Mark writes:
> A basic rule of thumb is that if you can't tell the difference between
> the parties or candidates, don't vote.

You can always vote, even if you have to write in your own name.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

In <874p83wyde.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>, on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:54:53
-0500, John Hasler, john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> Mark writes:
>> A basic rule of thumb is that if you can't tell the difference between
>> the parties or candidates, don't vote.
>
> You can always vote, even if you have to write in your own name.

Sure, you can write in your *real* choice, but what
good does that do if they don't count it?

When we lived in Florida, there was a spot for you
to write your choice in, but the State of Florida
didn't count write-ins.
What they'd do if 100% of the electorate voted for
someone besides the Party candidates would make for
an(other) interesting historical footnote.

--
and yes, we're *really* sliding off topic now.

I wrote:
> You can always vote, even if you have to write in your own name.

Steve Ackman writes:
> Sure, you can write in your *real* choice, but what good does that do if
> they don't count it?

You stay there all day and watch and make **** sure they do count it. You
have the right to do that no matter what they say.

> When we lived in Florida, there was a spot for you to write your choice
> in, but the State of Florida didn't count write-ins.

That's what lawsuits are for. Talk to the ACLU.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

In <87od6bvf2k.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>, on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:37:07
-0500, John Hasler, john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> I wrote:
>> You can always vote, even if you have to write in your own name.
>
> Steve Ackman writes:
>> Sure, you can write in your *real* choice, but what good does that do if
>> they don't count it?
>
> You stay there all day and watch and make **** sure they do count it. You
> have the right to do that no matter what they say.

The way the laws are/were written, they didn't
have to. As you may know, this isn't a Democracy.
Individuals don't elect Presidents. The Electoral
College does. When Electoral College votes happen
to coincide with the popular vote (usually), it's a
bonus.

>> When we lived in Florida, there was a spot for you to write your choice
>> in, but the State of Florida didn't count write-ins.
>
> That's what lawsuits are for. Talk to the ACLU.

Past tense. We've been out of Florida for a good 8
years. Last Presidential election we were there for
was 12 years ago. I can't remember now whether my
write-in was 12 or 16 years ago...
At any rate, the ACLU doesn't have the power to do
away with the Electoral College, or change the way the
State Legislatures appoint their electors, said power
enumerated in Art. II, Sec. 1. "Each State shall
appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors..."

If they were of a mind to, I suspect the State
Legislatures could choose to appoint electors *only*
for candidates not belonging to any party. Wouldn't
that raise a ruckus.

Steve Ackman <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> writes:

>In <87od6bvf2k.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>, on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:37:07
>-0500, John Hasler, john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> You can always vote, even if you have to write in your own name.
>>
>> Steve Ackman writes:
>>> Sure, you can write in your *real* choice, but what good does that do if
>>> they don't count it?
>>
>> You stay there all day and watch and make **** sure they do count it. You
>> have the right to do that no matter what they say.

> The way the laws are/were written, they didn't
>have to. As you may know, this isn't a Democracy.
>Individuals don't elect Presidents. The Electoral
>College does. When Electoral College votes happen
>to coincide with the popular vote (usually), it's a
>bonus.

The number of electors equals the sum of the congressmen and senators. This
gives a slight advantage to small states ( Just as the Senate has a large
advantage to small states, and not to "popular vote" This was done on
purpose.


>>> When we lived in Florida, there was a spot for you to write your choice
>>> in, but the State of Florida didn't count write-ins.
>>
>> That's what lawsuits are for. Talk to the ACLU.

> Past tense. We've been out of Florida for a good 8
>years. Last Presidential election we were there for
>was 12 years ago. I can't remember now whether my
>write-in was 12 or 16 years ago...

Write in for what? All you could possibly write in for Pres election would
be the name of an elector.

> At any rate, the ACLU doesn't have the power to do
>away with the Electoral College, or change the way the
>State Legislatures appoint their electors, said power
>enumerated in Art. II, Sec. 1. "Each State shall
>appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
>direct, a Number of Electors..."

Yes, that is called the constitution. The way of ammending it is well
defined.



> If they were of a mind to, I suspect the State
>Legislatures could choose to appoint electors *only*
>for candidates not belonging to any party. Wouldn't
>that raise a ruckus.

Why? The way of selecting electors is purposely left to the states. Recall
that the constitution set up "people" first, states second and federal govt
third.