Should I vote against the anti-gay marriage amendment? (explanation inside)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously I am quite opposed to the amendment. However under Minnesota law all constitutional amendments require a majority of votes cast on all ballots to pass, not just ballots with a vote for the amendment, hence leaving it blank is essentially equivalent to voting no. Someone from my church on Facebook is advocating therefore to just leave that part of the ballot blank, she basically believes we should refuse to even acknowledge the amendment in protest to it even being on the ballot and it's not even a legitimate use of the amendment process that is being abused by the GOP.

I'm quite sympathetic to her reasoning, but at the same time it'll be quite satisfying to fill in the bubble next to "NO", plus I like the idea of inflating my precinct's NO percentage, it's going to be massively against it and I want to at least break 80% (the white vote is going to be well into the nineties for voting against, but of course that won't true for everyone voting.) So a little torn, but leaning toward actually voting no.

[dead0man]

I'd vote no for the, as you said, satisfaction of it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It would also be satisfying though to do what she says she might if Minnesota remains safe Obama, which is just scribble over the ballot and cast it spoiled, yet still counting against the two amendments on it. But I want to vote for Obama, so I'm not doing that.

[後援会]

...what kind of church are you going to?

[Alcon]

Yes.  This is dumb, especially because there is a very real risk that No might fall under 50%, or that Yes might secure a plurality while still losing (which would look terrible.)  It's also dumb in general -- why would you want to make it look like you're an ignorant voter instead of inflating your precinct's total?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yeah, it's not like it's going to pass anyway considering you live in Minnesota.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...what kind of church are you going to?

One full of hipsters where last week the guy preaching was wearing a hoodie.

Yes.  This is dumb, especially because there is a very real risk that No might fall under 50%, or that Yes might secure a plurality while still losing (which would look terrible.)  It's also dumb in general -- why would you want to make it look like you're an ignorant voter instead of inflating your precinct's total?

Yeah that's kind of what I'm thinking and while I'll still vote no. I see her point though.

[morgieb]

Yeah, it's not like it's going to pass anyway considering you live in Minnesota.

Polls have been kinda tight and one did pass in California.

[Torie]

Putting aside the mathematics of it all, a blank ballot is more "spinnable" by the "God told us the term "marriage" is between two genders" crowd than a no vote. Just picture in your mind what Michelle Bachmann will say about it.

[afleitch]

Putting aside the mathematics of it all, a blank ballot is more "spinnable" by the "God told us the term "marriage" is between two genders" crowd than a no vote. Just picture in your mind what Michelle Bachmann will say about it.

This. If you oppose something then vote it down.

[Bacon King]

Putting aside the mathematics of it all, a blank ballot is more "spinnable" by the "God told us the term "marriage" is between two genders" crowd than a no vote. Just picture in your mind what Michelle Bachmann will say about it.

This. If you oppose something then vote it down.

^^^^^

Exactly. Torie and afleitch are right on the money here.

Imagine a result that looks something like:

49.5% Yes
48.0% No
  2.5% blank

Would mean that the GOP would have a huge hissyfit about the loss especially considering that the election-night results would give the results as 50.8% Yes, 49.2% No, since they don't include blank votes. The networks might even neglect to check the technicalities and declare the amendment to have passed.

In that situation, you might even have "Minnesota Amendment 2012" join "Washington 2000", "Minnesota 2008," and such as examples of "ZOMG EVUL democRAT ELECTION FRAUDS." And you'd definitely have a push for a revote in 2014 where the conservatives will be heavily motivated.

Better to draw the line in the sand, defeat the anti-gay movement outright, let them know they're outnumbered and their bigotry has no place in your state.

[minionofmidas]

Everyone will assume you people were just too torn on the question. Unless you get some huge campaign out there and/or there's past precedent of such campaigns.