Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
I would say that it works for California, only because of the massive 'weight' of the national parties prevent us from having two left leaning parties. Democrats and Liberals for example.
The fix to the jungle primary is so simple and obvious that it is clear that active malice from whomever framed the issue is the only reason it exists.
If your party candidates IN TOTAL receive more votes than the second place candidate then your most popular candidate is on the ballot, as if they had received all the votes. System fixed. No disadvantages ever. Vote for whichever of your candidates you prefer, and then have a sensible choice again in the general election.
Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
Disagree with all of those things being objectively bad. They can be weird, but they cause the state government to be responsive in ways that many aren't.
The initiative system has given California policies that basically give away state funding to corporations,and are nearly impossible to remove. Term limits have moved the locus of institutional memory to lobbyists, making legislators more dependent on them. Jungle "primaries" punish parties that are more enthusiastic and thus have a larger field.
Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
I would say that it works for California, only because of the massive 'weight' of the national parties prevent us from having two left leaning parties. Democrats and Liberals for example.
The fix to the jungle primary is so simple and obvious that it is clear that active malice from whomever framed the issue is the only reason it exists.
If your party candidates IN TOTAL receive more votes than the second place candidate then your most popular candidate is on the ballot, as if they had received all the votes. System fixed. No disadvantages ever. Vote for whichever of your candidates you prefer, and then have a sensible choice again in the general election.
Which, if you're going to do that, you're heading back to a more traditional primary, so you may as well head there.
Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
Disagree with all of those things being objectively bad. They can be weird, but they cause the state government to be responsive in ways that many aren't.
The initiative system has given California policies that basically give away state funding to corporations,and are nearly impossible to remove. Term limits have moved the locus of institutional memory to lobbyists, making legislators more dependent on them. Jungle "primaries" punish parties that are more enthusiastic and thus have a larger field.
These are bad policies. They create bad outcomes.
Because no state that doesn't have the initiative system has *ever* given away state funding to corporations...
More than 100,000 showed up to vote in Southern California – and weren't on the list
Thousands of voters in Los Angeles County are running into a problem at their polling places.
A printing error left more than 118,000 names off the lists at 1,530 precincts, according to the county Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office. Californians statewide are voting in primary elections Tuesday.
“We apologize for the inconvenience and concern this has caused," Brenda Duran of media and communications for the office wrote in a release. "Voters should be assured their vote will be counted.”
She added that the office is "working to determine the root cause of the problem."
“Our office is committed to ensuring every voter has a positive voting experience on Election Day,” Duran wrote.
The release shows that 118,522 names of voters were omitted over the county's 4,357 polling locations.
Despite the error, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan said all registered voters, whether on the list or not, will be able to cast ballots.
So I tried to turn in my ballot at a drop off site, which should be open until 8, and there was a sign on the door saying they closed at 4, no other information.
I found a different place to turn in my ballot, but is this normal, or should I be reporting election shenanigans?
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.
So I tried to turn in my ballot at a drop off site, which should be open until 8, and there was a sign on the door saying they closed at 4, no other information.
I found a different place to turn in my ballot, but is this normal, or should I be reporting election shenanigans?
I mean, it's too late to actually do anything about it at this hour, but I'll call anyway just so someone's aware of what happened.
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.
More than 100,000 showed up to vote in Southern California – and weren't on the list
Thousands of voters in Los Angeles County are running into a problem at their polling places.
A printing error left more than 118,000 names off the lists at 1,530 precincts, according to the county Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office. Californians statewide are voting in primary elections Tuesday.
“We apologize for the inconvenience and concern this has caused," Brenda Duran of media and communications for the office wrote in a release. "Voters should be assured their vote will be counted.”
She added that the office is "working to determine the root cause of the problem."
“Our office is committed to ensuring every voter has a positive voting experience on Election Day,” Duran wrote.
The release shows that 118,522 names of voters were omitted over the county's 4,357 polling locations.
Despite the error, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan said all registered voters, whether on the list or not, will be able to cast ballots.
Goddamn it.
Turns out one of those left off was The Fonz himself:
Crap, now CA48 looks like a problem. The DNC threw everything behind Rouda in the last week, and it looks like the other guy was actually winning on early votes, and 2-3-4 right now is 18 (other guy)-18 (R)-14 (DNC guy) with the DNC's guy in 4th. If today's votes broke for him, then that probably puts the R into 2nd.
Looking like Newsom/Cox for governor.
2 Dem LT GOV race is in play.
Padilla may break 50% in SOS
Betty Yee may break 60% in Controller
Most other stuff look like D/R runoffs
Insurance commissioner is going to be (I, but really R) vs D
Senate is close, but may end up two D.
68, 69, 71, 72 all look to be winning (68 is the only close one), 70 losing hard.
Crap, now CA48 looks like a problem. The DNC threw everything behind Rouda in the last week, and it looks like the other guy was actually winning on early votes, and 2-3-4 right now is 18 (other guy)-18 (R)-14 (DNC guy) with the DNC's guy in 4th. If today's votes broke for him, then that probably puts the R into 2nd.
Related to that, Dave Wasserman (contributor to 538 and Cook Political's ratings editor) just tweeted:
BREAKING: hearing word of a possible tabulation error in Orange Co. that could be costing Harley Rouda (D) ~2,000 votes in #CA48. If confirmed, we'd have a very tight race for 2nd between Keirstead (D), Baugh (R) & Rouda (D).
The results are still trickling in, but yikes, Orange County and I do not see eye to eye on many issues or candidates.
This one is probably the most annoying to me:
Shall Josh Newman be recalled (removed) from the office of State Sentator, District 29?
Completed Precincts: 76 of 369
Vote Count Percentage
Yes 21,694 62.2%
No 13,198 37.8%
He voted to raise the gas tax which Republicans did not much care for, so here we are.
The results are still trickling in, but yikes, Orange County and I do not see eye to eye on many issues or candidates.
This one is probably the most annoying to me:
Shall Josh Newman be recalled (removed) from the office of State Sentator, District 29?
Completed Precincts: 76 of 369
Vote Count Percentage
Yes 21,694 62.2%
No 13,198 37.8%
He voted to raise the gas tax which Republicans did not much care for, so here we are.
Californians recalled a governor over something similar, so it's not surprising.
Yeah, recalls are really fucking dumb. Unless a sitting politicians gets convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant removal, they stay until the end of their term (elected judges is still fucking stupid).
I just kind of marvel that CA gets a decent bit of stuff right, despite how fucked up their voting stuff is (jungle primaries - seriously, just makes the have to be rich thing worse and preferential would have been better than top two. Then there is the whole referendum thing, to easy for stupid shit to get passed and taxes really should only be in the hands of the legislature, so if someone fucks up vote'em out, don't let irresponsible idiots make it nearly impossible for the state to get the needed revenue to function).
I'm guessing 48 is going to be a squeaker. Sounds like the democrats will have a candidate on the ballot for every other seat they had a shot at flipping. Just a matter of whether they get someone for 48 or if they fall short.
It's looking like CA-Sen and Lt. Gov. are going to be D on D runoffs. Yeah, I'm of two minds about this - yes, it's good that a bit of pressure is relieved from the Senate races, but at the same time, I don't see this as being all that healthy.
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
Sounds like he never had a chance.
Again, it was over a similar issue (car registration fees) that the Davis recall got traction with.
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
Sounds like he never had a chance.
Again, it was over a similar issue (car registration fees) that the Davis recall got traction with.
It's looking like CA-Sen and Lt. Gov. are going to be D on D runoffs. Yeah, I'm of two minds about this - yes, it's good that a bit of pressure is relieved from the Senate races, but at the same time, I don't see this as being all that healthy.
On the other hand, fuck the Republican Party if they can't put forth a candidate that appeals to the state.
(Not saying I like the jungle primary, just....yeah).
It's a primary election, even if it's a jungle one, the turnout is probably significantly less than what we'll see in the fall. So Nunes might still have to pack his bags, even if it turns out the ratfucker is just a useful dipshit to the likes of Trump and not actively involved in selling out his own country to the likes of Putin. I wouldn't be surprised if something drops soon that ends the fuckers political career because I doubt he is a useful idiot and is actively involved in something illegal that Trump did, hence why he is so hell bent to try and end the ongoing investigation led by Mueller,
I think the Senate race is actually the jungle primary functioning as its proponents imagine it should. The state isn't going to vote for a Republican in this climate, so instead of Democrat vs sacrificial lamb, we get moderate Democrat vs liberal Democrat.
Still don't like it overall, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't sometimes produce good results.
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.
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
Sounds like he never had a chance.
Again, it was over a similar issue (car registration fees) that the Davis recall got traction with.
My recollection is that it was more about his handling of the energy crisis. He entered into some (allegedly) shitty deals with energy providers that locked us into high energy prices.
Mostly, I think he just had the misfortune to be in charge when the lights went out.
Car registration pissed people off, but mostly it was the brown-outs.
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.
I think the Senate race is actually the jungle primary functioning as its proponents imagine it should. The state isn't going to vote for a Republican in this climate, so instead of Democrat vs sacrificial lamb, we get moderate Democrat vs liberal Democrat.
Still don't like it overall, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't sometimes produce good results.
The one real mixed bag is things like this year. Imagine if governor was also two D candidates: all three big tickets would be between two D. Lots of Republicans wouldn't bother to vote, this exposing a lot more House contests.
Also, the vote to recall Judge Aaron Persky (the judge who gave convicted rapist Brock Turner a sweetheart sentence) is being called for Yes.
He deserved to lose his job but the outcome here is going to be a lot of judges deciding to levy harsher punishments across the board raher than to evaluate how privilege effects their choices.
The moment judges need to be elected their actions are no longer that of a neutral arbiter of what ought be the law but instead that of a politician seeking their own power and willing to do anything to keep it.
Also, the vote to recall Judge Aaron Persky (the judge who gave convicted rapist Brock Turner a sweetheart sentence) is being called for Yes.
He deserved to lose his job but the outcome here is going to be a lot of judges deciding to levy harsher punishments across the board raher than to evaluate how privilege effects their choices.
I might have had sympathy for this argument - had the anti-repeal side not acted like a flock of silly geese. They made it abundantly clear that the only way Persky was going to face any sort of sanction was through the ballot box, so guess what happened?
The messaging out here on Newman was bad. I never once saw anything more than the occasional "Vote No on Recall" sign. Whereas the "gas tax" message was well-organized and I've been seeing people spreading the word in person on it for months.
Sounds like he never had a chance.
Again, it was over a similar issue (car registration fees) that the Davis recall got traction with.
My recollection is that it was more about his handling of the energy crisis. He entered into some (allegedly) shitty deals with energy providers that locked us into high energy prices.
Mostly, I think he just had the misfortune to be in charge when the lights went out.
Car registration pissed people off, but mostly it was the brown-outs.
Of course several of those energy companies (Enron and friends)in were found to be illegally restricting supply to create those shitty deals. My dad later claimed it was coordinated effort by GWB allies to kneecap a potential democratic candidate in 2004 (because no way Bush could beat a milquetoast white dude who played up his Vietnam service, right guys?), which seemed a bit too tinfoily in the good old days of the early oughts. Ah the simpler times.
Regardless, in addition to the summer of rolling blackouts he also and the misfortune of being in charge when the tech bubble burst ripped a gaping hole in the state budget, which led to the aforementioned tripling of the vehicle registration fee, and started off some other wonderful things, like the now neverending annual hike of UC tution fees.
Still, even though there were a lot of things contributing to his successful recall, the tripling of the vehicle tax was the easy single thing for his opponents to pinpoint and run on. Davis tripled the fee, recall Davis, slap it on your fliers, billboards, tv ads, etc. It's why one of the first things the governator did was make a big deal about slashing the vehcile fee back to its previous level. Of course later in his term he had to raise the fee again because it turns out Davis didn't do it for shits and giggles, but because revenue was desperately needed and it was one of the few ways the governor could raise money without running afoul of prop 13. Imagine that.
TL;DR there were many factors in the Davis recall, but the tripling of the vechicle registration fee was the easiet to point to in short politcial ads, so it was the most talked about and easiest to remember.
Of course several of those energy companies (Enron and friends)in were found to be illegally restricting supply to create those shitty deals. My dad later claimed it was coordinated effort by GWB allies to kneecap a potential democratic candidate in 2004 (because no way Bush could beat a milquetoast white dude who played up his Vietnam service, right guys?), which seemed a bit too tinfoily in the good old days of the early oughts. Ah the simpler times.
The argument I've heard is that it was to prevent the CA government from really investigating the whole Enron debacle (which Davis was partial to, given how they had put him over the barrel during the whole mess),which would have brought a lot of things to light. One thing that gets forgotten is that early in his first term, Ahnold quietly settled those cases out of the public eye.
Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
I would say that it works for California, only because of the massive 'weight' of the national parties prevent us from having two left leaning parties. Democrats and Liberals for example.
The fix to the jungle primary is so simple and obvious that it is clear that active malice from whomever framed the issue is the only reason it exists.
If your party candidates IN TOTAL receive more votes than the second place candidate then your most popular candidate is on the ballot, as if they had received all the votes. System fixed. No disadvantages ever. Vote for whichever of your candidates you prefer, and then have a sensible choice again in the general election.
Which, if you're going to do that, you're heading back to a more traditional primary, so you may as well head there.
Nope, nothing like a traditional primary, since in a district with like 75% Democratic support your still see a Democrat vs Democrat competition.
Just straight up ranked choice would be best, but if we can have that, an utterly trivial fix to the jungle system makes it immeasurably better than the basic primary system.
Also, if Democrats get shut out of the top-two ballot by one vote, feel free to yell at me. A lot. I fretted over it a lot, right up to the last minute, but at the end it just irked me too much how the two frontrunners became frontrunners by being rich enough to donate a ton of money to their own campaigns and thus lead the fundraising, giving them an air of inevitability. That's not how I want my Democratic Party to work.
Then push to get rid of the jungle "primary". The whole issue is that California has a system that is designed to cripple the ability of parties to choose their flag bearers, pushed out of the misguided notion that parties are what's wrong with politics.
It feels like 80% of California's system of government is designed around that notion, and somehow what emerges is oddly functional. I love it. I think most of the time, it works great. Obviously tonight I'm particularly worried because of a very specific confluence of events, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts.
It really doesn't. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the simple fact that organization is the force multiplier. And all the attempts to counter them - the initiative system, term limits, jungle "primaries" - have wound up being worse.
I would say that it works for California, only because of the massive 'weight' of the national parties prevent us from having two left leaning parties. Democrats and Liberals for example.
The fix to the jungle primary is so simple and obvious that it is clear that active malice from whomever framed the issue is the only reason it exists.
If your party candidates IN TOTAL receive more votes than the second place candidate then your most popular candidate is on the ballot, as if they had received all the votes. System fixed. No disadvantages ever. Vote for whichever of your candidates you prefer, and then have a sensible choice again in the general election.
Which, if you're going to do that, you're heading back to a more traditional primary, so you may as well head there.
Nope, nothing like a traditional primary, since in a district with like 75% Democratic support your still see a Democrat vs Democrat competition.
Just straight up ranked choice would be best, but if we can have that, an utterly trivial fix to the jungle system makes it immeasurably better than the basic primary system.
How is it better that 25% of the population basically gets told "you don't get to have a voice"? That strikes me as very unhealthy for democracy. (Also, I suspect that you'd be less sanguine if the shoe was on the other foot - would you find it acceptable to have a Democratic shutout in a 75% Republican district?)
The whole exercise is dishonest - a jungle "primary" isn't a primary, but an open general election with a legally mandated runoff. If we're going to reform it, let's start with being honest about what the system is.
Posts
I would say that it works for California, only because of the massive 'weight' of the national parties prevent us from having two left leaning parties. Democrats and Liberals for example.
The fix to the jungle primary is so simple and obvious that it is clear that active malice from whomever framed the issue is the only reason it exists.
If your party candidates IN TOTAL receive more votes than the second place candidate then your most popular candidate is on the ballot, as if they had received all the votes. System fixed. No disadvantages ever. Vote for whichever of your candidates you prefer, and then have a sensible choice again in the general election.
The initiative system has given California policies that basically give away state funding to corporations,and are nearly impossible to remove. Term limits have moved the locus of institutional memory to lobbyists, making legislators more dependent on them. Jungle "primaries" punish parties that are more enthusiastic and thus have a larger field.
These are bad policies. They create bad outcomes.
Which, if you're going to do that, you're heading back to a more traditional primary, so you may as well head there.
Because no state that doesn't have the initiative system has *ever* given away state funding to corporations...
Goddamn it.
I found a different place to turn in my ballot, but is this normal, or should I be reporting election shenanigans?
Dude writes for a bunch of places, New Republic is the most well known one.
Turns out one of those left off was The Fonz himself:
Henry Winkler jumped the shark about 4 decades ago.
Looking like Newsom/Cox for governor.
2 Dem LT GOV race is in play.
Padilla may break 50% in SOS
Betty Yee may break 60% in Controller
Most other stuff look like D/R runoffs
Insurance commissioner is going to be (I, but really R) vs D
Senate is close, but may end up two D.
68, 69, 71, 72 all look to be winning (68 is the only close one), 70 losing hard.
Not surprising, but still.
Related to that, Dave Wasserman (contributor to 538 and Cook Political's ratings editor) just tweeted:
BREAKING: hearing word of a possible tabulation error in Orange Co. that could be costing Harley Rouda (D) ~2,000 votes in #CA48. If confirmed, we'd have a very tight race for 2nd between Keirstead (D), Baugh (R) & Rouda (D).
This one is probably the most annoying to me:
He voted to raise the gas tax which Republicans did not much care for, so here we are.
Californians recalled a governor over something similar, so it's not surprising.
I just kind of marvel that CA gets a decent bit of stuff right, despite how fucked up their voting stuff is (jungle primaries - seriously, just makes the have to be rich thing worse and preferential would have been better than top two. Then there is the whole referendum thing, to easy for stupid shit to get passed and taxes really should only be in the hands of the legislature, so if someone fucks up vote'em out, don't let irresponsible idiots make it nearly impossible for the state to get the needed revenue to function).
I'm guessing 48 is going to be a squeaker. Sounds like the democrats will have a candidate on the ballot for every other seat they had a shot at flipping. Just a matter of whether they get someone for 48 or if they fall short.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Sounds like he never had a chance.
Again, it was over a similar issue (car registration fees) that the Davis recall got traction with.
Sigh, thank you very much Darrell Issa.
On the other hand, fuck the Republican Party if they can't put forth a candidate that appeals to the state.
(Not saying I like the jungle primary, just....yeah).
Up to date numbers for 48: Kierstead (D) at 0.8% up of #3 (R), up 1.3% on #4 (D) with 48.9% of precincts reporting.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Still don't like it overall, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't sometimes produce good results.
My recollection is that it was more about his handling of the energy crisis. He entered into some (allegedly) shitty deals with energy providers that locked us into high energy prices.
Mostly, I think he just had the misfortune to be in charge when the lights went out.
Car registration pissed people off, but mostly it was the brown-outs.
The one real mixed bag is things like this year. Imagine if governor was also two D candidates: all three big tickets would be between two D. Lots of Republicans wouldn't bother to vote, this exposing a lot more House contests.
Could still happen if Newsom is polling over 60%.
He deserved to lose his job but the outcome here is going to be a lot of judges deciding to levy harsher punishments across the board raher than to evaluate how privilege effects their choices.
I might have had sympathy for this argument - had the anti-repeal side not acted like a flock of silly geese. They made it abundantly clear that the only way Persky was going to face any sort of sanction was through the ballot box, so guess what happened?
Of course several of those energy companies (Enron and friends)in were found to be illegally restricting supply to create those shitty deals. My dad later claimed it was coordinated effort by GWB allies to kneecap a potential democratic candidate in 2004 (because no way Bush could beat a milquetoast white dude who played up his Vietnam service, right guys?), which seemed a bit too tinfoily in the good old days of the early oughts. Ah the simpler times.
Regardless, in addition to the summer of rolling blackouts he also and the misfortune of being in charge when the tech bubble burst ripped a gaping hole in the state budget, which led to the aforementioned tripling of the vehicle registration fee, and started off some other wonderful things, like the now neverending annual hike of UC tution fees.
Still, even though there were a lot of things contributing to his successful recall, the tripling of the vehicle tax was the easy single thing for his opponents to pinpoint and run on. Davis tripled the fee, recall Davis, slap it on your fliers, billboards, tv ads, etc. It's why one of the first things the governator did was make a big deal about slashing the vehcile fee back to its previous level. Of course later in his term he had to raise the fee again because it turns out Davis didn't do it for shits and giggles, but because revenue was desperately needed and it was one of the few ways the governor could raise money without running afoul of prop 13. Imagine that.
TL;DR there were many factors in the Davis recall, but the tripling of the vechicle registration fee was the easiet to point to in short politcial ads, so it was the most talked about and easiest to remember.
The argument I've heard is that it was to prevent the CA government from really investigating the whole Enron debacle (which Davis was partial to, given how they had put him over the barrel during the whole mess),which would have brought a lot of things to light. One thing that gets forgotten is that early in his first term, Ahnold quietly settled those cases out of the public eye.
Nope, nothing like a traditional primary, since in a district with like 75% Democratic support your still see a Democrat vs Democrat competition.
Just straight up ranked choice would be best, but if we can have that, an utterly trivial fix to the jungle system makes it immeasurably better than the basic primary system.
How is it better that 25% of the population basically gets told "you don't get to have a voice"? That strikes me as very unhealthy for democracy. (Also, I suspect that you'd be less sanguine if the shoe was on the other foot - would you find it acceptable to have a Democratic shutout in a 75% Republican district?)
The whole exercise is dishonest - a jungle "primary" isn't a primary, but an open general election with a legally mandated runoff. If we're going to reform it, let's start with being honest about what the system is.