Ohio defeats atleast 4 of 5 ballot measures

[ShadesOfGrey]

Issues report here

Live results - Live Election Results.

Number 1 - looks like it might pass although it's 54-46 now after being heavily yes earlier.

Number 2 - month long voting - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 3 - change political donor limits - down in flames

Number 4 - redistricting to try to get 50/50 mix of R/D - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 5 - Eliminate responsibility of the elected Ohio Secretary of
State to oversee elections and replace with an election board - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Good Job Ohio.

 

[Train]

Toledo Mayor Race:

Carty Finkbeiner led early with 72 percent of the votes.

good, bye bye Mr Ford.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Train
Toledo Mayor Race:

Carty Finkbeiner led early with 72 percent of the votes.

good, bye bye Mr Ford.

Was that a big race? I didn't hear much about it Nationally. I'm just curious.

 

[Train]

Not really, I grew up in Toledo, so I was sorta interested. Though he was in the national spotlight a few times in the 90's, often saying something ridiculous that made national TV (usually letterman or the daily show), or writting public letters to Clinton

Carty got elected to his 3rd term, they dont limit total terms in Toledo, just consecutive terms (to two)

Ford pushed through a lot of stupid measures, not that I blame him solely, a lot of it was a bunch of 25 year olds on city council who came in and thought they knew what was best for everyone.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Issues report here

Live results - Live Election Results.

Number 1 - looks like it might pass although it's 54-46 now after being heavily yes earlier.

Number 2 - month long voting - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 3 - change political donor limits - down in flames

Number 4 - redistricting to try to get 50/50 mix of R/D - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 5 - Eliminate responsibility of the elected Ohio Secretary of
State to oversee elections and replace with an election board - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Good Job Ohio.

I could live with 1 passing if it means that 2-5 fail. I just don't like how they are twisting the budget rules to dip into bonds for spending. Can't wait until Taft is voted out in the next election.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: KentState

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Issues report here

Live results - Live Election Results.

Number 1 - looks like it might pass although it's 54-46 now after being heavily yes earlier.

Number 2 - month long voting - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 3 - change political donor limits - down in flames

Number 4 - redistricting to try to get 50/50 mix of R/D - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Number 5 - Eliminate responsibility of the elected Ohio Secretary of
State to oversee elections and replace with an election board - DOWN IN FLAMES!

Good Job Ohio.

I could live with 1 passing if it means that 2-5 fail. I just don't like how they are twisting the budget rules to dip into bonds for spending. Can't wait until Taft is voted out in the next election.

Yeah, #1 was probably a little to conveluded for people to get a good handle on. It probably should have failed too, but of any of them, that was the least controversial. The rest deserved the flaming death they got.

 

[dannybin1742]

nice to see the republicans continuing to destroy democracy in ohio

statistical impossiblity of outcome (again, read: 2004 results)

democracy is dying in ohio

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
nice to see the republicans continuing to destroy democracy in ohio

statistical impossiblity of outcome (again, read: 2004 results)

democracy is dying in ohio

:laugh: Yeah, a poll is once again more accurate than the actual vote count! :laugh:

Hilarious!

 

[dannybin1742]

funny how most polls up until the last few years had been accurate until the switched to electronic voting.....hhhmmmmmm, not hard to draw conclusions there......

 

[Jhhnn]

There's only one way to be sure that electronic voting isn't rigged, and that's from the use of open source software, with the programming published on the web for millions of geeks worldwide to examine. Any vulnerabilities will be quickly exposed and corrected.

It's already available, and used in Australia-

http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html

Add a paper trail, and it's close to foolproof. I'm amazed that no American voting machine company makes a votng machine as good as an ATM machine. Probably because voters will put up with more malarkey than financial institutions.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't understand how *anyone* could be against redistricting reform.

it's just kinda sick that politicians get to pick their voters, and it only propogates the problem of career senators.

 

[Jhhnn]

Incumbents are against redistricting reform, loki8481, for obvious reasons. And it doesn't affect Senators, who are elected statewide, but definitely affects members of the HOR...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't understand how *anyone* could be against redistricting reform.

it's just kinda sick that politicians get to pick their voters, and it only propogates the problem of career senators.

Putting it in the hands of an unaccountable commitee hardly seems like it is "reform". And trying to redistrict to achieve a 50/50 split in each district hardly seems like "reform" either - sounds like an agenda.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Shades-

"Putting it in the hands of an unaccountable commitee hardly seems like it is "reform". And trying to redistrict to achieve a 50/50 split in each district hardly seems like "reform" either - sounds like an agenda."

As opposed to the Tom DeLay agenda of redistricting Texas- "Cracking and Packing" where a very small superiority in registrations gives a huge electoral advantage, and districts run all over the map... meaning that 51% of the votes get 90% of the representatives... heck, done very creatively, a minority of votes can get a majority of representatives...

Competitive districts serve the interests of the people, and of democracy itself, offering meaningful choice as opposed to partisan entrenchment...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Shades-

"Putting it in the hands of an unaccountable commitee hardly seems like it is "reform". And trying to redistrict to achieve a 50/50 split in each district hardly seems like "reform" either - sounds like an agenda."

As opposed to the Tom DeLay agenda of redistricting Texas- "Cracking and Packing" where a very small superiority in registrations gives a huge electoral advantage, and districts run all over the map... meaning that 51% of the votes get 90% of the representatives... heck, done very creatively, a minority of votes can get a majority of representatives...

Competitive districts serve the interests of the people, and of democracy itself, offering meaningful choice as opposed to partisan entrenchment...

Then offer an alternative that keeps people accountable and doesn't try to even the playing field using party affiliation.
I think that it should be split into segments as square as possible based on population. So in the big cities you'd have more districts although quite small in size but the same in population. Trying to district by equal party affiliation would be worse than the attempts from both sides to carve out their own safe districts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your suggestion doesn't create competitive districts, Shades, other than possibly by accident. Nor can redistricting create competitive districts every time- there will still be some safe seats for both parties, simply because it's unavoidable.

"Trying to district by equal party affiliation would be worse than the attempts from both sides to carve out their own safe districts."

That's just an unsupported assertion... why would that be true? Is it wrong for voters to have more real choices, and for politicians to actually have to compete for votes, particularly votes from the large number of unaffiliated voters?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your suggestion doesn't create competitive districts, Shades, other than possibly by accident. Nor can redistricting create competitive districts every time- there will still be some safe seats for both parties, simply because it's unavoidable.

"Trying to district by equal party affiliation would be worse than the attempts from both sides to carve out their own safe districts."

That's just an unsupported assertion... why would that be true? Is it wrong for voters to have more real choices, and for politicians to actually have to compete for votes, particularly votes from the large number of unaffiliated voters?

And what makes you think that they should be "competitive"? Why should they be this imaginary 50/50? Why should we allow some unaccountable commitee say what is "competitive"?
You state yourself that there will still be some safe seats - so where do you draw the line as to when it's acceptable or not to have these "competitive" districts based on political affiliation?
Ofcourse it's my opinion, but I see no reason to think that trying to create 50/50 districts will help provide more "choice".

 

[dannybin1742]

Putting it in the hands of an unaccountable commitee hardly seems like it is "reform".

ahh yes that word accountability........ its funny to hear a red use it considering how screwed up the budget is. hell look at katrina


i have two other words you might like "fiscal responsibility" how does that fit in with starting a war, and war profiteering, tax cuts for the wealthy..... handouts for big oil after record profits..... need i continue?

 

[EKKC]

i hate ohio. traveled there 8 times in the past 2 months. never liked it. esp. how the "cleveland downtown' can be deserted after 5pm

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Shades, Blackwell and DeLay clearly intend that the opposition's voice and clout should be minimized as much as possible- not on the basis of ideas, but on the basis of gerrymandering. Which isn't competition, at all, something the Right touts rather heartily in the realm of business, but seems to want to denigrate in the realm of politics. I doubt you'd acknowledge the contradiction there, but I can certainly point it out to others.

Why should we allow some unaccountable committee to decide? maybe because they have nothing to gain other than good government, unlike the partisans who currently decide on the basis of what's good for their own party, to the exclusion of everything else.

Districts should have reasonable borders, with some basis of common interest of the voters in that district, something that can't be said for the Texas redistricting map, with some districts running from the heart of Austin to the tip of Texas, over 200 miles away... just so the Austin voters' clout could be diluted in the hinterlands...

http://congdistdata.tamu.edu/USCongressionalDistricts.pdf

If those are the results of so-called "accountable" parties, it's only because they've been allowed to define accountability in terms to their own liking...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, Shades, Blackwell and DeLay clearly intend that the opposition's voice and clout should be minimized as much as possible- not on the basis of ideas, but on the basis of gerrymandering. Which isn't competition, at all, something the Right touts rather heartily in the realm of business, but seems to want to denigrate in the realm of politics. I doubt you'd acknowledge the contradiction there, but I can certainly point it out to others.

Why should we allow some unaccountable committee to decide? maybe because they have nothing to gain other than good government, unlike the partisans who currently decide on the basis of what's good for their own party, to the exclusion of everything else.

Districts should have reasonable borders, with some basis of common interest of the voters in that district, something that can't be said for the Texas redistricting map, with some districts running from the heart of Austin to the tip of Texas, over 200 miles away... just so the Austin voters' clout could be diluted in the hinterlands...

http://congdistdata.tamu.edu/USCongressionalDistricts.pdf

If those are the results of so-called "accountable" parties, it's only because they've been allowed to define accountability in terms to their own liking...

This isn't about Delay, nor is it some partisan issue. Both sides attempt to do it, it is wrong for both to do it. That's why if you leave it the hell alone and base it on population, you take the politics out of it. That way no one can say the other side "fixed" things.

Yes, Texas maps are a mess, they have been for a long time. This isn't something new so don't try to play it up as such.

I fail to see what it is you are suggesting we do. I have offered my own opinion and have stated why 50/50 won't work(it introduces politics into something that shouldn't be divided out by political affiliation). If you don't want politicians deciding, then you better have a clear and concise plan for districts and how they are divided so the comittee can't play political games with it either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Shades, the previous districting of Texas, the one established by the courts, actually had competitive districts, with some dems even being elected in districts with slight repub majorities. Which says a lot about the candidates offered up by the repubs.

The whole point being that the courts, unaccountable as they are, attempted to establish fair districting, which must, by definition, be competitive. That didn't happen by accident, but rather by intention, in an effort to be fair to both sides. Which is, of course, political, as opposed to pretending to be blind to demographics when plotting lines on a map, as you propose... You can't just leave it the hell alone and base it on population, as a variety of schemes favorable to either side can be promulgated on that basis, and even made to seem reasonable, too... even though that would be far from the truth. A bipartisan committee can't go too far in either direction, simply because, well, they're bipartisan, with each side restraining the other, and the voters coming out as the only winners...

 

[dannybin1742]

shades of grey needs to read "whats wrong with kansas" to understand what the reds have been doing to convince the working class to vote against the lively hood of their own job and community

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
nice to see the republicans continuing to destroy democracy in ohio

statistical impossiblity of outcome (again, read: 2004 results)

democracy is dying in ohio

:laugh: Yeah, a poll is once again more accurate than the actual vote count! :laugh:

Hilarious!

If the electronic voting machines are as easily hacked as is suggested it wouldnt be hard for the RNC or a group of Right Wing Wack-jobs to find a qualified hack to mess with results... Possible, YES, factual, NO...



SHUX

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, shux, combine the possibility of tampering with the apparently coincidental decline in the reliability of exit polls, and I think you'll understand why some people might be ready to call foul. Add public statements from the head of Diebold and their apparent balkiness at doing the right thing to arrive at a state of deep suspicion.

I'm all in favor of making electronic voting as tamper resistant as possible, so that we can get past that, get on with the important business of running the country. In Diebold's shoes, or those of any other voting machine system manufacturer, I'd be looking to enhancing the quality of my product, rather than squelching criticism with obfuscation and denial... Which doesn't speak well of their intentions, either...