Romney vs. Obama

[ArtK78]

There were two voting districts voting in the polling place for my voting district - an elementary school gymnasium. In my district, at 8:30 this morning, the line was about 30 people long. There were two voting machines, and it took about 15-20 minutes to vote. In the other district, the line (if you would call it that) was about 1-2 people long at various times while I was waiting, and that district also had two voting machines.

 

I don't know why it was the way it was, but it was curious.

 

In any event, the races in New Jersey are not very interesting. Robert Menendez will certainly be reelected to his Senate seat, and Frank LoBiando will certainly be reelected to his seat in the House from the 2nd Congressional District (Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties - the southern most and least populated counties in New Jersey - home to Hurricane Sandy!). President Obama is as sure a bet as there can be to win New Jersey. Other than that, there are some County and local races which are of interest primarily to the people running in them. And there are a couple of statewide questions which, while not unimportant, are not very interesting.

[wyman]

OK; I assumed you did know, since you mentioned a Muslim.

 

I thought it was pretty clear that he was referring to the two sides' caricatures of the opposition candidates (Obama as a Muslim socialist, Romney as a predatory venture capitalist). Maybe if you're subjected to the adverts, punditry, and "news" day in and day out, it is far clearer.

[barmar]

Ahh, voting machines -- that's the difference. We still use paper ballots where you fill in ovals with your choices (we used to use punch cards, but got rid of them after hanging chads). We actually have 3 precincts voting in my polling place, also an elementary school gym. There are about a dozen carels with 4 writing surfaces each, but most of them were empty when I voted at about 12:30.

[ArtK78]

Ahh, voting machines -- that's the difference. We still use paper ballots where you fill in ovals with your choices (we used to use punch cards, but got rid of them after hanging chads). We actually have 3 precincts voting in my polling place, also an elementary school gym. There are about a dozen carels with 4 writing surfaces each, but most of them were empty when I voted at about 12:30.

I have been voting since I was 18 (way back in the middle of the 20th century) and I have never voted on a paper ballot.

 

Are you in Florida? You really need to move into the 20th century (at least) and get rid of paper ballots.

[Trinidad]

May I make one more observation. People of my age understand about the consequences of spending money we don't have.

i'd like to take a moment or two to talk about this, and i'm trying to do so without being particularly partisan, though i'm sure some will think that's not true... it seems to me that the more people we have who don't subscribe to your view, the farther we get away from america and the closer we come to a more european society...

Now this has not been your first fact free post in this thread. Don't worry, Mitt Romney has said some incredibly ...err... poorly informed things about Europe too.

 

It is not difficult to find some facts. Then you will see that the USA would loooooovvvveeeeee to be like Europe... because European countries are much less prone to spend money that they don't have than the USA.

 

I googled a little. I am sure someone can find more recent data, but this is the start of the table with the 2010 deficit by OECD country as a percentage of the GDP, the next column shows the estimate for 2011:

 

1. Ireland -31.3  -10.3

2. Greece -10.8  -9

3. United States -10.7  -10

4. United Kingdom -10.4  -9.4

5. Iceland -10.1  -5.4

6. Portugal -9.8  -5.9

7. Spain -9.3  -6.2

 

I skip a few..

11. OECD Total -7.7  -6.6

14. Canada -5.6  -5

17. Australia -4.8  -3.3

19. Italy -4.5  -3.6

.

.

32. Norway 10.6  12.5

 

Note the OECD Total in place 11. No doubt that the major reason why it is so high is that the USA will be weighing in so heavily.

 

How about the debt (% of GDP)? I found something here.

1. Japan 104.6

2. Italy 100.8

3. Greece 94.6

4. Belgium 85.4

5. United States 65.2

6. Portugal 62.6

7. Hungary 62.1

last Norway -143.6

 

I didn't search for that, but I can also safely say that personal debts (in contrast to the debt of countries) are much bigger in the USA than in Europe.

 

If you then think about what caused the problems for many of these European countries (and look how small the European problems are compared to the USA) then I think the last thing that Americans are allowed to do is point a finger at the financial situation of European countries.

 

The simple conclusion: If the USA would be a little more like Europe, the world would be financially considerably sounder.

 

Rik

[wyman]

...New Jersey

...

And there are a couple of statewide questions which, while not unimportant, are not very interesting.

 

I actually think that the statewide constitutional amendment ballot initiative is rather interesting.

 

Background: NJ Legislature passed a bill that changed the pension withholding from govt employees' paychecks. A judge or justice (I forget which) sued because NJ has a clause in the NJ constitution that says that the legislature can't change the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary. This argument held up through a few rds of appeals, so Christie is pushing for a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to change the salaries of sitting members of the judiciary.

 

My commentary:

1) I believe that it would be fine to increase the withholding from these paychecks.

 

2) I don't think that this is an issue that warrants a constitutional amendment, since these judges/justices will retire eventually, after which this is a non-issue until the legislature wants to change tack. This incentivizes the legislature to get "it" right the first time.

 

3) This is a small issue, not warranting an amendment, because the judiciary is a small fraction of NJ gov't employees.

 

4) Allowing the legislature to alter the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary compromises the checks and balances we have in place.

 

5) And this I believe is the most interesting point: Ostensibly, the Republican party should be against adding massive complexity to the lawbooks, and especially the constitution. We shouldn't be amending the constitution over small things. Yet, this is somehow important enough to CC that he's willing to push for it. This seems extremely strange to me and is an example of how Republican politics has (d)evolved.

 

I voted against it for the reasons above, even though I agree in principle with CC on the matter.

 

Additionally, in New Brunswick, we had a city-wide initiative to change from a mayor-appointed Bd of Ed to an elected BoE. Some political action group sent out a letter from the mayor with a glossy on the current BoE and the members' credentials and an appeal to reject this on the grounds that the initiative is a way for people who failed to be elected in local elections to backdoor their way into the political scene. Again, seems weird for a dem. mayor to argue against holding elections for such positions, but since it's usually a dem mayor...

 

Again, while I agree that the BoE is fine, and the members are (for the most part) credentialed and qualified, it's insulting to me as a member of the electorate that he seems to think that we are incapable of electing a quality, non-partisan school board. So, on principle, I voted in favor of changing to an elected BoE system. But honestly, we as an electorate should be capable of electing a non-partisan national legislature that would put aside politics and act in the best interest of the voters. But I can't even type that sentence without laughing. So maybe the mayor has a point. Kind of makes me sad.

[wyman]

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/reddit-user-captures-video-of-2012-voting-machines-altering-votes/

 

I'm sure this is not malicious at all, but it makes me long for the days of scantron (since we're on the topic of voting machines).

[1eyedjack]

I was reading an article on why the election is always on a Tuesday. To those where it is closer to home it is probably obvious or taught in schools or whatnot.

 

Anyway, the article is here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-20072338

 

from which I quote:

 

"Saturday was a workday on the farm, travel on Sunday was out, and Wednesday was a market day. That left Tuesday."

 

Ummm, duh!! "That left Tuesday"?? Yes. And Monday, Thursday and Friday. And if Saturday was a workday, then so was (I imagine) Tuesday, so that also leaves Saturday.

 

No doubt there was a reason for Tuesday, but as a piece of journalism I say again, Duh!

[barmar]

I have been voting since I was 18 (way back in the middle of the 20th century) and I have never voted on a paper ballot.

 

Are you in Florida? You really need to move into the 20th century (at least) and get rid of paper ballots.

I'm in Arlington, MA. Normally we're a very high tech community -- we were one of the first towns in MA to get cable Internet. I'm not sure why we still use paper ballots, but maybe it's just because they still work pretty well. Low-tech isn't always bad.

[Thiros]

Well, it's done. I've made my choice, but you have no idea how badly I wanted to write in Fred Gitelman. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[ArtK78]

I was reading an article on why the election is always on a Tuesday. To those where it is closer to home it is probably obvious or taught in schools or whatnot.

 

Anyway, the article is here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-20072338

 

from which I quote:

 

"Saturday was a workday on the farm, travel on Sunday was out, and Wednesday was a market day. That left Tuesday."

 

Ummm, duh!! "That left Tuesday"?? Yes. And Monday, Thursday and Friday. And if Saturday was a workday, then so was (I imagine) Tuesday, so that also leaves Saturday.

 

No doubt there was a reason for Tuesday, but as a piece of journalism I say again, Duh!

 

I found this transcript of a presentation on NPR about voting on Tuesday - specifically, the first Tuesday in November after the first Monday in November, which is what the law states is the day for the US General Election.

 

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

 

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

 

As voters all over the country mark their ballots today, we revisit a story from NPR's Selena Simmons-Duffin, who wondered: Why do Americans vote on Tuesday?

 

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: The answer, turns out, is a little obscure. Senate Historian Don Ritchie had to dig through some historical documents so he could explain.

 

DON RITCHIE: In the early 19th century, basically it was a crazy quilt of elections.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: He says, the Constitutional Convention didn't get to some key details, leaving states to set their own voting dates, which meant several decades of electoral chaos.

 

RITCHIE: So finally in 1845, Congress passed a law.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Which set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day.

 

If it were Monday, they reasoned, people would have to travel in their buggies on Sunday, traditionally, a day of rest. And in a mostly farming society, Wednesday was out because that was often market day.

 

Tuesday was the day, and that seemed to work great.

 

RITCHIE: In the 1840s, elections were a big to-do. There was a lot of hoopla. There were parades. Whole families would come on wagons from the farms. People would get dressed up for the occasion.

 

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, that may have made sense in 1845, but the world has moved on. Democracies have moved on. And so Congress should move on and make it easier for people to vote.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Now that there are no buggies or market days, Democratic congressman Steve Israel of New York says Tuesday no longer works. It isn't exactly a convenient day for a lot of folks.

 

KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: When the Census has surveyed people about why they don't vote? One in four people says they're too busy or their schedules don't allow them to get to the polls.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Now, many states have other options, like early voting, but not all, says Jacob Soboroff with advocacy group, Why Tuesday?

 

JACOB SOBOROFF: In 15 states, you do not have an opportunity to vote early or with an absentee ballot or by mail, which means you have to vote on Tuesday.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Soboroff and congressman Israel say this bars access to democracy. They say it keeps America's voter turnout chronically low. But moving Election Day from Tuesday turns out to be no easy task.

 

RITCHIE: We're a very traditional country and that became a tradition in a lot of ways.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Historian Don Ritchie says people can set their calendars to it, they can count on it, they're used to it. And though congressman Israel has been introducing and reintroducing a bill to move voting to the weekend, it keeps dying in committee.

 

ISRAEL: I'm not giving up. I think it's just that important.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: It's not exactly a very sexy issue. It's a little bit technical.

 

ISRAEL: You know, some people would say it's a rather arcane issue, but I think it's a rather profound issue. I can't think of anything more important than making sure that people have an opportunity to cast their votes.

 

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: For this election, the date is set. So, as in every presidential election since the 1840s, Tuesday is the day to vote.

 

Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR News.

 

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

 

MONTAGNE: You're listening to MORNING EDITION from NPR News.

 

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

 

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

[ArtK78]

I actually think that the statewide constitutional amendment ballot initiative is rather interesting.

 

Background: NJ Legislature passed a bill that changed the pension withholding from govt employees' paychecks. A judge or justice (I forget which) sued because NJ has a clause in the NJ constitution that says that the legislature can't change the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary. This argument held up through a few rds of appeals, so Christie is pushing for a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to change the salaries of sitting members of the judiciary.

 

My commentary:

1) I believe that it would be fine to increase the withholding from these paychecks.

 

2) I don't think that this is an issue that warrants a constitutional amendment, since these judges/justices will retire eventually, after which this is a non-issue until the legislature wants to change tack. This incentivizes the legislature to get "it" right the first time.

 

3) This is a small issue, not warranting an amendment, because the judiciary is a small fraction of NJ gov't employees.

 

4) Allowing the legislature to alter the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary compromises the checks and balances we have in place.

 

5) And this I believe is the most interesting point: Ostensibly, the Republican party should be against adding massive complexity to the lawbooks, and especially the constitution. We shouldn't be amending the constitution over small things. Yet, this is somehow important enough to CC that he's willing to push for it. This seems extremely strange to me and is an example of how Republican politics has (d)evolved.

 

I voted against it for the reasons above, even though I agree in principle with CC on the matter....

 

Interesting analysis.

 

I also voted against this proposed amendment. But my reason was a little different. I think that judges deserve to have their pensions paid for by the State rather than out of their own salaries. Unlike many states, judges are not elected in New Jersey - they are appointed. The appointments are scrutinized by the State Bar Association before the confirmation process beings in the Legislature. This results in a very high-quality judiciary. In fact, in the legal community, the New Jersey Supreme Court (and the New Jersey judiciary in general) is regarded as one of the best, if not the best, in the nation.

 

Given the salaries of the judges in New Jersey, and what they would probably make in private practice, I view any reduction in their salary to be inappropriate.

 

By the way, members of the New Jersey Supreme Court are referred to as justices. All judges in lower courts are referred to as judges. I don't believe that the plaintiff in the action against the State of New Jersey was a member of the Supreme Court.

[VMars]

i'm not saying the republicans have the answers... in many ways they are as much the problem as their liberal counterparts... imo, gingrich was right when he said that social engineering from the right is just as much social engineering as that from the left... taking just one example, the defense of marriage act is just as wrong as any other federal law that limits the power of the states to decide for themselves, as determined by the people who reside in those states... if MA wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be legal in MA - imo neither LA nor MS nor the fed gov't should have the power to interfere in that... however, the same goes for abortion... we can't have it both ways, and both liberals and conservatives think they can

 

by the same token, the fact that MA passes universal healthcare for the citizens of that state is a perfectly acceptable action... but to do so on a nat'l scale is, to me, an unwarranted interference by the fed gov't - a breech of liberty, not to sound too melodramatic

 

The difference between your first example and your second is that states are expected to recognize marriages performed by other states. If not, am I suddenly single when I leave one state and move to another? Also, there are federal "benefits" to being married (I put benefits in quotes, because they are not all necessarily monetary or recognized as benefits by all, such as being able to file taxes jointly).

 

I (and perhaps many people) view marriage as a civil right, and I do not believe that civil rights can be left to the states to decide on. Your argument could be extended to slavery too. Should states be able to decide for themselves if slavery is legal? And I agree with you that abortion could fall under the same argument: it should not be up to the states to decide on what rights women have over their own bodies. We seem to disagree what stance the federal government should take.

[dwar0123]

Even if they allow their religious beliefs to bias their decisions?

 

I'm all for religious tolerance, as long as their belief doesn't affect other people.

I say this as an agnostic, but if a religious persons beliefs do not affect their decisions, what exactly is the point of religion.

[Vampyr]

I thought it was pretty clear that he was referring to the two sides' caricatures of the opposition candidates (Obama as a Muslim socialist, Romney as a predatory venture capitalist). Maybe if you're subjected to the adverts, punditry, and "news" day in and day out, it is far clearer.

 

So calling Obama a Muslim is supposed to be insulting? I don't have any respect for religion, but still I think this is sick.

[wyman]

No, but it is certainly viewed as anti-American in embarrassingly large parts of the country.

 

In any case, It took us a fairly long time before we had a black president, so even if Islam were viewed as less anti-US, I still think this -- like many other religions that are not prevalent here (e.g., Buddhism, Shintoism, heck even atheism) -- would be a huge barrier to election.

 

Moreover, since Obama has repeatedly said he's not Muslim, this is a way of calling him a liar and unamerican at the same time.

 

Yes, this should make you sick.

[barmar]

I say this as an agnostic, but if a religious persons beliefs do not affect their decisions, what exactly is the point of religion.

Well, that's part of the problem with religion, isn't it?

 

But I think there are many people who are able to compartmentalize: their religion informs their personal activities, but they're able to make public decisions without being overly influenced by it.

 

For instance, I would hardly be surprised to learn that the judge in the Dover case about teaching Intelligent Design goes to church regularly.

[PassedOut]

In any case, It took us a fairly long time before we had a black president, so even if Islam were viewed as less anti-US, I still think this -- like many other religions that are not prevalent here (e.g., Buddhism, Shintoism, heck even atheism) -- would be a huge barrier to election.

In Minnesota you can elect a Muslim representative.

[kenberg]

For me, the issue is not whether a belief arises from a religious conviction. If someone opposes capital punishment I don't all that much care if this is because he thinks it goes against the teachings of Jesus, or against the teachings of Moses, or is simply morally wrong without any reference to theology. Rather the question is whether a great many opinions are simply non-negotiable. Over the last four years, Republicans made in clear in both word and action that their first priority was to make Obama a one term president. As far as I know, this position did not derive from Biblical teachings, but it made them really difficult to work with.

 

It's a somewhat tricky business. We respect people of principle. But we also have to negotiate to get things done. Religious belief could interfere with that, but really you do not have to be religious to be intransigent.

 

So bottom line: If a person comes with a large set of very detailed principles that are beyond negotiation, we might well want to look elsewhere.

[phil_20686]

This is something I don't understand about the US. According to this link, in New Zealand's 2005 election we had 6094 polling stations for a population of about 4.1 million so a ratio of 673:1, three times better than your 'very lucky' town. It also says: '71% of voters voted in less than 5 minutes and 92% in less than 10 minutes. 98% of voters are satisfied with the waiting time.'

 

If people complain about disenfranchisement from voters having to prove who they are, how much worse is it when people choose not to vote because they aren't willing to wait in line for 2 hours?

 

I was thinking this. I have never seen a polling station with a queue. I think if I had to stand outside in UK weather I would just go home, and then write to my MP to complain. :)

[luke warm]

The simple conclusion: If the USA would be a little more like Europe, the world would be financially considerably sounder.

 

Rik

then i guess things i've been reading have been wrong... you know, greece, spain, ireland, even france... i wasn't aware that they were so financially better off than we are

[luke warm]

The difference between your first example and your second is that states are expected to recognize marriages performed by other states. If not, am I suddenly single when I leave one state and move to another?

yes... that is done presently... if you live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to one that does not (or even one that has laws preventing it, as some do), you do not have the same rights... insurance, for example... in a state that has laws preventing same sex marriages, same sex spouses can't always be covered as a dependent on some policies

 

Your argument could be extended to slavery too. Should states be able to decide for themselves if slavery is legal?

of course not... we have a constitutional amendment on that

 

And I agree with you that abortion could fall under the same argument: it should not be up to the states to decide on what rights women have over their own bodies.

how far do you want to take that faulty reasoning? in any case, i'm not in disagreement with you, totally... presently you (we) give the ability to control all sorts of things, including what a woman can do with her body, to both the fed and state gov't... the argument is to which authority one grants this right, not whether or not it exists... i frankly believe there should be no laws at all on this, either at the state or federal level, outside of health laws

 

We seem to disagree what stance the federal government should take.

i'd say so... in any case, it looks as if there will be record turnouts in several states, maybe nationally... that's good, it means the system is working... whatever happens, whoever wins, maybe those who govern will make the best decisions possible for the governed

[phil_20686]

(1) Well, that's part of the problem with religion, isn't it?

 

(2) But I think there are many people who are able to compartmentalize: their religion informs their personal activities, but they're able to make public decisions without being overly influenced by it.

 

(3) For instance, I would hardly be surprised to learn that the judge in the Dover case about teaching Intelligent Design goes to church regularly.

 

(1) It irritates me that people think this is a rational belief. When you say that religion "influences behaviour" you must be comparing it to some standard, naturally as an atheist you simply compare it to your beliefs and behaviour, but it makes equally as much sense to say that atheism is what is influencing your behaviour. So basically what you said is "I have no problem with people having different beliefs, provided, as a practical point, they make exactly the same choices and have exactly the same views as I do". Surely you can see how ridiculous that is?

 

(2) Religion, essentially, is a commitment to a set of metaphysical statements as being true. There are a great many, perhaps most, actions and decisions where the evaluation of the correct course will not at all be affected by these philosophical predilections. However, there are also issues which will be almost entirely determined by these philosophical statements. Abortion and Euthanasia most obviously, but things like views on incarceration, and gun regulation also (if you believe strongly in free will you are likely to give little weight to the argument that having lethal weapons lying around increases the chance of arguments getting out of hand).

 

(3) I am constantly amazed by the continuing existence of Young Earth Creationists, it doesn't even make sense Theologically.

[VMars]

yes... that is done presently... if you live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to one that does not (or even one that has laws preventing it, as some do), you do not have the same rights... insurance, for example... in a state that has laws preventing same sex marriages, same sex spouses can't always be covered as a dependent on some policies

 

My spouse is of the opposite gender. Why should I have the right to have all my rights transferable from state-to-state, and other people who are married to someone of the same gender not have his/her rights transferable?

 

You say these facts. I agree that this is what is happening now. My point is that this is actually a BAD thing, and a reason it should not be left to states because then some states will be allowed to discriminate.

 

of course not... we have a constitutional amendment on that

 

So before we had the constitutional amendment, it was okay?

 

And constitutional amendments happen in a vacuum? No more should ever be made?

[phil_20686]

PS: According to to be BBC turnout looks to be much higher than any polls were predicting. This puts all the state wide results in doubt imo.