Your boards are way better than ours

 

Its a stepping stone to bigger things.

We beg for people to fill some of our boards.

Senate Republicans probably are filibustering the nominations

Senate Republicans probably are filibustering the nominations

 

In Indiana is more likely that the Democrats ran away.

Tangentially related, the ACLU head has offered up $1k for anyone who can bring forth documented, verifiable accounts of voter impersonation.

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...onation-reward/

Tangentially related, the ACLU head has offered up $1k for anyone who can bring forth documented, verifiable accounts of voter impersonation.

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...onation-reward/

 

Woo hoo! It's the Minnesota chapter, so it's a way for me to money this fall!

 

Side note: This reminds me of the targeted "Minnesota for Marriage" ads I was getting. At least one of those was downright terrible and I was kind of upset it was on the site; what's Soxtalk's ad policy? And I was actually surprised, it's usually hard for vitriolic ads to get any response from me other than laughter.

Woo hoo! It's the Minnesota chapter, so it's a way for me to money this fall!

 

Side note: This reminds me of the targeted "Minnesota for Marriage" ads I was getting. At least one of those was downright terrible and I was kind of upset it was on the site; what's Soxtalk's ad policy? And I was actually surprised, it's usually hard for vitriolic ads to get any response from me other than laughter.

We don't censor or really run the ads at all, they're entirely supplied by the Google Ads program.

San Francisco Giants Season Tickets! Buy Now!

 

There's got to be some sort of control over the ad content, but to be honest I don't pay any attention to them.

San Francisco Giants Season Tickets! Buy Now!

 

There's got to be some sort of control over the ad content, but to be honest I don't pay any attention to them.

It's Google. It's almost certainly responding to various cookies that have been picked up by your browser at places you've visited previously.

It's Google. It's almost certainly responding to various cookies that have been picked up by your browser at places you've visited previously.

 

Yeah, that's what I get for searching stuff on Gay Marriage for equal protection debates, and living in Minnesota. Like Strange said, I don't normally notice them either; I only did with this one because it was pretty outlandish (I wish I could remember what it said now that I've mentioned it twice, I just remember my feeling on it).

the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, so Daniels can pick a permanent replacement instead of it going to the Democratic candidate.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/1...ed-voter-fraud/

the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, so Daniels can pick a permanent replacement instead of it going to the Democratic candidate.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/1...ed-voter-fraud/

I always prefer the party keeps the office. IMHO it is about as close to the voter's wishes as can be for that office.

I always prefer the party keeps the office. IMHO it is about as close to the voter's wishes as can be for that office.

 

Only if the voters are electing a party and not a person.

 

But I don't have a problem with this ruling.

Which is why I try to keep the person in office if possible. When that can't occur, for whatever reason, then the next important factor should be party affiliation. Especially when if can change majority rules, etc.

Only if the voters are electing a party and not a person.

 

But I don't have a problem with this ruling.

 

I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud.

I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud.

The indiana court overturned that part of the ruling

The indiana court overturned that part of the ruling

Which frankly strikes me as a political solution to a legal problem.

I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud.

 

I understand your point and it is a strong one, but that would only be the case when the person selecting the replacement was from the other party. I believe the replacement should be as close to the voter's wishes as possible. Allowing political parties to use this as punishment and reward should be secondary. If the voters wish to later punish that party that is there choice.

I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud.

 

Pretty much any of the normal ways of replacing an office holder would have resulted in GOP nominee seeing as they control the Governor, the House, and the Senate in Indiana. If you start saying that another political party should benefit, then you are getting into political solutions.

Pretty much any of the normal ways of replacing an office holder would have resulted in GOP nominee seeing as they control the Governor, the House, and the Senate in Indiana. If you start saying that another political party should benefit, then you are getting into political solutions.

 

I think if the election has to be essentially vacated because the candidate was never eligible to be on the ballot - in the first place - the party that wins with the ineligible candidate shouldn't just get to keep the seat due to party affiliation.

I think if the election has to be essentially vacated because the candidate was never eligible to be on the ballot - in the first place - the party that wins with the ineligible candidate shouldn't just get to keep the seat due to party affiliation.

 

Without rewriting the rules to filling a vacated seat, you're only other option is a new election.

 

If the Governor nominates someone, it will be a GOPer. If it is the House, it will be a GOPer. If it is the Senate, it will be a GOPer. If it is any combination of the above, the result will be the same, because the party controls the state. Honestly a better argument could be made that whoever was faced in the GOP primary should be the new SecState because they would too have beaten the Dem nominee.

Do we elect individuals or parties?

Do we elect individuals or parties?

 

All traditional means of replacing a vacated office, would result in a GOP member in office in this situation. There really isn't a way around that.

Without rewriting the rules to filling a vacated seat, you're only other option is a new election.

 

To be honest, I feel that would be the most appropriate action.

To be honest, I feel that would be the most appropriate action.

 

I can handle that as fair.