Left In Lowell

The Blank Vote as a Form of Protest

28 Responses to “The Blank Vote as a Form of Protest”

1. K-R-S Says:
   October 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm

   As I recall Mimi, Golden & Murphy didn’t have as many blanks as Nangle. This recollection based upon the citywide results, the Sun had on primary night and has yet to release to the public. Mim’s remember the city wide print out we saw???? I thought that document provided a great deal of information regarding the voting patterns of the city.

2. I81U812 Says:
   October 2nd, 2006 at 6:05 pm

   Vote for Nangle….vote for blank…what’s the difference?

3. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   October 2nd, 2006 at 6:47 pm

   Actually Mimi is correct, at least in my case. I make it a point not to vote for anyone who is running unopposed. I it my own little protest against not having a choice.

4. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   October 2nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm

   It is my own little protest, not I it!

5. Josh Says:
   October 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 am

   The best one I heard was a write-in 5th district rep that said “Anybody but Marty”

6. Renee Says:
   October 3rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm

   It would be interesting if the had the option of “none of the above” for each office. I swear that a state out west has the option, I’ll try to see if I can find some info on that.

7. Renee Says:
   October 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm

   It’s Nevada, but they don’t have a write in option.

   http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/faq.htm

   Does Nevada have a “None of These Candidates” or “None of the Above” option on the ballot?
   Yes, NRS 293.269 requires that ballots for statewide offices, President, and Vice President permit a vote to express a choice of “None of These Candidates.” However, only votes cast for named candidates are counted in determining the nomination or election to these offices.
   Can I write my name on the ballot or write someone else’s name on the ballot as a candidate?
   No. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 293.270 prohibits write-in candidacy.

8. Peter Porcupine Says:
   October 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm

   Actually, None of the Above is a VERY popular write-in vote! I just did a recount, nad ‘he’ did well.

   Makes as much sense as the Sec. of State write-in for Bill Blass!

9. Brian Says:
   October 3rd, 2006 at 8:51 pm

   I always leave blank any ballots for unopposed candidates as a protest. I suppose it is unfair to those candidates who by dint of good work are so popular that no one will run against them, but I consider it more important to register my disappointment that so many lousy officials are not being challenged.

10. Brian Says:
    October 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    By the way, what the heck does the clerk of the courts do and why do we need to elect one?

11. Lowellian Says:
    October 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    So are you guys all miffed at Deval for pulling a “Galvin” and refusing another (and this one local) debate with Kerry Healey?? Probably not because certain standards appear to be applicable only to certain candidates and public officials around here people. I happen to think Deval’s decision is wise. Why risk a comfortable lead in the polls? And I defended Galvin for the same approach with Bonifaz. But I remember all the crying about it on this blog. I find it hypocritical and VERY amusing!

12. K-R-S Says:
    October 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm

    Lowellian..What on Earth are you talking about?

13. waittilnextyr Says:
    October 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    He must be talking about this:
    LOWELL — A gubernatorial debate to be hosted by the Nonprofit Alliance of Greater Lowell, scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 10, at UMass Lowell’s Durgin Hall has been canceled, Victoria Fahlberg, executive director of ONE Lowell, said yesterday, because the two most prominent players — Republican Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Democrat Deval Patrick — refused to participate.

    “The lieutenant governor never even replied at all,” she said. “The Patrick campaign came back and said we didn’t give them enough time (to plan).”

    However, it seems like it was never really organized, and Healey is a non-responding no show. As it is, there have been 2 debates already, with 3 more scheduled.

14. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 8:40 am

    (Originally posted as Lynne because she keeps forgetting to logout of her LiL account on my laptop)

    No hypocrisy here. Galvin didn’t want a single debate. Patrick has agreed to what?.. four? And that’s not counting the debates in the primary.

    Debates are important because they provide an opportunity for the public to see a candidate’s ideas and qualifications defended and compared. This could be done without a debate, to be sure. In the legal system we find the adversarial system of a courtroom useful for discovering the truth. The context is useful in the debate because in a candidate’s facing of the challenge of live criticism, the debate provides is valuable opportunity to evaluate the candidate on his or her feet.

    Deval has taken part in many debates this campaign season and will face more in the future. No contest when comparing this to Galvin’s refusal to be challenged or evaluated on that level at all.

    Not to mention that, according the article, both participants refused when your post seemed to imply that this was Deval thumbing his nose a debate. You are amused by the hypocrisy of the blog??? Indeed. Lets all take a step back and be amused that Lowellian has put his or her foot in their mouth yet again.

15. Lowellian Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Of course Patrick has debated. In fact, I aknowledged that when I said that he would not commit to “another” debate. A non-incumbent (such as Patrick) in a race with several other strong candidates for an open gubernatorial seat has no choice but to debate. But now that the race is down to 2 and he has a comfortable lead, a new strategy is employed. I don’t blame him. I would do the same thing under the circumstances. However, others have been criticized on this blog for employing the same strategy. Let’s just be fair OK? But “foot in mouth”? I don’t think so.

16. K-R-S Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Lowellian, I don’t see it as foot in mouth..believe me, if I thought it was (even if I liked the guy), I would criticize.
    The way I read the article, which I read this morning, he had another engagement and couldn’t do it. He did not reply, that he would be there (like Galvin) (my understanding) and then decline or not bother to show. The Lt. Guv. apparently, never even bothered to respond.
    This is my impression of the issue.

17. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    Lowellian: I will address that at later date when I have time. But you’re way off base once again.

18. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    Again…. I hate to teach basic logic to you Lowellian, but it would only be hypocrisy (that is… failing the ’shoe on the other foot’ test) if and only if critisizing Galvin for his decision in his situation necessarily obligates you to critisize Patrick in the same situation. The situations are different therefore no such test is applicable. You fail logic 101.

19. Lowellian Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    Of course criticizing Galvin does NOT necessitate a similar attack on Patrick! However, I happen to think that Galvin should not have been criticized for not debating Bonifaz- debate him ABOUT WHAT?? He was hardly representative of some broad based solid campaign based on any serious issues and lacked any significant support among the voters. If a candidate cannot generate enough interest in his own campaign, why is it the job of the other guy (in this case Galvin) to generate publicity for his opponent??

20. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 7:36 pm

    Glad to se we have established that there is no hypocrisy.

21. Lowellian Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    Yeah, but we haven’t really established why exactly Galvin was so sharply criticized for not debating Bonifaz. As I asked before - about what? It was a race of non-issues…..

22. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    In my mind I’m dissapointed that Galvin, by refusing any debate, indicated he felt no obligation to have his views and performance tested… at least not tested to the extent that a debate allows. Since a debate allows for an opprtunity for evaluation that is far more thorough than a mere campaign speech or website.

    Many would say that its not morally right to take constituants for granted… that is for a candidate to duck being evaluated by voters.

    So while I agree strategically it can (and appears to have been so in this case) be advantageos to duck a debate, that is to say ‘right’ strategically, that doesn’t necessarily make it ‘right’.

23. waittilnextyr Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 9:36 pm

    Whar Galvin did was right strategically, but a disservice to some of the voters, and it is understandable they would criticize him for it.

    What Patrick did was right tactically (not a well-organized debate), and not a disservice to the voters, as he is putting himself before them in several well-organized debates. It would be unreasonable to criticize him for that, and therefore not criticizing him for it cannot be hypocritical, even for those who criticized Galvin in his case.

    The only valid criticism may come from the organizers, as only they know how well they attempted to put together the debate. It would seem that their criticism would be more addressed to Healey for not responding, as opposed to Patrick who had the courtesy to respond, albeit a rejection based on his schedule time.

24. Lowellian Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    THe voters still got to “evaluate” Galvin at the polls- the only place it really counts. But the fact that it is now said that there was a “disservice” to the voters in the case of the Galvin race but NOT in the case of Deval Patrick is so typical. You could very well argue exactly the opposite- that there was nothing to debate between Galvin/Bonifaz (which is not stretching the truth) and therefore no disservice to the voters but in the case of Patrick/Healey there are SO MANY important issues that we need as many debates as we can fit into the next few weeks. I happen to be a D.Patrick supporter but does the LOVEFEST ever end??

25. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 10:54 pm

    There is a difference between a resume and an interview. An employer would be derilict in giving a job to someone for whome they have seen their resume, but not had an interview. The interview is part of due dilligence and a prosepective employee would be unacceptably arrogant to expect a job without an interview. The interview is a necessary test that must be passed before you can go on toward employment. That is the way some on this blog feel about a debate. Deval has had many debates and will have more. Galvin wanted your vote without any debate. Picture being asked to choose a new employee with not interview and only a resume. You still choose, but the circumstances are, at a minumum, unfortunate.

    Whatever your position (agreeing or disagreeing) the above is a reasonable position and demonstrates no hypocrisy. You brought up hypocrisy and your last post brings up a love-fest. This seems to indicate that you wish to believe that your charges point out an unreasonable and overly supportive deference to Patrick. I think I and Waittil have shown that the position is very reasonable. Lynne likes Patrick, many do (check a poll). But the idea that on this issue of debates that support for Patrick flies in the face of reasonableness has been debunked.

26. K-R-S Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 10:58 pm

    So…Lowellian, where would YOUR vote go, in the MA Gubernatorial election? ( at this point in time)

27. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    October 5th, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    Actually I understand where our friend Lowellian is coming from. Mr Galvin did not debate his opponent. It was a wise decision on his part to not attract attention to someone who had zero recognision.

    If Galvin agreed to a debate and didn’t show up, well then that should bew front page news…however given today’s media, they don’t even know who or what the sec of state does.

    Changes need to be made, so what changes and how are they going to be made?

28. Lynne Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    According to the stories in the papers, one of the forums/debate groups DID think Galvin was coming - I believe they said they were told he was planning on it.

    Then he didn’t show up.

    So yeah, he was irresponsible allegedly too.

Leave a Reply