Question 1: Yes 53% NO 47%

You can find other diaries on this (0.00 / 0)

at Daily Kos here, here, and here.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:58:08 AM CST

I would like to know... (0.00 / 0)

...how many towns last night called in the wrong numbers (switched the actual vote tallies for Question 1) to defeat this question? Seriously, I would really like to know!  

---

by: KayInMaine @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:12:15 AM CST

And.... (0.00 / 0)

...it wasn't lost on me that it was California who stood up to accept the Yes On Hate "victory" last night to a crowd of what...20 people?

THE MOMENTUM AND THE VOTES WERE ON THE NO ON 1 SIDE! We won last night.  

---

by: KayInMaine @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:13:19 AM CST

lucky (0.00 / 0)

dosen't feel so lucky this morning...bummed out about 1

---

by: Lucky @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:31:17 AM CST

Please... (0.00 / 0)

... every time we lose, can we not blame it on voter fraud? There are enough reasons to distrust the election system without introducing claims without evidence, and frivolous claims tend to discredit the true ones.

So, KayInMaine, can you back up your claims? If you can, I'd be very, VERY interested to hear about that.

---

by: lambert @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:38:08 AM CST

Excuse me.... (0.00 / 0)

....are you saying I cannot question the results? The night of the election it felt like something strange had happened, okay?

You're the one making false claims about me. Reread what I asked/wrote.  

---

by: KayInMaine @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:20:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NO pushed the issue forward. (4.00 / 1)

NO ran an excellent campaign and did in fact extend their support base well beyond their core.  They did it by sticking to fairness values and enlightening the public.  That said, YES managed through a combination of fear, suspicion of government intent, pulpit haranguing, and playing on fears and ignorance to suppress reason.  The YES bar was lower and by taking the low road they lowered some of their fellow citizens' legislated rights.

I am pondering this morning the sheer appropriateness of a peoples' veto when it is applied to any group's rights.  Tyranny of the majority is a powerful force when it can take away the rights of any minority.  Putting taxation to a vote is one thing; placing individual rights in front of the electorate is entirely something else.

One wonders hypothetically how a people's veto of the Civil Rights Act would have fared in the 1960s.  All progress won on that front came from continual civil disobedience, legislation, and judicial redress; broader popular backing took decades.  And while progress has been made, racism lingers.

The legislature should be encouraged to again take on the issue forthrightly.  

---

by: Bruce Bourgoine @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:33:59 AM CST

Voting on the rights of a minority (0.00 / 0)

in a popular referendum (as opposed to legislative bodies) has never made any sense to me.  Another example to add to your list was the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which was passed by Congress in 1972 but never ratified by enough states.  Although we represent more than half of the population, we were unable to win the popular vote on that question.

---

by: marisol @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:38:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You give another very valid example of what is wrong with the process. (0.00 / 0)

Imagine how would these hypothetical referendums gone:

- 1886; An act to allow free passage of Native American buffalo hunters thoughout the Dakota Territory.
- 1942; An act to safeguard Japanese American civil rights in California

The "peoples' veto" is a wide open affair and perhaps that should be examined.  (See Maine Constitution)  

---

by: Bruce Bourgoine @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:26:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Again I will argue that without the (4.00 / 1)

substantial early contribution to S4MM from NOM, it is very likely the required signatures would NOT have been gathered, and so Question 1 never placed on the ballot.

Since money equals free speech, what is necessary is that who is behind the money become public knowledge. It was disclosed that NOM had donated money - but where did NOM's money come from? Also, opponents of Q1 - but more importantly the news media in Maine - should have made sure everyone knew that money from away was used.

I agree with Bill's take in his Cheers & Jeers this morning - It probably wouldn't have affected the outcome of the race by much. But it would have (and perhaps still can) laid a foundation for Mainers for the future.

I can't imagine that there would be much support for eliminating the initiative process. But revising it to better fulfill its original intent is certainly necessary.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:35:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Turnout overwhelmed us (0.00 / 0)

It's an ironic fact that the very thing the No on 1 campaign was focused upon- turnout - was what defeated this question in the end.  My observation as a lowly volunteer was that the campaign did an excellent job at identifying their voters and getting them out to vote.  Just look at the results from Portland, Cumberland County, and all of the major college towns (Orono, Farmington,Brunswick, Waterville, Gorham,etc.)  Lewiston is the exception on that list.

But I think no one was really prepared for a 60% turnout, and it's clear that a small majority of Mainers just aren't ready to treat everyone in our state equally.  I'm extremely disappointed and angry, but can't honestly say I'm surprised.  The decisive margins against this question in many counties show that there's still a long way to go.

My congratulations go out to the No on 1 folks for running a truly great & respectful campaign.  And condolences to all GLBT Mainers who were hoping so much for this morning to be different.

---

by: marisol @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:34:19 AM CST

Well put. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jm @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 22:41:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bill in Portland Maine has his own (0.00 / 0)

take on yesterday's vote.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:44:50 AM CST

It's a pretty incisive viewpoint (0.00 / 0)

The "ick" factor he talks about is exactly what the opposition's ads were selling.  I think the "no" campaign chipped away at that attitude with their TV ads especially, showing all kinds of Maine families in support of the law.

One of my colleagues at work, a lifelong Mainer, just commented that he was stunned that 47% would vote to support "gay marriage", and saw it as a real step forward.  I'm going to stop readin the blogs now and try to hold that optimistic viewpoint for the rest of the day :)

---

by: marisol @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:44:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rallies across the nation in (0.00 / 0)

support of gay marriage, in regards to the people's veto being successful. Amazing, really.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:51:41 PM CST