Why's my absentee ballot blank?

[Dr Strangelove]

Does or does not the House of Lords actually have some legislative power?

[Dr Strangelove]

Meanwhile in Florida in order to prevent another "chad" fiasco electoral officials are taking ballots and "copying" them over before counting them to ensure that they're completed "properly". ( Oh my goodness, surely you didn't mean to mark that spot. Here, let me correct that for you. )

[Hauldren Collider]

Does or does not the House of Lords actually have some legislative power?

They have some, but not a lot. From what I can tell (Brits please correct me if I'm wrong) they basically serve on legislative committees and help write legislation, but don't really have any actual voting power. So they basically have their industry experts as an official part of the legislature, unlike our system of lobbyists who largely serve the same function.

[Dr Strangelove]

Lobbyists are glorified salesmen. Do you know how much expertise salesmen generally have in the field of the item they're selling? Not much in my experience.

[kentonio]

The way it used to work (not sure if its changed) is that teh Lords could propose amendments and hold up legislation for a certain amount of time to prevent rushed and badly thought out laws. The commons retained the power to overturn that, but it was rarely used until Blair started doing it a lot (because he was a ****ing idiot who had no respect for parliamentary process).

[Dinner]

Vote straight ticket? You mean there is one box you check and then you automatically vote for everyone of that party affiliation? That's extremely odd to me because here you have to check a box for every single office up for election and to do other wise just seems wrong to me. To much like machine politics. I mean really? One box is all a partisan needs to fill out? At least make the bastards work for it.

[Hauldren Collider]

Lobbyists are glorified salesmen. Do you know how much expertise salesmen generally have in the field of the item they're selling? Not much in my experience.

You actually don't know anything about lobbyists, do you?

[Hauldren Collider]

The way it used to work (not sure if its changed) is that teh Lords could propose amendments and hold up legislation for a certain amount of time to prevent rushed and badly thought out laws. The commons retained the power to overturn that, but it was rarely used until Blair started doing it a lot (because he was a ****ing idiot who had no respect for parliamentary process).

This is why in the US we rely more on codified procedures rather than tradition, and our constitution requires a supermajority to amend.

[C0ckney]

They have some, but not a lot. From what I can tell (Brits please correct me if I'm wrong) they basically serve on legislative committees and help write legislation, but don't really have any actual voting power. So they basically have their industry experts as an official part of the legislature, unlike our system of lobbyists who largely serve the same function.

to address a couple of the questions in this thread.

the law lords: before the establishment of the supreme court in 2009 the highest court in the land was the house of lords. senior judges (you had to have 15 years experience as a barrister, or a judge in a senior court (the high court or court of appeal) for at least two years) were appointed lords and served in that capacity. there were a maximum of twelve (IIRC - i may be wrong about this) and the maximum that could hear any one case was nine.

the house of lords: used to be made up of mostly hereditary peers (i.e. those that had inherited their titles). the majority of them have now gone (92 remain) and this means that the vast majority are now appointees, chosen by the political parties to serve for life. there are also 26 bishops. the appointees (life peers) vary a lot, you have old politicians, civil servants, businessmen, scientists and experts from many other walks of life.

the house can introduce legislation on any topic, except money bills and does so quite regularly. however, it is mostly a revising chamber. that is to say, it looks at bills passed by the commons and amends them as it thinks necessary before sending them back to the commons for a new vote. if the two chambers disagree, there is a process by which the house of commons can force through legislation. this takes around 2 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Going back for a second - people are surprised that Alby is one of the biggest partisans on this site?

[Hauldren Collider]

to address a couple of the questions in this thread.

the law lords: before the establishment of the supreme court in 2009 the highest court in the land was the house of lords. senior judges (you had to have 15 years experience as a barrister, or a judge in a senior court (the high court or court of appeal) for at least two years) were appointed lords and served in that capacity. there were a maximum of twelve (IIRC - i may be wrong about this) and the maximum that could hear any one case was nine.

the house of lords: used to be made up of mostly hereditary peers (i.e. those that had inherited their titles). the majority of them have now gone (92 remain) and this means that the vast majority are now appointees, chosen by the political parties to serve for life. there are also 26 bishops. the appointees (life peers) vary a lot, you have old politicians, civil servants, businessmen, scientists and experts from many other walks of life.

the house can introduce legislation on any topic, except money bills and does so quite regularly. however, it is mostly a revising chamber. that is to say, it looks at bills passed by the commons and amends them as it thinks necessary before sending them back to the commons for a new vote. if the two chambers disagree, there is a process by which the house of commons can force through legislation. this takes around 2 years.

I think the fact that you have any hereditary peers still is absurd, but the rest of this sounds totally reasonable (except I'm not sure I agree with the life appointments thing).

[Uncle Sparky]

I'm not sure how it works in the states, but in Canada all mail in ballots are blank. It is unrealistic for every election office to have all the ballots for every district, village, county, etc in the country. So yes, you need to know the names, and approximate spelling, of every candidate for every office in your district. (This would mean if you have two or more candidates with similar names, say McDonnel and McDaniel, you had better nail the spelling or you ballot will be discarded.) Put in a bit of effort.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is it really that unreasonable? They seem to manage to print candidate's names on ballots here in Virginia, even if it's for something stupid like Water Runoff Board Member.

[Uncle Sparky]

You need to maintain the integrity of the ballot (at least in Canada and I honestly think the US really does try). And you've really just made my case: I forgot that some jurisdictions elect DAs, judges, sheriffs, dog catchers, etc. The regular ballot, with the candidates listed, are generally printed in the state the election is to take place, and cast and counted in the way the state determines. In most cases, federal congressional boundries do not line up with state congressional boundries, which may not line up with county boundries, which may not line up with school division boundries. You may be voting for the same state senator and DA and dog catcher as the person across the street, but you may be voting for different state congress seats, aldermen, and school board members. Your polling station will be equipped for this. If you show up in a different state, it would take them quite a while to figure out exacty what races you are entitled to vote in, especially if you have a rural address - street addresses in towns and cities are easier to map than "rural routes" or "township roads". So they hand you a blank ballot, you fill it out, they seal it in an envelope, and ship it to your home district to be counted. The people in you home district will know if I.P. Knightly really is running for the senate, and register your votes accordingly.

Actual voting methods vary from state to state. Mail in ballots are hand written and hand counted. I've counted them in Canada, and especially if you are in a district where the race is expected to be close, you can expect the scrutineers (candidate's reps) to challenge unclear names, as I previously pointed out.

[kentonio]

I think the fact that you have any hereditary peers still is absurd, but the rest of this sounds totally reasonable (except I'm not sure I agree with the life appointments thing).

While it sounds absurd, in practice it works surprisingly well. You have a set of people who are beholden to no party, generally feel an honest sense of duty to country and who tend to be very long term thinking.