The Official 2018 Election Thread

[Tank]

7 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

This is so stupid and dishonest.  Whatever man.  The open primary and the independent districting were both brought before and approved by the voters.  Like I said.  You simply don’t respect the outcomes of a popular vote. 

These are the same voters that approved browns crazy train and couldn't clearly read prop 6 well enough to defeat that screw job of a fuel tax.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

8 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Right, and this open primary system just happened to start when Dems have a large majority.

you don't want to see what is right in front of you.

The whole thing seems like a sham to me. At least let each party choose their candidate and have it out in the general election.

[arch stanton]

59 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

The whole thing seems like a sham to me. At least let each party choose their candidate and have it out in the general election.

Can you define "each party"?

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

The whole thing seems like a sham to me. At least let each party choose their candidate and have it out in the general election.

It’s not a sham and it’s not complicated.  There’s a non partisan primary election.  Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Communist.  Whatever.  Can run in this primary. The top two vote getters oppose each other in the general election.  That’s it.  It’s one thing to dislike that process.  That’s fine. I personally have no issue with it, but that’s beside the point.  Think about the possibities this presents.  Maybe an actual 3rd party candidate might have a chance in this structure.  Anyway,  It’s nothing that can be reasonably described as “voter supression” 

I noted above that 28% percent of California’s registered voters are Republican. Conservatives problem in California isn’t the way the state has elections.  The problem is that they’re significantly outnumbered because their policies are not popular here.  Conservatives already disproportionately represent a minority of the population in the legislative branch of the federal government.  2 senators represent 40 million Californians, a strong majority of whom are liberal.  That’s more then like 10 red states combined.  And yet, they get 20 senators or something like that to represent that minority population.  Are you going to seriously contend that California’s 2 Democratic senators represents a “sham” ? Some sort of injustice to conservatives ? Re think this man. 

 

[Lou]

Ha. did a lib actually bash cons for reveling in victimhood ?

that's rich 

 

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Ha. did a lib actually bash cons for reveling in victimhood ?

that's rich 

 

It's 2018. Get with the times. Everybody's a victim. 

[arch stanton]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

Ha. did a lib actually bash cons for reveling in victimhood ?

that's rich 

 

Am I a lib?

[RallyMo]

25 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Am I a lib?

It's 2018. Get with the times. Everybody's a lib on this board if they post something critical of cons.

[Blarg]

8 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I noted above that 28% percent of California’s registered voters are Republican. Conservatives problem in California isn’t the way the state has elections.  The problem is that they’re significantly outnumbered because their policies are not popular here.  

What you are promoting is eliminating minority voices in the California legislature. Which is counterproductive to governing all the people instead of just the majority. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

10 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Can you define "each party"?

Meaning the two major parties.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

9 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

It’s not a sham and it’s not complicated.  There’s a non partisan primary election.  Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Communist.  Whatever.  Can run in this primary. The top two vote getters oppose each other in the general election.  That’s it.  It’s one thing to dislike that process.  That’s fine. I personally have no issue with it, but that’s beside the point.  Think about the possibities this presents.  Maybe an actual 3rd party candidate might have a chance in this structure.  Anyway,  It’s nothing that can be reasonably described as “voter supression” 

I might buy that if the candidates were non partisan.

[arch stanton]

33 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Meaning the two major parties.

Beyond the fact that they've spent generations programming you to think this way why should these two "major parties" get a free pass into the general election?

[mtangelsfan]

5 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Beyond the fact that they've spent generations programming you to think this way why should these two "major parties" get a free pass into the general election?

Why should just one?

[arch stanton]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Why should just one?

They don't get a free pass. They win the primaries

[mtangelsfan]

7 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

They don't get a free pass. They win the primaries

It might as well be one.  When one party (or a large group of voters) have no reason to go to the polls for a federal election that is a problem.  Again, this system originated after the dems had a super majority.  That is not a coincidence.  I don't see how it is any different than rigging districts.

[arch stanton]

If they're staying home then I guess things aren't really that bad, are they? Surely there can't be too many voters satisfied with what the Dems are doing. It shouldn't be beyond the grasp of any other party  to get that across and at worst push one of the Dems off the ballot

[mtangelsfan]

17 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If they're staying home then I guess things aren't really that bad, are they? Surely there can't be too many voters satisfied with what the Dems are doing. It shouldn't be beyond the grasp of any other party  to get that across and at worst push one of the Dems off the ballot

You give voters too much credit.  These are the folks that couldn't figure out how to defeat the gas tax.

[arch stanton]

Then all is lost and what’s the point? If the numbers really are 44% and 28% that shouldn’t be insurmountable to get on the ballot. To win is a different story. Maybe if so many California Republicans weren’t posting from places like Montana, Colorado, Washington.......

[Lhalo]

On 12/1/2018 at 7:28 AM, RallyMo said:

It's not fraud, but I do find this interesting:

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-s-late-votes-broke-big-for-13432727.php?f?&t=3dd95dbe7c

It certainly makes me think that Republicans will be more likely to adopt similar tactics in future elections in OC.

 

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

Then all is lost and what’s the point? If the numbers really are 44% and 28% that shouldn’t be insurmountable to get on the ballot. To win is a different story. Maybe if so many California Republicans weren’t posting from places like Montana, Colorado, Washington.......

I am not a Republican, but since I am Libertarian I do have empathy for folks who don't feel like they have a voice.

Let me add that there are many good reasons to leave California, politics being up there.

[Spirit]

15 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Can you define "each party"?

 

I can.  Every party that has a candidate they want to run.

 

 

[Spirit]

Oh!  And you should have a line for a write in candidate too.

 

 

[Jason]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:48 PM, UndertheHalo said:

Because no republican got enough votes in the open primary.  Where republicans did have a chance to vote for a republican.  2 Republicans could also come out of this structure instead of 2 Democrats.  This won’t happen because of the states political make up.  But there’s no institutional structure that precludes that possibility.  You’re making a ludicrous false equivalence.  The political leanings of the state are what they are.  Republican voters are widely outnumbered.  Of the registered voters in the state they are approx 28%. Democrat’s are 44%. 

What if one of those registered Democrats is sick of their party's shit and wants to vote Republican? They do not have that choice in the general election. You are assuming that a registered voter will vote for their party representative no matter what. 

[Spirit]

The whole thing is a sham.  And it results in voter suppression.

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

What if one of those registered Democrats is sick of their party's shit and wants to vote Republican? They do not have that choice in the general election. You are assuming that a registered voter will vote for their party representative no matter what. 

Jason, they are free to vote for the candidate that they want in the open primary.  In your scenario they’d be presumably join other republicans in voting for this republican candidate. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by UndertheHalo