Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
For statewide elections (Governor, US Senator, President), I'm fine with that. In your example I don't think it's good policy (whereas basic financial disclosure for major elected office holders is good policy), but at least if 51% of the voters prefer candidate A, who is barred from the ballot for (insert stupid reason here), the natural recourse is for those same 51% of voters to get very angry and vote out the same state legislators that put the law into effect.
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
  #252  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:07 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
Same way you vote state legislators out that have horribly gerrymandered the districts so its impossible for the other side to ever have a majority of seats even if they get more votes. Oh, wait... tell you what, you get your side to stop that and we'll drop this. Deal?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #253  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Same way you vote state legislators out that have horribly gerrymandered the districts so its impossible for the other side to ever have a majority of seats even if they get more votes. Oh, wait... tell you what, you get your side to stop that and we'll drop this. Deal?
We don't have to make a deal. The courts are going to get you to drop this (but probably not until after California has spent a foolish amount of taxpayer money in a doomed bid to defend their unconstitutional law).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-01-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #254  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:15 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We don't have to make a deal. The courts are going to get you to drop this (but probably not until after California has spent a foolish amount of taxpayer money in a doomed bid to defend their unconstitutional law).
You didn't think that was a serious offer did you? I was just illustrating the selective outrage of your side. You only care about something that effects elections and proper representation when it could negatively affect your party. Just wanted that to be clear.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-01-2019 at 03:17 PM.
  #255  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:41 PM
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Well, looks like California is diving head first into this idea to keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...turns-n1036286

I suspect this will age about as well as Harry Reid's decision to go nuclear in the Senate
If there's one thing we should have learned from McConnell refusing to even consider Merrick Garland, it's this: If Democrats even think about the possibility of doing something, the Republicans will proceed to do that thing right up to the limits of the Constitution.

I wouldn't worry about the Republicans taking advantage of this new situation- I guarantee they were already planning to.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #256  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
If there's one thing we should have learned from McConnell refusing to even consider Merrick Garland, it's this: If Democrats even think about the possibility of doing something, the Republicans will proceed to do that thing right up to the limits of the Constitution.



I wouldn't worry about the Republicans taking advantage of this new situation- I guarantee they were already planning to.
Exactly. This is a knife fight, politically speaking, if not worse. You don't win a knife fight by worrying about the rules.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #257  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:46 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
That's why I limited it to statewide elections only (Governor, US Senate, President). There wouldn't be any ballot access restrictions permitted on your local state legislator, for example. The 51% angry majority could still vote their preferred candidate at that level, and get the "Only candidates with orange skin may be permitted on the ballot" state law revoked. Although on further reflection, this probably wouldn't work with a sitting governor with veto power, so I'd modify it to only allow ballot access restrictions on US Senate and Presidential elections.
  #258  
Old 08-01-2019, 09:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I'm clarifying for the confused UltraVires why he should have to.
Quote:
Financial disclosures (mostly) answer those concerns. Why would the voters, the hiring authority for presidents, not be entitled to the same information and the same confidence when they make their hiring decision?
You've lost me. You said voters should have a financial disclosure from Trump before the election. They did.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...isclosure.html
  #259  
Old 08-02-2019, 04:46 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You didn't think that was a serious offer did you? I was just illustrating the selective outrage of your side. You only care about something that effects elections and proper representation when it could negatively affect your party. Just wanted that to be clear.
Much in the same way that Republicans are perfectly happy for states to waste taxpayer money defending blatantly unconstitutional laws (usually involving forcing Christianity on people or restricting abortions) until the state involved is California.

Last edited by Gyrate; 08-02-2019 at 04:46 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017