If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   While the anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota is polling even, Minnesota state law requires blank ballots to be counted as "No." Oops   (sos.state.mn.us) divider line 146
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2575 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2012 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-18 12:13:14 AM
This is bad news for the Lizard People.
 
2012-09-18 01:34:19 AM
I don't live in Minnesota and am not following this issue there. Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality or for? In some cases the initiatives are worded in such a way as to make "No" mean "Yes". My state changed that so "no" means no and "yes" means yes.

Just asking.

//Stood in line at o'dark thirty to save a place for my cousin and her wife to get married in San Francisco when Mayor Newsom let everyone get married.
///They moved to Canada for work (my CIL is a Canuck) and got married again there just to make sure.
 
2012-09-18 02:07:11 AM

teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality


Yes.
 
2012-09-18 08:10:07 AM
I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.

And just so we're clear, a "blank" ballot is somebody who shows up for voting (or mails an absentee ballot) but just doesn't select an answer for that one issue. Not somebody who registers to vote, but doesn't show up, right? I don't think in the second case any ballot measures would ever be able to pass.
 
2012-09-18 08:16:11 AM
 
2012-09-18 08:17:24 AM
This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.
 
2012-09-18 08:19:55 AM

cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


I don't get it
 
2012-09-18 08:23:41 AM

Lor M. Ipsum: cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

I don't get it


i think it means that if you're voting in MN this november and you leave that particular part of the ballot blank (as many people do who don't study referenda and other non-candidate ballot initiatives), it is counted as a "no," meaning the anti-gay referendum will have a more difficult time passing.
 
2012-09-18 08:30:19 AM

FlashHarry: Lor M. Ipsum: cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

I don't get it

i think it means that if you're voting in MN this november and you leave that particular part of the ballot blank (as many people do who don't study referenda and other non-candidate ballot initiatives), it is counted as a "no," meaning the anti-gay referendum will have a more difficult time passing.


Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.
 
2012-09-18 08:31:10 AM
This is what's wrong with voting I guess. It's not a trick question.


Should marriage only be defined as being between a man and a woman? Yes or no?


That's the question. So by voting no, you kill the amendment to the constitution and leave things the way they are conserving (where the word conservative comes from btw) the status quo.
 
2012-09-18 08:33:57 AM

Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.



Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.
 
2012-09-18 08:39:58 AM
We're on a corner lot and have a Vote No sign on each street side of our house. Apparently the Vote Yes people have been going around stealing the Vote No signs which is really amusing as then they get replaced and the Vote No campaign gets another $10 in funds when we buy a new sign. Thanks stupid!
 
2012-09-18 08:45:39 AM
The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit
 
2012-09-18 08:51:45 AM
Duh, Any gay man will tell you that when straights say no, they really mean yes.
 
2012-09-18 08:59:44 AM
This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.
 
2012-09-18 09:09:14 AM
People should not be voting on human rights of minorities, ever. Government's job is to protect these rights, not subject them to majority rule.
 
2012-09-18 09:16:09 AM
That's no "oops".
 
2012-09-18 09:17:41 AM

impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.


Nice.
 
2012-09-18 09:29:07 AM

Generation_D: People should not be voting on human rights of minorities, ever. Government's job is to protect these rights, not subject them to majority rule.


Majority will use every opportunity to suppress minorities until the courts finally stop it. Indians, Women, Blacks, Asians, Gays, Hispanics (also in that historical order for the US) all faced and face discrimination from people in power, usually white men.
 
2012-09-18 09:40:33 AM

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


I guess you missed the 'against'
He was just as correct as you were.

/not helping clear up the confusion.
 
2012-09-18 09:58:50 AM
Here's the breakdown. The text of the ballot says:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

1)Voting YES means that you want the Minnesota constitution to be amended to say that marriage is one man and one woman only.

2)Voting NO means that the constitution will not be amended.

3) Not voting either counts as a NO.

The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

Usually these ballot options are on the back of the ballot (Minnesota uses large sheets and they are fed through optical scanners). At the polls, people are reminded to look at both sides but that doesn't mean they'll remember. So, those who don't flip the sheet and vote on this ballot issue are having their votes count as NO. This is a GOOD THING.
 
2012-09-18 10:00:33 AM

teto85: I don't live in Minnesota and am not following this issue there. Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality or for? In some cases the initiatives are worded in such a way as to make "No" mean "Yes". My state changed that so "no" means no and "yes" means yes.


The Amendment would define marriage as one man and one women only. A no vote just means that there would be no state constitutional amendment that would prevent legalizing gay marriage in the future. HTH.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-09-18 10:03:59 AM

stpauler: Here's the breakdown. The text of the ballot says:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

1)Voting YES means that you want the Minnesota constitution to be amended to say that marriage is one man and one woman only.

2)Voting NO means that the constitution will not be amended.

3) Not voting either counts as a NO.

The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

Usually these ballot options are on the back of the ballot (Minnesota uses large sheets and they are fed through optical scanners). At the polls, people are reminded to look at both sides but that doesn't mean they'll remember. So, those who don't flip the sheet and vote on this ballot issue are having their votes count as NO. This is a GOOD THING.


Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?
 
2012-09-18 10:04:55 AM

jaylectricity: This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.


It is a constitutional amendment
 
2012-09-18 10:07:56 AM
I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:29 AM

Il Douchey: The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit




lol good one.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:46 AM

stpauler: It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.


All legislation prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions is "mean-spirited". That is the fundamental motivation for such legislation.
 
2012-09-18 10:11:38 AM
blank ballots are blank ballots. they mean neither yes nor no. dumsh*ts. a blank ballot should be ignored.
 
2012-09-18 10:11:48 AM

jaylectricity: This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.


Yeah, but what about constitutional amendments?
 
2012-09-18 10:11:52 AM

Cythraul: This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.


You can't really get around democracy. If we say that civil rights are sacred and not beholden to public opinion, then we will simply end up having a meta-argument about what does and does not constitute a "civil right." I understand your sentiment, but in practice, having 51% of the country support gay marriage is going to go a long way toward moving it along.
 
2012-09-18 10:12:55 AM

Alphax: I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.


Snide and cynical strategy, but yeah... I could see that working.
 
2012-09-18 10:13:24 AM

Tommy Moo: Cythraul: This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.

You can't really get around democracy. If we say that civil rights are sacred and not beholden to public opinion, then we will simply end up having a meta-argument about what does and does not constitute a "civil right." I understand your sentiment, but in practice, having 51% of the country support gay marriage is going to go a long way toward moving it along.


There is a world of difference between having 51% support from the population, and 51% support among voters
 
2012-09-18 10:13:38 AM

Alphax: I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.


I'm sure they'd like to get their amendment passed and get the fundies out to vote, but this will be one of those issues where everyone out in the sticks votes "yes", everyone in the metro areas votes "no" and the final tally will be pretty close - until the Supreme Court renders the issue moot.
 
2012-09-18 10:13:52 AM

impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.



yep. kinda' nifty, huh?
 
2012-09-18 10:14:29 AM

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


You read Impaler's post wrong.
 
182
2012-09-18 10:14:46 AM

Il Douchey: The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit


did you pass?
 
2012-09-18 10:15:50 AM

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.



true. voting 'no' is a vote for marriage equality. couldn't these goons come up with a better system than this? could be worded better too. not eveyone is a fookin' lawyer. thank god.
 
2012-09-18 10:16:58 AM
Abortion: Cut it out!!!
 
2012-09-18 10:17:11 AM
In the matter of conditional amendments, it is a good thing to have it pass based on a percentage of all voters rather than simply those who answered "yes" or "no" - amending the constitution should not be easy.

This shouldn't even be on the ballot, but since it is, I'll be voting "no." It is really a dick move initiative since gay marriage is already illegal in MN.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:26 AM

serial_crusher: I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.


I've reviewed ballots before. A substantial number of people will vote for President if that's on the ballot, maybe Senator if it's been big in the news, then look over the dozens of judges and state reps and ballot issues and whatnot, and simply ignore the rest of the ballot. Hell, leave a lot of 'judge retentions' blank for lack of interest. In states where there's a "vote a party line" bubble, I'd bet that participation rates on non-party ballot issues is even lower. Even if it's just 5% or so, "no response = nay" is a huge hurdle.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:28 AM

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


That is what he said, the other way around.

Impaler was correct.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:29 AM

Linux_Yes: blank ballots are blank ballots. they mean neither yes nor no. dumsh*ts. a blank ballot should be ignored.


The Minnesota constitution says a majority of cast ballots must say "yes" in order to pass an amendment so that's just the way it goes. If anything, I'd prefer amendments to be even harder to pass to discourage legislators from stuffing the constitution with stuff like this that doesn't need to be there.
 
2012-09-18 10:18:08 AM

Dimensio: stpauler: It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

All legislation prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions is "mean-spirited". That is the fundamental motivation for such legislation.


Also, a constitution is generally used to limit government power, not civil liberties.

I still have hope that MN gets this right. I am willing to stop saying that I am an economic refuge from WI if this gets shot down. However, I will NOT support the Vikings.
 
2012-09-18 10:18:20 AM

Generation_D:
Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


Your question makes it sound like I'm advocating the amendment, which I'm obviously not. The title of the thread says "While the anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota is polling even, Minnesota state law requires blank ballots to be counted as "No." Oops" And THAT'S what makes the blank vote a good thing and not an "Oops".
 
2012-09-18 10:18:22 AM
The best part of that is that the republicans are the ones who wrote the amendments (there is also a voter id amendment question on the ballot), so the confusing wording is on them. The sec of state tried to clear up the language and the republicans took him to court so it couldn't be changed. Keep digging guys, at this point, we might not even be able to throw you a rope long enough to climb out and live among people with a brain (and a concern for other human beings)

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/supreme-court-affirms - legislative-control-constitutional-amendment-process
 
2012-09-18 10:18:53 AM
Yay marriage equality but this law seems a little off.
 
2012-09-18 10:19:11 AM

cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.
 
2012-09-18 10:19:22 AM

Generation_D:
Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


Try reading the thread, maybe. Or even just the posts you quoted. If you don't vote, you're effectively voting to leave the constitution as-is. This means if you're going to oppress minorities, you must at least be smart enough to flip the ballot over.
 
2012-09-18 10:20:23 AM

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


Popular referendums are stupid. There's a reason why our government was structured the way it was.
 
2012-09-18 10:21:28 AM
Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

I am in favor of marriage equality.

However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction. If I fail to vote for a president, then I expect that part of my ballot to be left blank, not to go to Mitt Romney (a NO vote if I ever saw one).
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report