Miscellaneous desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 16

Punch card v system

Hi lately I am very passionate about punch cards, the Votomatic. I have a question: when the voter voted, was he given the entire card with the space even for the write-in candidates, or was he the voter himself who requested it? I mean if the voter already had in mind to vote for the candidate on the ballot, was there no need or error? Another thing: if he voted for a fallen in write, was the card inserted in the ballot box? Was the piece ripped before or after the card was deposited in the ballot box? Thank you.

You'd get the whole card, necessarily, because of ballot secrecy. If you had to ask a poll worker for a special kind of ballot in order to do a write-in, that would reveal your voting intentions. You can buy those machines, cards, etc. on ebay if you want them. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of the U.S. your political party registration is known to elections officials. At least for primary elections, voters may get different ballots depending on party registration. Of course, this doesn't absolutely guarantee the election official knows how you'll vote, but it's a good guide. (It's hard to make general statements about U.S. voting because it's mostly up to state and county or territory governments, and thus varies a lot.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the laws governing primaries in a given state, someone may vote in the opposite party they would normally support, in order to vote against someone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean they intentionally pick a bad candidate for the opposite party, hoping that will cause them to lose the general election, then yes, that is something to be avoided. I find myself wondering if both candidates were chosen this way in the last US Presidential election. :-( On the other hand, if they chose the best (in their opinion) candidate for the opposing party, just in case they win, then that should lead to a better outcome. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If wishes were horses..." Yes, ideally we would do what's best for the country. Whatever that might be. But how many truly good people run for office? I like to quote Will Rogers on the general subject: "We have the best politicians money can buy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was picked that way in 2016 (search for "pied piper strategy" which I'm surprised we don't have an article about), but Clinton was the overwhelming favorite of her party's insiders, and she and Bill had huge influence in the party, so her nomination was expected. There was an almost similar situation with her in 2008 but Obama scored an upset against her that time. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could vote against someone that they consider a truly bad candidate (who, nonetheless seems to have support within their own party) in an attempt to prevent that person from being nominated. --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kneel to children

Why do some teenagers or adults/grownups get down on their knees in front of small/little children? 86.135.188.210 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you can talk to them on the level. Or do their shoes up for them. Or look at the interesting stone they want to shew you. All sorts of reasons. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The face shows very important nonverbal communication cues, and it makes communication less effective if the two parties can't see each other's faces eye-to-eye. You will also sometimes see small children do the reverse, and stand on a chair so they can be at eye level with adults. It's instinctive, for most of us, to do so. An exception is those on the autism spectrum, for whom face-to-face encounters can be unpleasant. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a royal brat feels entitled to a piggyback ride, bending the knee is better for the spine than catching it with your neck from behind, from a height. Inertia makes heavyweights of us all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In layman's terms, kneeling to speak to and listen to small children allows for eye contact and for them to feel that they are being listened to and also by engaging them with direct eye contact it helps to have them listen to what you are saying and gets better results generally speaking. It also makes for a closer connection between two people in conversation which can be very rewarding for an adult in conversation with a small child. I would suggest attempting this technique when next discussing something with a small child. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this being the Reference Desk, here is a reference:

Communicating With Young Children, Peggy O. Harrelson, Extension Specialist, Child Development, Virginia State University: "Communication is more effective if both people are on the same level". Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Stewart's speech in front of the government panel

Which representatives were supposed to be at the meeting with Jon Stewart, the video of which was posted everywhere in the last few days? And which were not present? Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.) were the only two subcommittee members who did not attend, said Daniel Schwarz, a spokesman for subcommittee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). Other members cycled in and out of the hearing, Schwarz said," per Washinton Post. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Dean was not there for Jon Stewart's speech. She was there for other parts of the meeting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This news article lists the Reps who specifically were not there for Jon Stewart's testimony, as opposed to the rest of the day's events. [1] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a link to the news article. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the end of the comment before his username. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]