Election 2008: Vote along party lines or split ticket?

[IAMX 3,055]

Well, I go against myself and my moral make-up if I vote for something that I don't support and believe in. I suppose if I'm too conflicted I will abstain from voting on that issue. You're right that this issue shouldn't even be on the ballot, but I can't vote against something just because I shouldn't force my beliefs on others. I believe that by giving me the opportunity to vote, it's my voice and I should be able to use it to support my beliefs.

Isn't that what Prop 8 is about in California? Someone's personal belief on the ballot? Many of these issues on the ballot are going to be affected by personal belief. Well, maybe not traffic congestion.....

ETA: I've read the entire Death with Dignity Act, btw, and I haven't yet made a decision about this.

Exactly. When it's something that's so strikingly personal and subjective belief (i.e. entirely a moral issue), not much to do with the economy, it shouldn't be up on the ballot. Just like the gay marriage thing. Unfortunately I have to vote to give gays freedom, and vote to let the government do parenting for the parents. Pretty ###### up if you ask me.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Exactly. When it's something that's so strikingly personal and subjective belief (i.e. entirely a moral issue), not much to do with the economy, it shouldn't be up on the ballot. Just like the gay marriage thing. Unfortunately I have to vote to give gays freedom, and vote to let the government do parenting for the parents. Pretty ###### up if you ask me.

You don't have to vote for something if you don't want to. Why not skip something if you feel that way?

[IAMX 3,055]

Exactly. When it's something that's so strikingly personal and subjective belief (i.e. entirely a moral issue), not much to do with the economy, it shouldn't be up on the ballot. Just like the gay marriage thing. Unfortunately I have to vote to give gays freedom, and vote to let the government do parenting for the parents. Pretty ###### up if you ask me.

You don't have to vote for something if you don't want to. Why not skip something if you feel that way?

That's always an option too.

[caybee 21]

I vote office by office. I'm open to voting a split ticket, but I'm still researching. There are some incumbents who are obviously better spoken and more experienced than their challengers, probably better leaders overall, but I agree with the policies of the challengers instead. The incumbents I'm thinking of are going to win anyway, so I'll vote my conscience. If that means a straight ticket, so be it, but it won't be a blind one.

The constitutional amendments make me want to pull my hair out.

Amendment 3

Must Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to benefits and funding of public employee pension plans in this State and the investments allowed for funds of the various state-operated retirement systems be amended so as to provide that the funds of any political subdivision of this State that have been set aside for the funding of post-employment benefits for the political subdivision's employees, including those invested in independent trusts established for that purpose, may be invested or reinvested in equity securities of the type permitted for investment by the various state operated retirement systems, as provided for by the General Assembly?

Yes []

No []

It's clear if you parse it out, but I don't know how many people do that on Election Day, and I don't remember if they print the explanation after each amendment on the ballot. Our state constitution is a nightmare.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is one of ours. I get what it means but the language strikes me as unnecessarily convoluted.

Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution which provides that, after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, a law enacted thereafter that authorizes State debt created through the sale of bonds by any autonomous public corporate entity, established either as an instrumentality of the State or otherwise exercising public and essential governmental functions, such as an independent State authority, which debt or liability has a pledge of an annual appropriation as the ways and means to pay the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due and pay and discharge the principal of such debt, will be subject to voter approval, unless the payment of the debt is made subject to appropriations of an independent non-State source of revenue paid by third persons for the use of the object or work bonded for, or are from a source of State revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of the Constitution?

[caybee 21]

This is one of ours. I get what it means but the language strikes me as unnecessarily convoluted.

Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution which provides that, after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, a law enacted thereafter that authorizes State debt created through the sale of bonds by any autonomous public corporate entity, established either as an instrumentality of the State or otherwise exercising public and essential governmental functions, such as an independent State authority, which debt or liability has a pledge of an annual appropriation as the ways and means to pay the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due and pay and discharge the principal of such debt, will be subject to voter approval, unless the payment of the debt is made subject to appropriations of an independent non-State source of revenue paid by third persons for the use of the object or work bonded for, or are from a source of State revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of the Constitution?