"Present" = "No"

[calteacherguy]

That's the way it works in the Illinois state legislature. The practical effect of voting "present" on a bill is the same as voting "no" because it requires a majority of legislators to pass a bill, not just those present.

So when Obama said you have to vote yes or no on a bill he was absolutely correct. You vote yes by voting "yes." If you wish to vote "no" you can do so by voting "no" or "present." Or just not vote at all, which also has the same effect.

Can we please end this non-issue "controversy" now?

[msongs]

1. or you could just vote no and end it all as well nt

[calteacherguy]

2. But why does it matter? It doesn't matter. nt

[Occam Bandage]

3. So why ever vote "no?"

[calteacherguy]

6. Depends how strong a message you want to send and the nature of the bill.

Is the bill something feel strongly about, or is it a bill that has some good points and bad points? Is the intention of the bill good, but it just trys to achieve the intent in an incorrect way? It's good to have choices. Three choices are better than two.

Regardless, as I stated in the OP, there is no contradiction in what Obama said in "The Audacity of Hope." Not voting, or voting "present" on a bill means you are not lending your support to that bill. It has the same efffect on the passage or non-passage of the bill as voting "no" (in the state legislature, in the Senate the rules are a majority of those present).

[ClarkUSA]

17. The "present" votes were on "gotcha" bills by the GOP.

Obama wisely used a common IL Senatorial procedural method as a way to finesse the outcome and defeat the bills.
The "present" votes also represent only 3% of the 4000 votes he cast as an IL lawmaker. Read the facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3870386&mesg_id=3870386

[durrrty libby]

4. Tripe

[sniffa]

5. fascinating

:thumbsup:

[indimuse]

43. OH YEAH...

REAL FASINATING....HA HA HA..

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

Why is ObamaNation calling Obama a liar?

[calteacherguy]

8. Right.

Did you read the OP? According to the rules of the Illinois state legislature, voting "no" is the same as voting "present."

You must, therefore vote either for the bill (by voting yes) or against the bill (by voting no, present, or simply not doing anything at all).

Voting present is the same a voting no as far as the effect of the bill's passage or non-passage.

All state legislators do this. There is nothing weak, underhanded, or "cowardly" about it. It's part of the give and take of the legislative process.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. So, was Obama lying then, or now?

ObamaNation doesn't really care, of course. He's Shiny. And Pretty. And New. :sigh:

[calteacherguy]

10. He wasn't lying then or now, as I have explained fully.

What part of my post do you not understand?

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Present.

That good enough for you? :rofl:

[calteacherguy]

12. We aren't voting on a bill in the Illinois state legislature.

So your response is non-sensical.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

What part of Obama's statement don't you understand?

[calteacherguy]

16. Correct.

I fully understand the statement. Are you angry with Obama because he didn't explain the intricacies of the state legislature? If so, perhaps you should start a thread about that.

You must vote yes or no because there is no way to avoid it....especially in the state legislature. Even if you choose not to vote, it has the same practical effect on the passage or non-passage of the bill as voting "no."

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Too funny, you posted a 'Pass'!

:rofl:

[calteacherguy]

21. You aren't making any sense, just laughing hysterical.

Is this the end of our "debate," then? If so, clearly I have won.

[ClarkUSA]

24. You are only interested in attacking Obama with daily Mark Penn talking points

Good luck with that... others will be interested in the facts about Obama's voting record as an IL lawmaker:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3870386&mesg_id=3870386

For an alleged Richardson supporter, you sure post a ton of OPs that sound as if they were lifted off HillaryIs44. :eyes:

[indimuse]

45. “If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,”

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

[MNDemNY]

36. If t's the "same" then vote no for crissake!

To vote present is the cowards way out BHO is a coward.

[indimuse]

44. SO WHAT ARE THR RULES IN WASHINGTON DC??

WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN SHOW UP...IMPORTANT ONES?

[maximusveritas]

30. You are misrepresenting what he said in the book

I just looked it up in my copy and he wasn't saying it as a rule, that it would be wrong to do otherwise. He was saying it was a bad thing that you have to vote yes or no when some bills are just crap. So he was basically making an argument for "present" votes.

What you're doing is dishonest. There's no way you could read his book and come away with the interpretation you did.

[Lucinda]

14. Nope. And it's not a non-issue, not to me anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/

The link above talks about the pros and cons of his decision to vote present so many times. It's not as easily wiped away as you seem to want it to be...

[calteacherguy]

26. This is a smear campaign.

Let's just call it for what it is, O.K?

Everyone in a state legislature votes "present" at times when that is the best course of action. It has no different effect on the passage or non-passage of a bill than voting no.

This is nothing more than an attempt to distort the facts on the part of the Clinton campaign. I'm glad the media is covering this more, because it's going to backfire on Hillary.

[Lucinda]

28. Did you read the article?

[calteacherguy]

29. I did.

In fact, I'm going to use the article in a new OP. The article does an excellent job of explaining the process in the Illinois legislature, and what kind of message voting present can send in different circumstances.

It clearly shows the nature of this smear campaign.

:thumbsup:

[Lucinda]

46. I see facts, pro AND con, and you see smears. Glad you find it useful though.

[Nailzberg]

31. Thanks for the link, I sent my first correction to the NYT

He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

NYT got that wrong. This bill actual failed 33-15-5. Amateurs.

[LostinVA]

15. Then, have a spine and vote no

[ClarkUSA]

19. See reply #17

Before you say more...read my reply to OB.

[calteacherguy]

20. How does voting "no" show more of a "spine"

when the effect is the same?

Planned Parenthood asked him and other Dems to vote present. He was trying to support women's rights in the best way possible (in one of the instances of a "present" vote).

[LostinVA]

22. It shows a definitive stance

[calteacherguy]

23. Voting "present" shows a definitive stance.

If you understand the political process in a state legislature. Some bills don't even deserve to be voted on, but that's beside the point.

[sam sarrha]

25. it is also a way to vote YES on something that'd make you look like a ReThug, if your vote is not

counted no it is a yes vote for the opposition.. so it can be a big F'n deal.. and a LIE in a later campaign

[calteacherguy]

27. That is factually incorrect.

"If your vote is not counted no it is a yes vote for the opposition"

Any vote besides "yes" has the practical effect of a "no" vote. That's the way it works in the state legislature. It requires a majority of all elected legislators to pass a bill (unlike in the Congress).

[durrrty libby]

32. Wow. You sure need to invest a lot of time defending such a small

ingredient of the Obama recipe

Who knew "add a dash of salt" would be so tedious and exhausting to explain?

Can't wait to read about the main course:boring:

[sam sarrha]

33. if the opposition has one vote over a tie and you vote present, the Thugs win,

present is not a vote, it is a cheap way of not standing up to the thugs and later taking credit that you did

[calteacherguy]

34. That's not how Obama voted.

And it's irrelvant to the point of this thread.

[Nailzberg]

35. Incorrect. The IL General Assembly does not work that way.

The only votes that affect the passage of a bill in the IL Senate are affirmative votes. Currently there are 59 state senate districts in IL. A bill cannot pass without a majority of those elected voting affirmative, so supporters must gather 30 votes. Present votes do not change the amount needed for a majority. A bill with 29Y-1N-29P fails.



Senate Rule 5-1(f)
No bill shall be passed by the Senate except on a roll call vote of a majority of those elected.

"Majority of those elected" is defined in
Senate Rule 1-12 as
an absolute majority of the total number of Senators entitled to be elected to the Senate, irrespective of the number of elected or appointed Senators actually serving in office. So long as 59 Senators are entitled to be elected to the Senate, "majority of those elected" shall mean 30 affirmative votes.

[CTLawGuy]

37. forget it

Hillary supporters will not listen to reason. Reason just gets in the way of dishonest smear opportunity.

[indimuse]

42. Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade

Barack Obama, Free Trade Agreements, Obama CAFTA, Obama Free Trade Agreements, Obama NAFTA, Breaking Politics News



On Tuesday, Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.

www.huffingtonpost.com/_67922.html World's Worst Negotiator - Politics ...
Yup - Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush's top priorities - even as Bush blocks the entire Democratic agenda and daily rains rhetorical abuse

down on Democratic heads. Is this how Obama is going to negotiate in the White House?

[opihimoimoi]

38. Obama will lose the Gen by a large margin because of the Pub Surge

He needs to find a good Vice Prez candidate....once nom'd that is....perhaps ...but...most likely the Pubs will swamp him

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. Baloney. "Present "is a chicken's way of getting out of taking a stand

on anything. He doesn't have a record on anything because he doesn't take a stand on anything.

[mtnsnake]

40. I don't blame you for wanting to "please end this non-issue controversy now", teacher

I'd be embarrassed if I had to live with that issue under my skin, too. Yikes!!

[indimuse]

41. SHUT UP!!!!!!

LIAR! OBAMAROMNRYISM...