California Supreme Court blocks measure asking voters to split state in 3
Full Name:
Dan
Forums:
So much for DEMOCRACY... We the PEOPLE are OBVIOUSLY not Smart enough to Vote.... What the F*$K is this 1820?
But come on, if you haven't realized your VOTE MEANS NOTHING since Gore/Bush and the Hang Chad then your PART of the PROBLEM!!!!
The US of A is not and NEVER will be a DEMOCRACY FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.
IT's for the CORPORATIONS by the CORPORATIONS....
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8545676-181/california-supreme-court-b...
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bryen
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/18/court-blocks-measure-asking-voters-to-sp...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bryen
To Dan's point, people don't
To Dan's point, people don't often discuss it, but in my opinion Ohio in 2004 was every bit as stolen as Florida in 2000, Kerry just rolled over and chose not to fight it, I met Kerry on that campaign, in hindsight, I'm not overly impressed, he kind of turned out to be a bit of a disappointment then, a larger disappointment these days. Everyone knows 2000 was blatantly stolen, people forget 2004 was equally stolen.
https://youtu.be/JkTztPol5_Y
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
I'm mostly with you so far,
I'm mostly with you so far, Dan.
You're a Libertarian, right?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
No one is letting you have 4
Other states will never let you have 4 extra senators.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Other states will never let
Other states will never let you have 4 extra senators<<<
But are they really "extra" in light of ND and other lightly populated states being afforded 2?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> But are they really "extra
>> But are they really "extra" in light of ND and other lightly populated states being afforded 2?
That was the compromise when we designed Congress. No way low population states give up that power now.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
The number of senators was
The number of senators was never supposed to reflect population.
Now if you want to talk under (or over) representation in The House, you have a valid point.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>>The US of A is not and
>>>>The US of A is not and NEVER will be a DEMOCRACY FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE
Right. Its a Federal Republic, with a lot of quirky things like two senators per state and the electoral college.
You are also right that the 2000 election was stolen, but the California thing is a matter of California's law and constitution so you will need to take that up with them.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
That was the compromise when
That was the compromise when we designed Congress. No way low population states give up that power now<<<
And was it not a compromise to the end of moving forward with a national framework vs. a glorified "League of Nations"?
If "original intent" re: compromise was based more upon the pragmatic considerations of getting all states to sign off at the time on a new national framework, then is it possible some ideological considerations got lost in the shuffle in terms of really being able to "dial-in" the new system?
If you look at the disparity of CA vs. ND re: representation in the Senate, even if you are one to accept a major component of distillation of the "popular voice" of the people, why should residents of some states be subject to greater distillation than residents of others?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
The proposition is and was
The proposition is and was stupid. Glad this issue has been put to rest.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
The red state peeps who use
The red state peeps inland who use all the services want to separate themselves from the tax revenue that pays for it all. Go nuts!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Did anyone actually read the
Did anyone actually read the article. The three states proposition violates the constitution. You can’t radically change how California governs itself by paying a few signature gathers and putting a proposition on the ballot.
There is a way to do it and that is you have to get 2/3 of the legislator to vote to put it on the ballot. Please don’t pretend that living in a constitutional republic is some kind of conspiracy against you freedom. Don’t like it change the constitution.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> The red state peeps inland
>> The red state peeps inland who use all the services want to separate themselves from the tax revenue that pays for it all. Go nuts!
No, we're good. Keep sending federal dollars our way. We know you love redistribution and progressive taxing.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
Meant inland California Ender
Meant inland California Ender. At least in this thread.
Progressive taxing no just taxing runaway wealth
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Oh, sorry, my bad. I try to
Oh, sorry, my bad. I try to stay out of other state's internal politics.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
wasn't giving you shit about
wasn't giving you shit about it just stating my original intent of my post
crazy proposals like this invite outside criticism and rightfully so IMHO
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
>>>Glad this issue has been
>>>Glad this issue has been put to rest.
Not necessarily. And no, it hasn't been decided that it violates the state constitution either. That was the argument made by the challengers of the proposition and the court decided that they made a decent enough showing that it might be an valid concern for them to look into it. Splitting a state is not an issue that comes up much and the Cal Supremes move SLOW AS FUCK. They took it off the ballot for this election while they decide the issue. Given how long it takes them to decide whether a search was valid, that could be years, but I imagine they'll decide by 2020. If its valid I would assume that the guy who got all the signatures wouldn't have to go through all that again. Having this on the ballot in 2020 when all those maga yay-hoos with their State of Jefferson confederate fetishes are super motivated to vote might actually enhance its chances.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
So let’s hear it. Which
So let’s hear it. Which California would be the best and why? Which would be the worst and why? And for extra credit, which would fall in the middle of the other two, and how?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
Hahaha there’s an area called
Hahaha there’s an area called “Inyo” like “inyo butt”
And “Yolo” county sounds dangerous
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Yuba County? Anyone
Yuba County? Anyone remember the "Yuba Gold" ads in the back of Relix magazine? Anyone know what that shit was?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
nothing new here...
nothing new here...
http://soj51.org/
The State of Jefferson lives...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
This proposal would be a
This proposal would be a nightmare for the State of Jefferson folks. They would end up in an even more blue state then they already are
http://www.us-places.com/California/population-by-County.htm
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
NorCal is redder than you
NorCal is redder than you think outside the bay area.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
https://www.google.com/search
https://www.google.com/search?q=2016+california+electoral+map&hl=en&rlz=...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
The Bay Area is redder than
The Bay Area is redder than people think.