WWTBAM Bored

I was one of the first people at my polling site this morning, as I usually am. This year was a bit different for me, though. Not to mention a name or a specific race, but one of the Democratic candidates running in my precinct is somebody I have known personally for over 20 years. And I can tell you from personal experience that this guy is a major-league a-hole. An arrogant, disrespectful a-hole.

So today was the first time since 2006 in which I didn't vote for an available Democratic candidate on the ballot. But what made it particularly frustrating was that he is unopposed in this race. No Republican or third-party candidate bothered to run. So without an alternative, I either had to hold my nose and vote for the Democratic a-hole... or cast a write-in vote. I had no choice. I marked the write-in box and wrote in "Mickey Mouse". And I had a big smile on my face when I stuck my ballot in the machine. First time I ever cast a write-in vote, and I'm proud of myself for doing it.

By the way, I did vote for the Democrats in all of the other races. Heck, I even voted for Ed FitzGerald, our idiot candidate for governor. If you don't live in Ohio and don't know who Ed FitzGerald is, this guy is a real piece of work. The only reason why we got stuck with this loser is because none of the high-profile Democrats in this state wanted the job.

I had a similar problem when I voted this morning.

jarnon wrote:I used to live in a Congressional district with competitive elections. Then redistricting put our area (a mile away from the city line) in a city Congressional district where the Democratic incumbent is a shoo-in. Meanwhile, our Congressman's top aide pleaded guilty to campaign fraud. He's still a shoo-in for reelection.

I could have voted for nobody or a Republican for Congress, but I wanted my vote to be more apparent as a protest. So I wrote in "NO." Wish I had thought of Mickey Mouse.

I voted this morning, or at least I think I did. The optical scanner was having technical issues, so I had to insert my ballot into a slot in front of the machine, to be scanned later when they get the machine fixed. Good thing I'm not paranoid about our local election workers.

For those who aren't familiar with New York politics, we've got an unusual system in which candidates can be listed on multiple ballot lines, with the total from all of these lines determining the winner. This leads to the major candidates creating extra "parties" on the theory that having their name on more ballot lines than their competitor is an advantage. Governor Cuomo has the lead in this category, being listed four times (Democratic, Working Families, Women’s Equality and Independence) vs. Rob Astorino's three lines (Republican, Conservative and Stop Common Core). Among the real third party candidates, the Greens and Libertarians are joined by one I haven't seen before, the Sapient party.

A party that thinks? You know that's an idea that will never catch on!

Filling out my ballot was a lot like taking the SAT. We use paper ballots with "fill in the bubble" spaces. There were a lot of judicial races, most of which were unopposed. We also had elections for offices that have no duties but are required by the commonwealth constitution (the duties were stripped when our city went to a "metro" form of government rather than having separate city and county administrations but since the offices were established in the constitution, they can only be eliminated by amending the constitution). I refused to vote for any of those.

I have some a.m. work calls to make, then I go work at the polls.

We have a governor's race (in which the incumbent will lose but no one is talking about it because the incumbent has never led in the polls. EVER. Even during the four-way Democratic primary. It was a question of how much he would lose to any of the four Democrats, not IF he would lose), a non-competitive Congressional race (the winner of the Dem primary is the new Congressman, pretty much), a somewhat competitive state rep race (leans Dem but the Rep is a owner of a popular small business so he'll get some votes).

For us, the BIG races are all around us - the PA Senate could go Democratic and basically hinges on four or five very competitive races.

AND even if the Republican wins in one of the Bucks County seats, he's a guy who has crossed party lines numerous times for the good of (and because of the wishes of) his constituents. He has the backing of numerous labor and conservation groups. There are four or five Bucks County Republicans like that.

[I know, in some circles, he would be called a RINO, but he suits his district (and what will most likely be his State Senate District) just fine. A reminder that the whole purpose of this stuff is to REPRESENT your constituents.]

In the end I could not vote for Thomas Ravenel the drug felon and reality show star for Senate so I also had a write in for that race.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:In the end I could not vote for Thomas Ravenel the drug felon and reality show star for Senate so I also had a write in for that race.

Ravenel? Was his dad in Congress? Uncle?

I remember a Ravenel from South Carolina when I worked on the Hill. Tall, courtly gentleman, IIRC.

Yes his father Arthur Ravenel was a long time congressman

Here is the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge

Is Ravenel running unopposed?
Most of the judges in a county near Dallas are running unopposed. Bored lawyers, why is this the norm? Calvinator, why don't you run for a judge position?

geoffil wrote:Is Ravenel running unopposed?
Most of the judges in a county near Dallas are running unopposed. Bored lawyers, why is this the norm? Calvinator, why don't you run for a judge position?

That varies state by state. In California if a judge is running unopposed he or she doesn't even appear on the ballot. But I can imagine a practical reason. Most incumbents are going to win reelection no matter what. So if you're a practicing lawyer, you're probably going to think long and hard before challenging a sitting judge, and potentially pissing off not just the judge you're taking on but many of his or her colleagues.

We have two Superior Court judicial races that went to a runoff (because no one won an outright majority in a multi-candidate field in June). One of the runoffs pits a candidate rated by the local bar as "Extremely Well Qualified" against another rated as "Exceptionally Well Qualified." The other features two candidates both rated as "Not Qualified." It's too bad things didn't shake out a little differently when they filed for office. --Bob

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Yes his father Arthur Ravenel was a long time congressman

Here is the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge

Thanks, suitguy.

I'm pretty sure Nelly has me on Foe and will never read this, which is fine with me.

I just want to get it on the record that I believe his Mickey Mouse write-in action was far from something to be proud of. I believe that if there's nobody on the ballot you can vote for, it's up to you and your like-minded buddies to find somebody as a write-in candidate, or help her/him petition onto the ballot, as it's likelier done here in Colorado. I think that substituting Mickey Mouse snark for committed democratic activism is in the same league with not voting at all.

At the national level, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on national issues such as climate change and reproductive freedom.

At the state level, here in Colorado anyway, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on such issues as firearms safety and educational priorities.

At the local level, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on local law enforcement, health and safety, library and recreation centers, and various other issues directly affecting your quality of life. I believe that you cannot substitute a Mickey Mouse write-in for real attention and action with regard to things like that, and you certainly can't be proud of it.

SportsFan68 wrote:I'm pretty sure Nelly has me on Foe and will never read this, which is fine with me.

I just want to get it on the record that I believe his Mickey Mouse write-in action was far from something to be proud of. I believe that if there's nobody on the ballot you can vote for, it's up to you and your like-minded buddies to find somebody as a write-in candidate, or help her/him petition onto the ballot, as it's likelier done here in Colorado. I think that substituting Mickey Mouse snark for committed democratic activism is in the same league with not voting at all.

At the national level, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on national issues such as climate change and reproductive freedom.

At the state level, here in Colorado anyway, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on such issues as firearms safety and educational priorities.

At the local level, your vote is your opportunity to weigh in on local law enforcement, health and safety, library and recreation centers, and various other issues directly affecting your quality of life. I believe that you cannot substitute a Mickey Mouse write-in for real attention and action with regard to things like that, and you certainly can't be proud of it.

In California (which has a top-two jungle primary system) you can't cast a write-in vote in the general election. The top two candidates from the primary are your only alternatives at that point. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: We have two Superior Court judicial races that went to a runoff (because no one won an outright majority in a multi-candidate field in June). One of the runoffs pits a candidate rated by the local bar as "Extremely Well Qualified" against another rated as "Exceptionally Well Qualified." The other features two candidates both rated as "Not Qualified." It's too bad things didn't shake out a little differently when they filed for office. --Bob

Here in Georgia, incumbent judges almost invariably win, and if a sitting judge doesn't plan to run for re-election, he or she often resigns before the end of the term to allow the governor to appoint a replacement (a judicial nomination commission recommends candidates to the governor, so there is a vetting process in place to weed out wackos and incompetents). Sometimes, someone will mount a well funded campaign against an incumbent appellate judge, usually because of the judge's opinions on tort reform, capital punishment or similar issues. That's still a tough campaign to win unless the judge gets some really low ratings.

Unfortunately, on those few occasions in which there is no incumbent, especially for trial court vacancies, voters have a tendency to vote for the person whose name appears first on the ballot. That means that Albert Aardvark has a much better of getting elected than Zeke Zygote, no matter what their actual qualifications.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: We have two Superior Court judicial races that went to a runoff (because no one won an outright majority in a multi-candidate field in June). One of the runoffs pits a candidate rated by the local bar as "Extremely Well Qualified" against another rated as "Exceptionally Well Qualified." The other features two candidates both rated as "Not Qualified." It's too bad things didn't shake out a little differently when they filed for office. --Bob

Here in Georgia, incumbent judges almost invariably win, and if a sitting judge doesn't plan to run for re-election, he or she often resigns before the end of the term to allow the governor to appoint a replacement (a judicial nomination commission recommends candidates to the governor, so there is a vetting process in place to weed out wackos and incompetents). Sometimes, someone will mount a well funded campaign against an incumbent appellate judge, usually because of the judge's opinions on tort reform, capital punishment or similar issues. That's still a tough campaign to win unless the judge gets some really low ratings.

Unfortunately, on those few occasions in which there is no incumbent, especially for trial court vacancies, voters have a tendency to vote for the person whose name appears first on the ballot. That means that Albert Aardvark has a much better of getting elected than Zeke Zygote, no matter what their actual qualifications.

To avoid that bias, California randomizes the alphabet for each election. Not just the starting point: The whole alphabet. So an "M" candidate might be followed by a "Z" candidate and then an "F" candidate. --Bob

geoffil wrote:Is Ravenel running unopposed?
Most of the judges in a county near Dallas are running unopposed. Bored lawyers, why is this the norm? Calvinator, why don't you run for a judge position?

There is a chance that Dallas County might elect a new District Attorney. I wonder if Cal would try to get his old job back.

Here in TN we had the option to vote for Charlie Brown (not a write-in)

Our Governors 'non-race" has our incumbent Bill Haslam (R) who hasn't done anything really spectacular during his first term has done a fairly decent job and generally made things better rather than worse. The Demo candidate is a retired non-politican who really is named Charlie Brown - frankly the name recognition is the only reason he's gotten as far as he has in the race.

One pre-election article said that Haslam had about 3.5 million in his war chest and had spend something like 1.7 million already. Charlie Brown had yet to spend his first dime and had a 'war chest' of $107.00.

geoffil wrote:Is Ravenel running unopposed?

I will explain. Thomas Ravenel is a former state treasurer, until he got caught with cocaine and did some federal time. A owner of a former plantation on Edisto Island, he was the subject of a reality show on Bravo called Southern Charm. He also has a new baby. He is a petition candidate running against Lindsey Graham for the US Senate. His positions are libertarian these days. I was considering him as a protest vote, but he has been quite an ass lately.

Bob78164 wrote:

geoffil wrote:Is Ravenel running unopposed?
Most of the judges in a county near Dallas are running unopposed. Bored lawyers, why is this the norm? Calvinator, why don't you run for a judge position?

That varies state by state. In California if a judge is running unopposed he or she doesn't even appear on the ballot. But I can imagine a practical reason. Most incumbents are going to win reelection no matter what. So if you're a practicing lawyer, you're probably going to think long and hard before challenging a sitting judge, and potentially pissing off not just the judge you're taking on but many of his or her colleagues.

--Bob

Around here, the governor appoints the judges, and the people vote to retain them in office. Theoretically, you get better judges, but there still is aneed for political connections to get appointed (often).

As an example of what Bob said, I actually left private practice, in part, becuase my partner was part of an effort to have our district court judge not be retained. After he eeked out a 50.5%-49.5% retention, he made it clear that no lawyer or law firm that was involved in the "no" campaign would ever win in his court. Fortunately, I got a job offer within the week to begin my federal service.

We did have every state supreme court justice up for retention voted out a couple decades back, after a very unpopular decision.

To Sprots disappointment, I have voted for friends when candidates run unopposed. Usually, they are doing a good job, but I like trying to organize enough people to vote someone as a write-in, to see if those votes would be reported in the results. It is similar to how a friend and I ran a fictional character in the election of the 1L rep in law school, although we did have to decide how we would split the term if he won.

Thanks for the explanations about the election of judges. That is why we have so many questionable ones.
Do judges want to keep delaying making rulings to make it seem like them have a full docket? Do they need to keep cases going and going to get a bigger budget for their court? Do local judges get concerned when a person files a federal case? In a certain situation after filing a federal case, the judge who had been delaying making a ruling for 9 months, suddenly starting making rulings and forcing mediation.

geoffil wrote:Thanks for the explanations about the election of judges. That is why we have so many questionable ones.
Do judges want to keep delaying making rulings to make it seem like them have a full docket? Do they need to keep cases going and going to get a bigger budget for their court? Do local judges get concerned when a person files a federal case? In a certain situation after filing a federal case, the judge who had been delaying making a ruling for 9 months, suddenly starting making rulings and forcing mediation.

It's not an issue in California, because state court judges, before they can get their paychecks every two weeks (or maybe twice a month) must sign a declaration under penalty of perjury swearing that there are no matters pending before them that were submitted more than 90 days earlier. Here, it's the federal courts that are more likely to sit on motions for what seems to me to be an excessively long time. --Bob

The myriad large postcards touting candidates or positions on the ballot questions were replaced today by myriad Christmas catalogs. Not sure there's a lot of difference, other than more paper to recycle in the catalogs.

My district is one of the hot Congressional races. The loser last time around vs. the upstart who defeated the long-time incumbent. Last time's loser is still a jerk. First to go negative, first to have the mysterious "Independent" PACs attacking his opponent ... just like last time. I'm sure he expected a repeat of the last election when he was narrowly defeated (and magnanimously declined to file a lawsuit after alleging electoral hanky-panky by the incumbent). He was thrown for a loop when his previous opponent lost in the primary. The new guy is a political tyro with a good background resume. We shall see what happens. My district is the most GOP in our very blue state, and my town is in the top five in GOP percentage. Would have made for an interesting campaign if the candidates ever stuck to the issues.

I voted at 7:15 AM and was already the 50th ballot cast from my town district. I hope the voting kept up the pace.

By the way, I've sometimes voted for myself when neither candidate is worthwhile, usually in town elections. I'm counted as "Other". Seems appropriate.

Bob78164 wrote:To avoid that bias, California randomizes the alphabet for each election. Not just the starting point: The whole alphabet. So an "M" candidate might be followed by a "Z" candidate and then an "F" candidate.

They're all "F" candidates...

jaybee wrote:Here in TN we had the option to vote for Charlie Brown (not a write-in)

Our Governors 'non-race" has our incumbent Bill Haslam (R) who hasn't done anything really spectacular during his first term has done a fairly decent job and generally made things better rather than worse. The Demo candidate is a retired non-politician who really is named Charlie Brown - frankly the name recognition is the only reason he's gotten as far as he has in the race.

One pre-election article said that Haslam had about 3.5 million in his war chest and had spend something like 1.7 million already. Charlie Brown had yet to spend his first dime and had a 'war chest' of $107.00.

One of my great-grandfathers was named Charlie Brown. He owned the largest cattle ranch in California at the time. He ran for a California Assembly seat and won. He was quite active and kept newspaper columnists busy.