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 16
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2576 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2012 at 9:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-18 10:22:33 AM
3 votes:
As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted. The fact that MN has a faction of bigots in their Republican party both shames me for living in MN and has forced me for the first time to vote for Democrats in the state elections.

If you live in MN:

Yes
= You are a bigot and don't want gays to marry.
No = You are not saying gays can marry, you just don't feel that a permanent amendment needs to be added to the constitution to block them from it in the future.
2012-09-18 09:09:14 AM
2 votes:
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 08:39:58 AM
2 votes:
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 10:46:19 AM
1 votes:
It's been said a number of times already in this thread, but the MN constitution is written this way for a reason. The underlying idea is that constitutional amendments are not to be entered into lightly. Thus the majority of ballots cast must actually be affirmative to the change.
2012-09-18 10:39:28 AM
1 votes:

Muta: Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.

Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.


I might have agreed with you; except that MN law clearly defines a voter as someone who votes on ANY of the other ballot measures. If you only check the box for the President, but nothing else on the ballot, you're a "voter" and get counted in the denominator for constitutional referendums.

Just a guess, but I think the original intent was to make it harder for people to be confused with amendments, so if you didn't understand it, you could leave it blank and make it more difficult to pass.
2012-09-18 10:34:16 AM
1 votes:

Muta: Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.

Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.



If you submit a ballot you are a voter. If you don't check 'yes' on that question you haven't given consent. Without the consent of the governed a state shouldn't alter it's constitution.

If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.
2012-09-18 10:18:22 AM
1 votes:
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 10:17:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:17:26 AM
1 votes:

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 10:17:11 AM
1 votes:
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 10:09:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:56 AM
1 votes:
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 09:58:50 AM
1 votes:
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 08:45:39 AM
1 votes:
The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit
2012-09-18 08:17:24 AM
1 votes:
This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.
2012-09-18 01:34:19 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report