|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2006 : 15:32:55 [Permalink]
|
When I was a kid in South Jersey, our polling place was usually in the auditorium of my elementary school.
When I lived in Upper Darby PA, they seemed to put it wherever they could scunge the space- one election it was in an unrented storefront in a little strip mall around the corner from my house.
the first couple of elections I voted in in California the polling place was in a meeting room at an apartment complex at the end of my block. Lately it's been in a function room at a Holiday Inn around the corner- probably because the handicapped access and parking are better.
Nobody seems to worry that this is a Governmental establishment or endorsement of hotelry.
For my tastes, a banquet room at a decent restaurant would be nice, and would make things a bit easier for the poll workers, lunch-wise. Of course, they'd probably have to close the bar... |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 17:32:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
In the several places I have lived, one was in a Catholic Church, one was in a fire station, one was in a community center, and the last one was at a golf course.
Was it on the par 5 7th, or the nice par 4 15th with the dogleg right? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 05:02:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The only one I had a problem with was at the community center and that was because of electioneering violations by the Republican candidate. (Election signs too close to the door of the poling place)
Why is this a problem?
I dont just mean because it is a violation of some rule or aother. Why was such a rule made such that it can be violated? Why would you have a problem with Republican signs being "too close" to a polling place?
Electioneering law in my state requires campaign signs not be within 50 feet of a polling place. I would have a problem with any candidates signs violating election law. If they aren't going to obey basic laws, what makes me believe they will obey other laws?
The laws were put in place to prevent last minute intimidation by election officals or campaign workers in close proximity of a poling place.
You trust them to obey the laws once elected?
Intimidated by a sign? How about a 30 foot by 60 foot billboard from 50 feet? Or a whole side of a building? Hmmmm...... ideas for my freinds house........
Joe
Some of them, yes. Especially when it's for a local office. When a township trustee can't be bothered with election law when county and state level office seekers obey it, it makes me question why they are doing it.
Signs are just one part of electioneering. Included in the list is also having greeters with swat books giving campaign materials to people approaching to vote. (For Gorgo's assistance in understanding:
greeters = campaign workers who engage in conversation potential voters approaching the polling place
swat books - single sheet tear off campaign materials listing the candidate's name and what office he seeks, may include punch number)
In Chicago and some other counties, these greeters would engage in intimidation of voters to ensure a win by their candidate. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 05:10:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Note to self: Gorgo is in a very literal mode.
Context would indicate that the polling places were in the locations mentioned, not my living quarters. Next time I will try to specifically define each and every word and context in excruciating detail for you.
You lived in the polling places and were intimidated by Republicans? Wow. Should have invited them to go golfing when you lived on the golf course.
[/quote]
Definitions for Gorgo:
Living quarters - places where I lived. These were approved habitable structures where I paid rent and were not in the polling places referenced.
Polling places - places where people vote
Electioneering - placement of signs and placement of campaign workers to present a candidate for office
Intimitation - the act of making someone fear physical or social reprisals if they do not do what you want them to
Approved habitable structures - houses, apartments, condominiums, hotels, or any other property which has a certificate of habitability from the local controlling agency, zoning board, or municipality.
Rent - money paid a property owner in exchange for full use of a property.
Voting - participating in the selection of public servants.
Rush - a band circa 1980 which had a song "Freewill" which contained the lyrics "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 05:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
In the several places I have lived, one was in a Catholic Church, one was in a fire station, one was in a community center, and the last one was at a golf course.
Was it on the par 5 7th, or the nice par 4 15th with the dogleg right?
It was in the ripoff shack..... I mean clubhouse. And it's only a 9 hole par 32 course.  |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 06:29:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Intimitation - the act of making someone fear physical or social reprisals if they do not do what you want them to
Actually, 'intimitation' would be a hybrid word. Probably meaning the imitation of an intimate act. Remember what you did after pulling the flag out of the hole when you lived on the first green? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 19:35:30 [Permalink]
|
Did you mean intimidation:
I can think of a lot of them:
Vote GOP or the Terrorists will kill you.
Vote DEM or the neo-cons will kill you.
Vote with us, or we will not give you money.
Take that Vote GOP off your bumper, or we will slash your tires.........
With everything that goes on....... Intimidation by billboard is.............
Peace
Joe
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 04:56:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Intimitation - the act of making someone fear physical or social reprisals if they do not do what you want them to
Actually, 'intimitation' would be a hybrid word. Probably meaning the imitation of an intimate act. Remember what you did after pulling the flag out of the hole when you lived on the first green?
[/quote]
Thanks for reminding me why I don't respond to you anymore, Gorgo. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 05:53:50 [Permalink]
|
| Yet you seem to keep responding in the warmest manner, with such a generous sense of humor. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 08:14:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The only one I had a problem with was at the community center and that was because of electioneering violations by the Republican candidate. (Election signs too close to the door of the poling place)
Why is this a problem?
I dont just mean because it is a violation of some rule or aother. Why was such a rule made such that it can be violated? Why would you have a problem with Republican signs being "too close" to a polling place?
Electioneering law in my state requires campaign signs not be within 50 feet of a polling place. I would have a problem with any candidates signs violating election law. If they aren't going to obey basic laws, what makes me believe they will obey other laws?
The laws were put in place to prevent last minute intimidation by election officals or campaign workers in close proximity of a poling place.
Really, and when was the last time you were intimidated by a sign? I personally, have never been intimidated by a sign.
Now if you had used the word "influence," then we might have gotten somewhere, but you saw that snare, didn't you? 
The evasion is telling. There are more kinds of influence than intimidation and there are more forms of intimidation than blunt force. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 08/30/2006 08:16:44 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 08:25:30 [Permalink]
|
| I would have to look it up, but I was under the impression that the laws were designed for any kind of campaigning, not just signs. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 10:28:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The only one I had a problem with was at the community center and that was because of electioneering violations by the Republican candidate. (Election signs too close to the door of the poling place)
Why is this a problem?
I dont just mean because it is a violation of some rule or aother. Why was such a rule made such that it can be violated? Why would you have a problem with Republican signs being "too close" to a polling place?
Electioneering law in my state requires campaign signs not be within 50 feet of a polling place. I would have a problem with any candidates signs violating election law. If they aren't going to obey basic laws, what makes me believe they will obey other laws?
The laws were put in place to prevent last minute intimidation by election officals or campaign workers in close proximity of a poling place.
Really, and when was the last time you were intimidated by a sign? I personally, have never been intimidated by a sign.
Now if you had used the word "influence," then we might have gotten somewhere, but you saw that snare, didn't you?
The evasion is telling. There are more kinds of influence than intimidation and there are more forms of intimidation than blunt force.
Actually, applying the act of intimidation on a sign is a bit absurd sounding. However, I was trying to point out the broadness of the law and what it originally meant to stem.
The legislature was concerned that if specific actions were banned, that the candidates and their thugs/campaign workers would find other ways to intimidate voters just outside the definitions. So they went with the broad "electioneering" term which refers to signs and personell.
Although some signs can be intimidating such as a burning cross on the front lawn or a poster quoting the Vice-President.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
charpman
New Member
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 13:49:10 [Permalink]
|
Hello, I'm new here. I found this while googling "voting in churches". Why?
I'm 37 and have never voted in a church. Growing up, the polling places were always at schools. They used the gym, since turning gym classes into study halls wasn't all that hard for a single day. When I started voting it has always been non-religious places. Schools, the fire department, universities etc.
This year my polling place was changed from the fire department, to a church.
I object. I don't know why others don't. It is simply NOT separation of church and state to be forced to vote in a house of worship.
I've read elsewhere that some churches are paid to be polling places. Nice separation there.
I just don't see how you can claim separation of church and state and then allow voting in churches. Even if there is no collusion going on, it certainly appears that there is.
The notion that it's just a building is as valid as stating that Jesus on a crucifix is just artwork.
As an aside, I am someone who does not believe in god, gods or deities or anything supernatural, I also object to being called an atheist. This implies a shared belief system of sorts, an ism if you will. I don't have that. I have read here where someone stated that atheists want to push their belief system. All I'm interested in is being left alone to live my life the way I want to. I don't want laws passed to restrict my behavior based on someone's religious morality. I have no desire to force others to do anything, other than leave me alone  |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 15:51:38 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, charpman!
In general, I sympathize and agree with you about "... being left alone to live my life the way I want to." But I don't share your concern about voting in churches. I think it's a non-issue, particularly when compared to the real problems of government funding of "faith-based initiatives," tax-exempt churches getting involved in politics, and the frightening trend toward theocratic rule.
Though I see your point about not wanting to be called an atheist, I would also part from you on that. After spending most of this year on SFN, I have come to the understanding that an "atheist" is simply anyone who lacks a belief in a god. It's a useful, neutral, and descriptive term.
An atheist can be someone who wants their Atheism spelled with a capital "A," and likes the "-ism" part as well. An atheist can even be a Stalinist, who actively persecutes religious people. Or an atheist can simply be an agnostic like myself who sees no credible evidence of a deity. Atheism is thus a neutral, "big-tent" word. (Personally, I like to mix it up with "infidel" and "agnostic," which are also to my personal taste.) But, though not sharing your dislike of "atheist," I respect whatever way you care to define yourself.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 18:23:00 [Permalink]
|
"Atheist" is a term that falls at one extreme of an artificial, dichotomous continuum. To accept the label is to recognize that theism is in some way meaningful. It is not. I tried to get this across once before, but was drowned out by vitriol.
I do NOT define myself as a non-believer - as contrary to this artificial default. In my view the real world is the default and I am strictly in line with it, as repeatedly, demonstrably verified by our physical sciences and honest philosophical enquiry. Period.
According to the Xtians, I am a "Moral Nihilist." Delightful term, eh? Does anyone think I will accept that label or is there an immediately obvious stipulated content that makes the label inappropriate? Do you see it?
This is not mere semantic juggling or nit-picking. Our concepts of things can dictate our approaches to enquiry into them, or even deny us the possibility of enquiry into them. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
