|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Engaging Roy Moore Supporters
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Let him try and run. (sfx: knife whetting on steel)
In the Post today, students at seminaries backpedalling from the term 'evangelical.' Moore especially has tainted it, and if your goal is to actually have your congregation hear your preaching, you can't use a label that instantly repels. Well, the term had a good run. I only hope we don't lose the word 'Christian' as well.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Something that sticks in my craw: The ridiculously large number of write-in votes for Alabama football coach Nick Sabin.In other words, a significant number of Alabama voters, faced with a choice between a racist, pedophilic , apnti-
Constitutional buffoon like Moore and Doug Jones, a competent and decent public servant, were either so flippant about the entire election or so knee- jerk anti- Democratic Party that they basically threw away their vote. How imbecilic and irresponsible is that?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Well, yes, but if you look at the raw numbers, those write-ins saved the day. If we assume all the right-ins were traditional Republican voters who ordinarily would vote the straight GOP ticket, and couldn't bring themselves to vote Dems, then the write-ins were enough that it would have given Moore the win had they voted GOP. I've talked to a couple of them-- they knew what they were doing, knew they were in essence voting for Jones, it was a statement (to the GOP) not a throw-away. And yes, most would not vote for a pro-choice candidate-- but bless them for not being willing to vote for a pro-pedofilia candidate either. I am grateful for them.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
From a NYT op-ed by a progressive evangelical:
quote:
The regular Fox News viewer, whether or not he is a churchgoer, takes in a steady stream of messages that conflate being white and conservative and evangelical with being American.
The power of that message may explain the astonishing findings of a survey released this month by LifeWay Research, a Christian organization based in Nashville. LifeWay’s researchers developed questions meant to get at both the way Americans self-identify religiously and their theological beliefs. What they discovered was that while one-quarter of Americans consider themselves to be “evangelical,” less than half of that group actually holds traditional evangelical beliefs. For others, “evangelical” effectively functions as a cultural label, unmoored from theological meaning.
Which pretty much accords with my observations.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Excellent; I believe your link is the same as mine so people should click on one only.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Something that sticks in my craw: The ridiculously large number of write-in votes for Alabama football coach Nick Sabin.In other words, a significant number of Alabama voters, faced with a choice between a racist, pedophilic , apnti-
Constitutional buffoon like Moore and Doug Jones, a competent and decent public servant, were either so flippant about the entire election or so knee- jerk anti- Democratic Party that they basically threw away their vote. How imbecilic and irresponsible is that?
I don't know if this is useful, but my experience as a Deputy Returning Officer reviewing spoiled ballots (in Canada, we don't have a provision for write-ins, but that doesn't stop voters from spoiling ballots with a write-in) suggests that write-in voters are often protesting, rather than actually voting for the person whose name they wrote in. This would explain votes for Goofy and Porky the Pig, as well as dead candidates, all of which I encountered.
Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes. They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates. In each case they involve getting to the poll and making the gesture-- I have always thought that this was superior to not voting at all. Expressed choices, however much we might not like them are legitimate choices. In this case, I would wonder (having met a few people from this region) if they were perhaps not ironic in their selection.
In jurisdictions where write-ins are permitted, this can result in some interesting results (as in Alaska), but in this case had the democratically-useful function of telling a party that they could have won the seat with a better candidate. I would argue that the write-in vote in Alabama had a double effect, of objectively voting for Jones, and of giving Republican party managers a very sharp lesson, and that these voters knew darn well what they were doing. Perhaps not imbecilic and irresponsible at all??
[ 16. December 2017, 15:23: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes.
Depends on your definition of waste. They are typically most beneficial to the candidate the spoiled ballot voter least wants.
quote:
They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates.
Completely disagree. They might make the news for a day or two and matter to political geeks, but all which will by remembered by voters is who won and who lost.
[ 16. December 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Spoiled ballots, I have long thought, are not wasted votes.
Depends on your definition of waste. They are typically most beneficial to the candidate the spoiled ballot voter least wants.
quote:
They are clear expressions of a lack of dissatisfaction with the political process and/or the selection of candidates.
Completely disagree. They might make the news for a day or two and matter to political geeks, but all which will by remembered by voters is who won and who lost.
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.
Alas, election geeks are not the only ones who will remember such phenomena. First are the candidates whose future was determined by them--- Judge Moore among them. Senator-elect Jones will likely be thinking a great deal about how he will both indicate his debt to African-American voters while acknowledging the concerns of Republican dissidents.
Then there are the political parties which are very much about winning, and spend an astonishing amount of energy and money determining why they lost. One of my regular cappucino buddies is on a lucrative contract right now advising a certain political party how they can direct fringe-party voters into their stable.
Students of the Alabama campus of the Beerhall School of Public Administration as well as the Montgomery and Mobile Golf and Country Club Institute of Political Chatter will almost certainly be hearing about the write-in voters for some time to come, all the way to election day in 2018 if not beyond. If we could only direct research grants to ferret out the details!
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.
This isn't what I believe. What I observe is that write-in votes of a prior election don't get much play in the next. The motives of write-ins can be difficult to pin down and reasons often vary. This election it is fairly clear that they would have voted for Moore if he had been just a little less sleazy. Not good, but less bad.
Typically, just what about the real candidates the write-in doesn't like is less clear.
One of the people on the ballots going to win. Affecting change is voting for the candidate who best aligns with what you want and holding their feet to the fire as much as possible. But this involves getting involved.
But people do not get involved and politicians are starting to take greater advantage. The recent American net neutrality decision writes this large. Despite being wanted to remain by the vast majority of the people the FCC is supposed to represent, it was killed.
Because people throw voting tantrums but do not actually become involved.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If you believe that a vote cast for anyone but the winning candidate is a waste, then our definitions are really very far apart. I don't know if we can meet on this one.
This isn't what I believe. What I observe is that write-in votes of a prior election don't get much play in the next. The motives of write-ins can be difficult to pin down and reasons often vary. This election it is fairly clear that they would have voted for Moore if he had been just a little less sleazy. Not good, but less bad.
Typically, just what about the real candidates the write-in doesn't like is less clear.
One of the people on the ballots going to win. Affecting change is voting for the candidate who best aligns with what you want and holding their feet to the fire as much as possible. But this involves getting involved.
But people do not get involved and politicians are starting to take greater advantage. The recent American net neutrality decision writes this large. Despite being wanted to remain by the vast majority of the people the FCC is supposed to represent, it was killed.
Because people throw voting tantrums but do not actually become involved.
Ah... that is clearer to me. I certainly agree that people throw voting tantrums-- they certainly have been known to do that in my own province as well. Still, we don't need to get decency and virtue from all voters... just enough of them.
It is rare that write-in candidacies get anywhere-- the most notable example I can think of is that of Senator Murkowski in Alaska. But I do like the idea that irresponsible behaviour on the part of political parties can (sometimes) get its comeuppance from voters.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
