Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2586 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2012 at 9:56 AM (3 years 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 11:52:51 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.

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.


A lot of people don't bother to read ballot initiatives and so don't vote on it. That laziness will help keep the ballot from passing.
 
2012-09-18 11:52:55 AM  

Muta: 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'.


Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto

/durr de durr durp
 
2012-09-18 12:02:24 PM  
I agree that it's pretty messed up that not making a choice results in one being made for you, but so long as every ballot initiative is set up the same, so that "Yes" means change/action and "No" means status quo/inaction, it's not that big of a problem.
 
2012-09-18 12:05:45 PM  

Flaming Yawn: Muta: 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'.

Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto


And you'll be wetting yourself in the next election when they learn their lesson and turn the question around so a 'no' vote makes same sex marriage unconstitutional.
 
2012-09-18 12:12:09 PM  

Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.


I think I've seen a couple of "Vote Yes" lawn signs in an older suburb on the north side of town, but they've got some small light green text on a bright background that makes them nearly illegible at any sort of speed. One might see a better showing outside of town, but who's going to notice them until the deer hunting opener or ice fishing season?
 
2012-09-18 12:18:07 PM  

Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.

/quite a few Obama
//one Mitt Romney
/// If this passes, do not blame the Twin Cities.


I've seen a few Yes signs in Frogtown, near where I work, but many more No.
 
2012-09-18 12:19:27 PM  

swahnhennessy: I agree that it's pretty messed up that not making a choice results in one being made for you, but so long as every ballot initiative is set up the same, so that "Yes" means change/action and "No" means status quo/inaction, it's not that big of a problem.



A choice isn't being made for you. You chose not to vote yes, so you don't count as a yes vote. The only thing that matters here is the % of yes votes.
 
2012-09-18 12:24:52 PM  
So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.
 
2012-09-18 12:26:45 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


You know what else doesn't seem fair? Having the majority decide on the rights of a minority.
 
2012-09-18 12:29:33 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
 
2012-09-18 12:31:23 PM  

lemurs: Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.


I will choose free will.
 
2012-09-18 12:32:56 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


What matters is the % of people who say yes........it's changing the state's farking constitution. It isn't supposed to happen all willy nilly. Enough people have to actually want it enough to check a farking box. If they can't do that they then it isn't important enough to change a farking constitution.
 
2012-09-18 12:38:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Cletus C.: This seems terribly wrong, frankly. Having a blank ballot space count for anything in determining the issue is intuitively flawed.

But at least it counts in the right direction. This time.

that's the point. The blank ballot does NOT count for anything. That's why it is effectively a "no" vote


It does count. Simply put. 10 people vote in the election. Only 6 of those 10 fill in yes or no on a measure to put gays in stocks in public squares. Five of the six vote yes. Hell yah, they say.

It would appear the measure passes and we can start rounding up the geys. But no, because there were 10 people who voted that day you need 6 "yes" votes to pass the measure. So, despite 5 of 6 people voting in favor, the geys are still allowed to roam free.

Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.
 
2012-09-18 12:41:40 PM  

Cletus C.: Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


Same idea. A majority of voters need to vote in favor of it. Not voting is not voting in favor. It makes sense. It's a constitutional amendment, after all.
 
2012-09-18 12:43:08 PM  

Cletus C.: Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


It's a vote to amend the constitution, so you can't really flip the question around to make not amending the constitution count for anything by voting "no". That just wouldn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-18 12:52:05 PM  

Selena Luna: 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 you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )
 
2012-09-18 01:21:42 PM  

dywed88: 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.

Because the people who don't care and therefore don't make a selection on that issue count as "No".


See, and that's an "as it should be" thing for constitutional ballot initiatives. Unless a majority of people ask for something to change, don't change it. Shouldn't work that way for elected positions, since we have to have somebody head up the railroad commission, even if only a few people care who does it.

All I'm saying is, I don't get why we have a thread about it. I'm going to submit something like "hey guys, did you know that there's an election coming up in November?" because evidently we're greenlighting obvious shiat these days.

/Though, now I am interested to see if Texas counts an abstaining vote as a "no" or just doesn't count.
 
2012-09-18 01:24:33 PM  

nobodyUwannaknow: Selena Luna: 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 you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )


I get that. I guess I've just had bad experiences with this in the past, though with a person, at a school election, and not with a state amendment.
 
2012-09-18 01:26:22 PM  

Selena Luna: nobodyUwannaknow: Selena Luna: 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 you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )

I get that. I guess I've just had bad experiences with this in the past, though with a person, at a school election, and not with a state amendment.



That isn't like this at all.
 
2012-09-18 01:33:53 PM  

Emposter: You read Impaler's post wrong.


Yes, yes I did.
Mind you I wasn't trying to jump on him, but was merely pointing out how ballot initiatives, depending on who is sponsoring them, can be twisted to no means yes and yes means no.
 
2012-09-18 01:35:28 PM  

cretinbob: 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.


Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.
 
2012-09-18 01:44:50 PM  

Muta: Flaming Yawn: Muta: 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'.

Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto

And you'll be wetting yourself in the next election when they learn their lesson and turn the question around so a 'no' vote makes same sex marriage unconstitutional.


In what way could a "No" vote mean "pass this Constitutional amendment"? That's all the rule affects: Constitutional amendments. You can't even vote "No" to repeal an existing amendment. You'd have to vote "Yes" to amend the amendment!

The only way your point makes sense is if the gay rights side makes an amendment to dictate marriage equality in the Constitution. No gay rights group has tried that tactic as far as I know. The legislatures and courts are good enough to get equality.

The anti-gay side is going to the extreme of a Constitutional amendment because they're trying to limit citizen rights while blocking out future legislative and judicial oversight.
 
2012-09-18 02:24:17 PM  

Cletus C.:

Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


It wouldn't be. Constitutional amendment ballot questions are always phrased "shall the constitution be amended to say thus and such?" which means that a yes vote affirms the change and a no vote or non-vote affirms the status quo.
 
2012-09-18 02:46:31 PM  

fracto: A choice isn't being made for you.


Only if "No" is inaction every time. If the ballot is set up so that a negative response allows for something to be changed from its present state, then a choice has been made for you. With initiatives it is not always the case that "Yes" means to proceed in a new direction and "No" signifies to stand pat. I don't know if Minnesota has rules in place where ballot questions must be consistent in regards to Y/N, but many places do not.
 
2012-09-18 02:51:34 PM  

swahnhennessy: fracto: A choice isn't being made for you.

Only if "No" is inaction every time. If the ballot is set up so that a negative response allows for something to be changed from its present state, then a choice has been made for you. With initiatives it is not always the case that "Yes" means to proceed in a new direction and "No" signifies to stand pat. I don't know if Minnesota has rules in place where ballot questions must be consistent in regards to Y/N, but many places do not.



If you expand the conversation to every conceivable ballot measure from any and all locations, then sure. But in the context of this discussion, non-yes votes in Minnesota constitutional amendment questions, a choice isn't being made for you..
 
2012-09-18 02:55:25 PM  

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.


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

Yes.

 
2012-09-18 03:07:29 PM  

lemurs: Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.

I think I've seen a couple of "Vote Yes" lawn signs in an older suburb on the north side of town, but they've got some small light green text on a bright background that makes them nearly illegible at any sort of speed. One might see a better showing outside of town, but who's going to notice them until the deer hunting opener or ice fishing season?


My suburb is having a school referendum. Lots of vote yes signs popping up, but the message is pretty obvious.
 
2012-09-18 03:29:52 PM  
 
2012-09-18 04:01:06 PM  
The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.
 
2012-09-18 04:20:57 PM  

OregonVet: The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.


The people that don't seem to get it seem like "constitutionalist" tea party members.
 
2012-09-18 04:33:38 PM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]


And that's exactly why you're seeing the push to get as many state & federal laws in place against gay marriage - this is quite actually the last time such bigotry can be legislated.

Subsequent generations simply won't care - if two people love each other and want to get married, gender is irrelevant. Hell, if more than two people love each other and want to get married, that, too, should be allowed - I never understood why polygamy is somehow bad (from the perspective of government.) We allow all sorts of relationships between corporations, and we're treating corporations as people - why is it that corporations can do what people cannot?
 
2012-09-18 04:40:34 PM  

PsiChick: cretinbob: 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.

Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.


Does marriage actually make that much of a difference in raising a child? I get that there's a statistical correlation between children who have married parents and children who don't grow up to be a complete farktard. But does the marriage itself cause that? I'm pretty sure if the government dropped marriage and any rights/incentives they tie to it, the same people who are good parents today would continue to be good parents.
 
2012-09-18 04:47:43 PM  

Citrate1007: The people that don't seem to get it seem like "constitutionalist" tea party members.


Very wide, your brush is.
 
2012-09-18 04:54:16 PM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost.


Am I skimming over the wrong posts? Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.
 
2012-09-18 05:48:44 PM  

serial_crusher: PsiChick: cretinbob: 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.

Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.

Does marriage actually make that much of a difference in raising a child? I get that there's a statistical correlation between children who have married parents and children who don't grow up to be a complete farktard. But does the marriage itself cause that? I'm pretty sure if the government dropped marriage and any rights/incentives they tie to it, the same people who are good parents today would continue to be good parents.


No, but it makes it easier to legally say 'okay, you and you are in charge of this kid until you fark up'. Paperwork, essentially.
 
2012-09-18 06:46:11 PM  

OregonVet: The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.


It was the lack of reading comprehension that floored me. :)
 
2012-09-18 07:42:43 PM  

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

It is a constitutional amendment


sprawl15: Yeah, but what about constitutional amendments?


I know this thread went on without me, I just wanted to point out that I realize that this particular case is about an amendment. I was addressing all the people that assumed all the other kinds of laws in Minnesota got the same treatment.
 
2012-09-18 08:14:07 PM  

cretinbob: . I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether.


See, this is what I've been saying. I agree with you. Unfortunately, a bunch of farktards on Fark have been screaming at me that "marriage isn't a religious ceremony," so it should be OK for government to encourage marriage.
 
2012-09-18 10:38:34 PM  

FormlessOne: And that's exactly why you're seeing the push to get as many state & federal laws in place against gay marriage - this is quite actually the last time such bigotry can be legislated.


Actually... there's good odds that that was 2010. All four of the 2012 ballot attempts look to be in trouble.
They've picked up all the low hanging fruit... and soon, what they've picked will start turning rotten?

serial_crusher: Am I skimming over the wrong posts? Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.


Which seems itself an interesting development. Perhaps I can look forward to being obsolete?

♫ As the present now will later be past ♫
♫ The order is rapidly fadin' ♫
♫ And the first one now will later be last ♫
♫ For the times they are a-changin'... ♫
 
2012-09-18 11:36:02 PM  
Look, the US constitution requires supermajorities in the house and senate and a superduper majority of states to radify an amendment. Similarly, the state of Minnesota certainty can and should require extra steps to make major amendments to their state constitution.

You want to error against the side of low voter turn-out when it comes to fundamentally changing something upon which everything else is based.
 
2012-09-18 11:45:14 PM  
Also, for completeness:

Yes = Amending the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing changes phenotypically as gay marriage is already against the law in Minnesota

No=Not amending the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing changes phenotypically as gay marriage is already against the law in Minnesota.


What makes this different from other anti-gay marriage amendments, propositions etc...is that anti-gay groups can't run "scare" ads where you have little Jimmy coming home and telling his mommy he can marry his best friend Bimmy. 

Conservatards are so arrogant, they're tempting fate (of the voters never having passed/approved of gay marriage) on something that has little-to-no 'benefit' for them rhetoric wise. In other words, this is like betting your house on the Indians coming in last in the league
 
2012-09-19 01:34:38 AM  
Hey, Minnesota and all you other backwards dipshiat farktards, how about you stop pissing yourselves into a frenzy over other people's love and sex lives, allow consenting adults to marry each other, and go on with your pathetic little lives? Your religion has no place in politics or lawmaking, and "I think it's icky!" doesn't cut it as a reason.

Goddamned retards, all of you. If you put this much effort and energy into something actually productive, humans would be living on Jupiter by now.
 
2012-09-21 10:20:42 AM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]


he is correct

blogs.laweekly.com

RIP freedom of speech, religion, etc..

Cops consider the situation to be vandalism and not a hate crime, unless reverse hate crime counts.

it's only a hate crime if you agree with Christians, but you disagree, then it's just artistic "vandalism" expressing free speech in the name of progress

duh
 
2012-09-21 10:23:49 AM  

abb3w: Perhaps I can look forward to being obsolete?


ditto

intelligent thought is way over-rated

/pearls before swine
 
2012-09-21 10:31:32 AM  

serial_crusher: Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.


yep its the same in every one of these threads not a single good reason against "marriage equality", but just pointing out how Christians are racist bigots that need to be exterminated


I drunk what: Silverstaff: "Gay marriage is against God and the Bible"

well i was going to use the scientific approach, but if you believe in God we can discuss the option of using religious concepts in the formation of our laws, whichever suits you, i'm easy

Silverstaff: We do not base public policy in the United States on religious teachings.

actually we do, but we can come back to that one later if you so choose

Silverstaff: The Establishment clause of the First Amendment makes it clear that we cannot establish any state religion, or provide preferential treatment to any one faith.

speaking of irrelevant this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the previous sentence, perhaps it would to recognize this first mistake before we proceed

Silverstaff: It is not universally believed to be true among Christians. There are a number of Christian denominations that condone or perform same-sex unions. While they are a minority, it is wrong to say that it is universally held by religious leaders that same-sex marriage is against Christian teachings

i try not to make a habit of arguing a point as valid/invalid simply because it holds unanimous approval nor even popular opinion (majority or otherwise). however, if you feel this is important for basing one's argument feel free to bring it up again

moving on

Silverstaff: We do not use the Bible for the definition of marriage already.

there may be multiple instances of "marriage" contained in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (each being separate collections of accounts and SEVERELY different codes of Law) however there is one definition that is verified in both

Matthew 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no ma ...



I drunk what: ciberido: they next go to the "it's unnatural" argument. Which is bunkum, of course, for any scientific meaning of "unnatural,"

what is Nature?

and more importantly is it natural for a human mother to eat her babies?

feel free to use the scientific meaning of Natural

and while you're at it you could humor us by answering a couple other questions that no other farker has the intelligence, courage or ability to answer:

I drunk what: kim jong-un: Consent as a term applied to animals is nonsense.

are humans animals?

I drunk what: Some 'Splainin' To Do: You forgot "It's not consensual".

are animals capable of consent?

and while we're recapping on how your side has got nothing it may be a good time to correct myself, it seems i inadvertently posted a careless and thoughtless list of viable options when in fact the politically correct version would include a more compassionate range of choices:

I drunk what: i haz a fark edumucation

Homosexuality
Bestiality
Polygamy
Incest
Redneck
Pedophilia
Necrophilia
[fill in your lifestyle choice here]

are all valid ETHNIC groups and therefore shall be afforded the same rights, if you disagree, you are an intolerant racist bigot

1eth·nic adjective \ˈeth-nik\

Definition of ETHNIC

1
: heathen
2
a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
b : being a member of a specified ethnic group
c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics
See ethnic defined for English-lang

FTFM, now we are being considerate of people's feelings, with the option left open to fill in your personal lifestyle choice, so that i don't get sued by the ACLU, GLAAD, or equivalent community

....

ready when you are?


180nps.files.wordpress.com

i've been looking in this hole for days now and i can see or hear a single objection to anti-Christian hate propaganda

but i do hear a bunch of circle jerking, so i must be in the right place

music to our hears
 
2012-09-21 10:33:02 AM  

I drunk what: i've been looking in this hole for days now and i can CANNOT see or hear a single objection


sorry it's hard to type in this dark hole, can't see the keyboard

/lulz
 
Displayed 46 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 »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report