SUPER TUESDAY ! ! !

[StoopTroup]

It's here GOPs!

Get er Done!

[badger]

polls are open. be sure to vote before 7 p.m. today :)

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't encourage people who do not vote as I do to vote at all.

Higher voter turn out is bad for the Republic.

[badger]

I don't encourage people who do not vote as I do to vote at all.

Higher voter turn out is bad for the Republic.

My two cents:

When people make an effort to vote, they tend to also make an effort to get to know about important issues locally, statewide and nationally.

And when they make themselves aware of how important these issues are, they are more likely to see things the way that I do, as a fellow informed voter.

Discouraging voting just encourages more apathy to things that more people should be concerned about.

[SicEmBaylor]

My two cents:

When people make an effort to vote, they tend to also make an effort to get to know about important issues locally, statewide and nationally.

And when they make themselves aware of how important these issues are, they are more likely to see things the way that I do, as a fellow informed voter.

Discouraging voting just encourages more apathy to things that more people should be concerned about.

This has never ever been my experience. I have very little regard for the voting public.

The fact is, GOTV campaigns treat voting as an end unto itself. It's as if voting is the full measure of a citizen's civic virtue. This is absolute bull****. Voting is simply the best means to an end...the end being a government that has the consent of the governed and protects the liberty of the public. A well trained chimp can walk into a voting booth and randomly select a candidate. Primary voters tend to be somewhat more astute than general-only voters but only marginally so.

Democracy is highly dangerous. The republican government that our forefathers created was totally and completely dependent upon a well-educated and politically astute voting class. Of course laws of the time were designed to protect that select voting class and of course we have discarded those laws as we moved toward universal suffrage. As the voting class is expanded, the mean political acumen of the voting public decreased. These voters increasingly voted for politicians who were more interested in dolling out handouts to secure their seats than they were in faithfully defending the Republic and their oath of office.

So, no, I never ever encourage people to vote unless they're fairly astute. It's the duty and responsibility of those people to go out and vote; it's the civic responsibility of the politically ignorant to have enough respect for the process to stay home. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who admits they're politically ignorant and makes the conscious decision to stay home than someone who thinks they're fulfilling their civic responsibility by playing 'eenie meenie miney moe' with their ballot.

[hawaii 5-0]

Are they gonna finally get rid of that 3.2 beer thing and join the rest of the Country?


5-0

[Curly Bill]

My two cents:

When people make an effort to vote, they tend to also make an effort to get to know about important issues locally, statewide and nationally.

And when they make themselves aware of how important these issues are, they are more likely to see things the way that I do, as a fellow informed voter.

Discouraging voting just encourages more apathy to things that more people should be concerned about.

I don't agree at all. I think most voters are largely clueless. One of the reasons I'm not a fan of vote for the sake of voting push.

[OULenexaman]

which is exactly what BHO pushed hard for in 08....knowing full well he get a bunch of bull**** votes from the young mezmerized crowd.

[StoopTroup]

Obama is trying to workout a way for us to vote from our cell phones.

[StoopTroup]

BTW....Dems...You get to vote too.

Funny how SFs only has Obama on the ballot....lol

[badger]

BTW....Dems...You get to vote too.

Funny how SFs only has Obama on the ballot....lol

Jim Rogers found another election to be a part of in this state, hehehehehehe. I wonder if he's gonna try to get on another ballot later this year too. :P

[badger]

So, no, I never ever encourage people to vote unless they're fairly astute. It's the duty and responsibility of those people to go out and vote; it's the civic responsibility of the politically ignorant to have enough respect for the process to stay home. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who admits they're politically ignorant and makes the conscious decision to stay home than someone who thinks they're fulfilling their civic responsibility by playing 'eenie meenie miney moe' with their ballot.

If you're already conversing enough with a potential voter to know that they're going "ennie meenie," that sounds like the perfect time to sell them on your candidate/initiative/etc that you personally plan to vote for.

Civic duty is not just getting yourself out to vote, it's getting others involved too.

btw, is anyone else voting at a school site? My polling place is an elementary school. I love that kids get to see the political process from an early age :)

[rock on sooner]

So, SicEm, are you advocating some sort qualifying process to determine if the potential voter
is astute enough? How would you go about that? How about this...at the polling place the
potential voter answers a 10 question quiz...seven out of ten and they can vote, if not,
they go home and put up with what the learned elite doles out.:dispirited:

[badger]

Quiz: Make sense of the following four HONEST TO GOODNESS REAL AND APPEARING ON TULSA'S LAST CITY COUNCIL ELECTION ballot questions. Answers with fewer words and the easiest language will be awarded more points. However, incorrect answers will not receive any credit.

Question 1:


“SHALL THE EXISTING CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
TULSA, AS AMENDED, BE FURTHER AMENDED TO
CHANGE FROM A MAYOR-COUNCIL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT TO A CITY COUNCIL-CITY
MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR THE CONTINUATION
OF THE CITY OF TULSA AS A BODY POLITIC AND
CORPORATE; TO PRESCRIBE THE POWERS OF THE
CITY; TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNCIL COMPRISED OF
THE MAYOR AND NINE (9) COUNCILORS; TO
PROVIDE THAT ALL ELECTIONS OF CITY OFFICERS
SHALL BE NON-PARTISAN; TO PROVIDE THAT THE
NINE (9) COUNCILORS SHALL BE NOMINATED AND
ELECTED FOR STAGGERED FOUR (4) YEAR TERMS
FROM NINE (9) ELECTION DISTRICTS; TO
PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS, POWERS, AND
DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL; TO PROVIDE FOR A
MAYOR NOMINATED AND ELECTED AT LARGE FOR
A FOUR (4) YEAR TERM, TO PRESCRIBE THE
QUALIFICATIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE
MAYOR, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAYOR TO BE
THE POLITICAL LEADER OF THE CITY AND
COUNCIL; TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, SHALL BE
ELIGIBLE TO SERVE NO MORE THAN TWELVE (12)
YEARS ON THE COUNCIL; TO PROVIDE THAT THE
COUNCIL AND MAYOR SHALL BE PAID
COMPENSATION IN AN AMOUNT ESTABLISHED AS
PROVIDED BY CHARTER AND AS MAY BE
RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL BY A “COUNCIL
SALARY SETTING COMMISSION” APPOINTED BY
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE
FOR THE COUNCIL TO SELECT A CITY MANAGER, A
CITY ATTORNEY, A CITY AUDITOR AND MUNICIPAL
JUDGES AND TO REMOVE THEM BY A TWOTHIRDS
(2/3) VOTE OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL;
TO PROVIDE FOR THE SELECTION OF A VICEMAYOR
AND A MAYOR PRO TEMPORE WHO
SHALL SERVE DURING THE ABSENCE OR
INABILITY OF THE MAYOR TO DISCHARGE THE
DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF MAYOR; TO PRESCRIBE
THE QUALIFICATIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF
THE CITY AUDITOR; TO PROVIDE FOR A CITY
MANAGER, A CITY CLERK, A CITY TREASURER,
AND A CITY ATTORNEY, AND TO PRESCRIBE
QUALIFICATIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES FOR
EACH; TO PRESCRIBE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE CITY MANAGER, IN PLACE OF THE MAYOR, TO
BOARDS AND AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THE UTILITY BOARD, AND
THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD; TO PROVIDE
FOR THE ELECTION AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS,
AND PROCEDURES THEREFOR; TO PROVIDE FOR
THE FILLING OF VACANCIES IN OFFICE; TO
PROVIDE THAT THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND THE CITY AUDITOR SHALL NOT BE
CLASSIFIED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN A
MERIT SYSTEM; AND TO CONTAIN OTHER
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CITY GOVERNMENT; TO
PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF
ORDINANCES AND CONTRACTS; AND TO REPEAL
ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF TULSA NOT INCORPORATED HEREIN OR
CONTINUED IN EFFECT?”

Question 2:


“SHALL THE AMENDED CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF TULSA BE FURTHER AMENDED TO
RE-STRUCTURE THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE
THAT THE MAYOR SHALL SERVE AS A MEMBER
AND CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL, BUT
SHALL VOTE ONLY IF REQUIRED TO BREAK A
TIE VOTE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION
OF THREE AT-LARGE COUNCILORS, AT A SPECIAL
ELECTION CALLED FOR THAT PURPOSE,
WHOSE TERMS SHALL COMMENCE ON THE
FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING SUCH SPECIAL ELECTION
AND SHALL THEREAFTER BE ELECTED IN
EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS FOR TWO-YEAR
TERMS; ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE A QUALIFIED
ELECTOR OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 1, 3 OR
4; ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE A QUALIFIED
ELECTOR OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 2, 8 OR 9;
ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR
OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 5, 6 OR 7, AND
ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE APPOINTED VICECHAIR
OF THE COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR.”

Question 3:

“SHALL THE TULSA CHARTER BE AMENDED
TO PROVIDE FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS IN
NOVEMBER AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN
AUGUST IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS; TO
PROVIDE THAT THE TERM OF THE OFFICE OF
THE MAYOR ELECTED IN 2013 SHALL BE FOR
A TERM OF THREE YEARS AND THEREAFTER
THE TERM SHALL BE FOUR YEARS; THAT THE
TERM OF OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR ELECTED
IN 2013 SHALL BE FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR
AND THEREAFTER THE TERM SHALL BE TWO
YEARS; AND THAT THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR
COUNCILORS IN DISTRICTS 1, 4 AND 7
ELECTED IN 2012 SHALL BE FOR A TERM OF
TWO YEARS; FOR COUNCILORS IN DISTRICTS
2, 5 AND 8 ELECTED IN 2013 SHALL
BE FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR AND THEREAFTER
SHALL BE A TERM OF TWO YEARS
AND FOR COUNCILORS IN DISTRICTS 3, 6
AND 9 ELECTED IN 2014 SHALL BE A TERM
OF TWO YEARS.”

Question 4:

“SHALL THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE
FOR THE NON-PARTISAN ELECTION OF
CITY OFFICERS?”

I will award up to 50 points for the question 1 since it's so wordy. Questions 2 and 3 are worth 20 each, while question 4 is worth 10.

You must achieve a passing grade (what is that, 70 percent?) to vote :P

EDIT: If you want to waive the white flag and bow out, here is an article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20111016_11_A19_bEdito8768) that explains each.

[rock on sooner]

Well, Badj, using that criteria, there'd be no need for a secret ballot, now, would there?
I was thinking more along the lines of citizenship type questions, but, between you and
SicEm, candidates would be winning elections/propostions getting passed by 2 to 1 and
3 to 2 scores!:playful:

[rock on sooner]

One more point, is whoever managed to get those questions on a ballot
still "on the run"?

[badger]

Well, Badj, using that criteria, there'd be no need for a secret ballot, now, would there?
I was thinking more along the lines of citizenship type questions, but, between you and
SicEm, candidates would be winning elections/propostions getting passed by 2 to 1 and
3 to 2 scores!:playful:

It seemed that the debate was whether or not people were competent enough on the issues to be able to vote, not on the usual citizenship test type questions, hence me offering Tulsa's WORDY WORDY WORDY ballot as a test to see if people could actually understand that WORDY WORDY WORDY enough to vote on it :D

Here are my answers, by the way:

1- Make the mayor a city councilor, both of which have four-year terms (staggered) and 12-year term limits. Appoint a city manager.

Why it failed: Because people voted for a major, not another councilor.

2- Make the mayor like a councilor, but only give voting powers to tie-break. Add three at-large councilors to the existing council.

Why it failed: Fear of legal recourse, as it would likely dilute the voting representation of minority districts.

3- To correct the major eff-up of previous city elections, a more normal cycle for city elections that people can actually follow. None of this 1 year term here, 3 year term there crap, but a constant, 2-year cycle for councilors and 4-year cycle for mayors. Thank gawd.

Why it passed: Because Tulsa found the process of ousting every councilor they disliked all in the same election year quite fun back in primary season just a few months prior.

4- Make councilors and the mayor non-partisan so that more voters in each district can decide who represents them, rather than everything getting decided in the primaries.

Why it passed: Because some districts only had Republican candidates and some only had Democrat candidates, which shut many voters out from deciding their council representation (they would be decided in the primaries), or left them with options they disliked. This past year was no exception, as many incumbents were ousted in their primary and a few won their seats in the primary with just party voters, rather than the general election.

I think that my answer warrants at least a 70, or at least I hope it does, because I already voted :P

[rock on sooner]

What was the final score? Wait, let me guess, let's you, the mayor and nine coucil members..that's 11 so 6 to 5
one way or the other!

[StoopTroup]

This has never ever been my experience. I have very little regard for the voting public.

The fact is, GOTV campaigns treat voting as an end unto itself. It's as if voting is the full measure of a citizen's civic virtue. This is absolute bull****. Voting is simply the best means to an end...the end being a government that has the consent of the governed and protects the liberty of the public. A well trained chimp can walk into a voting booth and randomly select a candidate. Primary voters tend to be somewhat more astute than general-only voters but only marginally so.

Democracy is highly dangerous. The republican government that our forefathers created was totally and completely dependent upon a well-educated and politically astute voting class. Of course laws of the time were designed to protect that select voting class and of course we have discarded those laws as we moved toward universal suffrage. As the voting class is expanded, the mean political acumen of the voting public decreased. These voters increasingly voted for politicians who were more interested in dolling out handouts to secure their seats than they were in faithfully defending the Republic and their oath of office.

So, no, I never ever encourage people to vote unless they're fairly astute. It's the duty and responsibility of those people to go out and vote; it's the civic responsibility of the politically ignorant to have enough respect for the process to stay home. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who admits they're politically ignorant and makes the conscious decision to stay home than someone who thinks they're fulfilling their civic responsibility by playing 'eenie meenie miney moe' with their ballot.

Since you never graduated College....aren't you classified as a marginally if at all trained chimp? To be a well trained Astute Voter back in the day you would have needed to be rich and powerful as well as a well trained Gentleman. Now, knowing the position you are on, it makes me wonder why you continue to try and come off as someone who is a part of such a class of Voter. Back in the Day Baylor wouldn't have qualified as a place to get an education. As it is, there are still some Ivy Leaguers that think Baylor is no more than a DeVry Institute. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

So, SicEm, are you advocating some sort qualifying process to determine if the potential voter
is astute enough? How would you go about that? How about this...at the polling place the
potential voter answers a 10 question quiz...seven out of ten and they can vote, if not,
they go home and put up with what the learned elite doles out.:dispirited:

Absolutely. I've advocated this for a very very long time. Voting should be a privilege earned and not treated as an absolute right. If the state can require a person to pass a basic driving test before being awarded a license then they ought to have to pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. The test used to be property ownership, but obviously that is no longer a sufficient measure of one's civic awareness. I'm somewhat down with poll taxes as well.

Now mind you this test shouldn't be designed to be overly complicated, but it would ensure 1)the individual is literate and 2)the person has a basic understand of the function of government. If a person can't tell the difference between a governor or a senator then they have no business voting for either.

[SicEmBaylor]

Since you never graduated College....aren't you classified as a marginally if at all trained chimp? To be a well trained Astute Voter back in the day you would have needed to be rich and powerful as well as a well trained Gentleman. Now, knowing the position you are on, it makes me wonder why you continue to try and come off as someone who is a part of such a class of Voter. Back in the Day Baylor wouldn't have qualified as a place to get an education. As it is, there are still some Ivy Leaguers that think Baylor is no more than a DeVry Institute. :D
Clearly someone escaped.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9UjMUtocrRU/TsGus50lrTI/AAAAAAAABhI/12kgSRAMLZo/s1600/MentalPatient.jpg

[rock on sooner]

Absolutely. I've advocated this for a very very long time. Voting should be a privilege earned and not treated as an absolute right. If the state can require a person to pass a basic driving test before being awarded a license then they ought to have to pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. The test used to be property ownership, but obviously that is no longer a sufficient measure of one's civic awareness. I'm somewhat down with poll taxes as well.

Now mind you this test shouldn't be designed to be overly complicated, but it would ensure 1)the individual is literate and 2)the person has a basic understand of the function of government. If a person can't tell the difference between a governor or a senator then they have no business voting for either.

I'm not sure that licensing someone to safely control a 4000 pound vehicle is the same
as "licensing" a citizen to actively particpate in the electoral process.

[KantoSooner]

Perhaps not, but I found the 'butterfly ballot' a nice, undercover way of preventing the mentally incompetent from voting. Can't figure it out? You are definitely too stupid to exercise the franchise.

[StoopTroup]

Clearly someone escaped.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9UjMUtocrRU/TsGus50lrTI/AAAAAAAABhI/12kgSRAMLZo/s1600/MentalPatient.jpg

That someone was smart enough to go vote so that they used the freedom that our Country has given us whether pompous nitwits like it or not.

[StoopTroup]

Oh yeah, if the Oklahoma Flag comes up on the screen, you voted correctly.

[rock on sooner]

Perhaps not, but I found the 'butterfly ballot' a nice, undercover way of preventing the mentally incompetent from voting. Can't figure it out? You are definitely too stupid to exercise the franchise.

Doesn't say too much about all those good folks in Florida, does it?

You folks can't figure it out...Newt in GA. Slick Rick in OK & TN
and Mitt most everywhere else. OH looks like fun...Rick just
said on CNN that he's happy about coming in second in so many
places! Newt is a piece of work & then there's Paul. As I said,
the "FAB FOUR"....and then Sarah says that "you never know..":playful:

[StoopTroup]

Obama kicked Randall Terry's a$$.

[ouwasp]

I called in results to the AP from my county. Not a bad gig; get paid $85 to sit around for a couple hours looking at a monitor and make 3-4 phone calls with results. Around 8:00, AP told me they didn't want any more Demo numbers, just the GOP.

Kinda embarassed for BHO. He finished with about 47%....Randall Terry got over 25%....

[badger]

I called in results to the AP from my county. Not a bad gig; get paid $85 to sit around for a couple hours looking at a monitor and make 3-4 phone calls with results. Around 8:00, AP told me they didn't want any more Demo numbers, just the GOP.

Kinda embarassed for BHO. He finished with about 47%....Randall Terry got over 25%....

Yeah, people in Oklahoma really don't like Obama, do they? Or rather, the real Dems (and not just the ones that have forgotten to switch their registration with the changing political winds of the state) didn't show up at polls yesterday because they didn't see any point to.

Jim Rogers, the perennial loser, fell just short of the 15 percent needed to get some delegation from the state. Tooooo baaaaaad.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Brief hijack.

It was Super Tuesday in Sacramento last night. The city council approved terms to build a new arena in downtown Sac for the Kings and other entertainment uses (unlike Seattle, who lost their team to OKC).

Suppose to be like a hybrid of the Kansas City and Orlando arenas. THis is such great news for northern California -- a good economic blast.