<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d5720968\x26blogName\x3dneurological+dryer+lint\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://justinhall.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://justinhall.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d282607643956112208', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

neurological dryer lint

dirty deeds... and the dunderchief


a man just released from indenture

so cnn agreed to release the debate video for download, hot!

so in the last post simon commented:

Here's why I don't vote...I only agree with 64% of what he does, so that means that the other 36% of the time I won't agree with what he's doing. And if any of that 36% is major stuff, then I'll be pissed off that I voted for him. Until I agree 100% with someone, I can't bring myself to vote for a person. But I will continue to vote of issues and what-not.
i'm definitely not trying to call him out with this - so please don't read my response here in that way. actually i've shared that mindset in the past, and wanted to share some thoughts about where that changed...

... specifically i remember in 2000 thinking i wasn't going to vote for president because i was so disgusted with both candidates. gore seemed unimaginative and weak and bush looked simply incompetent and unprepared. but in a forum somewhere (i believe on slashdot) someone said something along the lines of, "the only person who will ever match your views 100% is you, so either run yourself or get out there and pick the lesser of two evils - because an absence of a vote for the 'better' guy is one vote closer for the worse guy."

it dawned on me that if i followed my reasoning to its conclusion, i'd never vote for someone, ever. not even senator obama, who i'm continuing to respect and place great hope in, lines up completely. i felt as if i was doing more damage by not pointing at least to the one that would screw up less - and therefore allowing the one who might screw up more to take office. sadly things in politics now seem to be that way - it's my responsibility as a citizen to prevent the bigger catastrophe from becoming president/governor/etc.

so not saying simon should change his opinion and start voting - he is an intelligent adult and can make his own informed decisions on how he lives his life. his comments just got me reflective on where i was at that time and thoughtful that seven years later i feel at least a little hopeful - someplace i never expected to be when looking at presidential candidates. honestly my worst fear is that senator clinton will beat obama in the primaries and i'll be faced with a similar dilemma to the last two elections.

de la hoya/mayweather wasn't too thrilling, but it was excellent to hang out with nick, jaylene, and e dunn and almost take off nick's basement door with my face. seriously, the filippinis have three kids, they shouldn't let an uncoordinated beast like me in their house, someone is liable to get hurt.


for this post

Anonymous artie Says:

I hear those fears about Senator Clinton. Talk about a polarizing figure. We need more unity, and she's certainly not the person to bring it!

Blogger Simon Says:

J, I've got to admit that I did vote for Bush in the last election based sorta on what you've just said. I couldn't allow Kerry to be President, because he is a fool. But I didn't see that as vote for Bush, I saw it as voting against Kerry.
I've always said you should be able to vote against someone also. Like for example, if you don't particularly like any of the candidates, then you should be able to vote against one of them and it essentially just takes away one of their votes. I'd like that much better.
I know my opinion is not right, or the most popular. But the way our election system is set up is ridiculous! Did you see how many of the French showed up for their recent election? 86%, seriously if we could get that many out. Why do we hold elections on a Tuesday? What's wrong with a Saturday like the French did? Why can't all of the polls across America close at the same time? And the fact that you can win the majority of the votes, and still not win the election is ridiculous. You can't tell me that someone's in California is more powerful than mine. But it is that way because their state holds more weight than mine...and I digress...

Thanks for not trying to change me!

Anonymous Anonymous Says:

I agree with that Simon ...good point :o)

You all won't dis own me if i am on the young Republicans there in Cincinnati...even though i'm turning 29 in a few weeks...so i'm not that young anymore :o) Wounder what the cut of age is :o)


Anonymous artie Says:

Simon, the electorial college system is in place to make all votes equal. If it was just based on majority of votes, then the candidates would only campaign in states where there are tons of people (like California). They could ignore places with less people (like Kanasas) because percentage-wise they're nothing. I think the electorial college system is pretty good actually. The fact that little Ohio played a significant role in the last election proves that! Same reason we have two branches of Congress. In one, all states are equal and in the other it's based on population.

Anonymous artie Says:

Our founding fathers were smart. We're lucky.

Blogger Simon Says:

That's where it's silly. I think the electoral college is a bunch of BS! As far as I'm concerned they should do away with it.
You're never voting for a president, you're voting for a group of people to cast a ballot for you. Which is just silly! Yeah there may be more people in Cali than Kansas, but their vote should count the same. The way it's set up now, you could win all the votes in Kansas (about 3 million), and only get yourself 6 elector college votes (the ones that count), but if you won 3 million votes in the state of Cali, you would get nothing! Heck, you could get 3 million votes in the state of Indiana and you still might not get any electoral college votes. Why should it matter what area of the country you're getting your 3 million votes from? They should count as 3 million votes, not as 6 votes in Kansas, and none in 15 other states!

And then on top of that, who's to say that even if you win a state that the elector college doesn't vote the other way?

Blogger ryanham Says:

I failed out of electoral college.

But seriously, I haven't seen a major problem with the electoral college, but our founding fathers couldn't have possibly foreseen that we would be a country this vast at any point in the future, so it probably needs to be revised a little.

Also, Simon, we have a country with 5-6 different time zones, we can't close the polls at the same time because then everyone in california would complain about it. jerks.

As for changing the voting day, I'm all for it. Saturdays would be wonderful!

Blogger Simon Says:

Sweet, if Ryan says it's ok, someone alert the media! Voting is to now take place on Saturdays!

Ryan makes a good point, there were only 13 states and about 10,000 people (i just made that number up), so why not update the electoral college!

As for the time zone factor, you would open the polls at say 7am easter time (which is like 3am in Hawaii) and close them at say 9pm Hawaii Time (1am Easter time) and then everyone is happy and we all get 18 hours to vote. If you can't get your lazy ass out in 18 hours, then you should be smacked!

Blogger Davie Says:

The one thing that could be done to make the electoral college more accurate is for states to split their votes based on how their population votes. For example, in a state with 3 votes, if 2/3rds of voters voted for one candidate and 1/3 voted for another candidate, the first one gets two electoral votes and the second guy gets the other one.

Blogger Simon Says:

That would be a lot like having a majority vote rule, and would make a lot more sense, but we all know our government would never go for it. How about you Ryan, you down with that?

Anonymous artie Says:

We should at least make election day a holiday.

Anonymous Anonymous Says:

I 2nd that Artie!


Leave a Reply