Low Voter Turnout Thread -- Election 2014

[EdRomero]

Any interesting ballot questions this year?

In Massachusetts we have:
1. Eliminate the automatic gas tax increases based on Consumer Price Index. Opponents argument against this is without these increases, roads and bridges will fall apart. Yes, because Massachusetts has a wonderful history of not wasting money on road projects. Maybe the ad campaign should be a single tear going down a cop's face who no longer can get paid overtime to text at a worksite.

2. Is to put deposits on water bottles and other stuff. On one hand, I usually don't buy bottled water so it doesn't affect me, but on the other hand the whole recycling industry is probably full of corruption and waste, so let's not pour more money into it. Proponents of this question make a big deal about how most bottle litter is from non deposit containers, so essentially they want this ballot to pass, so homeless people will pick up more litter for us.

3. Make casinos and slot machines illegal. In favor is the usual arguments against casinos. Against, is "shit, we're already building a casino with all these wonderful jobs. Do you realize how many politicians we've already had to bribe?" Or something like that.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele14/pip14idx.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also in Massachusetts, the woman who lost Ted Kennedy's seat will now lose the governor election to a former healthcare executive. She must have pictures of some powerful Dems to keep getting nominated.

[Johnny Carwash]

In NH we get the Boston affiliates for three of the four networks, so I've been treated to a good share of non-rhotic braying in political ads while trying to mind my own business watching TV.

When I saw the ads for/against Coakley, I had to jog my memory to remember if this was the same person from the special election a couple years back. And now she's going to lose two high-profile elections as a Democrat in Mass? That's some Mike Martz-level advantage-squandering.

Meanwhile, here in the libertarian paradise to the north, Scott Brown (pictured below) is poised to pull a reverse Daniel Webster and fail to represent two different states in Congress.

[Ryan]

Also in NH, here's the next rising star from the extreme right. [strikethrough]Hispanic Sarah Palin![/strikethrough] Marilinda Garcia!

[howard]

Yeah, I've met that chick, I know her sister who is also a politician/musician/right wing vapid ideologue piece of work. American friggin dream, I guess.

[Johnny Carwash]

There was a recent mini-controversy where her incumbent opponent, while admittedly not attractive, was called "ugly as sin" by a state rep who looks like an anthropomorphic scrotum.

[Rush2112]

Also in NH, here's the next rising star from the extreme right. [strikethrough]Hispanic Sarah Palin![/strikethrough] Marilinda Garcia!

One of my former students is a hardcore conservative and a NH state Rep. From my knowledge the only "job" he's held since graduating college. I should have flunked him.

[Johnny Carwash]

This explains a lot:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives is the lower house in the New Hampshire General Court, the bicameral legislature of the state of New Hampshire. The House of Representatives consists of 400 members coming from 204 legislative districts across the state, created from divisions of the state's counties. On average, each legislator represents about 3,300 residents. If the same level of representation were present in the U.S. Congress, that body would have approximately 99,000 members, according to current population estimates. Members are paid a salary of $200 per biennium, as are New Hampshire state senators.

I'm pretty sure that of the 1,000 worst people in America, 800 or so are state reps/senators.

[Johnnie]

People still vote?

Whatever measures are on whatever ballots don't really matter. Nor do the candidates. Everything will just get worse. Because entropy. Whatever's done is done to line the pockets of those in power.

[EdRomero]

If you don't vote Johnnie, you lose the right to complain about spending $2.80 on a bottle of Fiji Water rather than $2.75.

[Rush2112]

This explains a lot:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives is the lower house in the New Hampshire General Court, the bicameral legislature of the state of New Hampshire. The House of Representatives consists of 400 members coming from 204 legislative districts across the state, created from divisions of the state's counties. On average, each legislator represents about 3,300 residents. If the same level of representation were present in the U.S. Congress, that body would have approximately 99,000 members, according to current population estimates. Members are paid a salary of $200 per biennium, as are New Hampshire state senators.

I'm pretty sure that of the 1,000 worst people in America, 800 or so are state reps/senators.

Due to that "salary" the representatives tend to be very young, very old, or wealthy.

[A_B]

Pretty much all state legislature people have day jobs, no?

[sancarlos]

The big referendums in the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley are for heavy taxes on sugary soda drinks. It will be akin to the taxes that exist on cigarettes. Pepsi and Coke and others are pouring millions into the ads against the tax. It will be interesting to see the outcomes.

[brian]

The big referendums in the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley are for heavy taxes on sugary soda drinks. It will be akin to the taxes that exist on cigarettes. Pepsi and Coke and others are pouring millions into the ads against the tax. It will be interesting to see the outcomes.

Do the taxes apply to the diet versions of those sodas? That's my beef with the NY law and shit like this (from a libertarian perspective I really don't agree with either, but let's put that aside a minute). It seems like bullshit that I can't get a 44-oz zero calorie soda.

[brian]

Pretty much all state legislature people have day jobs, no?

Yeah, in most states though it varies. In Nevada legislators only meet for 3 months every two years. Almost all of them have "real" jobs that they have the luxury of taking leave from for the biennial legislative session.

[howard]

Do the taxes apply to the diet versions of those sodas? That's my beef with the NY law and shit like this (from a libertarian perspective I really don't agree with either, but let's put that aside a minute). It seems like bullshit that I can't get a 44-oz zero calorie soda.

Of course I also have huge beef with these laws on libertarian grounds. But trying to look at the brighter side, I think aspartame/Nutrasweet® is a horribly poisonous chemical, maybe not in the same class a deadly poison as HFCS, but one that does plenty of damage. So, such bullshit at least has that going for it.

[brian]

Do the taxes apply to the diet versions of those sodas? That's my beef with the NY law and shit like this (from a libertarian perspective I really don't agree with either, but let's put that aside a minute). It seems like bullshit that I can't get a 44-oz zero calorie soda.

Of course I also have huge beef with these laws on libertarian grounds. But trying to look at the brighter side, I think aspartame/Nutrasweet® is a horribly poisonous chemical, maybe not in the same class a deadly poison as HFCS, but one that does plenty of damage. So, such bullshit at least has that going for it.

It can't be any worse than alcohol (not that that applies to you), so I can justify it any number of ways personally. We're all going to die of something sometime. I'm not going to spend however many years I've got drinking water and eating organic spinach worrying about getting cancer from a couple of diet Mountain Dews per day or Taco Bell. Fuck that. (I realize you weren't criticizing or anything, just saying...)

[howard]

We all pick our poisons, and I am using the term relatively. Often it depends on the dose. Sugar, alcohol, in small amounts is harmless, even helpful. In larger amounts, poisonous. Most medications, many many substances, are dose related as far as positive, neutral and negative effects.

If aspartame is helping someone restrict caloric intake and preventing obesity, there is a significant benefit right there (even if there is a concomitant cost, like promoting mental depression.)

Main reason I post about it is for awareness. It is nice to be able to make a conscious decision when picking your poison.

[sancarlos]

The big referendums in the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley are for heavy taxes on sugary soda drinks. It will be akin to the taxes that exist on cigarettes. Pepsi and Coke and others are pouring millions into the ads against the tax. It will be interesting to see the outcomes.

Do the taxes apply to the diet versions of those sodas? That's my beef with the NY law and shit like this (from a libertarian perspective I really don't agree with either, but let's put that aside a minute). It seems like bullshit that I can't get a 44-oz zero calorie soda.

Here's the detail on the SF proposal:

Proposition E would place a tax of 2 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs.

A sugar-sweetened beverage is a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces, including some soft drinks, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks and energy drinks. The tax would also apply to syrups and powders that can be made into sugar-sweetened beverages in a beverage-dispensing machine, such as fountain drinks.

The distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages in San Francisco would be responsible for paying the tax.

Some beverages would not be subject to the tax, even if they contain added sugar. These include:
Diet sodas;
Milk, soy milk, rice milk and almond milk;
Beverages that contain only natural fruit and vegetable juice;
Infant formula;
Meal replacements, supplemental nutrition products and weight reduction beverages; and
Syrups and powders sold for mixing by individuals to make sugar-sweetened beverages.

[brian]

Seems like it would be an enormous pain in the ass at a 7-11 for example for a 44 oz. Coke to cost $2.50 (with the tax) and a Diet Coke to cost $1.50 (numbers rounded).

[The Sybian]

Seems like it would be an enormous pain in the ass at a 7-11 for example for a 44 oz. Coke to cost $2.50 (with the tax) and a Diet Coke to cost $1.50 (numbers rounded).

That's interesting, I never thought about fountain drinks. Will they have to have separate cups for diet and regular drinks? Will the cashier have to ask which soda they filled the cup with and rely on the honor system?

[rass]

Seems like it would be an enormous pain in the ass at a 7-11 for example for a 44 oz. Coke to cost $2.50 (with the tax) and a Diet Coke to cost $1.50 (numbers rounded).

That's interesting, I never thought about fountain drinks. Will they have to have separate cups for diet and regular drinks? Will the cashier have to ask which soda they filled the cup with and rely on the honor system?

Do they still make the lids with the little bubbles on top that you can depress to indicate the content type?

[rass]

And I just bought a Diet Pepsi. This thread is making me thirsty!

[DSafetyGuy]

And I just bought a Diet Pepsi. This thread is making me thirsty!

You should buy something worth drinking, then.

[Johnnie]

Low post turnout in this thread, ammiright?

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

[The Sybian]

Low post turnout in this thread, ammiright?

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

That is a little bit misleading, as the people who want those things aren't necessarily the same people who voted GOP. There are also a lot of situations where the Dems voted for Republicans because the dem candidate was utter crap. I vote for some Republicans, but that is usually on the local level. I also think on a bigger picture, people are always unhappy with politics, and vote for the party without control, in order to bring change. Most important, a lot of people are either stupid, lack critical thinking skills, or both. Republican politicians campaign on their commitment to ensuring equal rights for women, then vote against or block bills that would work towards getting women equal pay. Most people still think of the Dems as "tax and spend Liberals" and Republicans as fiscally responsible budget managers, when recently, Republicans have far out spent Dems, it's just that Dems want to give their hard earned money to the dregs of society who love living on Welfare benefits. Sure, Welfare benefits are so low, you can't even afford to eat Ramen noodles, but man do they have it good! Sorry, just so sick of reading the argument that Liberals only vote for Dems because they want to keep getting all their free stuff that the arguer pays for.

[tennbengal]

I mistakenly posted on my spot-on MD governor's race prediction in the wrong thread.