Yup, didn't know until your thread that it was Young v Bayh.
Hopefully anti-Pence sentiment gets Bayh the edge he needs. It would be very weird for Indiana to have two Democrat senators, if only for two years before Connelly likely gets swept out.
Yup, didn't know until your thread that it was Young v Bayh.
Hopefully anti-Pence sentiment gets Bayh the edge he needs. It would be very weird for Indiana to have two Democrat senators, if only for two years before Connelly likely gets swept out.
I didn't either until I wrote the thing.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Alright, my political black out is over. Sort of catching up on the last week, glad I went in to black out mode, I would have had a heart attack. Election day is finally upon us. Looking decent for the Hilldawg, not so sure about the senate.
Alright, my political black out is over. Sort of catching up on the last week, glad I went in to black out mode, I would have had a heart attack. Election day is finally upon us. Looking decent for the Hilldawg, not so sure about the senate.
So after last night, I figure I'd post about some happier news that happened down-ticket in Missouri and Kansas:
Missouri
While there is some pretty bad news from the Show Me state (all statewide elections went GoP. Already veto-proof state legislature is even redder, Voter ID passed) Amendment 2, which put restrictions on campaign contributions (limiting the amount that can be contributed by both individuals and businesses, and restricting the ability of PACs to hide where the money's coming) passed by pretty strong margins, as well as continuing the tax that was used for cleaning and protecting Missouri's water. Going even more local (most of this is for me) Jackson County (where downtown KCMO resides) and Kansas City, Missouri bills to maintain the taxes for the courts for getting low-level drug offenders into rehab rather than prison, more money for social workers, and more money for the main library system all passed.
Kansas
While the federal elections stayed red, the state legislature has gotten bluer, gaining 12 state house seats as well as a state senate seat. While that brings them nowhere close to a majority, it does give the enough of a coalition with moderate Republican's sick of what Brownback's doing to the state to push back on some of the worst parts of his infamous tax plan, including (hopefully) the income tax exemption for businesses that several businesses that benefit have said they don't need or want. On top of that, all 4 of the State Supreme Court Justices that were targeted by Brownback Republicans won their retention elections, so Kansas is keeping the stopgap that has prevented it from further attempting to achieve full derp. For the KCK area, voters overwhelming approved a bond measure to rebuild crumbling schools, add an early childhood center and add college prep classes.
Some more happier state-centered elections:
Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington all raised their state minimum wage to $12 and hour.
Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota legalized medical marijuana, and California, Massachusetts and Nevada recreational use.
State Sen. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, has won re-election with a margin of just 58 votes in a race that is likely to be subject to a recount.
With all precincts reporting Wednesday, Shilling finished with 43,565 votes to 43,507 for Republican Dan Kapanke, who was seeking to retake the seat he lost in a 2011 recall. There are also 34 provisional ballots that will have to be counted if the voters show up by 4 p.m. Friday with valid identification.
She's rumored to be the democrats choice for gubernatorial candidate in 2018. I mean, it's nice they're not looking for a candidate from Milwaukee again as the state as a whole just will not accept anyone from Milwaukee or Madison as governor, but if she can just barely win her re-election it does not give me much faith for 2018.
NH flipped Governor to Republican, but the candidate on the other side wasn't necessarily amazing.
NH did, however, replace Senator Kelly Ayotte - R with Maggie Hassan - D and Representative Frank "fuck campaign finance laws" Guinta - R with Carol Shea-Porter - D.
NH's federal contingent is now all women and all dem.
There's plenty of stuff to run for in Missouri in the next couple of years. I'm sure Ellison will be reaching out to exactly that kind of person in the next couple of months.
What's the best way for someone out of state to help with the LA runoff? Do they have online phone banking like Hillary did?
I thought you were talking about the little-discussed effort to convince LA county residents to move to Florida.
It doesn't help that I have been calling it "Flood the Swamp" in my head, which may as well describe Lousiana too.
But then I googled LA Runoff and now I'm sad.
No, I'm talking about the Louisiana senate race. Is this worth helping out on? I have family members raring to go and asking me if this is a good idea and how to help.
Curious to see how this race goes. LA went hard for Trump, but will there be a backlash of angry D's while R's stay home and pat themselves on the back?
NH flipped Governor to Republican, but the candidate on the other side wasn't necessarily amazing.
NH did, however, replace Senator Kelly Ayotte - R with Maggie Hassan - D and Representative Frank "fuck campaign finance laws" Guinta - R with Carol Shea-Porter - D.
NH's federal contingent is now all women and all dem.
The former was also the case after 2012, when Guinta had just been defeated. The latter hasn't been the case since 1855.
Top-two (a system utilized by Washington State as well as California) provides that the two leading vote-getters in a nonpartisan primary (candidates can, if they wish, designate their party affiliation, but they all run in the same contest open to all voters) go on to the general election. That means in theory and increasingly in practice that two candidates from the same party are competing in November. And so: two Democratic women, Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez, are competing to succeed Barbara Boxer, one of the two Democratic women representing the Golden State in the U.S. Senate.
But in parts of California, the Democratic ballot domination is total. As Javier Panzar of the Los Angeles Times points out, a large swath of heavily populated Los Angeles County has no Republicans on the ballot at all:
When 818,000 voters in Los Angeles County fill out their ballots this election, they will find themselves in strange political territory: The only Republican names they’ll see will be presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence.
In this GOP “dead zone” — spanning parts of five congressional districts, five state Assembly districts and one state Senate district — not a single Republican candidate made it on to the November ballot.
Local elections in California are conducted on a nonpartisan basis, so there may be some stealth Republicans lurking way down ballot. And there are a few places in the state where Republicans dominate enough to win their own primary shutouts. But not many:
Excluding the U.S. Senate race, 27 of 153 down-ballot contests across California will have candidates from the same political party. During state elections in 2012 and 2014, there were 28 and 25 same-party contests, respectively, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan election guide California Target Book.
But during those years, at least seven of the intraparty contests were between Republicans. This year there are only four Republican-on-Republican battles — all Assembly races.
In short, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit that disenfranchise wide swaths of the population. The "non-partisan" part of the races is just the fecal cherry on top.
It's just a runoff election. I don't see why you're so worked up over it. One-stage runoff elections get closer to the Condorcet criterion than FPTP but start to diverge from it when there are four or more popular candidates.
Put another way: if the voters of California would overwhelmingly prefer either Harris or Sanchez over Sundheim, then why should Sundheim be on the ballot?
Because, given the vast disparity between the primary and general electorate, you can't actually make that argument. (This is where Louisiana actually gets that this is actually a general election, and holds it with the presidential general election, whereas CA and WA treat the election still as a primary.) There's also the issue where the party that better protects against splits can win, even if they have the smaller vote share (see the WA state treasurer election.) There's also the issue that because you've replaced the primary with a general election, you've lost all the aspects of the primary that brought them about in the first place.
Splitting didn't happen here, though. If a state has more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans, as California does, then it makes sense for the final runoff to be between two Dems. You'd disenfranchise more people than you'd help if you replaced Sanchez with some Republican.
And as for Washington, maybe you want to take a look at how they got that top-two election in the first place.
Why does it "make sense" that an entire portion of the political spectrum be excluded from the election? And if the tables were turned, would you be all that happy with Democrats being excluded because there are more Republicans in the state?
And the reason that both CA and WA got jungle "primaries" is because it's pushed as a "good government" change.
In order to actually produce a result where only one party gets on the final ballot either the party that doesn't get on has to run many candidates or the other party has to have a substantial supermajority
- This is a 4-way race and the dem nominee managed a strict majority
- The pub and green candidates lost to a write-in even if you added their votes together
- You have to go back to the 60s to find a republican who won here
- Both of the top two dem primary vote totals would still have beaten the green and pub vote combined from the general election
The dem primary here is the election. Arguably having the actual ballot be between the top democrats here would serve the population better and it would give non-dem primary voters an actual choice instead of a fait accompli of the dem primary winner always winning
Top-two (a system utilized by Washington State as well as California) provides that the two leading vote-getters in a nonpartisan primary (candidates can, if they wish, designate their party affiliation, but they all run in the same contest open to all voters) go on to the general election. That means in theory and increasingly in practice that two candidates from the same party are competing in November. And so: two Democratic women, Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez, are competing to succeed Barbara Boxer, one of the two Democratic women representing the Golden State in the U.S. Senate.
But in parts of California, the Democratic ballot domination is total. As Javier Panzar of the Los Angeles Times points out, a large swath of heavily populated Los Angeles County has no Republicans on the ballot at all:
When 818,000 voters in Los Angeles County fill out their ballots this election, they will find themselves in strange political territory: The only Republican names they’ll see will be presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence.
In this GOP “dead zone” — spanning parts of five congressional districts, five state Assembly districts and one state Senate district — not a single Republican candidate made it on to the November ballot.
Local elections in California are conducted on a nonpartisan basis, so there may be some stealth Republicans lurking way down ballot. And there are a few places in the state where Republicans dominate enough to win their own primary shutouts. But not many:
Excluding the U.S. Senate race, 27 of 153 down-ballot contests across California will have candidates from the same political party. During state elections in 2012 and 2014, there were 28 and 25 same-party contests, respectively, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan election guide California Target Book.
But during those years, at least seven of the intraparty contests were between Republicans. This year there are only four Republican-on-Republican battles — all Assembly races.
In short, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit that disenfranchise wide swaths of the population. The "non-partisan" part of the races is just the fecal cherry on top.
It's just a runoff election. I don't see why you're so worked up over it. One-stage runoff elections get closer to the Condorcet criterion than FPTP but start to diverge from it when there are four or more popular candidates.
Put another way: if the voters of California would overwhelmingly prefer either Harris or Sanchez over Sundheim, then why should Sundheim be on the ballot?
Because, given the vast disparity between the primary and general electorate, you can't actually make that argument. (This is where Louisiana actually gets that this is actually a general election, and holds it with the presidential general election, whereas CA and WA treat the election still as a primary.) There's also the issue where the party that better protects against splits can win, even if they have the smaller vote share (see the WA state treasurer election.) There's also the issue that because you've replaced the primary with a general election, you've lost all the aspects of the primary that brought them about in the first place.
Splitting didn't happen here, though. If a state has more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans, as California does, then it makes sense for the final runoff to be between two Dems. You'd disenfranchise more people than you'd help if you replaced Sanchez with some Republican.
And as for Washington, maybe you want to take a look at how they got that top-two election in the first place.
Why does it "make sense" that an entire portion of the political spectrum be excluded from the election? And if the tables were turned, would you be all that happy with Democrats being excluded because there are more Republicans in the state?
And the reason that both CA and WA got jungle "primaries" is because it's pushed as a "good government" change.
In order to actually produce a result where only one party gets on the final ballot either the party that doesn't get on has to run many candidates or the other party has to have a substantial supermajority
- This is a 4-way race and the dem nominee managed a strict majority
- The pub and green candidates lost to a write-in even if you added their votes together
- You have to go back to the 60s to find a republican who won here
- Both of the top two dem primary vote totals would still have beaten the green and pub vote combined from the general election
The dem primary here is the election. Arguably having the actual ballot be between the top democrats here would serve the population better and it would give non-dem primary voters an actual choice instead of a fait accompli of the dem primary winner always winning
And if the situation was reversed, sure
Except if the Democrats run enough candidates, they sout the vote and lose. Unless the parties have ballot control (ie - they approve who runs on their ticket) it's a big issue.
So uh... how did all those propositions in California shake out?
Prop 51 - ($9 billion in bonds for schools) : Passed with 54% of the vote
Prop 52 - (Extend medical fee beyond 2018) : Passed with 70% of the vote
Prop 53 - (Require voter approval for all projects over $2B) : Failed with 49%, close enough that Ballotpedia doesn't have it marked as such so might be waiting for all provisionals to be counted
Prop 54 - (Public display of all bills for 72 hours before voting) : Passed with 65%
Prop 55 - (Extension of income taxes over $250k/yr) : Passed with 63%
Prop 56 - (Tobacco tax) : Passed with 64%
Prop 57 - (Redefining parole, allowing judges instead of prosecuters to choose juvenile vs adult) : Passed with 64%
Prop 58 - (Allow bilingual education) : Passed with 73%
Prop 59 - (Citizens United is bad) : Passed with 53%
Prop 60 - (Condoms in porn) : Failed with 46%
Prop 61 - (Tie costs to VA) : Failed with 46%
Prop 62 - (Repeal the death penalty) : Failed with 47%
Prop 63 - (Background checks for ammo) : Passed with 63%
Prop 64 - (Legalize marijuana) : Passed with 57%
Prop 65 - (Charge money for grocery bags) : Failed with 46%
Prop 66 - (Change death penalty appeal procedures) : Passed with 51%, close enough that Ballotpedia doesn't have it marked so it might be waiting for all provisionals
Prop 67 - (Plastic bag ban) : Passed with 53%
While that's not how I voted on everything, death penalty aside, that's not an awful result.
e: meanwhile, my county voted in favor of a sales tax increase for specific road projects which we need with 65% of the vote, but because tax increases need a 2/3rds majority, it failed. *sigh* and yes, I realize that sales tax is one of the worst ways to pay for those things because they're regressive, but any other tax would also fail, but the projects need to be done.
Proposition 67 ratified Senate Bill 270. The measure was designed to prohibit large grocery stores and pharmacies from providing plastic single-use carryout bags and ban small grocery stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores from doing so the following year. It allowed single-use plastic bags for meat, bread, produce, bulk food, and perishable items. The measure required stores to charge 10 cents for recycled, compostable, and reusable grocery bags. Revenue from the charge was intended to cover the costs of non-plastic bags and educate consumers. Proposition 67 exempted consumers using a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program from being charged for bags. The measure provided $2 million to state plastic bag manufacturers for the purpose of helping them retain jobs and transition to making thicker, multi-use, recycled plastic bags.
Everyone brings their own bags or buys reusables at the store.
If you have meat that can drip onto fresh food, fuck off I guess?
They still have the little plastic bags in the produce and meat sections. Since nobody wants to just throw a pile of Brussels sprouts loose in their grocery bag, or whatever.
I like this prop, because I recognize the harm of plastic bags, but I am too fucking lazy to bring in my own bags unless forced.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+6
Options
Waffles or whateverPreviously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen"Registered Userregular
edited November 2016
Reddit is getting all crazy on the recount band wagon for the election. Me on the other hand, I feel pretty confident in that Nate Silver posting a few pages back. That recount isn't going to change anything and serves as a distraction to the bigger issues at hand.
To clarify - prop 67 was the actual 'plastic bag ban' prop, which created a 10 cent fee per bag (plastic and paper).
Prop 65 was, in theory, a prop to say that that 10 cent fee shouldn't go to the grocer, but should go to environmental causes. However, the way it was written, if prop 65 got more votes than prop 67, it appeared that there would actually be no ban at all (as prop 65 was written to supersede 67, but didn't actually have the actual ban as part of its text). Which is why it didn't pass - 67 had the support of the Dem party, whereas 65 did not (officially they were 'no opinion') and was actually opposed by the Green party.
@Jragghen which county? I know the SanDag one seemed to be around there, but it's so terribly run I think a lot of people voted No to avoid throwing good money after bad.
If I understood this correctly I have a question. Why is it even possible for the Californian state to decide how much shops charge for grocery bags?
And I say this as a swedish citizen, the country that invented the modern bureaucracy and where almost half the national GDP comes from the public sector.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
If I understood this correctly I have a question. Why is it even possible for the Californian state to decide how much shops charge for grocery bags?
And I say this as a swedish citizen, the country that invented the modern bureaucracy and where almost half the national GDP comes from the public sector.
Because California is slightly insane when it comes to propositions
If I understood this correctly I have a question. Why is it even possible for the Californian state to decide how much shops charge for grocery bags?
And I say this as a swedish citizen, the country that invented the modern bureaucracy and where almost half the national GDP comes from the public sector.
Because the government has the power to do just about anything as long as it doesn't violate any protected rights and has some kind of rational basis. The only weird thing here is that it's going directly to the electorate and not just being passed like any other law.
Reddit is getting all crazy on the recount band wagon for the election. Me on the other hand, I feel pretty confident in that Nate Silver posting a few pages back. That recount isn't going to change anything and serves as a distraction to the bigger issues at hand.
I don't think it will be enough to change somethibg, but I think there are enough signs of errors, potential hacking and corruption that I want it investigated this time so that it doesn't skew the election next time. The counties with too many votes and the aging voting machines are highly suspect to me, and I want both those mistakes resolved by 2018.
Also, ifor the recount efforts gather steam, and then take a while, Trump will be distracted cursing them and everyone involved in them. If the Greens make themselves the public face, then it might drive some of their voters to the dens when they see how important stopping him is.
Posts
Yup, didn't know until your thread that it was Young v Bayh.
Hopefully anti-Pence sentiment gets Bayh the edge he needs. It would be very weird for Indiana to have two Democrat senators, if only for two years before Connelly likely gets swept out.
I didn't either until I wrote the thing.
Flip a coin!
Missouri
While there is some pretty bad news from the Show Me state (all statewide elections went GoP. Already veto-proof state legislature is even redder, Voter ID passed) Amendment 2, which put restrictions on campaign contributions (limiting the amount that can be contributed by both individuals and businesses, and restricting the ability of PACs to hide where the money's coming) passed by pretty strong margins, as well as continuing the tax that was used for cleaning and protecting Missouri's water. Going even more local (most of this is for me) Jackson County (where downtown KCMO resides) and Kansas City, Missouri bills to maintain the taxes for the courts for getting low-level drug offenders into rehab rather than prison, more money for social workers, and more money for the main library system all passed.
Kansas
While the federal elections stayed red, the state legislature has gotten bluer, gaining 12 state house seats as well as a state senate seat. While that brings them nowhere close to a majority, it does give the enough of a coalition with moderate Republican's sick of what Brownback's doing to the state to push back on some of the worst parts of his infamous tax plan, including (hopefully) the income tax exemption for businesses that several businesses that benefit have said they don't need or want. On top of that, all 4 of the State Supreme Court Justices that were targeted by Brownback Republicans won their retention elections, so Kansas is keeping the stopgap that has prevented it from further attempting to achieve full derp. For the KCK area, voters overwhelming approved a bond measure to rebuild crumbling schools, add an early childhood center and add college prep classes.
Some more happier state-centered elections:
Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington all raised their state minimum wage to $12 and hour.
Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota legalized medical marijuana, and California, Massachusetts and Nevada recreational use.
She's rumored to be the democrats choice for gubernatorial candidate in 2018. I mean, it's nice they're not looking for a candidate from Milwaukee again as the state as a whole just will not accept anyone from Milwaukee or Madison as governor, but if she can just barely win her re-election it does not give me much faith for 2018.
NH did, however, replace Senator Kelly Ayotte - R with Maggie Hassan - D and Representative Frank "fuck campaign finance laws" Guinta - R with Carol Shea-Porter - D.
NH's federal contingent is now all women and all dem.
Everything I see from this guy makes me like him.
Am I missing anything?
Otherwise he seems pretty alright for a Missouri Democrat.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Idk where he can go from here but I hope we see him in office again soon.
put him in charge of the DCCC or DSCC?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
There's plenty of stuff to run for in Missouri in the next couple of years. I'm sure Ellison will be reaching out to exactly that kind of person in the next couple of months.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Crosspost from "Other" thread
Yeah, I copied, and yes, they do.
http://www.fostercampbell2016.com/volunteer/
There's a check box for it, anyway.
----
Curious to see how this race goes. LA went hard for Trump, but will there be a backlash of angry D's while R's stay home and pat themselves on the back?
The former was also the case after 2012, when Guinta had just been defeated. The latter hasn't been the case since 1855.
In order to actually produce a result where only one party gets on the final ballot either the party that doesn't get on has to run many candidates or the other party has to have a substantial supermajority
Let's look at an election that probably should be done with a jungle primary but isn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_mayoral_election,_2016
- This is a 4-way race and the dem nominee managed a strict majority
- The pub and green candidates lost to a write-in even if you added their votes together
- You have to go back to the 60s to find a republican who won here
- Both of the top two dem primary vote totals would still have beaten the green and pub vote combined from the general election
The dem primary here is the election. Arguably having the actual ballot be between the top democrats here would serve the population better and it would give non-dem primary voters an actual choice instead of a fait accompli of the dem primary winner always winning
And if the situation was reversed, sure
Except if the Democrats run enough candidates, they sout the vote and lose. Unless the parties have ballot control (ie - they approve who runs on their ticket) it's a big issue.
Another example would be in WA state. Three Dems ran, got the majority between them.
Two GOPers ran though. And had the highest individual totals. So no Dems in the general.
So no, you need neither a substantial difference nor a large supermajority.
Hey if you live in Minnesota district 32B, stand the fuck by!
If you want to make a difference locally,
2017 School Board Elections
Municipal Elections
Also VA and NJ have governor and state legislature elections.
Oh my god, Little Canada!!!
Dems Abroad are setting up a phone banking campaign this weekend.
Just in case y'all thought we only do Pres things.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Prop 51 - ($9 billion in bonds for schools) : Passed with 54% of the vote
Prop 52 - (Extend medical fee beyond 2018) : Passed with 70% of the vote
Prop 53 - (Require voter approval for all projects over $2B) : Failed with 49%, close enough that Ballotpedia doesn't have it marked as such so might be waiting for all provisionals to be counted
Prop 54 - (Public display of all bills for 72 hours before voting) : Passed with 65%
Prop 55 - (Extension of income taxes over $250k/yr) : Passed with 63%
Prop 56 - (Tobacco tax) : Passed with 64%
Prop 57 - (Redefining parole, allowing judges instead of prosecuters to choose juvenile vs adult) : Passed with 64%
Prop 58 - (Allow bilingual education) : Passed with 73%
Prop 59 - (Citizens United is bad) : Passed with 53%
Prop 60 - (Condoms in porn) : Failed with 46%
Prop 61 - (Tie costs to VA) : Failed with 46%
Prop 62 - (Repeal the death penalty) : Failed with 47%
Prop 63 - (Background checks for ammo) : Passed with 63%
Prop 64 - (Legalize marijuana) : Passed with 57%
Prop 65 - (Charge money for grocery bags) : Failed with 46%
Prop 66 - (Change death penalty appeal procedures) : Passed with 51%, close enough that Ballotpedia doesn't have it marked so it might be waiting for all provisionals
Prop 67 - (Plastic bag ban) : Passed with 53%
While that's not how I voted on everything, death penalty aside, that's not an awful result.
e: meanwhile, my county voted in favor of a sales tax increase for specific road projects which we need with 65% of the vote, but because tax increases need a 2/3rds majority, it failed. *sigh* and yes, I realize that sales tax is one of the worst ways to pay for those things because they're regressive, but any other tax would also fail, but the projects need to be done.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Everyone brings their own bags or buys reusables at the store.
If you have meat that can drip onto fresh food, fuck off I guess?
65 failed 67 passed. Had both passed, the one which has the most yes votes would have been the one implemented.
Are paper bags no longer used in CA?
They still have the little plastic bags in the produce and meat sections. Since nobody wants to just throw a pile of Brussels sprouts loose in their grocery bag, or whatever.
I like this prop, because I recognize the harm of plastic bags, but I am too fucking lazy to bring in my own bags unless forced.
Prop 65 was, in theory, a prop to say that that 10 cent fee shouldn't go to the grocer, but should go to environmental causes. However, the way it was written, if prop 65 got more votes than prop 67, it appeared that there would actually be no ban at all (as prop 65 was written to supersede 67, but didn't actually have the actual ban as part of its text). Which is why it didn't pass - 67 had the support of the Dem party, whereas 65 did not (officially they were 'no opinion') and was actually opposed by the Green party.
@Jragghen which county? I know the SanDag one seemed to be around there, but it's so terribly run I think a lot of people voted No to avoid throwing good money after bad.
And I say this as a swedish citizen, the country that invented the modern bureaucracy and where almost half the national GDP comes from the public sector.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Because California is slightly insane when it comes to propositions
Because the government has the power to do just about anything as long as it doesn't violate any protected rights and has some kind of rational basis. The only weird thing here is that it's going directly to the electorate and not just being passed like any other law.
I don't think it will be enough to change somethibg, but I think there are enough signs of errors, potential hacking and corruption that I want it investigated this time so that it doesn't skew the election next time. The counties with too many votes and the aging voting machines are highly suspect to me, and I want both those mistakes resolved by 2018.
Also, ifor the recount efforts gather steam, and then take a while, Trump will be distracted cursing them and everyone involved in them. If the Greens make themselves the public face, then it might drive some of their voters to the dens when they see how important stopping him is.