Coastal Act is getting appealed to the Supreme Court.
The act states that access to the beach is a right of all Californians, and that beaches can't be considered private property. Lawsuits have been going on with this case for a decade now - link provides the history.
I mean if it gets overturned the counter play is pretty obvious: eminent domain routes to the coast every so often
And in the meantime, while those lawsuits go through, all private owners cut off access to public resources across the west.
Coastal Act is getting appealed to the Supreme Court.
The act states that access to the beach is a right of all Californians, and that beaches can't be considered private property. Lawsuits have been going on with this case for a decade now - link provides the history.
I mean if it gets overturned the counter play is pretty obvious: eminent domain routes to the coast every so often
The state already tried this route and the price he ask/demanded was exhorbent to the point of extortion.
Coastal Act is getting appealed to the Supreme Court.
The act states that access to the beach is a right of all Californians, and that beaches can't be considered private property. Lawsuits have been going on with this case for a decade now - link provides the history.
I mean if it gets overturned the counter play is pretty obvious: eminent domain routes to the coast every so often
The state already tried this route and the price he ask/demanded was exhorbent to the point of extortion.
It's fair market value with eminent domain. He doesn't get to set the price. (He does get to sue if he thinks it's unfair).
Single payer basically dead for now, but we may see a public option debated this year.
California Democratic lawmakers are quietly working on a package of up to 20 health care bills that would soften the political blow from the all-but-certain death of a single-payer universal care bill this year.
Senate Bill 562 cleared the Senate last year but stalled in the Assembly when Speaker Anthony Rendon blasted it as "woefully incomplete." The legislation still lacks a plan to cover its $400 billion price tag, a way to control rising health care costs and a strategy to secure federal waivers needed from the Trump administration.
Rendon has not formally killed the bill, but he told The Sacramento Bee earlier this month that a fresh health care package is in the works – the clearest sign yet that Senate Bill 562 is dead.
Democratic Assemblymen Jim Wood of Healdsburg and Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, who chair a special health committee formed by Rendon last year after the single-payer bill passed the Senate, said Tuesday they are eying legislation this year that seeks to improve quality, expand access and lower rising health care costs.
Both expressed doubt, however, that single-payer bill could move forward this year.
"I would say single-payer is not a reality this year because of the complexity of the steps that we need to go through," Wood said.
To capture current federal health care funding and use it to fund a state-based single-payer system, California would have to secure numerous federal waivers. Voters would likely have to approve changes to the state Constitution and massive tax increases would be required.
Wood and Arambula declined to say what specific bills they're planning to introduce, but said they're considering legislation based on a broad set of recommendations released Tuesday by a trio of health policy experts who produced a report analyzing the committee's work over the past four months in identifying a path forward on universal care.
The report outlines short- and long-term ways the Legislature can improve health care in California. Some ideas include creating a state-based public insurance option to compete with private insurers, allowing undocumented immigrants to enroll in Medi-Cal or sign up for insurance through Covered California depending on income, imposing a state individual mandate and issuing penalties for Californians who don't have coverage, boosting federal subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance with state assistance and capping payments to medical providers to help control rising costs.
Bonnie Castillo, the incoming executive director for the California Nurses Association, the bill's chief sponsor, said the Assembly's discussions are nothing more than political cover for Rendon. "It's clearly an attempt to redirect and distract," she said. "We know there are amendments that need to be made. He really should release the bill... The legislative process belongs to the people and not just the legislators."
Wood said he'd like to focus on a politically and financially obtainable approach to creating a universal health care system.
"I think that our report, our hearings illustrate pretty clearly that you can't go from concept to execution of a complicated, complex, completely transformative system in a really short amount of time," Wood said. "If you read our report...you’ll understand a little better why we couldn't just pass 562 and the next day everybody has health care. It just can't work that way."
Rendon declined interview requests to discuss a possible package and the single-payer bill, but spokesman Kevin Liao said in an email Tuesday morning that it will remain parked "until further notice" unless its authors amend it.
The authors, Sens. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, did not agree to be interviewed. In an emailed statement, Atkins hinted at the bleak chances of single-payer going anywhere this year.
"I remain a supporter of single-payer, but to get it done we must rebuild bridges among the parties that are crucial for success," Atkins said. "That will take time.”
Lara, in an emailed statement, said he was working with the nurses union to "to ensure the long-term financial sustainability" of the proposal.
Rendon and other Assembly Democrats, under political pressure from nurses and other single-payer proponents, have felt an urgent need to come up with legislative fixes to the state's health care system since the single-payer bill stalled in their chamber.
"With millions of Californians who remain uninsured and under-insured, we need to act immediately and boldly in addressing the challenges facing our health care system, including Trump's efforts to dismantle it," said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco. "We should lead by establishing truly universal health care in California, but we should also consider what a roadmap to a single-payer system would entail."
Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, said she's contemplating a bill that would establish a single-payer system in future years — once other benchmarks are met, such as achieving specific cost containment goals and obtaining needed federal waivers.
"I'm looking at legislation we could adopt that sets up a roadmap to single payer, just like we have with (Assembly Bill 32) that gives us a roadmap to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Friedman said. "I'm also very interested in what can give people very real relief in the short-term."
Chiu and Friedman are also members of the special health committee, though the discussion over a health care package is taking place both in the Assembly and Senate.
Coastal Act is getting appealed to the Supreme Court.
The act states that access to the beach is a right of all Californians, and that beaches can't be considered private property. Lawsuits have been going on with this case for a decade now - link provides the history.
I mean if it gets overturned the counter play is pretty obvious: eminent domain routes to the coast every so often
The state already tried this route and the price he ask/demanded was exhorbent to the point of extortion.
It's fair market value with eminent domain. He doesn't get to set the price. (He does get to sue if he thinks it's unfair).
The alternate play would be to close the beach to everyone as it can not be accessed by the public and should be left as unspoiled wilderness.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
A proposed net neutrality law in California would replace the repealed federal regulations, going beyond the federal rules by banning payments for data cap exemptions. If passed, the bill would ban AT&T's Sponsored Data, Verizon's "FreeBee" data, and any similar programs imposed by home or mobile Internet providers.
...
"The [California] bill prohibits ISPs from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites, applications, and services; charging online companies for access to an ISP's customers and blocking those that do not pay; and from entering into deals with online companies to put them in a fast lane to the ISP's customers," van Schewick wrote today.
The bill takes a stronger stance against data cap exemptions (or "zero-rating") than the FCC rules did. Exempting specific applications or classes of applications from data caps in exchange for payment would not be allowed.
"An Internet service provider may zero-rate Internet traffic in application-agnostic ways, without violating [the proposed law], provided that no consideration, monetary or otherwise, is provided by any third party in exchange for the provider’s decision to zero-rate or to not zero-rate traffic," the bill says. In order for the zero-rating to be "application-agnostic," it must not "differentiat[e] on the basis of source, destination, Internet content, application, service, or device, or class of Internet content, application, service, or device."
That would prevent ISPs from charging online services for the right to deliver data without counting against customers' data caps. The bill would also protect customers from having to pay more for certain kinds of content by banning "application-specific differential pricing." The bill defines this banned activity as "charging different prices for Internet traffic to customers on the basis of Internet content, application, service, or device, or class of Internet content, application, service, or device."
So because our field is flooded with democrats, and the few republicans have some name recognition, it's conceivable that there could be liberal leaning areas without dems on the ballots to vote for. It... is such an upsetting idea.
So because our field is flooded with democrats, and the few republicans have some name recognition, it's conceivable that there could be liberal leaning areas without dems on the ballots to vote for. It... is such an upsetting idea.
tl;dr - Tom McClintock is a rep for a suburban area around Sacramento. Three democrats running, and they all stated that they would support whoever got the party's endorsement at the state convention, and drop out of the race. State party officials, however, appear to have all lined up behind specific candidates who don't have as much grassroots support.
So because our field is flooded with democrats, and the few republicans have some name recognition, it's conceivable that there could be liberal leaning areas without dems on the ballots to vote for. It... is such an upsetting idea.
Once again, this is why jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
California’s unusual, top-two primary system — in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation — had raised the prospect of a nightmare scenario in several districts where crowded fields of Democratic candidates might splinter their party’s share of the vote, enabling two Republicans to finish atop the field in the June primary.
I no longer live in CA but I follow my hometown House race closely because it's a swing district, currently occupied by a Republican, that went slightly for Hillary in 2016.
At the beginning of the year there were 10 fucking Democratic primary candidates and it's only recently winnowed down to 5.
I'm just glad that there are no Republicans challenging the incumbent.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The top democratic challengers are Josh Harder and Michael Eggman.
I feel like we should just rally behind Harder just for his name alone.
Rally Harder! Campaign Harder! Stump Harder!
The other challenger is obviously anti-Sonic.
"I am the Eggman! I am the Eggman! The other candidate is the Walrus! Goo goo a choo!"
+3
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
I think it's very possible we escape all of these crowded races without another Pete Aguilar situation happening, but it's definitely spooky. The primaries are close enough and some of the candidates are wealthy enough to where they're not going to fall in line and be pressured out for the normal reasons someone would give up on a race. It's frustrating.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I think it's very possible we escape all of these crowded races without another Pete Aguilar situation happening, but it's definitely spooky. The primaries are close enough and some of the candidates are wealthy enough to where they're not going to fall in line and be pressured out for the normal reasons someone would give up on a race. It's frustrating.
Again, the answer is to get rid of the jungle "primary". It's a gooseshit "good government" idea that makes problems.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
...
You've stuck another FPTP on top of a FPTP ballot to try and make the system Preferential voting.
Just why.
Why not just switch to Preferential voting completely...
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
I mean, I suppose it's a step in what I'd consider the right direction to go from party primaries to jungle primaries, so that it's more like Preferential voting.
But...
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
If it was a choice between a Dem that won't ever win and harm reduction between two Republican candidates that sounds a lot better than what I got in my first couple elections!
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
I'd rather be able to choose between an ultra right republican and a more centrist republican, either of whom could win, than choose between the ultra right republican and a random democrat where the Republican is ABSOLUTELY certain of victory.
I don't care about which candidates I get. I care about the overall makeup of the state government which makes decisions. And if my district is going to send a Republican, I'd prefer to have a say in which one.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
If it was a choice between a Dem that won't ever win and harm reduction between two Republican candidates that sounds a lot better than what I got in my first couple elections!
then you go vote in the republican primary
jungle primaries are dumb because they don't solve any of the problems they're supposed to fix
like, the main rationale that I hear for them is to prevent official party organizations from being kingmakers (think images of shady backroom deals)
sure, it opens up the field as wide as possible, but now the party that resorts to literal shady backroom deals to convince people not to run gains an advantage
even without shadiness if the party still has influence and advertising money it doesn't really matter if your dark horse is on the ballot beside the party favorite
otherwise if the concern is trying to break out of FPTP and create broader choice it doesn't really help either
if you vote for the dark horse, split your party's vote, and the opposition party's candidate wins even though your party had more votes overall (cough cough WA state treasurer) you just learned a hard lesson that voting for the little guy fucks you over
either implement a real multi-choice voting system or do regular primaries
jungle primaries are worse than both
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
I 100% agree with you that there needs to be more infrastructure.
I also 100% believe that neighborhoods and certain peninsula cities will continue doing everything in their power to not have infrastructure improvements.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
I 100% agree with you that there needs to be more infrastructure.
I also 100% believe that neighborhoods and certain peninsula cities will continue doing everything in their power to not have infrastructure improvements.
Indeed, but I'd say the answer to that is that you pass a law saying that you can either...
1) Object to high density housing
2) Object to transit improvements
Can't do both. If you ban apartments, then I'm putting in a new bart line. If you ban transit improvements, then you have to allow apartments to be built.
SB127 makes transit undesirable for neighborhoods. It makes them want to get rid of it, and make it worse, and considering the state of transit on the west side of SF, we can't afford to lose a single bus. The whole thing is just silly. It feels like a plan written for some imaginary city which doesn't exist. SF public transit is pretty decent along the backbone of the bart line, but other than that its not great.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
I think it's very possible we escape all of these crowded races without another Pete Aguilar situation happening, but it's definitely spooky. The primaries are close enough and some of the candidates are wealthy enough to where they're not going to fall in line and be pressured out for the normal reasons someone would give up on a race. It's frustrating.
Again, the answer is to get rid of the jungle "primary". It's a gooseshit "good government" idea that makes problems.
I agree, and in this case it was funded and pushed with the deliberate intent of helping the Republican Party stave off extinction in the state, but I'm pretty skeptical it would just be outright overturned. It sounds nice on a ballot pamphlet and while it didn't pass overwhelmingly, it wasn't a razor thin margin, either, and it was recent enough that I have a hard time imagining the average voter would find enough reason already to reverse it.
It is extremely likely we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future, and I have not heard any kind of rumblings from serious parties that there will be an effort to do so that actually has juice.
Kasyn on
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
This is incorrect as a resident of one of those neighborhoods. You could double the public transit capacity by running busses and trains more frequently.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Honestly its just stupid. Change the Jungle primary rules like this...
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
If it was a choice between a Dem that won't ever win and harm reduction between two Republican candidates that sounds a lot better than what I got in my first couple elections!
then you go vote in the republican primary
jungle primaries are dumb because they don't solve any of the problems they're supposed to fix
like, the main rationale that I hear for them is to prevent official party organizations from being kingmakers (think images of shady backroom deals)
sure, it opens up the field as wide as possible, but now the party that resorts to literal shady backroom deals to convince people not to run gains an advantage
even without shadiness if the party still has influence and advertising money it doesn't really matter if your dark horse is on the ballot beside the party favorite
otherwise if the concern is trying to break out of FPTP and create broader choice it doesn't really help either
if you vote for the dark horse, split your party's vote, and the opposition party's candidate wins even though your party had more votes overall (cough cough WA state treasurer) you just learned a hard lesson that voting for the little guy fucks you over
either implement a real multi-choice voting system or do regular primaries
jungle primaries are worse than both
I just disagree my dude. Jungle primaries would be fine if there was more coordination between allies. They've meant that instead of a Republican that never wins on my ballot sometimes I actually get a progressive.
I'm on board with preferential voting but jungle primaries provide more desirable outcomes in more California elections than not.
Aren't you in Montana Hedgie? That's a really different place. I don't think they'd work nearly as well there as they do here.
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
This is incorrect as a resident of one of those neighborhoods. You could double the public transit capacity by running busses and trains more frequently.
You could double the frequency of buses true (buses are cheap), but the MUNI lines don't have the capacity at the stops, tunnels or stations, and MUNI doesn't own enough trains.
The problem with buses is that they are easily gotten rid of. Or routed onto new 'central spur' lines. So the response to the bills passage will just be to eliminate sufficient buses that the area stops being governed by the new rules.
I guess my thought on this is that we don't have sufficient housing because transit is not being built wide enough. Honestly the west side of SF seems like a silly place to upzone to me. It's poorly integrated with the urban core. The city should just accept that it is a megacity and add more transit in Oakland and the Peninsula.
they're great if your party has a strong majority where you're voting
it's not so great if you're the minority (now you're not even on the ballot at all!) or it's a close split (whoops the ballot has two dudes from the same party on it despite that party only getting 40% of the vote)
Like, you said it's OK if there's more coordination between allies but then the very next sentence you're talking about getting a progressive (as opposed to, I'm assuming, a mainstream democrat). But that progressive is only there because they didn't have to cooperate with their allies.
And if candidates from the same party all do cooperate so you don't field more than one or two candidates then... looks like you're right back to having party primaries except now you don't even get to vote on them it's all done behind the scenes
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I quite hope that SB-827 can get passed and SF (and many peninsula cities) can start shouldering the burden of finding places for people to live reasonably.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
This is incorrect as a resident of one of those neighborhoods. You could double the public transit capacity by running busses and trains more frequently.
You could double the frequency of buses true (buses are cheap), but the MUNI lines don't have the capacity at the stops, tunnels or stations, and MUNI doesn't own enough trains.
The problem with buses is that they are easily gotten rid of. Or routed onto new 'central spur' lines. So the response to the bills passage will just be to eliminate sufficient buses that the area stops being governed by the new rules.
I guess my thought on this is that we don't have sufficient housing because transit is not being built wide enough. Honestly the west side of SF seems like a silly place to upzone to me. It's poorly integrated with the urban core. The city should just accept that it is a megacity and add more transit in Oakland and the Peninsula.
That's way farther though when half of the city is 1-2 stories. It's ridiculous how low lying SF is, and if they're gonna be the core of a megacity, gotta upzone.
I don't actually know how flat out full the MUNI tunnels are, but it's not like they can't be expanded. They're already doing some of that for the Chinatown line. I just know that even during commute hours, the main bus and train lines would have a lot more capacity if they ran more frequently.
NIMBYs already oppose public transit in general. "I don't oppose housing, I just think we need to wait until we have the transit infrastructure" is a common refrain on 48 Hills, Westside Observer, and other SF NIMBY blogs. Meanwhile the same groups oppose any meaningful attempts to expand transit, or say, basically, "build more transit over there" (peninsula, east bay), or will overtly support transit as long as they don't have to pay for it and will starve transit by opposing any tax or bond measure to fund it.
Ultimately, transit and housing density is a chicken and egg problem for a democracy. Transit is always shittier and more expensive in lower-density neighborhoods, which reduces the support of transit among those residents. If you're doing it right, you're building out both at the same time, but US cities never do it right.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+8
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
they're great if your party has a strong majority where you're voting
it's not so great if you're the minority (now you're not even on the ballot at all!) or it's a close split (whoops the ballot has two dudes from the same party on it despite that party only getting 40% of the vote)
Like, you said it's OK if there's more coordination between allies but then the very next sentence you're talking about getting a progressive (as opposed to, I'm assuming, a mainstream democrat). But that progressive is only there because they didn't have to cooperate with their allies.
And if candidates from the same party all do cooperate so you don't field more than one or two candidates then... looks like you're right back to having party primaries except now you don't even get to vote on them it's all done behind the scenes
I've acknowledged that they don't work well in purple areas without lots of coordination. But in areas that are heavily one way or the other, which California has a lot of, they've had the effect of giving a seat at the table to marginalized candidates that would have been forced out by the defacto presence of the Republican party on the ballot.
There's no way preferential voting wouldn't be better, but it's preferable to pretending the Republican party has any bearing on Bay Area politics. And vice versa in states that are heavily dominant the opposite way.
Posts
And in the meantime, while those lawsuits go through, all private owners cut off access to public resources across the west.
The state already tried this route and the price he ask/demanded was exhorbent to the point of extortion.
It's fair market value with eminent domain. He doesn't get to set the price. (He does get to sue if he thinks it's unfair).
Single payer basically dead for now, but we may see a public option debated this year.
The alternate play would be to close the beach to everyone as it can not be accessed by the public and should be left as unspoiled wilderness.
Details of CA net neutrality bill coming out.
imokaywiththis.jpg
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/california-democrats-disaster-2018-ballot-465460
So because our field is flooded with democrats, and the few republicans have some name recognition, it's conceivable that there could be liberal leaning areas without dems on the ballots to vote for. It... is such an upsetting idea.
Yeah, there's some shit going on with that.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article204779874.html
tl;dr - Tom McClintock is a rep for a suburban area around Sacramento. Three democrats running, and they all stated that they would support whoever got the party's endorsement at the state convention, and drop out of the race. State party officials, however, appear to have all lined up behind specific candidates who don't have as much grassroots support.
Lots of infighting. Hooray.
Once again, this is why jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
I no longer live in CA but I follow my hometown House race closely because it's a swing district, currently occupied by a Republican, that went slightly for Hillary in 2016.
At the beginning of the year there were 10 fucking Democratic primary candidates and it's only recently winnowed down to 5.
I'm just glad that there are no Republicans challenging the incumbent.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I feel like we should just rally behind Harder just for his name alone.
Rally Harder! Campaign Harder! Stump Harder!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The other challenger is obviously anti-Sonic.
Again, the answer is to get rid of the jungle "primary". It's a gooseshit "good government" idea that makes problems.
I was actually unaware of this. It sounds intriguing. We really need something like it.
-edit-
Although I am concerned this will lead to the NIMBY folks switching to opposing public transit.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The two most popular candidates from the primary shall appear on the ballot.
If both candidates are from the same party, then the second most popular candidate will be replaced by the most popular candidate from the most popular candidate which does not have representation IF the total votes cast in that primary are greater than the total votes cast for the second most popular candidate.
Imagine we're in say, San Francisco.
Candidate A = Democrat = 1.1 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.2 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.1 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.9 million votes. Republicans have 0.4 million.
Appropriately the two democrats go to the general. The largest number of people are getting their most interesting choices.
Now we're in say, San Diego.
Candidate A = Democrat = 0.9 million votes
Candidate B = Democrat = 0.8 million votes
Candidate C = Republican = 0.7 million votes
Candidate D = Republican = 0.6 million votes
Candidate E = Republican = 0.4 million votes
Democrats are two most popular. Least popular Democrat has 0.8 million votes. Republicans in total have 1.7 million.
Appropriately, Democrat A and Republican C go to the general.
Jungle primaries do help make sure centrist candidates can run and win. But they need to be tweaked so that winning the primary with many registered and active voters isn't meaningless.
...or we just go back to having actual primaries, let parties pick their own flagbearers, and junk a system that very nearly elected David Duke governor of Louisiana.
You've stuck another FPTP on top of a FPTP ballot to try and make the system Preferential voting.
Just why.
Why not just switch to Preferential voting completely...
I prefer my system to that, since it will lead to more Democrat vs Democrat competitions in Deep Blue districts and Republican vs Republican competitions in Deep Red districts. In such competitions, at least one candidate would be incentivized to listen to middle of the road, and even opposition voters.
But...
So, in other words you're OK with not letting a group (whether it's Democrat, Republican, or even third party) have a voice in the election if the district leans heavily enough to one side. That's pretty goosey.
Jungle "primaries" are gooseshit.
How tf is that goosey? Practically the only way a Republican wins in my district is if there's a scandal after the primary. Jungle primaries ensure that the other option is also representative of the area. What's goosey is running enough candidates that a minority party gets on the ballot in an area that would otherwise be solidly blue.
Preferential voting is better, but jungle primaries are more representative of the voters in areas that are heavily tilted in one way or the other. I like have more than one option on election day.
Here in SF one of the supervisors (Peskin) has threatened to sue the state over it. He represents one of the most NIMBY neighborhoods around.
Also one of the mayoral candidates (Kim) is sponsoring rallies against the bill and specifically targeting neighborhoods that resist any apartment construction.
Then there’s this...
And you had that in the primary. Let me put it this way - would you be so sanguine about this if you were in a deep red district, where you would never get a candidate that represents your values in the general runoff?
Again, jungle "primaries" are gooseshit. They don't actually solve a problem, and cause a bunch more.
If it was a choice between a Dem that won't ever win and harm reduction between two Republican candidates that sounds a lot better than what I got in my first couple elections!
I'd rather be able to choose between an ultra right republican and a more centrist republican, either of whom could win, than choose between the ultra right republican and a random democrat where the Republican is ABSOLUTELY certain of victory.
I don't care about which candidates I get. I care about the overall makeup of the state government which makes decisions. And if my district is going to send a Republican, I'd prefer to have a say in which one.
Eh, I'd say that their intentions are good, and that their concept is decent (you should be allowed to build high density housing where you have good public transit) but their definition of 'what is a well served area for public transit' and their direction of forcing is wrong.
Firstly, the west side of SF does not have sufficient transit infrastructure to accept 4x the population density. And the transit infrastucture it mostly uses is..
1) Packed to capacity tram lines with little room for change
2) Buses
If you want higher density population, then you need to stop pretending that we have sufficient transit, and start building MORE. Pass laws to make that happen.
Because if you pass SB127, what will happen is that those parts of the city will start closing their bus links. Bus links which were already insufficient for additional population density.
In fact, the solution to housing problems in the bay area is to keep extending bart, and to start 'Spurring' it off into new neighbourhoods on the Peninsula. Until you get a bart line to the west side, it is not capable of supporting more people.
then you go vote in the republican primary
jungle primaries are dumb because they don't solve any of the problems they're supposed to fix
like, the main rationale that I hear for them is to prevent official party organizations from being kingmakers (think images of shady backroom deals)
sure, it opens up the field as wide as possible, but now the party that resorts to literal shady backroom deals to convince people not to run gains an advantage
even without shadiness if the party still has influence and advertising money it doesn't really matter if your dark horse is on the ballot beside the party favorite
otherwise if the concern is trying to break out of FPTP and create broader choice it doesn't really help either
if you vote for the dark horse, split your party's vote, and the opposition party's candidate wins even though your party had more votes overall (cough cough WA state treasurer) you just learned a hard lesson that voting for the little guy fucks you over
either implement a real multi-choice voting system or do regular primaries
jungle primaries are worse than both
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I 100% agree with you that there needs to be more infrastructure.
I also 100% believe that neighborhoods and certain peninsula cities will continue doing everything in their power to not have infrastructure improvements.
Indeed, but I'd say the answer to that is that you pass a law saying that you can either...
1) Object to high density housing
2) Object to transit improvements
Can't do both. If you ban apartments, then I'm putting in a new bart line. If you ban transit improvements, then you have to allow apartments to be built.
SB127 makes transit undesirable for neighborhoods. It makes them want to get rid of it, and make it worse, and considering the state of transit on the west side of SF, we can't afford to lose a single bus. The whole thing is just silly. It feels like a plan written for some imaginary city which doesn't exist. SF public transit is pretty decent along the backbone of the bart line, but other than that its not great.
I agree, and in this case it was funded and pushed with the deliberate intent of helping the Republican Party stave off extinction in the state, but I'm pretty skeptical it would just be outright overturned. It sounds nice on a ballot pamphlet and while it didn't pass overwhelmingly, it wasn't a razor thin margin, either, and it was recent enough that I have a hard time imagining the average voter would find enough reason already to reverse it.
It is extremely likely we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future, and I have not heard any kind of rumblings from serious parties that there will be an effort to do so that actually has juice.
This is incorrect as a resident of one of those neighborhoods. You could double the public transit capacity by running busses and trains more frequently.
I just disagree my dude. Jungle primaries would be fine if there was more coordination between allies. They've meant that instead of a Republican that never wins on my ballot sometimes I actually get a progressive.
I'm on board with preferential voting but jungle primaries provide more desirable outcomes in more California elections than not.
Aren't you in Montana Hedgie? That's a really different place. I don't think they'd work nearly as well there as they do here.
You could double the frequency of buses true (buses are cheap), but the MUNI lines don't have the capacity at the stops, tunnels or stations, and MUNI doesn't own enough trains.
The problem with buses is that they are easily gotten rid of. Or routed onto new 'central spur' lines. So the response to the bills passage will just be to eliminate sufficient buses that the area stops being governed by the new rules.
I guess my thought on this is that we don't have sufficient housing because transit is not being built wide enough. Honestly the west side of SF seems like a silly place to upzone to me. It's poorly integrated with the urban core. The city should just accept that it is a megacity and add more transit in Oakland and the Peninsula.
it's not so great if you're the minority (now you're not even on the ballot at all!) or it's a close split (whoops the ballot has two dudes from the same party on it despite that party only getting 40% of the vote)
Like, you said it's OK if there's more coordination between allies but then the very next sentence you're talking about getting a progressive (as opposed to, I'm assuming, a mainstream democrat). But that progressive is only there because they didn't have to cooperate with their allies.
And if candidates from the same party all do cooperate so you don't field more than one or two candidates then... looks like you're right back to having party primaries except now you don't even get to vote on them it's all done behind the scenes
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
That's way farther though when half of the city is 1-2 stories. It's ridiculous how low lying SF is, and if they're gonna be the core of a megacity, gotta upzone.
I don't actually know how flat out full the MUNI tunnels are, but it's not like they can't be expanded. They're already doing some of that for the Chinatown line. I just know that even during commute hours, the main bus and train lines would have a lot more capacity if they ran more frequently.
Ultimately, transit and housing density is a chicken and egg problem for a democracy. Transit is always shittier and more expensive in lower-density neighborhoods, which reduces the support of transit among those residents. If you're doing it right, you're building out both at the same time, but US cities never do it right.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I've acknowledged that they don't work well in purple areas without lots of coordination. But in areas that are heavily one way or the other, which California has a lot of, they've had the effect of giving a seat at the table to marginalized candidates that would have been forced out by the defacto presence of the Republican party on the ballot.
There's no way preferential voting wouldn't be better, but it's preferable to pretending the Republican party has any bearing on Bay Area politics. And vice versa in states that are heavily dominant the opposite way.