(no subject)
Sep. 12th, 2006 12:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaMaryland's primary elections[1] are today, so I voted on my way to work. We've got an open Senate seat this fall - Paul Sarbanes is retiring, and a grand total of twelve different candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination - and so the primary holds more interest than it ordinarily might. (In contrast, my Congressman is running unoposed - not just in the primary, but in the general election.)
I care about the Senate nomination. I care about the Congressional and Gubernatorial races, but those are uncontested primaries. To a lesser extent, I care about the races for state comptroller (because the incumbent is a truly horrible man) and attorney general. I care slightly about the Maryland House of Delegates and the State Senate. And then, of course, there were a number of down-ballot races on the ballot that I knew nothing about at all. Judges, the sheriff, the county clerk, the city attorney, et cetera.
I did a little independent reading about the Senate and attorney general candidates. I went with the local alternative newsweekly's endorsement in the comptroller's race, given that my only real preference, based on general newspaper reading, was "NOT the incumbent." For the State Senate and House of Delegates, I went with Equality Maryland's endorsements. And for the races lower on the ballot, I mostly left the ballot lines blank.
It made me curious: how do you all make decisions about the minor races on the ballot? Do you research everything? Do you follow someone's advice? Do you pick people at random? For the purposes of the following poll, use your own definition of "down-ballot races" - I'm not going to try to stipulate where the cut-off lies between major and minor races. And, as always, feel free to elaborate in comments.
[Poll #819245]
[1] For non-U.S. readers, primary elections are how the members of U.S. political parties decide which candidates will represent their party in the general election. Different states have different systems, but typically, when a person registers to vote they are given the option of affiliating with a political party, and if they do so they are then eligible to vote in the primary election for that party.
I care about the Senate nomination. I care about the Congressional and Gubernatorial races, but those are uncontested primaries. To a lesser extent, I care about the races for state comptroller (because the incumbent is a truly horrible man) and attorney general. I care slightly about the Maryland House of Delegates and the State Senate. And then, of course, there were a number of down-ballot races on the ballot that I knew nothing about at all. Judges, the sheriff, the county clerk, the city attorney, et cetera.
I did a little independent reading about the Senate and attorney general candidates. I went with the local alternative newsweekly's endorsement in the comptroller's race, given that my only real preference, based on general newspaper reading, was "NOT the incumbent." For the State Senate and House of Delegates, I went with Equality Maryland's endorsements. And for the races lower on the ballot, I mostly left the ballot lines blank.
It made me curious: how do you all make decisions about the minor races on the ballot? Do you research everything? Do you follow someone's advice? Do you pick people at random? For the purposes of the following poll, use your own definition of "down-ballot races" - I'm not going to try to stipulate where the cut-off lies between major and minor races. And, as always, feel free to elaborate in comments.
[Poll #819245]
[1] For non-U.S. readers, primary elections are how the members of U.S. political parties decide which candidates will represent their party in the general election. Different states have different systems, but typically, when a person registers to vote they are given the option of affiliating with a political party, and if they do so they are then eligible to vote in the primary election for that party.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-12 07:32 pm (UTC)B
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-12 08:20 pm (UTC)Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-12 08:24 pm (UTC)Does anyone else in the running even stand a chance?
B
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-12 10:52 pm (UTC)I'm part of Zogby's Internet polling pool, and they've never even really asked about anyone but Cardin, Mfume, and (recently) Josh Rales. Not any of the rest of them. But I had never even heard of Rales until Zogby asked about him, and neither had Michael.
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-12 11:04 pm (UTC)B
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-13 10:09 pm (UTC)Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-13 10:08 pm (UTC)(Cardin has been declared the winner, the news says.)
Mfume is acceptable, but I think Cardin is clearly more competent.
What I haven't seen mentioned here is how Baltimore and Montgomery County screwed up the elections so many people didn't get to vote. Baltimore forgot to send the electrical cords for some of the machines and got a court-ordered extra hour to vote. Montgomery didn't send the voter cards so there was, in some places, almost three hours before the machines could be used. There weren't enough paper ballots in several polling places and people were voting on scraps of paper and the line was so long many people had to leave. In addition, 20 techs quit that morning so they had to have other staff set up the machines. The judge ordered them an extra hour, too, but it still wasn't enough for everybody to vote who wanted to.
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-13 10:10 pm (UTC)Avi Rubin wrote about the debacle.
B
Re: MD Senate
Date: 2006-09-13 11:19 pm (UTC)