon]
From:teflonspyder
Date:November 4th, 2008 08:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
They buy less because they have no option to buy more, the tax is proportional but does disproportionate damage. Your argument couldn't be more flawed.
[User Picture Icon]
From:captiousduality
Date:November 4th, 2008 08:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh you aren't actually saying they pay more. Just more of their income. Doesn't matter that it's more of their income. The whole idea of varying tax rates pisses me off.

It's like if we went to a movie and they asked how much we make. Then they charged me $3.00 for the ticket and you $10 and also offered me free popcorn but told you you don't qualify for free popcorn.
[User Picture Icon]
From:teflonspyder
Date:November 4th, 2008 09:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Right, but we're not talking about entertainment. We're talking about everything. Food, cleaning supplies, etc.
And the idea of a variable tax rate has exactly dick to do with prop. M. It hits everyone the same, and that's the point I'm making - it hurts the poor more.
For what it's worth I wouldn't support an income tax hike either. I'm actually in agreement with my friend Brad on this, who makes excessive use of public transport as he doesn't have a car - the only reasonable way to deal with the current Metro situation is to increase the rates on people actually using the service.
[User Picture Icon]
From:captiousduality
Date:November 4th, 2008 09:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not saying it only taxes entertainment. I'm saying variable taxes tax the rich more for the same set of services but don't let them use as many.

That it's NOT a variable tax rate is my point there. It SHOULD hurt the poor more. It's not okay to charge you a larger amount in dollars (not in % of income) than it is me for the same thing. When we go to the store the store doesn't charge you more for your food than it does me if I buy the same items. It hurts me more to buy those items because I make less money but the store is in no way doing wrong. It's the same w/ the tax. Rates should be increased. But not only would that not be enough (Metro lost out big w/ the cross county expansion because stupid rich people in Clayton don't know the difference between freight trains and light rail) but we have a responsibility to shoulder costs and keep cost low because Metro is a partnership. IL funds their part MO needs to do the same. They can't raise rates and fuck over the people in IL who already paid.
[User Picture Icon]
From:artifice_x
Date:November 4th, 2008 10:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd say voting all no would be less damaging. Seems like we're usually better off with less new junk piled onto the heap. I spent hours going through the bloated ballot in Oregon. Since we get to vote at home, at least I could sit there with my laptop and go through measure by measure and candidate by candidate.

Still, I found so many measures to not be what they seemed at first explanation , and others with such a balance of (in my opinion) negative effects to benefits that I was left feeling I'd rather see things stay the same than gain some small thing at the expense of something else. So I voted no.

Of course, we also had no brainers like allowing an unlimited deduction amount for federal income tax paid on state income tax returns. To help out the smallest percentage of people by allowing them to not contribute to the state they live and prosper in.

And we had measures that superseded each other. So if they both pass the one with the most votes cancels the other out.

A total morass of absurdity and mixed ideals. We're tied with CA for 2nd in most measures on the ballot with 12. CO has 14. Though I think Cali has a few dealing with energy policy and somewhat pertinent issues. Maybe some things where a blind yes vote could be helpful, but I still say overall blindly voting no is a lot less likely to do long term damage.
[User Picture Icon]
From:captiousduality
Date:November 4th, 2008 11:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The measures are RARELY what they seem to be on first glance. They write them that way on purpose, We actually had an energy initiative that I had a horrible time trying to explain to people that I wasn't just opposed to because I'm a free market type. It mandated the electric companies spend x% of their retail cost on alternative energy and listed specifically the types of alternative energies. It also said they can only raise the rates for customers 1% which is OBVIOUSLY not enough for them to make up for the increased costs of development and the inefficiency of the types of energy given (it SPECIFICALLY gave 2% of retail cost to solar energy ffs). Totally a special interest ploy, force the electric companies to fund our startups but don't let the customer see how inefficient our power source is in their bills. Ugh.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rainedoutlife
Date:November 6th, 2008 01:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Everyone knows that only whores say yes all the time.

If some bureaucrat is willing to spend time and energy drafting a bill for referendum, it's probably worth voting against.
[User Picture Icon]
From:zaxec
Date:November 7th, 2008 08:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
While I agree with your answer to the question posed, I must point out that whores say no when the price is wrong. Only sluts and nymphos say yes all the time.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com