How can we survive without the D and R?



  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I think you and I would agree that California has been brought to its knees because of its referenda. I do not see this as a problem with just the spending-related referenda. I see this as a basic problem with direct democracy and legislation-through-referendum. If your average voter is ignorant enough to destroy the finances of their state, then the average voter is not to be trusted with tinkering with the conduct of elections.

    Referendums are a part of the problem in California, but they certainly aren't the only culprit. Legislative bodies have made messes out of the finances of a large swathe of states, so I don't think it is particularly compelling to lay the blame at referendum in general. Sure, California is the most fucked of the fucked, but that is because it is California, land of terrible governance at all levels. I mean they have 'local' representatives that cover a population ten times the size of the comparitive body in Minnesota. (My mind is still reeling that their representatives in the state House number almost the same as their congressional reps).

    The rule that they can't raise taxes but are obligated to spend on referendums is what's fucked California

    To be fair, I'd wager that the people of most states would vote themselves into a similar clusterfuck if you gave them the opportunity.

    Which is why you should never give them the opportunity.

    En masse, people are fucking dumb.

    To quote Tommy Lee Jones: A person is smart. People are dumb panicky idiots

    Glenn Beck has already proven Agent Kay wrong: A person is plenty capable of being as dumb and panicky as any group of people. And sadly, they frequently are. Especially when they're alone in a voting booth.

    Well Beck actually destroys your brain, and I don't think Kay was talking about the retarded

    Then the statement should be, "A dumb person will rot your brain. People are just dumb panicky idiots who won't rot your brain."

    Synthesis on
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    I can't find any record of the phrasing of this initiative, it's vote date, or the results that are not from a news article. Does anyone have a statistical source, like a board of elections with a record of the item in question?

    I'm curious, since I cannot find more details beyond "the vote happened in 2008" and "it passed". And the DoJ is pretty solid on it's reading of the VRA. The city can do this if they get a district court to agree to their reasons why this would not result in a negative effect on a black voter's ability to vote for the person they would normally desire to vote for with the party ID present. In other words, you can do it if the end result would be no different than the usual. Expanding information provided is fine. Reducing information provided screams "prove this isn't an attempt at disenfranchisement"

    Yeah, the wording is everything. Considering a healthy % of people didn't even bother voting for/against it, I'd really like to read this referendum.

    My School district puts the most confusing double think bullshit items on the ballot to try and trick you to vote for tax increases.

    Example: Do you disapprove to not decrease the local property tax. (Today is opposite Day)

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    The way I read the rejection, it was more on the grounds of it hurting black candidacies. I can try to sketch out the math for how I think that works, but I'm kind of tired.

    Let's say that black people are a a minority of voter turnout, but are a majority of democratic voter turnout. Let's also say the district trends democratic. Then let us assume that, when loosed from party affiliation tendencies, white voters always vote against the black candidate. Under these assumptions, a black candidate could reach the general through the democratic primary and then win with party affiliation. With a no letter system, he would go straight to the general and lose due to a lack of affiliation. For more detail, one could play with the values for racial preference, party loyalty, party-less differentiation, and black turnout.

    Scalfin on
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    So what's the ultimate ruling of the Carolina labeling decision? That not letting people know what the candidates' race and party is somehow disenfranchising? I though we fought for years to keep those kind of things off of forms?

    And mainstream black America is chock full of conspiracy theory and bad logic, as much or more so than Evangelicals, saying nothing of homophobia. I'm curious as to how "making sure black voters elect black politicians" isn't defrauding the system, for everyone.

    Mainstream black America is off the rails with consipracy theories. Probably at least on the level of white talk-radio listeners - there's just a lot of tolerance for crazy. It never fails to surprise me.

    The point of the legislation was to maintain the mechanism by which majority-black communities in the South have preserved their ability to something approaching self-rule. A lot of southerners and conservatives are convinced that these kinds of laws are no longer necessary and that Southern anti-black racism is a myth and these kidns of paternalistic laws condescend to blacks and discriminate against sothern whites and so on and so forth. This is noted. I, and apparently the US government, disagree.

    Irond Will on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Of course, some shit that sounds like conspiracies actually happened, like Tuskegee. Doesn't excuse the paranoia, but sure as hell explains it.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Sign In or Register to comment.