chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:It is when he's on Guard Duty. That's not AWOL in a war zone, that's desertion. "The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently," or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk "important duty". Guarding your fellow soldiers in a war zone is an important duty.

Supposedly from someone in his unit, there's a statement going around that he actually asked some Afghan children where the Taliban were after he left his post. He also supposedly "had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things."

I still want a CM to officially investigate, but the more I hear/read, the more I think he's guilty.

Edit: It's also not like he walked a little ways off, he walked far away from the outpost.



It sounds like he lost his poopy.

Edit: Poopy. LOL

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:It is when he's on Guard Duty. That's not AWOL in a war zone, that's desertion. "The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently," or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk "important duty". Guarding your fellow soldiers in a war zone is an important duty.

Supposedly from someone in his unit, there's a statement going around that he actually asked some Afghan children where the Taliban were after he left his post. He also supposedly "had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things."

I still want a CM to officially investigate, but the more I hear/read, the more I think he's guilty.

Edit: It's also not like he walked a little ways off, he walked far away from the outpost.



Disclaimer: I haven't read anything about this aside from what's posted here. However, what you describe sounds like a psychological breakdown of sorts.

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:Disclaimer: I haven't read anything about this aside from what's posted here. However, what you describe sounds like a psychological breakdown of sorts.



You put it so much more elegantly than I did.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:In other news, I applaud the latest SCOTUS ruling on a high speed chase. Although it's more about the end result.

Makes me wonder if there's ever been a successful escape from a high speed police pursuit. At least since all the police have helicopters and radio.


Edit: This one too. In essence, wife tries to poison BFF for getting pregnant by hubby (she can't have kids) using every day chemicals. Feds try to prosecute her under Chemical Weapons law.

Because prosecuting for attempted murder isn't enough?

The kicker? "The case has been through so many courts — including a previous stop at the Supreme Court — that Bond has served her prison term and reunited with her husband."


The chemical weapons charge was beyond stupid but I have to question the high-speed chase ruling.

I don't know the specific details of the chase but I am fine with spike strips, pit maneuvers and general efforts to disable a vehicle. However I don't buy the "public safety" argument as an excuse to shoot to kill - if the police didn't pursue the guy because of his egregious and dastardly crime of driving with only one working headlight, there would not have been any danger to the public in the first place.

If the guy had just pulled off an armed robbery or was otherwise a danger to the public *before* the chase, my perspective might be different, but wow... kill everyone in the car because they drove away over a faulty headlight stop?

If you're good with that then I guess you must be pretty upset over THIS.

edlada


quality posts: 6 Private Messages edlada
MarkDaSpark wrote:It is when he's on Guard Duty. That's not AWOL in a war zone, that's desertion. "The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently," or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk "important duty". Guarding your fellow soldiers in a war zone is an important duty.

Supposedly from someone in his unit, there's a statement going around that he actually asked some Afghan children where the Taliban were after he left his post. He also supposedly "had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things."

I still want a CM to officially investigate, but the more I hear/read, the more I think he's guilty.

Edit: It's also not like he walked a little ways off, he walked far away from the outpost.



A court martial is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. The preliminary step is an Article 32 investigation in which the records and witnesses are examined to determine if the case will go to a court martial, sort of like a grand jury in civilian law. The military doesn't like to try cases and lose them so in most cases that go to a court martial, the prosecution has a pretty good idea they will get a conviction. The normal conviction rate for courts martial is above 90%. Unless there is very compelling evidence against the soldier, I doubt it will go to a court martial.

My dogs like me, that is important.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:It is when he's on Guard Duty. That's not AWOL in a war zone, that's desertion. "The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently," or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk "important duty". Guarding your fellow soldiers in a war zone is an important duty.

Supposedly from someone in his unit, there's a statement going around that he actually asked some Afghan children where the Taliban were after he left his post. He also supposedly "had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things."

I still want a CM to officially investigate, but the more I hear/read, the more I think he's guilty.

Edit: It's also not like he walked a little ways off, he walked far away from the outpost.


Wasn't there another soldier who did virtually the same thing except he took his gun with him and massacred some villagers before returning to his post as if nothing had happened?

Who knows why the guy walked off or what exactly his intentions were. Maybe he didn't even know himself. Whatever they were, they were never fulfilled due to his capture. Or perhaps he even found them and surrendered? From the little bit I've heard about him it sounds like he has mental issues.

I don't doubt that he was attempting to flee his post but you're ascribing specific motivations (desertion) and intentions (remain away permanently) to the man that nobody but he could possibly know for sure.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:It sounds like he lost his poopy.

Edit: Poopy. LOL



Probably. I still miss when it was Manos: Hands of Fate ... or whatever.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:The chemical weapons charge was beyond stupid but I have to question the high-speed chase ruling.

I don't know the specific details of the chase but I am fine with spike strips, pit maneuvers and general efforts to disable a vehicle. However I don't buy the "public safety" argument as an excuse to shoot to kill - if the police didn't pursue the guy because of his egregious and dastardly crime of driving with only one working headlight, there would not have been any danger to the public in the first place.

If the guy had just pulled off an armed robbery or was otherwise a danger to the public *before* the chase, my perspective might be different, but wow... kill everyone in the car because they drove away over a faulty headlight stop?

If you're good with that then I guess you must be pretty upset over THIS.



The issue was that they had surrounded the car, and he tried to drive thru them. There's video of the whole incident that SCOTUS used. All officers should have to wear video cams (or have them on their vehicles) at all times. Protects them and us!

Let's face it, if you're stupid enough to drive off for a simple traffic stop, and then attempt to drive through armed police officers, you're a candidate for the Darwin Awards.


Have to watch the video of the 2nd.


Edit: Really? Of course that was excessive. He stood on the hood, while it was stopped and fired.

But that quoted the recent SCOTUS ruling that I mentioned:

"He said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this week made clear that officers are prohibited from firing on suspects after a threat to public safety has ended."

Obviously, the threat hadn't ended in the first incident. Again, there was video that SCOTUS reviewed prior to rendering their ruling.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:Probably. I still miss when it was Manos: Hands of Fate ... or whatever.


LOL, I liked that one too.



Also Bandolier Of Carrots.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
edlada wrote:A court martial is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. The preliminary step is an Article 32 investigation in which the records and witnesses are examined to determine if the case will go to a court martial, sort of like a grand jury in civilian law. The military doesn't like to try cases and lose them so in most cases that go to a court martial, the prosecution has a pretty good idea they will get a conviction. The normal conviction rate for courts martial is above 90%. Unless there is very compelling evidence against the soldier, I doubt it will go to a court martial.



Sounds like there is compelling evidence. But then again, POTUS might put pressure on them to not proceed. However, there's quite a bit of pressure to proceed with an investigation at least.

And an investigation might determine he was indeed, "not of right mind", or that he was of right mind.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:LOL, I liked that one too.



Also Bandolier Of Carrots.



So mad I skipped it due to the shirt color.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:The issue was that they had surrounded the car, and he tried to drive thru them. There's video of the whole incident that SCOTUS used. All officers should have to wear video cams (or have them on their vehicles) at all times. Protects them and us!

Let's face it, if you're stupid enough to drive off for a simple traffic stop, and then attempt to drive through armed police officers, you're a candidate for the Darwin Awards.


Have to watch the video of the 2nd.


Edit: Really? Of course that was excessive. He stood on the hood, while it was stopped and fired.

But that quoted the recent SCOTUS ruling that I mentioned:

"He said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this week made clear that officers are prohibited from firing on suspects after a threat to public safety has ended."

Obviously, the threat hadn't ended in the first incident. Again, there was video that SCOTUS reviewed prior to rendering their ruling.


That changes things, I wasn't aware of what happened at the end of the chase. Strange that they would refer to "public safety" though - it was the safety of the policemen in danger which still justifies deadly force but why refer to "public safety" as the justification? To me, the biggest threat to public safety was the chase itself, which should never have been initiated over a faulty headlight. Police should not automatically chase everyone who flees from them, there should be regulations about the types of offenses/offenders that can be pursued. I realize there will always be gray areas in these types of situations but for gosh sakes, how about a little discretion once in awhile?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:That changes things, I wasn't aware of what happened at the end of the chase. Strange that they would refer to "public safety" though - it was the safety of the policemen in danger which still justifies deadly force but why refer to "public safety" as the justification? To me, the biggest threat to public safety was the chase itself, which should never have been initiated over a faulty headlight. Police should not automatically chase everyone who flees from them, there should be regulations about the types of offenses/offenders that can be pursued. I realize there will always be gray areas in these types of situations but for gosh sakes, how about a little discretion once in awhile?



What if they had a kidnapped child hidden in the car? Or a lot of weapons on the back seat on their way to a "Gun Free Zone"? It's a simple traffic stop, why run at all?

The bigger threat are the (Everybody has something they're good at.)s who fail to pull over when they hear a siren. It always amazes me when people keep driving when they hear a siren.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:What if they had a kidnapped child hidden in the car? Or a lot of weapons on the back seat on their way to a "Gun Free Zone"? It's a simple traffic stop, why run at all?


I don't think you can assume that they are guilty of a serious offense simply because they flee.
People run from the cops for many different reasons. Of course most of those reasons are stupid so I'll defer back to your Darwin Awards comment but he may have seen it in a movie (Lord knows Hollywood has glorified car chases for as long as there have been cars and movies), maybe he was showing off for his girlfriend, maybe he was holding some dope. Whatever the reason, unless the car was stolen or he was flashing a gun or wanted for another crime, I don't agree with initiating the chase over a headlight. Enact some strict laws about eluding the police (if there aren't already) and serve warrants to the perps for fleeing in the absence of another serious crime.

MarkDaSpark wrote:
The bigger threat are the (Everybody has something they're good at.)s who fail to pull over when they hear a siren. It always amazes me when people keep driving when they hear a siren.


Just saw a guy do that yesterday evening. Both lanes in my direction were blocked, ambulance coming from behind... this guy pulled into the previously empty left turn lane causing the ambulance to have to go on the wrong side of the road to get around. Fortunately there was a lane open on that side.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Sounds like there is compelling evidence. But then again, POTUS might put pressure on them to not proceed. However, there's quite a bit of pressure to proceed with an investigation at least.

And an investigation might determine he was indeed, "not of right mind", or that he was of right mind.



I would be shocked and very disappointed if there were no investigation conducted.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Re the car chase, a few things come to this wine-addled mind (2009 Raised by Wolves Cab, decanted for three hours before consuming - quite nice), a mind quite lacking in any legal training:

(1) This brings to mind the “reasonable person test” from a prior Supreme Court case. If you were a police officer, having stopped someone for a simple infraction who then takes off, do you assume that it was only the vehicle infraction that he was worried about? Sure, it might just be rampant idiocy, but part of a police officer’s creed is to protect the public. Assuming that the person fleeing the law is not a threat of any sort doesn’t seem prudent.

(2) When a high-speed chase begins, the officers do not know that it will develop into a high-speed chase - many chases end very quickly, and it is impossible to tell whether any particular chase will last for an hour or 20 seconds.

)3) There is also the worry that if officers are told not to give chase, every criminal will know that departing the scene at high speed is the surest way to avoid apprehension.

As noted before, I am biased. And, as noted before, my mind is wine-addled.

Whether to pursue someone in any particular case will hinge on many considerations, and is not an easy decision. Ask any officers of decisions they regretted, and you'll hear stories of cases such as these. Innocent people are too frequently injured or killed in such chases. Judgments (often based on little information) of the mental state of the person, state of inebriation, and many other things must be decided on very quickly. The amount of force used is also crucial, as was the case in the instance that reached the Supreme Court.

The Cleveland case is immensely different - deadly force should never be used when the threat is over. But in the Supreme Court case, it was not over when the shots were fired.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen

Re: the Cleveland chase, we can all agree that Ofc. Brelo went "cowboy", shooting 15x while on the hood of the victims' car (49x altogether) and should be charged but what about the other 65 shots fired by 11 other officers? Were those ok?

The two unarmed victims were hit by about 25 bullets apiece but only one cop out of a dozen who fired shots is being charged. The five other indictments are supervisors being charged with dereliction of duty for not doing more to prevent the chase from spiraling out of control.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that at least someone is being held accountable but it's pretty much one sacrificial lamb and a slap on the wrist for 5 supervisors while the rest of those involved got paid vacations for their participation.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:I don't think you can assume that they are guilty of a serious offense simply because they flee.
People run from the cops for many different reasons. Of course most of those reasons are stupid so I'll defer back to your Darwin Awards comment but he may have seen it in a movie (Lord knows Hollywood has glorified car chases for as long as there have been cars and movies), maybe he was showing off for his girlfriend, maybe he was holding some dope. Whatever the reason, unless the car was stolen or he was flashing a gun or wanted for another crime, I don't agree with initiating the chase over a headlight. Enact some strict laws about eluding the police (if there aren't already) and serve warrants to the perps for fleeing in the absence of another serious crime.



The problem is how do you determine who was driving? If they flee before the officer determines who was behind the wheel, how can you prosecute?

I've seen more and more officers will back off and wait for them to run out of gas.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:The problem is how do you determine who was driving? If they flee before the officer determines who was behind the wheel, how can you prosecute?

I've seen more and more officers will back off and wait for them to run out of gas.


Good point about not being sure who's driving in some instances. I don't know, there is probably no perfect solution but I feel whatever action is taken should err on the side of caution by the officer(s), such as the back off strategy you mention. Police are getting better at coordinating efforts with other jurisdictions, maybe they could try to concentrate more on heading off those who flee while doing a slower pursuit from behind.

Certainly officers should receive extensive training for these types of situations so that they will be more likely to respond appropriately when they occur.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

So popular with Private Callers today! Can't imagine why!


Just in case, today is futile election day in California. Where everyone gets to vote for everyone. No longer do we get to determine who our party's candidate will be, but only the 2 with the most votes go on to November.


I suppose this will give the Peace & Freedom and Green Parties a chance to start partying early, since none of their candidates will have a chance in the top 2 (to go on to the November elections).

I still can't believe that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional (again, the first time this stupidity passed, it was thrown out). Basically, in November, I will have to vote for the lesser of 2 weevils in just about every state office.

Tell me again how this doesn't take away my voting rights?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:So popular with Private Callers today! Can't imagine why!


Just in case, today is futile election day in California. Where everyone gets to vote for everyone. No longer do we get to determine who our party's candidate will be, but only the 2 with the most votes go on to November.


I suppose this will give the Peace & Freedom and Green Parties a chance to start partying early, since none of their candidates will have a chance in the top 2 (to go on to the November elections).

I still can't believe that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional (again, the first time this stupidity passed, it was thrown out). Basically, in November, I will have to vote for the lesser of 2 weevils in just about every state office.

Tell me again how this doesn't take away my voting rights?



You could move to Nebraska. We basically have a one party system here. So much so that we're almost assuredly going to elect Pete Ricketts our Governor and I will openly weep for the stupidity that will ensue. He's the epitome of "I know what's best for you" that I despise so much. (When 2 people love each other…) me.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:Tell me again how this doesn't take away my voting rights?



I'm interested in why you think it does take away your voting rights - maybe there's something I didn't think of (this is often the case). Since there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, I'm not sure why the California system would be unconstitutional.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Tell me again how this doesn't take away my voting rights?



Um, because you still get to vote? I am confuse. Do you HAVE to vote for one of 2 (Everybody has something they're good at.)s? Can you write in Odin?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:I'm interested in why you think it does take away your voting rights - maybe there's something I didn't think of (this is often the case). Since there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, I'm not sure why the California system would be unconstitutional.



Then why state ANY political party ever?

Put it this way ... today is the Primary Election. When we were supposed to determine our party's candidates for the General Election in November. As in every party (Odin, Ice Giants, Sleepy, Dopey, Tinfoil Hats, etc.) selects their candidate for the November election. So every voter still has his party represented in November.

Instead, in most areas, you will get only the top 2 for November, which means that for the most part, we will get 2 Dopeys as a choice. Or 2 Sleepys. ALL the rest don't go on the November ballot. So no Odin, Ice Giant, or Tinfoil Hats on the ballot in November. And being most of the state has been districted for Dopeys, Sleepys don't really have a chance to be on the ballot in November.

November means that it will be mostly Dopeys on every state office slot.

So tell me again why my vote isn't useless?


Edit: And Write-Ins are usually only good in local areas, not for state-wide offices. I don't think anyone has every won going write-in for a state-wide office.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:So tell me again why my vote isn't useless?



"Useless" is one thing, and not completely cut and dried (I'm sure Republicans in Chicago and Democrats in Utah might make the same claim).

But "taking away my voting rights" is something else entirely. You can still vote. The fact that your candidate of choice didn't make the finals doesn't mean your voting rights have been revoked.


I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:"Useless" is one thing, and not completely cut and dried (I'm sure Republicans in Chicago and Democrats in Utah might make the same claim).

But "taking away my voting rights" is something else entirely. You can still vote. The fact that your candidate of choice didn't make the finals doesn't mean your voting rights have been revoked.



+1.

I'll agree with "useless" here in CA, though. I'm not sure we have a single thing working properly, well, or to the degree anyone intelligent thinks it should be.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
MarkDaSpark wrote:Then why state ANY political party ever?

Put it this way ... today is the Primary Election. When we were supposed to determine our party's candidates for the General Election in November. As in every party (Odin, Ice Giants, Sleepy, Dopey, Tinfoil Hats, etc.) selects their candidate for the November election. So every voter still has his party represented in November.

Instead, in most areas, you will get only the top 2 for November, which means that for the most part, we will get 2 Dopeys as a choice. Or 2 Sleepys. ALL the rest don't go on the November ballot. So no Odin, Ice Giant, or Tinfoil Hats on the ballot in November. And being most of the state has been districted for Dopeys, Sleepys don't really have a chance to be on the ballot in November.

November means that it will be mostly Dopeys on every state office slot.

So tell me again why my vote isn't useless?


Edit: And Write-Ins are usually only good in local areas, not for state-wide offices. I don't think anyone has every won going write-in for a state-wide office.



All Primaries should be illegal, especially those based on political party. They use public funds, yet limit both the candidates and (in most cases) the voters.

I would actually much prefer what you've described. Get rid of the party system! In effect, your primary is just the first vote to determine who participates in a run-off in November... it should have some provision that you must get x% of the "primary" vote to be on the next ballot... same as any other election.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
joelsisk wrote:All Primaries should be illegal, especially those based on political party. They use public funds, yet limit seeboth the candidates and (in most cases) the voters.

I would actually much prefer what you've described. Get rid of the party system! In effect, your primary is just the first vote to determine who participates in a run-off in November... it should have some provision that you must get x% of the "primary" vote to be on the next ballot... same as any other election.



In that case, there really is no place like Nebraska!

Seriously, it makes sense. Now if only we'd do the same for Governor.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:Then why state ANY political party ever?

Put it this way ... today is the Primary Election. When we were supposed to determine our party's candidates for the General Election in November. As in every party (Odin, Ice Giants, Sleepy, Dopey, Tinfoil Hats, etc.) selects their candidate for the November election. So every voter still has his party represented in November.



Then why does the state have anything to say or do or interfere in internal party politics? It seems like each party should do what they want, decide however they want who gets to run in November. Oh, and btw, that also implies there's no reason whatsoever to only have 2 people running in November. State sponsorship of political parties is corrosive and counterproductive.

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Then why does the state have anything to say or do or interfere in internal party politics? It seems like each party should do what they want, decide however they want who gets to run in November. Oh, and btw, that also implies there's no reason whatsoever to only have 2 people running in November. State sponsorship of political parties is corrosive and counterproductive.



Really? Perhaps one should educate themselves if they want to become a citizen.

"The California system awards the top two vote-getters in each race a place on the November ballot even if they are from the same party."

Top two vote getters. Are the only ones allowed on the November ballot. What is unclear about this? It's the law.


In the two states (Louisiana and Washington) that have been using this system, studies have shown that "in more than 80 elections using the top-two system in those states, no independent or third-party candidate has advanced to the general-election ballot."

This is strong evidence that the system disadvantages challengers and discourages diversity. Which would seem more "corrosive".


Edit: Under the old system, you only voted for your party's candidate for each office in the Primary. If you were Independent, you could select one of the parties to vote for.

OR, you could change party affiliation if you really, really wanted to vote for one candidate. There was no limitation on how often you could switch your party affiliation.

Then in the General Election, ALL the parties had their candidates on the ballot. And you could vote for whomever you wanted to vote for.

I'm still not sure how anyone could think the current system is anything but biased towards the party that has the most voters in your district. And corrosive. Let's not forget that.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
klezman wrote:Then why does the state have anything to say or do or interfere in internal party politics? It seems like each party should do what they want, decide however they want who gets to run in November. Oh, and btw, that also implies there's no reason whatsoever to only have 2 people running in November. State sponsorship of political parties is corrosive and counterproductive.

I'm agreeing with a Canuck?
Yeah, they shouldn't, but our wonderful, informed, educated electorate passed a proposition (iirc) that fundamentally changed CA elections; imo for the worse.
Guess that's what happens when the democratic process runs amuck and one party has a super majority, and now we gotta deal with it.

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:I'm agreeing with a Canuck?
Yeah, they shouldn't, but our wonderful, informed, educated electorate passed a proposition (iirc) that fundamentally changed CA elections; imo for the worse.
Guess that's what happens when the democratic process runs amuck and one party has a super majority, and now we gotta deal with it.



Solution

Plus, a mansion here costs about as much as a cracker box there.

Oh, and we basically have a super majority the other way.

Here ya go, buy This one and I'll just rent the loft in the detached four car garage, which is roughly the size of the house I have now. I mean poopy, the GARAGE has as many bathrooms as my house!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I also don't like the California system, though I feel it falls short of taking away voting rights. "Dumb but not unconstitutional" is a category that covers an awful lot of ground.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
bhodilee wrote:Solution

Plus, a mansion here costs about as much as a cracker box there.

Oh, and we basically have a super majority the other way.

Here ya go, buy This one and I'll just rent the loft in the detached four car garage, which is roughly the size of the house I have now. I mean poopy, the GARAGE has as many bathrooms as my house!

I'd need a basement, err, cellar...

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:I'd need a basement, err, cellar...



I'm sure it has one. likely finished

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

Update ... So far, the top races (Gov., Lt. Gov., Sec State) are still Dem/Rep without close calls.

However, the Controller's office is close. Top vote is for a Rep, then you have 2 Dems & a Rep close (2nd is Dem by a hair on their chinny chin chin!). 21.7, 21.6, & 21.5 are the percentages for the Dem, Rep, & Dem. One more Dem and a Green were around 5% each.

For Attorney General, you had the incumbent Dem with 53% with 4 Rep's, 1 Lib, and 1 Green. The two lowest Reps had 8%, with the Lib & Green under 5% total!


So Statewide, looks so far to exclude all but the Dems & Reps.


Looking at the Congressional races ... some districts the incumbent is running unopposed, probably because it's a "safe" one (where the majority is one or the other Party).

However, in District 25, you have 2 Dems, 4 Reps, 1 Lib, and 1 NPP (No Party Preference aka Independent). The top 2 are both Reps, so those voters will only get to choose between those two only in November.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

Sad ... City voting percent when State Primary election as well.

Total Registered Voters: 256,735
Precinct Registration: 256,735
Precinct Ballots Cast: 22,827 8.9%
Vote By Mail Ballots Cast: 22,423 8.7%
Total Ballots Cast: 45,250 17.6%


Even sadder?

LA County Ballots: 13.1% (lowest of all counties)
Statewide: 18.3%


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Sad ... City voting percent when State Primary election as well.

Total Registered Voters: 256,735
Precinct Registration: 256,735
Precinct Ballots Cast: 22,827 8.9%
Vote By Mail Ballots Cast: 22,423 8.7%
Total Ballots Cast: 45,250 17.6%


Even sadder?

LA County Ballots: 13.1% (lowest of all counties)
Statewide: 18.3%



and now you know why your State is run by (Everybody has something they're good at.)s

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Here in South Dakota, voter turnout was 20.75%. Primary turnout is always low - it was up around 60% in the 2012 general election.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
bhodilee wrote:and now you know why your State is run by (Everybody has something they're good at.)s

Great filter!
Just wondering what it may be?

CT