my voting story
i went to vote yesterday like many of you did. it is a great privilege to live in a society that cares, to some degree, what i think.so i enter the polling station and i am the only one there. i check in with "check-in girl", get my ballot from "ballot man", and proceed to the booth to vote.
i messed up my ballot almost right away. but at least i noticed that i did. so i asked for a new ballot but i asked "check-in girl". BIG MISTAKE. i was directed ever so sternly to "ballot man" because apparently they all have very defined and specific roles. well excuuuuuse me!
anyways, "ballot man" takes my old messed up ballot and gives me a new fresh one. so i go to town again. this time, i get it right.
let me pause very quickly to say that i voted very republican despite being a communist. if you want to know how i voted, you can visit keith's blog because it's pretty similar for the most part, except that i voted to tax the smokers (shine you guys, it smells!!).
MOVING RIGHT ALONG...
so i take my finished ballot to "ballot man" right? i learned my lesson already from "check-in girl". but go figure, "ballot man" doesn't deal with finished ballots. those go to "scantron lady". so "scantron lady" takes my ballot and tears off a piece. she then hands it back to me to put into the scantron machine.
it takes it.
then it gives it back.
two of them that is.
that's right, it gave me back 2 of them along with a receipt that says "overvote". what the heck? so i tell "scantron lady" and she asks why i put both of them in. i tell her that i didn't and then ask "ballot man" for some backup since i gave him the original ballot that i messed up. he backed me up and i was back to "scantron lady", my ballot, and the ballot of some random asian (i live in alhambra, i took a stab and i'm probably right).
she asks me to put in the first ballot again. then the second. same thing - the machine spits them both out.
we do that like 4 more times before the machine finally accepts them.
so in my best estimation, one of two things happened:
- my vote was discarded in a vast conspiracy to make sure the brown man doesn't get a voice
- i was the one that put the governator over the top with my eight votes.
either way, i applaud the efficiency of the voting system in our country. (tongue WAY in cheek)
"i voted for the lord on high. i voted and he heard my cry. " SING ALONG!!
posted by pablo
11 comments
11 Comments:
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
C. Arnold said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
Klassic Katz said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
Post a CommentThankfully we've found a way to catch human error!!
According to The Los Angeles Times...
When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cast his ballot early Tuesday, an electronic scanner spit it right back: "Ballot alert," declared the machine's printed message.
[Alhambra's very own Pableezy said he and his rejected neighbor could relate to the Mayor. "I ain't never had nobody or nothing spit at me before when I voted. I think that Tan Republican guy down in Orange County is behind these machines that spit at Latino voters."]
The mayor apparently had "overvoted" by punching too many bubbles on his ballot. He went back into the booth and filled out his choices again.
For Villaraigosa, Los Angeles County's new $25-million InkaVote Plus machines, which use an optical scanner to check ballots for errors, worked like a charm.
The machine took my ballot the very first time, and didn't spit anything back at me. Yup, worked like a charm.
told you they're trying to hold down the brown vote
And surprise, surprise, another judge vetoed the majority of California voters ... AGAIN!
According to The Los Angeles Times...
"A federal judge today blocked enforcement of Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a day earlier that's meant to crack down on sex offenders, including limiting where they may live..."
Is this another example of the activist judges people complain about? We vote to protect children, and a judge tosses it out like month-old moldy beans she found hidden in the back of the fridge!
Dang nab it! Voter fraud!!! Voter fraud!!!
Personally I think you're vote was part of getting Arnie his landslide!
It sure didn't make a dent defeating the Democrat Party lunacy.
Great post. I give it a 10.5 for humor.
Is this another example of the activist judges people complain about?
you know what though, it's pretty hard to be in that position. i remember a conversation i had with someone when the 10 commandments at the couthouse controversy was happening. i was saying that i didn't have a problem with them coming down and this person vehemently opposed it.
i simply asked if it would be okay if they added quotes from the Qu'ran and the insert other book of faith here to accomodate people of other faiths in our country. of course, neither of us was particularly comfortable with that. so it's difficult.
there is always agendas when you are talking about moral issues.
what if you were on the seat and you had to evaluate homosexual marriage, or whatever else could come up with moral undertones.
i'm not saying that you would do the same thing, or that i would, or whatever. i'm simply saying when you have a strong moral conviction about something, it's probably pretty hard to just sit back and watch it happen when you have the power to stop it.
Wow I never knew you were a communist. LOL It must be all that USC red that you wear!
pableezy,
I understand the struggle. It's just that our laws specifically address that sort of thing. We are supposed to operate in this country by the rule of law, not the whim, wishes, wants, or will of a person in a seat of power. Judges are supposed to abide by the law too. There are supposed to be repercussions for those who take the law into their own hands. Why should I be punished for taking the law into my own hands, but a judge gets to do so repeatedly without consequence?
Why not save tons of money by bypassing the people and just letting judges change and create laws in the first place? Judges throw out the vote of the people anyway. And actually, since judges are doing the legislators' job now too, let's fire all the legislators, and use all the money we spend on them for something better. We don't need voters or legislators anymore -- we have activist judges; or maybe we should call them all-purpose judges; better yet, let's call them what everybody else in the world calls them ... dictators! (this paragraph is all said somewhat tongue in cheek, but not much in cheek)
:- )
Pablo: you probably hit one of the most critical issues that Christians must face at election time in your comment about the Qu'ran text and the courthouses, and I'm going to draw some heat from my conservative brethren for what I'm about to write.
For you and I, and others among believers, the answer to the question of the Ten Commandment versus the Qu'ran text is simple: the Ten Commandments come from objectively true faith. However, we do not live in a theocracy (and for the record, I am opposed to those segments of conservatism that would like to establish one), and we can't expect the lost world to be able to evaluate true doctrine versus false. God's test that he gave the lost world to evaluate that is a different test entirely. For that reason, a secular and pluralistic society must accommodate all teachings of all faiths which support and advance culture; if the Qu'ran, or the Hadith, or the Vedas, offer teaching that promotes the improvement of the world, government should approve of those teachings, and in fact, a good argument can be made that Romans 13:1-7 supports this.
We are called to be salt and light - to preserve and to enlighten - and that should be a foundational priciple of a Christian's vote. Another should be the Dominion Mandate of Gen 1:26-28, in which mankind is to rule over this world as God's agent and subdue it - that is, to do something about bettering the human condition in all aspects of life. For this reason, we vote to (for example) put an end to abortion, or protect marriage.
But - and here's where I get in trouble with my conservative brethren - what would happen if we were able to end abortion totally, end homosexuality, put a stop to rape, cleanse our culture of drugs, cure prejudice forever, and eradicate so many other social ills, not just by legislation but also through being living examples, but not have people saved? You would have a culture full of people around us who live good lives, willingly obey the law, and then DIE FOREVER ANYWAY.
May I share what I think is one of the most ominous passages in the Bible? It's Mt 12:43-45. What happens when you cast a demon out of a man, without replacing that demon with Christ? The demon wanders, and eventually returns to find its former place swept, place in order - AND UNOCCUPIED. Likewise, we can make culture moral and lawful and good in every aspect, and still lost.
That's the tension we Christians must face in worldly politics - we must do good, and in fact are required by God to choose good over evil, but that can't be an end in itself. That was what I took away from Steve's sermon last Sunday.
My conclusion is that you start from faith, and politics proceed from that as a subset of our faith. We're not here to vote Heaven on Earth into existence; it's not going to happen, even though we are required to support godly principles.
Your thoughts?
- Keith
WOW! Somebody actually pays attention.
:•)
Steve: you didn't think I was having a "snooze in the pews," did you?
Kidding aside, sometimes I feel the tension of Christians engaging the culture today is like that of Isaiah (Isa. 6:8-12); we are commanded to speak, knowing in advance the majority will not listen, and will not hear. All we will be able to accomplish is to call a remnant out of the dying culture before it crashes into the far wall.
That remnant must be pretty important...
- Keith
nice to have you back M
<< Home