« Previous | Main | Next »

October 29, 2008

VOTING UPDATE

Here in the voting line we are passing the time trying to decipher the ballot questions, which were written by lawyers from Mars. They sound like this: "Shall the legislature not be empowered to prohibit the abolition of those entities that are currently excluded from Article XI, Section 3, Subsection iv, Row 5, Seats A and B, or not?" People are soliciting advice from total strangers ("Do we want to retain these judges?")

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave, the answer is always YES or possibly NO.

Um....inny minni minee mo

Dave, I studied the durn Amendments and they were, indeed, difficult to decipher. Basically, every Amendment is written to elicit a Yes vote, but they are mostly terrible ideas.

As to the judges, you have to figure out the local ones, but the Supreme Court dude (I looked it up) was one of the only dissenters in the decision that the US Supreme Court threw out in the 2000 election, so he seems like a sensible fellow. IMHO.

To take a quote from the Urban Dictionary™:

1. Legalese

The dialect that the "legal" profession uses to hoodwink people into paying them a week's wage for an hour's work. See conflict of interest.

Attorneys use Legalese to be able to tell lies about regular people without the regular people being able to understand what's said about them.

It's always fun trying to understand sentences with double and triple negatives.

As a general rule, ballot measures referred by the Legislature get a "No" vote from me; those referred by the people usually also get a "No," unless they're repealing something that the Legislature did.

Most laws are terrible ideas, because if they were good ideas, people would do them without being forced, no?

Demand your right to vote "yes" or "no" to Amendments 5, 7 and 9.

The League of Women Voters for Florida prepared this guide.

My general rule on judges is to vote whoever is on the bench OUT.

Most laws are terrible ideas, because if they were good ideas, people would do them without being forced, no?
CH - is that a question, a statement, or are we supposed to vote on it?

I have a good idea: A week before the election, all of the judges running for re-seat-ment should have a dance off. Makes about as much sense as picking them because I like their name...

Excellent idea, eilbe!

"So You Think You Can Dance Judge??"

Ok...I have been guilty of voting for someone because I like their name. Here in Florida, the Commissioner of Agriculture is "Charles Bronson". How can you NOT vote for Mr. Death Wish??

Most laws are terrible ideas

Posted by: Clean Hands | 01:08 PM on October 29, 2008

I'll be writing in CH for every position available in my district. You can relocate to PA to be a congressman, governor, and township supervisor, right?

Can you write in Cloris Leachman for Judge?

Chris - you can't do that. It's against the law.

I voted for Tony Bennett here in Indiana. Isn't he dead?

Oh, and on a more serialserious note, the FTC is enacting a new regulation called the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TRS) which enables consumers to reduce the number of unwanted automated calls. It takes effect Sept. 1, 2009. "Telemarketers must provide, at the beginning of all pre-recorded messages, an automated key press or voice-activated opt-out option." Now, if only there were a key-press that would opt-out the candidate from the universe...

Oh, and can we pick what the voice opt-out message will say? (The floor is now open for suggestions...)

I think we might want to detain those judges.

There already is an "opt out" button - just hang up.

My daughters are voting for the first time and are using absentee ballots at college. They were thrilled to vote for president, but I forgot to warn them about Question 2, judges, school board, administrators, dog catchers, prothonatary (can't remember what that is, but we elected one in PA).

This smacks of fraud to me.

Or restrain the judges?


eilbeback, how about, "I got'cher 'opt out', riiiiight heeeeerree!!"

*steps around hole in open floor*

There is nothing more I love than initatives where "yes" really means "no" and vice versa.

elieback - Under the 1st amendement, politicials are shielded from the do-not-call and automated call laws. Boo.

Okay--so say politicians are allowed (under the 1st ammendment)to robo-call me. Then I say, since the telephone service is something tht I personally pay for, they should be required to pay me in order to call me.

CH - I never understood the phone loophole. I get the petitioners who bother you on the street, but doen't a phone call constitute trespassing? I don't think the Founding Fathers had robocalls in mind.

BTW - calling cellphones is illegal, because unlike landlines, you pay by the minute.

I'm on the "don't you DARE ever call me list" and they still call my cell phone. Last night it was for the "define marriage as one man and one woman vote" people. I told her #1: she called a cell phone, #2: don't ever call my cell phone again, and #4: she called a household of 2 gay men who were already married legally and blah blah blah. ok, so I lied to the nice lady about that last one. But it was fun anyway. **honest, I'm a girl!**

Hey Dave,

Move to Indiana! No lines to vote, early, late, whenever.

Of course, this year I think we're picking between Carter and Ford. You know anything about these jokers?

The comments to this entry are closed.

-
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise