Various Votes

by Liberty and Power

I know the polls are still open in some states, but I'm afraid Ron Paul just won't be winning tonight.

In other news, Mass voters have apparently voted to decriminalize (smallish amounts of) marijuana, but also to ban dog track betting. I've been trying to figure out whether that's a net gain or net loss for liberty, but I'm also trying to get these papers graded.

UPDATE: I did get the papers graded. And I don't think it's an awful thing that the Democrat won last night. I'll get a meatier post on that up as soon as clear my desk of some time-sensitive tasks.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/5/2008

Exactly. The slave states were the ones who wanted 5/5, and the free states wanted 0/5. 3/5 was the compromise.

Less Antman - 11/5/2008

Naturally, I was only intending a little humor, but I always have wondered about whether this rule was viewed as being a victory for the pro-slavery or the anti-slavery side, since the political strength of the slave states would have been best at 5/5 and worst at 0/5.

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/5/2008

Of course, the "original intent" of the 3/5 rule was to _disempower_ slave-owning racists. How this morphed into a talking point for civil-rights activists escapes me. The slaves weren't regarded as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes, they were regarded as 0/5 and had no legal rights at all. Counting them as 3/5 for the purposes of allocating congressional representation for slave states makes the slave states _weaker_ relative to non-slave states.

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/5/2008

The prop 1 vote was to retain the income tax. I think the combination of (a) the general financial crisis both in country as a whole and here in Mass and (b) fear that the elimination of a state income tax would result in higher sales, excise, and property tax (rather than smaller govt) led to it being roundly defeated. That really didn't surprise me. OTOH, I was (pleasantly) surprised that the ballot question on decriminalization passed. I wasn't surprised about the dog racing question because I had no hunch in the first place about how it would go. I think for a lot of people, it was more a matter of "protect animal rights" than "protect the freedom to gamble," and viewed in that light, it's less incongruous that I suggested it was in my original post.

Common Sense - 11/5/2008

It's a net gain. Throwing people into prison for ingesting something less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol (not that they should be illegal) is worse than denying people the freedom to watch dogs race.

What about Prop 1?

Less Antman - 11/5/2008

I couldn't resist:

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/supreme-court-rules-for-mccain/

In an emergency hearing, the Supreme Court, citing the “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution, voted 5-4 that each ballot cast for Illinois Senator Barack Obama only counts as 3/5 of a vote. As a result, Arizona Senator John McCain received a plurality of votes in all 50 states, giving him all 538 electors and the presidency. Former Georgia Congressman and Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr declared the results a vindication of his campaign strategy, touting his tie with Obama in the electoral college as evidence that the LP is no longer just a third party, but now the co-second most popular party in America.

David T. Beito - 11/5/2008

Somehow this reminds reminds me of what Senator Hayakawa said when asked about his stand on Greyhound racing. His answer was "I doubt give a damn about Greyhound racing."