Submitted by GraniteGeekNH t3_yx2xqm in newhampshire
Let's see - recounts made one seat flip to Dems by 1 vote, one seat flip to Dems by 2 votes and one seat end up in a friggin tie. So right now, the party breakdown in the Statehouse is 200R - 199D - the tied seat could tie up the whole Legislature if it turns out to be a Dem win.
This NH election is now the default answer when somebody says "My single vote won't change anything"
[deleted]
I mean, just ask Dick Hinch.
I see what you did there
But those issues got out the vote, at least among the still living.
how about forcing a jab that gives healthy young people heart problems?
Knew some dipshit would bring this up.
But by all means, go ahead and tell me how Trump kidnapping people is equivalent to taking reasonable measures to slow the spread of a deadly contagion and help protect people from it.
^^THIS^^ 👍👏👏💖
“Nobody is forcing you to get vaccinated”
HR: “Please provide us proof of vaccination or you’re terminated.”
Yeah I guess being threatened with poverty and unemployment isn’t forcing somehow? Makes perfect sense
What is it you right-wingers always say? "Don't like your job then go find another one!!!!" Well there you go. Stop your fucking bitching. Go find another job that lets you act like a Typhoid Mary.
You could also take my advice and go fuck off and live in the woods since you don't want to do your part to live in society with other people. Go build your own shelter. Hunt your own food. Total freedom.
I've now said this three times and you keep ignoring and not addressing it, so I'm done now.
Solid argument you got there bucko
Says the guy whose rebuttal is "solid argument you got there bucko" lol
Because you cannot be reasoned with if you truly believe what you said
I can be reasoned with if what someone says is reasonable.
Unfortunately, "my right to not get a vaccine based on misinformation is more important than N number of other peoples' right to not be infected by me due to my selfish behavior" is not a reasonable position to hold.
And again, you have a right to not get vaccinated. You do NOT have a right to not get vaccinated and be near other people.
Businesses also have a right to prioritize the health and safety of their workers and fire you if you cannot respect their policies. Companies fire people for a whole lot less.
I love how you're predicating your argument based off the vaccine being effective against covid when clearly it was not and the CDC even said so. If it was, people like Biden and Rochelle Walensky wouldn't have been infected. You're literally brain washed my guy. Good luck to you
> I love how you're predicating your argument based off the vaccine being effective against covid when clearly it was not and the CDC even said so
There's that misinformation I was talking about.
See ya chump. You've been reported for spreading misinformation and now you're blocked.
Have fun in your right-wing echo chamber consuming misinformation and propaganda.
[deleted]
💯
tell that to everyone in Canada who was forced. Tell that to everyone who got fired for not getting it. No one should have to have a reason not to het jabbed to avoid getting fired. I had to jump through hoops at two companies to not get fired. Everyone was lied to. Big pharma admitted it never stopped you cathing it, it never stopped you spreading it, and after 2 weeks the jab was basically useless. FUCK YOU.
> tell that to everyone in Canada who was forced.
I'm not Canadian so I can't comment on Canada's requirements but I'm guessing since all of your other comments are made in bad faith, you're probably lying or flat out wrong that Canada was forcing people to get vaccinated under threat of arrest.
> Tell that to everyone who got fired for not getting it.
Already addressed that above. You ignored it. You don't have a right to put other peoples' lives at risk. Don't want to get the vaccine? That's your choice. It's also your employer's choice to protect their employees and fire your selfish ass. You exist in a society with OTHER PEOPLE. You are not an island.
> I had to jump through hoops at two companies to not get fired.
Boo hoo snowflake.
> Everyone was lied to.
No they weren't. I mean you were by all the anti-vax propaganda you willingly consumed, but not everyone.
> Big pharma admitted it never stopped you cathing it, it never stopped you spreading it, and after 2 weeks the jab was basically useless.
The link I posted which you clearly and obviously just ignored, says otherwise ;)
This dipshit cant be reasoned with, don’t waste your thumbs. Have a great day and thanks for actually being informed
Put down the phone and take a walk. Life is too short to get this angry over a reddit comment.
Oh did Big Pharma admit that?
Show any evidence at all apart from your assertion.
Hmm... Interesting. I'm looking at the statutes and NH Constitution regarding how ties are handled. For Senator, Governor, and Executive Councilor, there's explicit language specifying what to do. But I'm not seeing the exact language for handling ties in the House.
660:24 State Offices in State General Elections. – If the candidates having the highest number of votes for the office of governor, councilor, state senator, or state representative shall have an equal number, the choice shall be made as provided in the state constitution. Such candidate chosen shall then be declared duly elected. (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-24.htm)
So that says "look at the state constitution." But I'm not seeing where the state constitution says that ties in House races get thrown to the legislature to be resolved, only for the other offices. https://www.nh.gov/glance/house.htm
Can anyone point me to the section of the constitution that specifies how ties in the House are handled, if one exists? "As provided in the state constitution" implies that one should, but I don't see it unless it's meant to indicate 'using the same process as the others,' but that's not the plain reading of the language.
Could be that they throw it back for a special election, which would be a very, very interesting situation.
One thing to keep in mind is that it’s exceedingly rare for every house member to be in attendance for any given vote.
I’ve read quotes over the last week from conservative lawmakers saying that no partisan bills are likely to hit the floor, as the outcome will be decided pretty much by whichever party had less people stay home that day.
Yeah, I will not be too surprised if they come to some kind of power-sharing agreement so that every day doesn't start with a motion to vacate the chair based on who attended that day. The Republicans wouldn't want to risk being shut out themselves if they tried to shut out Democrats at the start, or at least might not so a "we both agree to joint control" thing might happen.
They still have some challenged ballots to go over. If it’s still tied after that, iirc the House decides the winner.
Yes, that's what the news articles were saying. But I went to go look up the exact law about how to handle ties for a House seat, and couldn't find language saying that ties for House seats go to a joint session of the House and Senate the way Senate, EC, and Governor ties would. I thought I'd toss it out here and see if someone could find the correct statute or section of the constitution that governs House ties.
Part 2, Art 5 reads in part: “provide by fixed laws for the naming and settling, all civil officers within this state, such officers excepted, the election and appointment of whom are hereafter in this form of government otherwise provided for;…”
And then the best I can find is RSA 660.24 https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/search/default.aspx
So it looks like 660.24 points to the constitution and P2Art5 gives them the authority.
It’s weird because a Senate tie is clearly spelled out in the constitution: [Art.] 34. [Vacancies in Senate, How Filled.] And in case there shall not appear to be a senator elected, by a plurality of votes, for any district, the deficiency shall be supplied in the following manner, viz. The members of the house of representatives, and such senators as shall be declared elected, shall take the names of the two persons having the highest number of votes in the district, and out of them shall elect, by joint ballot, the senator wanted for such district; and in this manner all such vacancies shall be filled up
That's exactly the point I got to. It's very specific about Senate ties, but not about what the procedure is for ties in the House. I agree that it's weird, and that was why I wondered if I was just overlooking some relevant section.
In the constitution it just says the house will have the right to decide who is seated. If you search for the word “elect” you’ll find it. It’s just one line. I assume there is case laws that builds out from there.
I believe if you look at the rules of the House, it says they have ultimate decisions about its membership ….. or something like that. I know the language is more specific than what I quoted.
I just watched "Swing Vote" last night, where the presidential election came down to one guy who had a weird instance voting so got to recast his ballot a week later and had both candidates courting his vote, etc. Pretty funny.
And he was a guy who always said one vote didn't matter...
I would have wrote in 'neither of the idiots'
This is wild!
I'd be curious if anyone has calculated the odds of this happening.
this isn't a case where you can "calculate the odds" since it's so dependent on variables of behavior, history, etc. - it's not an arithmetic problem
There are a finite number of votes, races and options so this can absolutely be calculated.
Behavior and history are irrelevant, it would be a calculation of "what are the odds of the results of this election coming out exactly as they have based on the possibilities".
That said, you may also be trying to bait me into actually determining that, which I will not 😁
> which I will not
no balls
If you model each race as a coin flip, there's a 3.99% chance of a 200-200 tie. (Much more likely than my intuitive guess.)
if you model each race as a coin flip then it's irrelevant to reality, which is the point I (clumsily) tried to make - it's arithmetically/statistically OK but says nothing whatsoever about how likely it is that the situation will occur in a real election involving real people.
This is the "spherical horse in a vacuum" situation: Reduce the problem's complexities to fit our ability to calculate.
Most likely. This is the kind of stuff that statisticians live for, lol.
Portland, ME had a tie earlier this year in a city council race and their bylaws dictated that a coin toss determined the winner 😂
perfectly reasonable - leave it up to the Gods if humans can't decide
[removed]
Dumbasses will still say that because they're not saying it because they don't understand arithmetic; they're saying it because they're either stupid, ignorant, lazy, and/or apathetic.
They're used to one side winning by a landslide, no need to throw insults.
Nh was a great state till all the assholes from Massachusetts moved there
You mean Freestaters?
Oh no! People can live wherever they want and express their beliefs! How unamerican!
[removed]
phpdevster t1_iwmx5hz wrote
I wonder if the Republican party is regretting making anti-vax and Covid denialism a party platform issue.
Twice as many Republicans died of Covid as Democrats, prior to the midterms.