Bungle In The Jungle
California's relatively new primary system is unfair and needs to change back to the way it used to be. I say this not out of partisanship -- quite the opposite, in fact. The benefits of California's so-called "jungle primary" have all gone to the Democratic side, but basic fairness demands I stand up for the rights of California Republicans, third-party voters, and independents, because theirs are the rights which are being abridged.
Six years ago, California voters passed two major adjustments to our voting system. The first I applauded (and still do), because Proposition 20 guaranteed that the politicians would be completely excluded from the process of redrawing district lines after every U.S. Census. Redistricting is perhaps the wonkiest of all political fights, but it is the process where gerrymandering takes place, so it is an important one. California voters decided they had had enough, and put a non-partisan citizens' commission in charge of redrawing the lines -- a valuable change and one that stands up for the concept of fairness.
However, in the same year, California voters also passed Proposition 14, which gave us our jungle primary. What this did was essentially shift the general election lineup to the primary, and turn the general election into nothing more than a runoff between the top two primary vote-winners. If this doesn't sound so bad, consider that Californian Republicans will have no candidate from their party to vote for in November for a (very rare) open U.S. Senate race. That is simply unfair, and if I were a Republican, I'd be hopping mad about it.
The primary election is supposed to be about choosing partisan nominees for the big race in November. That is no longer true in the Golden State. Now, the primary election -- which has a much smaller turnout than the general -- is where you are guaranteed to see all the Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian Party candidates (as well as a whole slew of other minor parties). You are free to even write in a candidate if you'd like. The current open race to replace the retiring Senator Barbara Boxer had a whopping 34 candidates to choose from. But only two of them -- both of whom are Democrats -- will be on the general election ballot in November. And write-ins are not allowed.
That is just patently unfair, even if I will be voting as a Democrat. I certainly would not like it if the tables were turned and all I got was the choice between two Republicans. To say nothing of the Greens and Libertarians, who are almost guaranteed to never see their candidates in major races on the general election ballot.
California has 53 seats in the House of Representatives. At least five of these races (and perhaps one or two more, when the final vote-count is in) will also have two Democrats on the November ballot this year, with no other party represented at all (there are no districts where two Republicans will exclude all Democrats from the general election ballot, I should add). The theory behind the whole jungle primary idea was that it would help elect moderate candidates, avoiding the severe division between Tea Partiers and hard Lefties in our elected officials. It is doubtful (both in California or in other states which have the jungle primary system) whether this has worked as intended. One of the House races will even be a rematch between an incumbent Democrat (Mike Honda) who is being challenged by a "business-friendly" Democrat (Ro Khanna) for his Silicon Valley district. So for the second time in a row, Silicon Valley Republicans have nobody to vote for.
Now, not having a candidate of your own party to vote for in November is fair, but only in one particular circumstance -- when your own party doesn't even bother to run a candidate. Indeed, Democrat Jackie Speier is unopposed and will be re-elected to the House because nobody else will be on the ballot, and in the 34th District the Republicans also failed to put up a candidate, so Xavier Becerra and Adrienne Edwards (both Democrats) will face off in November. If you are a Republican voter in either district, well, that's just tough patooties for you, pal -- since your own party was too chicken to even run someone.
But in all the other districts -- and statewide, for Senate -- being denied the choice of a candidate from your party in November is absolutely unfair and does nothing so much as to discourage turnout from minority party voters. Democrats are supposed to be for the concept of encouraging voter turnout in general, and this runs completely counter to that ideal. Only a fraction of those who vote in November turn out for the primaries, and that hasn't appreciably changed with the jungle primary system. This may be the voters' fault, but it is the reality.
The only office exempted from our jungle primary system is the presidency. Everybody in California still (thankfully) gets to vote for the partisan candidate of their choice on November's ballot for the highest office in the land. If you don't believe the jungle primary system is unfair, however, imagine the nationwide outcry if we had instituted the system for every office up for a vote. If California hadn't exempted the presidential vote from the new system, then in November only two names would appear on the ballot: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Sanders got a whole lot more votes than Donald Trump managed, so Trump wouldn't even be on the ballot in November. As I said, just imagine what Fox News would have to say about that.
Jungle primaries are inherently unfair. Why should election laws be created to help or hinder politicians of any ideological bent? "Moderate" candidates shouldn't need this artificial boost to be competitive -- if that's what the voters from that district truly want. Why should the laws be stacked for such moderates and against hard partisans? What, exactly, in the Constitution guarantees moderates deserve better treatment than partisans in our election laws?
A general election is where all parties have traditionally all had equal footing with the voters. Changing that was misguided, and it was unfair to Republicans and other minority party voters in the state. It has led to (with apologies to Ian Anderson and the rest of Jethro Tull) a real bungle in the jungle, and it really needs to be changed back to the way it used to be.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris: Here's a link from previous thread, to the Sam Sedar interview with Micah White from Occupy about his book: The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution.
http://majority.fm/2016/05/31/micah-white-the-end-of-protest/
Re: California's jungle system -- yes, it sound pretty screwy!
Also, this interview is good: Rana Foroohar: Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business.
Her book outlines how the rise of Finance as created the disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street and talks about things that can be done to fix it.
http://majority.fm/2016/06/07/77-rana-foroohar-makers-and-takers-the-rise-of-finance-and-the-fall-of-american-business/
RIP muhammad ali. at first i though this column would touch on that topic.
JL
Finally, for everyone: this USA Today article discusses how Donald Trump has spent his business career screwing over the little guy, one small business and worker at a time: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email
He's been sued over 3,500 times. He hires contractors, agrees on a price, then either doesn't pay at all or tries to get them to take less than was agreed. His excuse is always "the work wasn't good enough". Evidently that's the case for every one he hires. He just ties people up in lawsuits because he has the dough and they don't.
He is every form of bully. He has money, so he screws over people who don't because he can. There is nothing, nothing, admirable or even excusable, about that.
Although, one positive unintended consequence of this may be that Darryl Issa will go down. With no Repubs on the senate side running, and disgust with the Donald turning off Repubs, they may stay home in droves. Apparently Issa's Dem challenger is closer than usual given Issa is considered to be in a safe red district. That would be icing on the cake.
You are right Chris. As a fellow Californian, are there any movements afoot to overturn this rule?
Paula [6] -
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed -- I went through the official pages one by one but was mostly paying attention to party designation rather than the names themselves. But you're right:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/49/
Issa's only up 5.6% and there was a non-partisan candidate ("NPP" = no party preference) who pulled down 3.4%, so it looks like the Dem might actually have a chance of getting rid of the car alarm king (or car theft king, take your choice...).
Thanks for pointing it out...
-CW
neilm [7] -
I dunno, but I'd join one if it existed... Prop 20 did the right thing, but 14 not so much...
-CW
Is Elizabeth Warren descending to Trump's level? If so, is this OK?
Feeling a bit ambivalent about today's attack from Warren. It wasn't factually incorrect, and I suppose she has decided to be "attack dog in chief", but it almost seems below her.
Maybe that is a condemnation on her target.
He is every form of bully. He has money, so he screws over people who don't because he can. There is nothing, nothing, admirable or even excusable, about that.
As opposed to the Democrat Candidate who is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION by the FBI for several felony violations of the Espionage Act???
Yea.. Ya'all got yerselves a REAL winner of a candidate there, eh?? :D
Trump may be a bully..
But he is also going to be POTUS..
And THAT just pisses ya'all off.. :D
Michale
Is Elizabeth Warren descending to Trump's level? If so, is this OK?
Feeling a bit ambivalent about today's attack from Warren.
Got a link???
Michale
As opposed to the Democrat Candidate who is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION by the FBI for several felony violations of the Espionage Act???>/I>
The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.
The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863
Clinton is going down.. :D
Michale
Neil,
Never mind.. I found it..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/warren-on-attack-against-trump-as-gets-behind-clinton.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Of course, it would be on FoxNews.. :D
I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. It's just run of the mill Democrat Party propaganda from a lying and self-centered Democrat..
Nothing out of the ordinary.. Same ol same ol..
Or is there another Warren attack out there??
Michale
Finally, for everyone: this USA Today article discusses how Donald Trump has spent his business career screwing over the little guy, one small business and worker at a time: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email
Old news.. Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnnn
This has all be brought up and dealt with... No one cares about the bigotry and hysteria of the Left Wingery...
When are you going to realize that, compared to Hillary Clinton, Trump is the epitome of virtue and integrity....
This election is about one thing and one thing only..
STATUS QUO ESTABLISHMENT vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT
And it's clear that the vast VAST majority of Americans are sick and tired of the Status Quo and sick and tired of the Establishment...
That means that the vast VAST majority of Americans are sick and tired of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats...
I really can't make it any simpler and plainer than that..
But I am sure I will spend the entire summer trying... :D
Michale
I'm going fishing in a half hr, so this will be brief and poorly edited.
The Big Two parties function mostly as fund raising and marketing agencies for political personalities. The primary system makes both parties subject to regular hostile takeovers by political personalities more or less aligned with one or the other of the big two. Party platforms count for little. Practical governing principles of the personalities are shaped by lobbyists. acting in the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals.
To the extent that any serious political philosophy takes place, it happens in the minor parties (which tend to focus on single issues) or think tanks (which focus on a few issues). They almost never get elected, sometimes they get co-opted.
The Democratic and Republican Parties act as if they were clauses in the Constitution. They are not, and in my view, are not deserving of special protective status. They are just accidents of a Constitution that games out to majority and minority bodies that take on names thru history.
We the People are stuck with this. It has been and always will be messy. Reform would require bringing down The Republic (when was the last amendment or Constitutional Convention?), which would probably be a lot messier.
RIP muhammad ali. at first i though this column would touch on that topic.
JL
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/03/ftp394/#comment-76331
Not that I get any credit around here.. :D
Michale
He is every form of bully. He has money, so he screws over people who don't because he can. There is nothing, nothing, admirable or even excusable, about that.
And yet, Democrats.... INCLUDING Hillary Clinton, took Trump's money hand over fist....
So, Democrats benefited from Trump's bullying...
Funny... NO ONE had a problem with it back then??
"Gee!! I wonder why!??"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
The rank hypocrisy is nauseating...
Michale
She could have made an endorsement of Bernie months ago when it could have made a difference. Instead she waited until the battle was over and now is going to endorse the winner.
ding, ding ding!! We have a winner..
Warren is nothing but an opportunistic politician.. She proved that with her on again/off again Native American status...
On a somewhat related note, some bleeding heart over at VOX wrote a commentary about how it cannot be denied that Clinton is a consummate politician..
And I was somewhat amazed because I don't think ANYONE has ever disputed that..
Personally, I think that Hillary Clinton is a POLITICIAN's politician...
But, for me, the ranking of POLITICIAN is somewhere between child molester and terrorist on my scumbag-ery scale...
Michale
EXCLUSIVE: Bill Clinton’s lover - before and AFTER his marriage - tells how 'lumpy' Hillary with her 'fat ankles and hair on her toes' schemed to get her to LIE on 60 Minutes about Bill's other affairs
'There appears to be no limit to what Hillary will do to destroy her perceived enemies,' Dolly Kyle writes in her new bombshell book
Kyle began sleeping with Bill Clinton after high school and their affair didn't end until he moved to the White House
'Billy was a sex addict; I was a codependent,' she admits in memoir that rips the lid off the power couple
Bill was undone by Wilt Chamberlain's claim to have slept with 20,000 women - That's ten times more than I've had!' he told Dolly
Dolly says Bill told her he and Hillary - who he called 'The Warden' -needed to have a baby 'so we can appear to be a normal couple'
'We need to do something serious to take attention off the Warden's lifestyle,' Bill said and Dolly suggested he sleep with Hillary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633977/Bill-Clinton-s-lover-Dolly-Kyle-tells-lumpy-Hillary-fat-ankles-hair-toes-schemed-LIE-60-Minutes-Bill-s-affairs.html#ixzz4BBNuD3hN
Oh wow....
This election is going to be SOOO much fun!!! :D
Michale
And today the Wall Street Journal (a Republican rag) has an article about the SERVER!!! http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863
Let's get some key quotes, shall we?
At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan.
The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe.
Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems.
…
State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials. It happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast and the U.S. diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didn’t have ready access to a more-secure system, either because it was night or they were traveling.
Emails sent over the low side sometimes were informal discussions that occurred in addition to more-formal notifications through secure communications, the officials said.
One such exchange came just before Christmas in 2011, when the U.S. ambassador sent a short, cryptic note to his boss indicating a drone strike was planned. That sparked a back-and-forth among Mrs. Clinton’s senior advisers over the next few days, in which it was clear they were having the discussions in part because people were away from their offices for the holiday and didn’t have access to a classified computer, officials said.
The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.
The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.
…
Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.
One reason is that government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.
When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’ She has said it was a mistake to use a personal server for email but it was a decision she made as a matter of convenience.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said: “If these officials’ descriptions are true, these emails were originated by career diplomats, and the sending of these types of emails was widespread within the government.”
U.S. officials said there is no evidence Pakistani intelligence officials intercepted any of the low-side State Department emails or used them to protect militants.
I'm sure this won't dent Michale's certainty about "the indictment" but it sure bolsters mine! (That there won't be one.)
But we'll see!
Hey Chris: comment swallowed...
Another bona fide and PROVEN lie of Hillary's..
She is on record as stating over and over again that the FBI investigation is nothing but a "security review"...
The White House has confirmed that the FBI is CRIMINALLY investigating felony violations of the espionage act committed by Hillary and her staff...
Say what you want about Trump, but he has never put this country's security at risk like Hillary has....
Michale
Mine too....
Michale
Ya'all need to keep in mind..
With as narcissitic as Bill Clinton is and as....er... "prolific" as Bill is with women and girls....
This is going to be an ongoing theme throughout the election..
The GOP is disciplined enough to keep many of their big guns under wraps for this very eventuality...
What has been revealed about Bill and Hillary Clinton to date is *NOTHING* compared to what's coming....
Michale
I agree with CW about redistricting, as probably does nearly everyone else. There is an inherent conflict of interest in having the boundaries drawn by the very people who depend on those boundaries for their careers.
I do not agree about the primary rules, CW.
Kenneth Arrow (Bell Labs in the '50s) proved that the only way to have a fair election/selection is for there to be exactly two options with a "win" being defined as a majority of votes.
More than two options or any other method of selection (e.g. ranked voting) can always violate at least one of the five criteria that define a fair election process.
This is true whether we are electing officials, voting on a ballot measure, selecting a business plan or whatever. It is necessary to reduce the number of options to two and have majority vote.
You can argue that the method to reduce to two is unfair. OK, that argument can be made. But not the argument that it is inherently unfair to have exactly two in the final round of voting. In fact, anything else is inherently unfair.
How ironic....
After months and months of the Democrats castigating Donald Trump over his BUILD A WALL idea......
Guess what Democrats are doing at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia.....
You'll never guess..
THEY ARE BUILDING A WALL!!!!
What about building bridges and not walls!!!?????
"Walls are for me, but not for thee..."
-Democrat Party
Like I said above...
The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party is so unequivocally blatant, it's nauseating!!
Michale
[15} Michale: So it doesn't bother you that your leader consistently screws over small business people like you? Like me?
Just doesn't matter? Fine with you? You think it's OK to stiff people? Do you do that? Do you hire people to paint and then refuse to pay them as a routine matter? Do you think you could get away with that for very long without being rich? Or do you think it's okay for rich people to screw un-rich people -- that's just one of the benefits?
[15} Michale: So it doesn't bother you that your leader consistently screws over small business people like you? Like me?
Does it bother you that your leader is a liar and a cheat.. Brutalizes women and puts this country's national security at risk???
Just doesn't matter? Fine with you? You think it's OK to stiff people?
Shall we ask Paula Jones how it is to be "stiffed" by Hillary Clinton??
Do you want to ask Juanita Broderick how it was to be raped by Bill Clinton and then stiffed by Hillary Clinton???
Let's ask Ambassador Chris Stevens how it feels to be stiffed and ignored by Hillary Clinton SIX HUNDRED TIMES!!!
Oh wait. We can't ask him about that.. Because he is DEAD....
When you are ready to talk seriously about YOUR leader's shortcomings, I'll be MORE than happy to talk about Trump's...
But not until then...
Michale
We can talk about your leaders lies..
LIE:"It's just a security review.."
FACT: It's a criminal investigation of felony violations of the Espionage Act..
LIE: "I had authorization for my private email server"
FACT: No one authorized Clinton's private email server
LIE: "My private insecure email server was not hacked."
FACT: Network Security specialists assert that Guccifer's claims of hacking Hillary's server were ALL credible
I could go on and on and on and on, but why bother??
No one here will address these points... Even after Director Comey issues his recommendation to indict Hillary and/or senior staff, ya'all will just continue to bury your heads in the sand...
So, I have to ask... What's the point???
Michale
The NNL filters are especially vicious today... :D
Michale
TEL AVIV — For decades, American support for Israel has been strong — and bipartisan. Both Democratic and Republican voters typically see the Jewish state as a “friend,” rank the country favorably compared with others, and tend to support Israel over the Palestinians. Leaders of both parties regularly vow to maintain the United States-Israel alliance and to keep Israel’s security a priority.
But many in Israel worry that this might be changing. And what worries them most is the Democratic Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/israels-problem-with-the-democratic-party.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Another reason why voting Demcorat Party is a really BAD idea...
Under a Hillary Clinton presidency, Israel will likely cease to exist...
Michale
Under a Hillary Clinton presidency, Israel will likely cease to exist...
That's not what the article you posted states. You might want to read beyond the second paragraph...
FOS BashiKook,
That's not what the article you posted states. You might want to read beyond the second paragraph...
You mean, like......
But the bad news for Israel is that Mrs. Clinton alone cannot resist what seems to be a steady drift in her party. The more Democratic voters identify as liberal — and the more liberal they are — the less they support Israel. Political reality will ultimately catch up with Mrs. Clinton and other moderate Democrats. In Congress, a sidling away from Israel among Democrats may already be underway. Once, Democratic legislators had to worry about appearing unsupportive of Israel; today some of them — especially those who need to be re-elected by liberal voters — seem to have the opposite concern: They do not want to be seen as too supportive.
Or...
For relations between Israel and the Democrats to remain strong, one of two things needs to happen: Either Democrats’ attitudes and Israel’s policies must converge, or Democrats must become convinced that weakening support for Israel will come with a political price. Mr. Netanyahu and Mrs. Clinton will have to find out which it is to be, or else the drift will continue.
The simple fact is, the Demcorat Party is the brain child of the JCPOA, which has proven MUCH more advantageous to Iran than to Israel or the US..
Iran continues it's BM program and it's support of terrorism...
Hillary and the Democrat Party is much more a friend of Iran than it is of Israel..
This is well documented...
Nit-pick all you want..
But, as usual, you are demonstrably wrong..
Michale
In short, anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton simple CANNOT claim that they support Israel...
Logic and reality forbids it...
Michale
Michale: All your stuff about Hillary is bullshit. The stuff about Trump is real.
Michale: All your stuff about Hillary is bullshit. The stuff about Trump is real.
So, in other words, you are not willing to face the FACTS about your leader....
The FBI doesn't investigate "bullshit"...
As long as you continue to deny reality, no meaningful serious debate is possible...
I have to wonder what you are going to do when FBI Director Comey issues his recommendation to indict Hillary and/or senior staff...
I have a feeling we won't be seeing much of you after that...
Which is truly a shame.. I mean that sincerely...
Michale
I have to wonder what you are going to do when FBI Director Comey issues his recommendation to indict Hillary and/or senior staff...
I have a feeling we won't be seeing much of you after that...
But I can promise you... When this happens, ya'all will be seeing *A LOT* of me... :D
Michale
My comment that got eaten had a bunch of quotes from a Wall Street Journal article today about the EMAILS!!!
Here's the link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863
If the other comment appears later you'll see. Bottom line, air rapidly running out of the indictment tire.
Since we continue to have to wait for the "indictment" I don't see why you can't comment on Trump's business practices now.
One thing ya'all need to keep in mind..
Trump is a candidate who has absolutely NO PROBLEM with blaring out the worst of the worst about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.. No dig is too dirty or too low...
And the WIDELY read DRUDGE REPORT has absolutely NO PROBLEM with spreading the worst of the worst about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton far and wide....
Ya'all hoped and prayed for Trump as the GOP candidate...
Ya'all should have thought CAREFULLY about what you wished for... :D
Michale
Since we continue to have to wait for the "indictment" I don't see why you can't comment on Trump's business practices now.
20 times bitten, twice shy... :D
But hay, I'll be magnanimous and comment on Trump's business practices now.. Even though you refuse to comment on Hillary's blatant lies that are above and beyond the FBI *CRIMINAL* investigation...
Two words sum it up perfectly..
BUSINESS PRACTICES.....
Business is cutthroat..
You characterize Trump's practices a certain way to make them appear worse then they are..
But, if I had the inclination, I could characterize Hillary's practices in the WORST possible light to PROVE she was Hitler incarnate..
It's ALL spin...
Has Trump done somethings that were really really bad??
I have no doubt he has...
Has HILLARY done somethings that were really really bad??? Yes she has...
But you refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE those things because you are enslaved by Party dogma...
Our Ambassador and three Americans are DEAD because Hillary didn't do her job...
But you won't even ACKNOWLEDGE this...
So, you tell me..
How can we have a meaningful discussion on the bad things Trump has done when you refuse to even acknowledge the bad things Hillary has done???
Michale
If the other comment appears later you'll see. Bottom line, air rapidly running out of the indictment tire.
Actually, speaking as an expert in this particular field, the longer things drag out, the WORSE it is for Hillary..
If there was nothing there, it would be readily apparent...
The fact that it's Director Comey and that it's taking so long is proof positive that there WILL be an indictment..
At least, it is proof positive for people who have the experience in the field..
When it comes to criminality and LEO issues.... I have *NEVER* been wrong...
Director Comey will recommend an indictment of Hillary and/or senior staff...
You can take that to the bank....
A few here have said that they will concede the point when Director Comey does issue that recommendation...
And you can bet I won't let ANYONE forget... :D
Michale
Paula,
What it all boils down to is this..
Yes.. Trump likely has some skeletons in his closet..
But Hillary has skeletons in her closet that have skeletons in THEIR closets.. Plus Bubba's rape, sexual assault and underage sex issues???
And, to top everything else, Trump has Drudge on his side...
It's going to be a Clinton massacre...
Michale
What it all boils down to is this..
Yes.. Trump likely has some skeletons in his closet..
But Hillary has skeletons in her closet that have skeletons in THEIR closets.. Plus Bubba's rape, sexual assault and underage sex issues???
In other words...
If ya'all are going to want a meaningful and serious discussion about Trump's faults...
Ya'all damn well better be prepared to have a meaningful and serious discussion about Hillary's faults..
Otherwise, ya'all can go pound salt and we'll just wallow in the mud together....
I am happy either way... :D
Michale
DonHarris [27]
Yes. Different sources give between 3 and 6 criteria. We broke it down to five when I taught this (it's been a decade since I taught the math of Fair Voting and Voting Systems). That really comes down to how you group various criteria.
It is called Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, if you want to search for it. Wikipedia has a reasonable discussion of the topic as do a number of other sources. We used the text "For All Practical Purposes" (COMAP) when I taught it. The text provides an accessible discussion with decent examples.
Basically, if there are at least two voters or decision makers and three or more options, then some condition(s) of fair voting can be violated.
Without getting too technical or long-winded, those conditions include things like each vote is equal, if everyone prefers option A over option B, then the outcome of the process must rank A over B, no dicatorship, if an individual changes their ranking to make an option higher, then the overall ranking should either be unchanged or make that option higher (it should never rank that option lower in this situation). Changing the ranking of irrelevant options (losing options) shouldn't change the victor.
You're correct about the Constitution in a number of ways. For instance, the Electoral College automatically violates fair voting regardless of the number of options (for example, a Wyoming voter has more power than a California voter).
If you want, I can provide more details.
Arrow's proof was a contradiction proof, and a rather technical one. We learned it in grad school, but I don't recall the details. There are summaries and superficial versions on the Net.
Michale: Trump has no compunction about saying whatever dirty thing he wants to say? True. Your problem is not recognizing that Hillary has had crap flung at her and debunked for years now. There is nothing Trump can throw at her that hasn't been thrown already. There's nothing "hidden" to find as everything has been investigated to death.
He can try to invent things but I think that particular ploy is very quickly losing effectiveness. The perception that Trump is a serial liar is taking hold and in a very different way than the slurs that Hillary is a liar have worked. Yes, Hillary has a cloud around her built by republicans and based on endless accusations. But Trump literally lies AND contradicts himself publicly, continuously, and often in practically the same sentence. He's lying in real time and getting called on it more and more.
Meanwhile, I am thrilled with how Dems are lining up to take on not just Trump but the entire Republican disaster of a party. They are going for the jugular and it's gonna be good. With the pain of the Bernie/Hillary breach fading I can now start to enjoy the fray. E. Warren and Joe Biden did great speeches at the American Constitution Society (CSPAN) that addressed not only Trump, but the entire Repub effort to destroy the judiciary branch. Gloves are off. Obama's waiting to burst out of the gate. Hillary has already shown she can kick Trump's ass. Good times ahead!
Re: Emailgate -- I remain cautiously optimistic on that front. The Wall Street Journal article today made me feel even better than I already did. But we will continue to wait on Comey.
Re; Trump's business practices, if you want to dismiss them as "just business" well, all I can say is I hope I never do business with you. Not that I suppose I will but the point is if YOU believe screwing over people is fine whenever you can get away with it, well, it explains a lot. It also makes the point, better than I ever could, that thinking "government should be run like a business" is not merely foolish and misplaced, it would literally turn everything America is supposed to stand for on it's head. Not that most businesspeople believe it's ok to screw people over whenever they can, but obviously some people do.
Re: Hillary's flaws -- all you ever do is repeat bogus rightwing slanders. So we will not waste time on that.
Your problem is not recognizing that Hillary has had crap flung at her and debunked for years now.
And even Hillary's most loyal supporters concede that SOME of it is legitimate...
There is nothing Trump can throw at her that hasn't been thrown already.
Then there is nothing for you to worry about..
But you know and I know that the GOP is tenacious and disciplined and you just HAVE to know that they have MANY things that they have been keeping under wraps..
Your problem is that you refuse to even ACCEPT that there ARE legitimate issues regarding Hillary's trustworthiness..
What?? 70% of Americans are wrong and YOU are right???
Re: Hillary's flaws -- all you ever do is repeat bogus rightwing slanders. So we will not waste time on that.
And therein lies the problem..
We're talking OBAMA's FBI...
We're talking OBAMA's State Dept IG..
How is that "right wing slanders"???
Why won't you address that fact?? You won't because you CAN'T...
And you CAN'T because it proves how utterly enslaved you are...
I'll repeat because you obviously missed it the first time...
If ya'all are going to want a meaningful and serious discussion about Trump's faults...
Ya'all damn well better be prepared to have a meaningful and serious discussion about Hillary's faults..
Otherwise, ya'all can go pound salt and we'll just wallow in the mud together....
I am happy either way... :D
Michale
But you know and I know that the GOP is tenacious and disciplined and you just HAVE to know that they have MANY things that they have been keeping under wraps..
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!
Oh, you're serious?
Buddy, I've got some real estate in Florida you might be interested in.
Repubs don't have things under wraps because there aren't any. They MAKE THINGS UP. But hey, while you're waiting for their 900th promised smoking gun I'll be enjoying the spectacle of their imminent, and well-deserved, collapse.
Later!
Re: Hillary's flaws -- all you ever do is repeat bogus rightwing slanders. So we will not waste time on that.
We WILL "waste time" on that...
Or else, we won't "waste time" on any alleged Trump faults..
Your call...
Michale
Repubs don't have things under wraps because there aren't any. They MAKE THINGS UP.
Ahhh, the cry of the fanatic... :D
Later!
So, wallow in the mud it is.... :D
Kewl... :D Can't wait... It's going to be a pleasure to see your face when Hillary is indicted...
Rubbing it in will be so much fun... :D
Michale
I knew you couldn't deal with Trump's issues. Apparently you literally cannot have a discussion about a topic that isn't subsumed in a "both sides do it" frame. Can only discuss Trump IF we discuss Hillary at the same time.
You literally cannot step back and just look at Trump by himself.
Oh, now I get it. You actually recognize Trump is pretty despicable but cannot bear to admit unless you can force me to agree Hillary is despicable. Only since I like Hillary and admire her so I can't do that for you.
Oh well. Things are tough all over.
You literally cannot step back and just look at Trump by himself.
And how is that any different than you not being able to step back and look at Hillary herself???
For example, you hysterically scream RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY but refuse to acknowledge that it's OBAMA'S FBI and OBAMA'S IG who has delivered the most damning evidence against Hillary..
I have more than acknowledged that I can be objective..
As myself AND RDnewman have proven, you CAN'T show the same objectivity...
Oh, now I get it. You actually recognize Trump is pretty despicable but cannot bear to admit unless you can force me to agree Hillary is despicable.
Are you kidding??
Hillary's negatives are about as bad as Trump's are..
THAT's what you cannot face... :D
Michale
And Trump has never been responsible for the deaths of a US Ambassador and 3 other honorable Americans..
Hillary cannot make the same claim...
And Trump is not married to a rapist and sexual predator..
Hillary is...
These are facts that you cannot spin away....
Michale
And Trump has never been responsible for the deaths of a US Ambassador and 3 other honorable Americans..
Hillary cannot make the same claim...
And Trump is not married to a rapist and sexual predator..
Hillary is...
These are facts that you cannot spin away....
THAT is what it's going to be like between now and November..
Enjoy... :D I know I will...
Michale
Oh well. Things are tough all over.
And, for Hillary and the Democrats, they are going to get tougher and tougher and tougher.. :D
And I'll be here, laughing all the way..
Cuz, you see, I am not really enslaved by Party dogma.. I am not fanatically devoted to Trump as you are to Hillary..
If Trump loses, I'll be slightly bummed...
When Hillary loses, ya'all are going to be completely devastated and destroyed...
A few days ago, I would have felt bad for ya'all about that....
Now... I'll just be laughing my ass off... :D
Michale
Once again, everything you say about Hillary has been debunked. You can scream Benghazi until you're blue in the face; meanwhile the sad excuse of a Benghazi committee limps to it's ignominious end while Gowdy admits he actually altered some emails to try to smear Hillary (and failed).
You can allege that Bill Clinton was a sexual predator but that's just more bull. His accusers were part of the whole Arkansas/Richard Mellon Scaife smear campaign, who were used to fling mud, only to have their cases either dismissed, thrown out or withdrawn.
The FACTS are there are no facts, just slanders. I followed ALL of it when it was going on. And I remember when Ken Starr released his final report admitting all their investigations came to nothing. He even (just before the story broke about him losing his job at Baylor) said publicly:
He called Mr. Clinton “the most gifted politician of the baby boomer generation.”
“His genuine empathy for human beings is absolutely clear,” Mr. Starr said. “It is powerful, it is palpable, and the folks of Arkansas really understood that about him — that he genuinely cared. The ‘I feel your pain’ is absolutely genuine.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/us/politics/ken-starr-impeachment-bill-clinton.html?_r=1
Your stuff is SPIN. It's sad, ugly stuff created by dishonest hacks. You will repeat it until you die, and, apparently believe it, but it's still all crap.
Meanwhile Trumpy will be hard to spin away as one TRUE thing after another is revealed.
You won't admit that and will just come right back telling me I'm refusing to see the "truth". Nothing I can do about that. I can only sit back and let Trump, the campaign, and history "proceed" and we'll see who wins and who loses.
DonHarris [5, others]
The more I think about it, the less convinced I am about your constitutionality argument.
In a specific case, the SC ruled. However, with a slightly different case with slightly different circumstances, it might modify that ruling for any reason. Heck, different justices or at a different time, the court might rule differently.
Based on Marbury v Madison, the Constitution says that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. Technically, the SC can't be wrong.
When the court overrules a precedent, they aren't saying the earlier ruling was incorrect. They are saying that the Constitution said one thing (following the first ruling, up until the overruling) and after the overruling it says something different.
To go further and to argue against CWs position somewhat, the Constitution guarantees the right to free association.
However, it says nothing about political parties. Even a major political party has no constitutional right to be represented in an election.
As a practical/political matter, a party's chosen candidate should get on a ballot, but that's not the same as a Constitutional right.
Your stuff is SPIN. It's sad, ugly stuff created by dishonest hacks. You will repeat it until you die, and, apparently believe it, but it's still all crap.
Keep thinking that...
How will you spin when the FBI indicts Hillary or senior staff???
:D
Michale
And you STILL haven't addressed the FACT that it is OBAMA'S FBI who is CRIMINALLY investigating Hillary Clinton for FELONY violations of the espionage act...
You STILL haven't addressed the FACT that it was OBAMA'S IG who PROVED that Hillary LIED about her unsecure email server..
You see, that is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to discuss this with a fanatic..
They ONLY see the points they want to see. Anything else simply does not exist..
You're only making this harder on yourself because when the FACTS become too obvious to ignore, yer going to be in a massive funk... :D
But don't worry..
I'll be around to tell you, "I TOLD YA SO" :D
Michale
A quick google search shows all the usual rightwing outlets screaming "Criminal Investigation!!!!" based on the WSJ article I mentioned earlier. Of course, near the end of the article it says:
Law-enforcement officials told the Journal they don’t think criminal charges will be filed against her after the investigation.
So thank you, I won't worry.
@Speak2 [#46, #60]
I've never studied political science beyond a couple of undergrad core courses, but am fascinated by the description in #46 you gave.
Would there likely be any benefit from requiring all candidates on all races to not have their party affiliation noted on the ballots? Local races tend to have some clear non-partisan rules, would that potentially work at higher levels? The parties would still be free to associate, advertise, and nominate candidates but it would reduce their formal place in elections and perhaps affect the binary nature of our federal elections.
Hey RDN
So, my Intro PolySci was 30 yrs ago. I'm a math person, which is how I came across this. It fits under social choice theory, decision-making, and game theory for math people.
I always like the idea of reducing the power of parties, and perhaps the implementation of your thoughts could be effective.
In truth, though, I don't know the answers to your questions. We could do a search and see what's been put out there in the "respected" sphere(s).
RDN
Bell Labs investigated a messload of "intractable" problems back then. They spent a lot of money on basic R&D.
Some of these problems are called NP-Complete problems. One example is the "Traveling Sales[person] Problem." It asks what is the most efficient way to travel between multiple places. Easy if you have two nodes (places to travel to). Determining efficiency is much more time consuming if you have many places to visit. Useful for traveling, mail and package shipping, waste removal from homes, manufacturing circuit boards, etc. I believe we've done that one to 1,024 nodes (a power of 2).
Others include fair voting, fair apportionment (think divorce, corporate mergers, bankruptcy proceedings, etc). It's a fascinating set of ideas they addressed.
In many colleges, this was a big part of the curriculum in Math for Liberal Arts type courses.
Interesting DH.
As to your points
Arrow was talking about all voting systems, ranked voting being a popular one to mitigate the objections.
I'm not sure what the legal distinction between being the "final arbiter of what the Constitution says" and "make it say whatever they want" is. The "checks and balances" include many ways to keep an SC in line (including their being multiple justices).
Simply, as a technical matter, if for instance, the SC stated in a majority decision that some clause implies that the sky is green, the Constitution doesn't contain any mechanism to overrule this. Even impeachments leave the ruling valid (stare decisis for all lower courts) until a new opinion overturns the precedent.
Finally, at the voting booth. Who's to say that having your voice and free speech at the primaries doesn't provide you with sufficient protections. I'm not agreeing with this statement, just saying that it isn't quite so cut and dried. That primaries have lower turnout is not a constitutional issue. General elections have small turnout, relatively speaking, especially in midterm elections.
Yeah, I spelled "there" as "their." Sorry about that.
@15,
i was referring to the title of the post, "bungle in the jungle." i guess CW hadn't used that title with ali in mind, but it sounded as if he had.
JL
More power to you DH. I'd vote for someone who'd appoint you.
Hey, here's an argument you might see from an "originalist:" The founders had a different view of colors than we in the modern era do. When they said blue, it means what we mean today by green.
Ugh, I can see a mid-noughts or later (suffering the beginnings of dementia) Scalia making such an argument if it gave him the political outcome he wanted.
Paula,
A quick google search shows all the usual rightwing outlets screaming "Criminal Investigation!!!!" based on the WSJ article I mentioned earlier. Of course, near the end of the article it says:
Wow... Even your GOOGLE searches are politically biased and ignorant.. :D
For the record, it was the WHITE HOUSE who said "criminal investigation", not any right wing outlets..
I would give you the link but, A> you wouldn't read it and 2> you wouldn't acknowledge the facts...
So why bother?? You are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of any facts...
Michale
@15,
i was referring to the title of the post, "bungle in the jungle." i guess CW hadn't used that title with ali in mind, but it sounded as if he had.
JL
My apologies... I misunderstood...
Michale
Wow... Even your GOOGLE searches are politically biased and ignorant.. :D
"You mean to insult me? There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
:D
Michale
Michale: Wow... Even your GOOGLE searches are politically biased and ignorant..
Wrong. When you enter 'Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation" and the first 10-20 responses are all FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, Breitbart, Drudge, Hannity etc. you know the righties are doing one of their smears. It's easy. Several sites use the same sets of words in their headlines and posts and google duly notes this and brings them up.
The point, of course, is the rightwingies emphasize "criminal" while ignoring the "no charges" part.
Wrong.
Did you even READ the White House statement???
Michale
The point, of course, is the rightwingies emphasize "criminal" while ignoring the "no charges" part.
Because the "no charges" part was anonymous..
Would YOU accept a "Hillary Will Be Indicted" from an anonymous LEO source?? Of course you wouldn't..
Like I said, consistency is the key..
Michale
Cuz, you see, I am not really enslaved by Party dogma.. I am not fanatically devoted to Trump as you are to Hillary..
If Trump loses, I'll be slightly bummed...
The number of posts would say otherwise. But hey, I understand, you need an out in case Trump loses. Not exactly a vote of confidence though...
FOS BashiKook,
The number of posts would say otherwise.
To you, maybe.. But you think they are SPAM, so.....
But hey, I understand, you need an out in case Trump loses. Not exactly a vote of confidence though...
I don't "need" jack... I am not one of those enslaved by Party dogma that has to compromise their principles on the altar of political correctness..
That would be you Demcorats.... :D
Michale
To you, maybe.. But you think they are SPAM, so.....
Bring the juvenile stuff in here, eh? Interesting. Good thing I did not get under your skin. Heh...
I don't "need" jack... I am not one of those enslaved by Party dogma that has to compromise their principles on the altar of political correctness..
Duh. You are a slave to anti-left dogma.
Duh. You are a slave to anti-left dogma.
That voted for Obama in 2008 and still continues to vote Bill Nelson...
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong???
Michale
Good thing I did not get under your skin. Heh...
Good thing yer not being juvenile.. Heh...
:D
Michale
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong???
Do ever get tired of silly proclamations?
Good thing yer not being juvenile.. Heh...
Indeed...
Do ever get tired of silly proclamations?
What do YOU think??
Duuuhhhhhh :D
Michale
@Speak2 [#65, 66]
I didn't realize Bell Labs's focus on voting (mostly familiar with their computer science work since that's my background). I'll research there. Thanks!
"Nonpartisan citizens' commission"? I think that if some citizen is interested in redrawing district boundaries, it's a pretty safe bet that they're partisan.
"Nonpartisan citizens' commission"? I think that if some citizen is interested in redrawing district boundaries, it's a pretty safe bet that they're partisan.
here, here.. Well said..
Michale
If your party can't get 1/3 of the votes in the first-round election, there's no reason for it to be included in the runoff election.
I can agree that "primary" is generally understood to be something run by a party in order to choose its nominee. But that just means that you shouldn't use the word "primary" to describe a first-round election that's open to all parties. So I won't: hereinafter, I'm calling the first-round election the general, and the second-round election the runoff. Anyway, if Alabama or Idaho had majority elections instead of plurality, and two Republicans made it to the runoff by getting more votes in the general election than any Democrat did, that would be fine by me.
(Well, it's not fine by me that the national Democratic party puts so little effort into party-building in red states. But it's fine by me that if you come in third in the general election, you don't get to be in the runoff.)
Sure, you can get unsatisfactory results from a general election with no primary, followed by a runoff. But you can find something unsatisfactory about any election system (Arrow's theorem). Having an open general election and a two-candidate runoff just puts a premium on party organization: if one party runs only one candidate, while all similar-sized and larger parties run many, then a slot in the runoff is pretty much guaranteed to the party that's organized enough to run only one candidate.
[5] Don Harris wrote:
It is also unconstitutional to not allow a write in vote in the general election.
What clause? What case?
[28] Speak2 wrote:
Kenneth Arrow (Bell Labs in the '50s) proved that the only way to have a fair election/selection is for there to be exactly two options with a "win" being defined as a majority of votes.
Not quite. Arrow's theorem starts from the assumption that each voter has (at most) a ranking of the options. It doesn't tell anything about what happens if you start from Bayesian preferences. That's where instead of just ranking the options (e.g. "I like A better than B better than C better than D), a person can say "I value an upgrade from option B to option A twice as much as an upgrade from option D to option C". A political system is much more than a ballot and a counting method. People decide how much effort to put into organizing, volunteering, and publicizing. Arrow's theorem doesn't tell us anything about how that plays out.
Also, Arrow's theorem doesn't say anything about what happens if the decision system has a different set of options than the voters: for example, voters may be able to choose among candidates, while the decision system has an option of going back to the drawing board for a new nominating process.
Also --
Hooray, someone besides me mentioned Arrow's theorem.
[92] Well said..
What's your preferred response, instead of supposedly-nonpartisan commissions? I have a couple.
[70] Don Harris wrote:
I thought the Constitution said the SC was the final arbiter of what the Constitution says...
It doesn't even say that. It says SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction, and it says Congress shall have the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". Basically, it says SCOTUS can decide court cases. It doesn't say that legislators, presidents, or bureaucrats have to listen to those decisions for any purposes other than resolving the dispute at stake in the particular case. I vaguely recall hearing that people in the first generation or two after the founding didn't think SCOTUS was all that important.
What's your preferred response, instead of supposedly-nonpartisan commissions? I have a couple.
Take the humans out of the equation..
"Maybe we can do something about these hostages."
"We're not gonna shoot them, right?"
"No. We're just gonna take them out of the equation.
-SPEED
:D
The problem, of course, is you can't take humans COMPLETELY out of the equation..
Michale
The problem, of course, is you can't take humans COMPLETELY out of the equation..
Well, you CAN....
But it would be.... messy... :D
Michale
dsws [98]
people in the first generation or two after the founding didn't think SCOTUS was all that important.
It was Marbury v Madison that changed that and "clarified" the role of the SC. Many legislators and leaders were not happy with that ruling.
[95]
Fair enough.
rdnewman [90]
They investigated lots of problems. Basically, they were looking to develop efficient algorithms that could be programmed. By investing in basic R&D, they hoped to gain unforeseen competitive advantages.
[99] Take the humans out of the equation.
I'd rather take districts out of the equation. You can have multi-member "superdistricts", or you can just let people choose which of their state's House seats to vote for.
[101] Legislators, presidents and bureaucrats do have to listen to those decisions on those particular cases.
Exactly: on those particular cases. So they don't get to revisit the question of whether William Marbury gets to sue for his commission. That's been decided. But when Congress passes another law, or when someone in the executive branch takes another action under some existing law, there's nothing in the Constitution to say that they have to apply the interpretation that the Court made in its decision. There isn't even anything saying that lower courts have to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. It describes the other courts as "inferior", but that could be taken merely as referring to the fact that appeals go from them to the Supreme Court and not the other way 'round. We have a strong tradition of stare decisis, and of having the decisions of the courts apply to all similar actions contemplated by the other branches, but it's mostly just a tradition.
I'd rather take districts out of the equation.
Kill joy.... :D
Michale