Slashdot Mirror

The Kansas public education budget is $4.9 billion. It works out to almost exactly $10,000 per student, with about 39% of that going to instructor salary, 12% to instructor benefits.

With 41,243 teachers, that works out to an average (mean) salary of $46,300 plus $13,800 in benefits.

This compares to a statewide average (mean) income of $43,953. Searching through those labor stats for "education" confirms that the mean for most teaching jobs is right around the $45k mark.

If your claim that teachers have to work second or third jobs just to get by is true, that would mean more than half of Kansas citizens have to work second or third jobs just to get by.

You mean like North Carolina, on it's third consecutive year of large budget surpluses?

You need to get out of your bubble more.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but California government has been controlled by Democrats for far longer than they've had an officially balanced budget. It's still not balanced if you actually account for public employee pension obligations in a reasonable manner:

California continues to suffer the highest rates of poverty, child poverty, homelessness and unsheltered homelessness in the country. California continues to rank near the bottom on national education tests while failing to educate the majority of students to meet statewide standards on English and mathematics.

For all the talk of balance, California continues its long march toward devoting greater resources to pensions. According to a report released last year by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, while state contributions to pension funds CalPERS and CalSTRS were just $1.6 billion in 2002-03, they are on track to hit $19.5 billion by 2029-30. And that’s just at the state level; the problem is just as bad or worse for counties, cities and school districts.

Provisional ballots are generally not counted.

They are if they matter so what is the difference?

The whole point of voting is that off chance the election is on the margin and your vote may make a difference. I am a registered independent and voted in a primary this year, never again after looking at the results. My vote made zero difference as BOTH parties have the primaries quite wrapped up by chosen candidates. I still continue to vote in the main elections though few votes seem to matter there either.

And the ballot you cast provisionally must be the ballot for the precinct you are from.

Yes, and? I already said that, every time (well I said county, but that's usually pretty much the same thing, the exact term and region may vary state to state but each region you can legally vote in will mostly have multiple polling centers if it's of any size at all).

Also, there are several states that do not allow provisional ballots at all.

Well that's kind of misleading wouldn't you say? There you see the end result is the same in North Dakota for example which does not have provisional ballots because you don't need to register to vote..., you can vote anywhere. So while you are technically right there it does not invalidate what I am pointing out, that most people have multiple places the can go to vote if they desire.

Read through the various states provisioning ballot laws and see if YOU can find any state where there is not some mechanism to vote in different polling locations, I could not find any (the section "States That Are Exempt from Provisional Ballot Laws" includes North Dakota for example which as I noted, does not need provisional ballots).

but in MY state we don't use paper ballots

You mean California? Because near as I can tell, you're wrong.

The arrest warrant was issued by Texas.
Not really known to be totalitarian anti gun anti second amendment state.

As I suspect you actually understand, Texas isn't even close to a monoculture. The affidavit leading to the arrest warrant was issued by the police department of the well-known liberal hotbed of Austin. The application for warrant was signed by magistrate judge Tamara Needles, a Democrat.

Other than all that, spot on.

They're trying to change that here in California.

https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...

No. I do not agree with this and plan on voting against it.

And I will be voting for this. They are still citizens.

There's no point trying to win the support of prisoners - they can't vote,.

They're trying to change that here in California.

https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...

No. I do not agree with this and plan on voting against it.

I'm not sure what I was inventing. Rather than being a naysayer, perhaps you could elucidate.

Here's a breakdown of voting systems by state. https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...

South Carolina has no paper trail and votes are inputted directly into a computer. One doesn't have to mess with each individual machine either, but can go straight to tabulating machines that count not each citizen's vote, but each county's vote totals from the individual voting machines. I will say again, that one cannot say we have no evidence in situations where an election cannot be audited (no paper trail).

Of course the courts are dealing with it. But that doesn't mean it isn't election fraud and that such actions don't sway elections, unlike the voter fraud you mentioned, which as you said, has not swayed any elections. Ask Kathleen Harris if her actions in Florida didn't effect the Presidential election in 2000. Courts deal with election fraud after the fact. After the fraud has had its effect on the election, so it is not dealt with effectively, but rather posthumously. Though, it would be folly to rely on the courts alone, as a political party can stack the courts in their favor. Legislative action is another effective method.

No, most states don't allow same-day registration at all. It doesn't appear to be a partisan issue, either, since it's pretty much a 50-50 split for states that allow it. Map here.

That's funny because Republicans are nearly all infrastructure socialists. In fact they're even trying to increase the road subsidy!

Remember, the opposite of socialism is anarchy. Capitalism is somewhere between the two extremes.

And that's a big If, but if it was only 2 million fake comments out of 23 million submitted, then that's pretty close to the fake signature threshold used for ballot initiatives in California. If the initiative gathers more than 110% of the required minimum signatures, it's assumed that only 10% are fake and the ballot qualifies without further verification. The 10% figure is based on the number of fake signatures which turn up in a random sample of initiatives which gather less than 110% the required minimum.

Considering it was an online form, and you didn't have to lie to someone's face to "sign" it, I'm surprised the rate of fake comments wasn't higher.

Yep, only the Republicans were responsible for all that debt. I'll give you a clue - both parties are bad.

Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The last W budget was more than $1T in the red. The last Obama budget was $600M in the red, when $200M of tax cuts were added in an attempt to appease Republicans. The one before that was $400M in the red. Meanwhile, the Trump tax cuts are ballooning the deficit nicely.

Tell me again how both parties are equally bad when it comes to budget deficits.

Illinois is run lock stock and barrel by Democrats

You better tell current Illinois governor Bruce Rauner that he's a Democrat. He'll be rather surprised, since he's a Republican.

Also, the Illinois legislature has 67 D seats and 51 R seats. While that gives Democrats control of the legislature, it's pretty far from "lock stock and barrel". That would be more like California, with 53 D seats and 25 R seats and the governor.

Obamacare was a disaster

To call something a 'disaster', you've got to indicate the criteria you are measuring with.

There's a lot more people with health insurance that they can afford. There's also things like the elimination of lifetime limits and minimum required coverage that isn't shit if you happen to have ovaries. Those are rather positive if you are measuring by "less people dying because their checking account doesn't have 7 figures in it".

It wasn't cheap, but it wasn't supposed to be - the theory is free market competition would drive down prices over time and "over time" takes a while. After all, "Obamacare" was the plan designed for Bob Dole (R) to give in response to Bill Clinton's health care reform efforts, so it hews very close to "free markets" and other Republican shibboleths. That's why Republican Mitt Romney passed it in Massachusetts.

Obama mistakenly thought that if he proposed a Republican reform plan with a couple tweaks (such as where subsidies faded out), then some Republicans would support the plan. And you can see how that worked out.

Btw, "Obamacare", like most Republican social spending plans, is not a good plan. It assumes health care is an efficient market, and that's just not possible. But the assumption that all markets are efficient is core to modern Republicanism, so it had to be in the plan.

Goldman Sachs bought both parties years ago

Well, whatever you do, continue to pretend that all politicians are equally awful. That way there's no reward for bucking Goldman Sachs and thus getting the changes you want.

It was also gerrymandered up the wazoo when Democrats were in power.

Yes. Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr. Of course, those Democrats were often entirely different in politics. Such is history.

Gerrymandering simply strengthens whoever is currently more popular.

Wrong. In some cases, actually weakens those who are more popular, as shown in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

If congressional districts were assigned rationally, Democrats wouldn't do very well anyway

Yes, but that's because your definition of rational which is 100% Republican Agenda. You do realize your biases, however, are not supported in actual math that is independent of your partisan bias.

The only way Democrats could do well if the US went to strict national popular majorities, but that is utterly unacceptable and incompatible with federalism.

Or you know, actually voting. Of course, that is utterly unacceptable to the Republican agenda which relies on voter suppression.

In actual fact [people-press.org], liberals only make up about 17% of the US political spectrum and California is thoroughly unrepresentative of the country.

Actually, California is highly representative of the country, and it's only because of zealots like you that it gets demonized as some outside nemesis.

The reason Republicans are so strong is because Democrats have fallen out of favor with the political center: moderates and independents.

Also untrue, the truth is quite contrary.

It is actually the Republicans who have become more extremist, but they rely on moving the perceptual concept to turn the tables instead of embrace reality.

I'm a good example of that: I used to be a registered Democrat but loathe what the Democratic party has become over the last decade. I won't vote for Democrats again until they clearly disavow people like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Corey Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

You're actually a good example of the lying fraud of the GOP, as you vacuously and repetitively pretend to claim to be a Democrat and a moderate, yet entirely espouse the hard-core right-wing agenda, and blame Obama for creating conflict.

Tell you what, maybe people will believe you when you disavow individuals like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thoma

Acorn committed numerous documented instances of campaign fraud. That's why Acorn was "dismantled," not because they favored Democrats?

How's that lying working out for you, liar?

Where do we find a trusted source for these facts? Ballotpedia? https://ballotpedia.org/Gubern...

That's mostly due to Proposition 47. It was billed as a way to reduce overcrowding in jails, but did so by reducing the property theft crimes where less than $950 was stolen/damaged from a felony to a misdemeanor. In California, you can break into and steal from as many cars as you want now, and as long as you keep the property loss below $950 per incident, the only punishment you'll get (if you're caught) is a fine and maybe 1 year of jail time. In many cases the police can't be bothered to prosecute these cases anymore because it wastes more of their time and money than the thief's.

There was initially a downtick in property theft crimes in 2015-2016 (part of a 30-year downward trend), leading Prop 47 proponents to claim they were right that it wouldn't affect crime rates. But it's looking more like it just took petty thieves a couple years to get a feel for how the new law worked.

Debt is how much you owe. Deficit is how much you owe this year. It's easy to wipe out a deficit short-term. The tricky part is doing it in ways which work long-term. Simply raising taxes leads to long-term economic slowdown, which reduces tax revenue, meaning you didn't really reduce the deficit, you just shifted it into future years. The net result being long-term increase in debt.

Simply considering only deficit also ignores the value of long-term investments (e.g. infrastructure like roads). A state which spends money fixing up roads spikes their deficit one year, but reduces it for 20-50 years in the future (duration depends on how competent a repair job they did). Likewise, a state which simply stops repairing infrastructure to reduce the deficit for a year is setting itself up for long-term pain in a way which doesn't show up in a simple debt/deficit analysis.

tl;dr - How well a state is managing its budget is a lot more complicated than a simple deficit analysis. Here are several ways to analyze it.

which is why they have more debt than any other state

California is the largest state by population with over 12 million more people than the next, Texas. Of course it would have more debt, that's how funding works. California's per capita debt is actually 14th in the nation, and only slightly over the national average.

and the worse credit rating of ANY state

Nope. Illinois is worse.

California has an AA-, the same as Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and one better than New Jersey, and far better than Illinois.

But keep on pushing that "feel good" stuff... gotta spend, spend, spend, raise taxes to the highest in the nation and yet still spend, spend, spend some more.

Sorry markdavis, but you're the one pushing the "feel good" stuff as you have to recklessly bash California, California, California.

Yet your accusations are not accurate, and are not based on substance.

For example, you didn't account for Federal Funding, which California ranks 43rd in as a % of state funding, and relatively low per capita.

That California actually pays substantially more in Federal taxes than almost any other state, tends to make the problem not California's but the rest of the nation for being a leech.

At this point, the only mechanism we have for "correcting" the mistake is to elect an opposition party to power in Congress in 2018.

Good luck with that. The Democrats might win the House, but they're highly unlikely to win the Senate. There are 24 Democratic Senate seats (and 2 independents who vote with the Dems) up for re-election in 2018, vs just 8 Republican seats. And 5 of those Democrats are in states which voted for Trump by huge margins. Senators are re-elected every 6 years, so those Democrats rode Obama's re-election coattails to win in these deep-red states. The more likely outcome is a Republican gain in the Senate.

(2016 was the reverse, with Republicans defending 24 Senate seats, vs. just 10 for the Democrats. That was the year the Democrats had to pick up seats to win the Senate. The Republicans escaped it losing only 2 seats and maintaining control. 2020 is more favorable to the Democrats, with 22 Republicans and 11 Democratic Senate seats up for re-election.)

Yes the House is skewed by gerrymandering. What bugs me is that the press is just now reporting on gerrymandering being a problem, when they completely ignored it during the 40 years (1955-1994) the Democrats controlled the House. All this stuff about the gerrymandering problem is old hat to me because I tried to explain it all to people in the 1980s. Culminating in a ballot initiative to try to fix the problem. Environmental groups and NOW ran ads against it and defeated it because they knew the the districts were gerrymandered to favor Democrats, so fixing the problem then would've meant more Republicans in office. I'll vote for any sensible reform, but I won't cry any tears if it fails. Those groups made their bed - they can lie in it. (Republicans overcame gerrymandering by coming up with a strategy to defeat it that didn't involve winning legislative seats - win the governorship in states where Democrats controlled both state legislatures, and simply veto the gerrymandered districts the Democrats came up with.)

It is simple. As I said, Politifact is a shill for the alt left progressives, and they rely on your weak logic skills, and lack of both knowledge and curiosity. Take a look at the FIRST "LIE"...

1. "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."

Sean Hannity, Nov. 11, 2013

Yet if you read the actual article here: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

You will find that:

By the end of 2013, government analysts said half of all group or employer-based plans would change to the point that they would need to meet the new standards -- which is about what Hannity said.

Essentially every "lie" is along these same lines, twisting the truth and trying to weasel around.

Furthermore, virtually every news agency was reporting the same thing, further highlighting the bias of Politifact and John Stewart and their BS, and the reality is that if Obama had not illegally issued waivers and not enforced the letter of the ACA law, that is exactly what would have happened. https://ballotpedia.org/Health...

NBC News reported that between 50 percent and 75 percent of the 14 million who buy individual health insurance would likely receive a cancellation notice over 2014 because their plans did not meet the requirements of the ACA.[3]

CBS News reported that more than two million Americans were told they could not renew their insurance policies for 2014.[11]

According to NBC News, the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 percent to 67 percent of people in the individual market would likely not be able to keep their existing policies.[3]

Health policy consultant Robert Laszewski estimated 80 percent of individual insurance buyers would have to find new policies.[3]

In order to make their alt left claim that Hannity lied, they ignore the fact that this was widely reported at the time and twist the truth of what he said, and try to infer that Hannity said that these people would permanently lose their health insurance, which from the quote is clearly not what he said, and obviously, anyone with a brain can see that. As a viewer, I know this is not what he was saying, but rather that it would be major upheval, and the new plans would cost more, and people losing their existing plans would also directly make a liar out of Obama, who said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor (proven lie, that they, including the architect of Obamacare knew was a lie from the beginning) and if you like your plan you can keep your plan (same deal, bold faced lie that they knew was a lie from the start). That has always been Hannity's position, not that people would permanently lose their health care and health insurance, but that Obama and the Dims were lying out of their asses the entire time about Obamacare.

Hannity and we conservatives were right, BTW. Millions of people lost their doctors and lost their affordable insurance plans and the replacements were far more expensive. Suck on this headline for a minute: "Average Individual Health Insurance Premiums Increased 99% Since 2013, the Year Before Obamacare, & Family Premiums Increased 140%" https://news.ehealthinsurance....

So you can take anything from Politifact and blow it out your ass, because they have no interest in fact, only shilling for the alt left. 95% of the"lies" of Fox news from John Stewart and Politifact are like this, and the oth

That is why we always need three parties that represent three different political values.

As of May 2017, there were at least 28 distinct ballot-qualified political parties in the United States.

I could accept that you were talking about Australia

"Brownout" is low voltage or low current and is a failure mode unexpected in developed countries (because it tends to break stuff) and is not what happened in South Australia.

Yet another problem that shows how you could have spoken better. But you said it, not me. I wasn't going to be unnecessarily pedantic, as we're hardly discussing things on the particulars of the supply, but rather concerned with the origination of the issues.

It's a sign of incredibly poorly managed electricity infrastructure. Good supply or nothing is what is supposed to happen. Also comparing two events to the hundreds that happened during the Enron debacle alone is a bit much.

Actually, what happened in South Australia and what happened in California are quite comparable. A lot of the blame-game, including a deliberately misleading attack on "environmentalists" but a real causation that was significantly different than widely understood.

You can also find that happening in Alberta in Canada regarding its grid, and I believe, one of the South American countries, or maybe Central America.

Over 11 billion dollars

On payroll for prison workers? They could move a lot of goalposts on that money. I really do not appreciate being seen as so stupid and what's with the dishonesty?

If you don't want to be seen with disdain (though I would characterize you as misinformed and ignorant, rather than stupid or dishonest. But what is with your selective quoting? Here, quote the whole line:

You see, even if somebody articulated their own understanding in a flawed way, that doesn't actually mean that the expenses imposed by their actual situation with incarceration weren't real. There's plenty of discussion on the particulars. Over 11 billion dollars? That is quite a chunk of their budget.

I even provided sources. I'm talking about their corrections budget as a whole being a significant concern. But if you want, yes, we could focus on payrollA as the state does make the information available. As you can see, the CDCR spends a bit under half their budget directly on payroll, or over 4 billion dollars. That's certainly a large enough sum to be a matter of concern. And here's a funny editorial.

Mysteriously, however, it seems you still want to focus on your pointless complaint over the unnamed, uncited persons, you purport made some statements of some character that you deplore. Unfortunately, not having presented anything except your own judgement, it is impossible for anybody else to scrutinize them. At worst, you may have heard from somebody that spoke poorly, but a reasoned analysis certainly does establish that the business of corrections is still a matter of significant concern.

You apparently believe that you can simply declare something, and that other people will simply nod their heads in agreement at the obvious wisdom you are espousing. But to the contrary, your demonstrated opprobrium, especially towards the legislators of California (a not uncommon practice, as I have already noted), leads me to instead consider your statements more carefully and view them with significant disdain as you repetitively demonstrate a lack of intelligence and integrity.

Australia has had issues

An amoral opportunistic academic economist...

Reasons aside, your statement which I took issue with was, and I quote:

(and the only developed nation with "brownouts", what fun!

While your statement could be taken as mentioning them, it is not especially clear. I could accept that you were talking about Australia, but I'll point out that you could have spoken better.

Well, that, and the other things I mentioned about the situation with Enron. That was a demonstration of the old adage about a lie getting around the world before the truth gets its pants on. And there's a lot of rumbling over in Germany that seems the same.

You mist have misheard the situation

No there actually were elected idiots blaming payroll for a small number of employees for all of California's financial incompetence.

Yes, that was how you already indicated that you had misheard the situation. Repeating that false complaint doesn't mean much to me. I already know what you said, and I said you were mistaken in your apprehension of the situation, that I believe you must have misheard the situation. Even if I credit you with actually hearing such a statement from somebody, it doesn't mean as much as you may think, as that simply means you misheard from them. You should have sought out more information instead.

You see, even if somebody articulated their own understanding in a flawed way, that doesn't actually mean that the expenses imposed by their actual situation with incarceration weren't real. There's plenty of discussion on the particulars. Over 11 billion dollars? That is quite a chunk of their budget.

Sorry, but the most your complaint can do, is provide a person who speaks poorly. The most I can do, is say, ok, then perhaps there's a person who speaks poorly. They should speak (and perhaps listen) more carefully in the future. Like yourself above.

That California does have to address the issues with its corrections institutions, remains a true problem. You just seem inclined to let yourself get caught up in a distraction. It's one thing to note it, for correctional purposes(pun intended) but you can't let it overcome your awareness of the actual problem.

I used to be one of those, but instead of that extra work being done it was cut back and I was laid off along with a lot of others

Yes, it's quite lamentable, isn't it? And not limited to the grid, for that matter.

In fact, I was warning about the spiraling costs of incarceration back in the heyday of the 1990s. And no less than three local governments are still arguing over their own issues with incarceration, no relation to California at all.

Except you know, the tendency of local officials to sputter something about the West Coast now and then, while ignoring their own messes.

BTW, since you mentioned talking with veterans, you should ask them if securing firearms is a good idea, if accidental discharges are a bad thing, and if they have knowledge of people killed because of a resistance to proper safety.

The fact is, there are issues with firearms, and thus people are seeking solutions to the problem. People are getting killed already. Doing nothing is the stupid idea.

You mean where half of those cases have been tossed out, and in two others the legalese was adjusted to come into compliance with the courts ruling making voter ID a defacto requirement

Half? Go ahead and show it. Since I know you like making up numbers, with no support for them, Buttsheets, like you like making up facts(such as your false claims about the Alberta power grid), you are going to need to provide a citation.

You know, like the 5 I documented. I know your little butt-buddy called them "crap" and tried to ignore them(and lied about that), but you went even further to make a claim of particulars. Well, then, cite your cases.

And don't lie about the contents either, I know you've done that as well.

You mean the arguments that actually persuade a court of law, that the point out the discriminatory intent that is quite apparent from the actual statements of the legislators who enacted the law with the specific desire to disenfranchise voters? From legislators, who if your contentions are correct, were not lawfully elected in the first place, thus rendering their position suspect.

You mean those same arguments which successfully won as well?

Nope, you can't find a single case where a legislature successfully argued that they had a right to disenfranchise voters simply because they lacked ID, and that their discriminatory and burdensome implementation was lawful.

That would be a terrible argument to make, though the sad thing is, that it might have flown before Baker v. Carr, it wouldn't fly now.

And no, I'm not aware of any of the legislators who won against an argument over them being unlawfully elected.

The decision on North Carolina's special elections is still pending for example.

Want to continue running with that line of thought or would you like to try something else?

Why would I? It's the one that's exposing the hypocrisy and disingenuous nature of the GOP. Not that they needed help. They're willing to run headlong into the wall.

Yes, I can. You forgot to ask it to be done though.

Apparently you couldn't, or can't. You missed the question mark in the original sentence.

Nope. You asked if a person CAN, which is a mere requirement for affirmation of capability, not demonstration.

Sorry, Buttsheets, your own pedantry is coming back to bite you. People do remember your behavior.

Yes, I can also do this. Of course, since you neglected to ask for any argument to be actually presented, so I don't feel any obligation to do so, and I won't until you address the question of what to do when the state legislature is found to have engaged in discriminatory intent in its passage of the laws. You instead resist any addressing of that concern at all, revealing at best, your own complicity in it.

Seems to me you don't have any actual point in showing this, because if you did.

Ah, somebody can't write a sentence properly, huh?

You'd already know that several of those other cases were tossed, or the laws were modified and/or rewritten in order to be in compliance with the courts issues with the laws in the first place.

Oh but you didn't provide an example of a single one being tossed, and the idea that they could fix the flaws is admitting the flawed and undemocratic nature of the implementation in the first place. It's a bit of a minimal addressing of it though, you can do better.

So where and what are those benefits in having someone who's illegally having the right to vote?

Sorry dude, no moving the goal posts, Buttsheets, you've got to stick to the questions you ORIGINALLY asked.

Can you make any valid argument where not having voter ID enhances and ben

Suing Apple for iPods that deaf people can't use?

Ha!! I read that as: "Suing Apple for iPods that dead people can't use?"

I was wondering if that was yet another microagression- thing now or some other offensive offense.

Random Link

Because the alternative is admitting that Hillary lost because she's terrible and because her views are out of step with the public.

And that can't be true, right? If it were, Republicans would also control the House and the Senate and the majority of the state governorships and the state legislatures.

Because the alternative is admitting that Hillary lost because she's terrible and because her views are out of step with the public.

And that can't be true, right? If it were, Republicans would also control the House and the Senate and the majority of the state governorships and the state legislatures.

How about Trump claiming voter fraud yet again, providing no proof?

How can he?

Perhaps the same way states like North Carolina found voter fraud. A whole two instances that hinged on impersonation. Most of their failings were felons who had not had their rights restored.

Let's see Trump call for those two to be prosecuted though.

We have a secret ballot, there's no way to prove the most common from of fraud, voting on behalf of someone who doesn't come to the polls.

North Carolina did. Twice. Go ahead, demand the prosecution of the North Carolina Two!

Since IDs aren't checked, there is absolutely no way to verify that all votes cast were cast by the people supposedly voting.

ID's are checked in the following states:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Photo ID is not always required, but IDs are checked. Other states may require ID on registration. Details are available.

Feel free to find for us, these rampant cases you want to believe exist. Of course, if they do, then all of the elections are invalid. That'll be interesting.

It's like being asked to prove a computer wasn't hacked after all the log files were deleted. How can you? There is no record!

The voting records across the country are still in existence. Go check them. If you know of any that are deleted, please do let us know. Find some people who claim not to have voted, but are on the records as having voted.

People being bused in to vote?

I watched that happen in New Hampshire. People from Massachusetts bused in to interfere with the election. It happens, it's not even really a secret.

Yet you have no videos, no recordings, no names. Funny that. And New Hampshire takes photos before a vote is allowed, so you're merely claiming interference doesn't hold much weight. Do you have photos of any people from Massachusetts voting in New Hampshire? Any records of people objecting to having their picture taken in great numbers?

Yes, we know But, you know, there's someplace between "California" and "Papua New Guinea" that still works well and isn't taxed to death.

Well, California works quite well, so they're not taxed to death, sorry for breaking the news to you.

San Francisco's city budget is about the size of Tennessee's state budget. At what point do we realize that something just isn't right about this?

Hmm, now?

I mean, 9 billion versus 37 billion. That's only off by 4. And not even comparable, since the budget of the state of Tennessee isn't covering the same things that San Francisco's city budget is. A lot of what San Francisco the city does is also done at the city and county level in Tennessee.

So bad enough you totally bullshitted on the numbers, you're bullshitting on the funding principles.

We have roads, sewer, a police force, schools, etc. They're paid for with a state sales tax that's 9.25%, about what CA pays. But we don't have a state income tax. We realize that we don't need it.

Much of the expenditures for police in Tennessee is paid for with property taxes. As are schools but well, courts are hearing if it's underfunded.. And the state just passed an increase in its gas tax to pay for roads.

I'm sorry you don't know how things work, but that you don't know is quite detrimental to your own ability to communicate your ideas.

CA's tax structure is maniacal, and the wealthy people who set this up have no idea how badly they're screwing the middle and lower classes.

Yet you have demonstrated no knowledge about your OWN state's funding or taxes, let alone another one's.

Except it did. The Supreme Court of the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of cases it heard—from an average of about 75 cases in previous years (and 80 in 2015) to only 25 in 2016.

That case count is incorrect. The Court's annual term starts in October. I see 67 arguments on their docket for the OT2016 term, of which 25 have already resulted in opinions. Since there are also consolidated arguments and per curiam opinions, they have accepted more than 67 cases already. And they may still add cases to the term (although that is unlikely at this point). In OT2015, they decided 82 cases, not all of which had oral arguments. They are behind their previous pace, but not by a factor of 3 ... more likely by about 10%. https://ballotpedia.org/Suprem...

In the United States, more and more issues are being handled by ballot measures. In 2016, Washington state had 9 state-wide ballot initiatives. These addressed issues ranging from the construction of new transit to a minimum wage hike.

https://ballotpedia.org/Washin...

Our state government is basically just a glorified budget committee. The topics you listed (betting, urban congestion, housing policies, etc.) would all be ballot issues here. Other states are the same or headed in the same direction.

. . . .running against an established Congressman (Stephen Lynch) who has been in Congress for 16 years, who has routinely been winning elections by 70%+ for years.

Wu's only real "in" here, is that Lynch is considered moderate. No idea on how that particular congressional district trends. . .

Given that she's trying to knock off a popular incumbent in the primary who's done nothing to hurt his chances for re-election over the years, this was a long shot under the best of circumstances. Her only possible means of attack is to argue that Lynch is not liberal enough, which seems like a low percentage move to me. Lynch once said that being "least liberal" member of the House from Massachusetts is a bit like being the slowest Kenyan in the marathon. You're still a lot more liberal/fast than most of the others. Are there really all that many voters who rank transgender issues as their number 1 above all else concern? Probably not.

Geez. Newt Gingrich got savagely and unfairly criticized in 2012 for suggesting that putting a permanent base on the moon was a good idea and that was a pretty rational idea that I'm sure a decent number of Slashdotters would support. I really have question Wu's fitness for office for simply lacking the self-awareness to know that what she said makes her sound like a crackpot. "Vote for me. I'm crazy and I only care about edge issues that don't effect the vast majority of the district." Yes, that sounds like a good plan - not.

. . . .running against an established Congressman (Stephen Lynch) who has been in Congress for 16 years, who has routinely been winning elections by 70%+ for years.

Wu's only real "in" here, is that Lynch is considered moderate. No idea on how that particular congressional district trends. . .

Missouri had just switched from a Republican trifecta to Republican controlled state houses with a Democratic governor when it started and successfully completed a project to replace or repair 802 bridges in 4 years, with project planning beginning in late 2008 and construction starting in 2009 and ending in 2012, on budget and 14 months ahead of schedule. And then the Republicans cut the budget so now we can only handle 100 bridges a year, just barely keeping our heads above water, as about 100/year go into "poor" condition. We proved we're capable of twice that rate, if the budget is available. Admittedly, some of that money was Federal stimulus money after the Great Recession (we actually used it to repair infrastructure), but the rest of it was ours.

Missouri is nearly a Democratic state, but we got gerrymandered into appearing Republican with the 2000 census. Our state voting districts are so fucked up they have actual holes in them, with discontiguous pieces. We have one Republican and one Democratic Federal senator, a Democratic governor, and Republican state houses. At least one of the state houses would be Democratic if we had honest voting districts. It's not visible on the maps here but can be seen at the address by address level if you zoom in far enough in Google Maps. Our state Senate districts are fairly honest, since there's considerably fewer of them, but our state House districts are downright creative. Also, we'd be less Republican, but the Baptists are a force to be reckoned with, and they're stilling buying the anti-abortion bullshit the Republicans claim, but don't actually follow up on.

Geographically, we have a lot of hills, a lot of rivers, and a lot of streams. We have the largest river in the country, the Mississippi, making up the entirety of our eastern border and we have the Missouri river, the third largest river in the country that isn't mostly Canadian, after the Mississippi and the Ohio. Those two huge rivers have carved bluffs all over the place, many of which were subsequently abandoned as the river shifted. In short, we need a lot of bridges to get around. Replacing 800 in 4 years was significant, but we do still have a long ways to go. And we're not quite as politically backwards as we appear to be. By just a little bit.

Every time someone posts that "California pays for all the mid-country rednecks" , I feel like the internet gets stupider.

http://www.mercurynews.com/201...

California doesn't pay for the rest of the economy. California has been so deep in debt from spending money it doesn't have that it can't even count the debt anymore. Here's an in-depth look at California's state finances: https://ballotpedia.org/Califo....

The Feds throw California another 30% on top of their budget, and they their arrears are astonishing.

I'm not anti-California or pro-anywhere-else.... but Jesus. Find something worth bragging on. It's not California's Revenue vs. Expenditures or money management skills - because the only competition California has for financial mismanagement is New York and Detroit.

No, he was just following the rules and rights one expects of the laws of the US and most US states.

  The problem is that he did not realize that Hawaii is a place where normal rule of law is not really obeyed, or it is ignored depending on if you are a certain color/race, and you cannot depend on your rights being upheld because you'll get yelled at for antagonising other certain colors/races -- which you cannot defend against out loud because it's politically incorrect.

Oh please, the same thing could happen if he'd done the same in any other state, where controversies abound over the acquisition of land, like New York or California, and Nevada and Florida and Connecticut and Texas and probably every other state, but I'm kinda bored with chasing examples.

Despite all of your bigoted racist hand-wringing, this kind of controversy is common all over the United States, and likely the world. Heck, you can go into any courtroom and probably see somebody who is thinking that the "normal" rule of law is to be against them, and sadly, sometimes they will be right. And it's entirely doubtful you'll listen when it is happening.

Or care.

People advocating hypotheticals based on popular vote are arguing on the basis that fairness (majority wins) should override methodology (Electoral College).

Nope. People are asserting "factual" (Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump) over lies (Trump won in a landslide, Hillary lost in 49 states!). The problem you have is that you have little idea of what's being said, and come up with artificial constructs of the situation.

The problem with arguing Clinton should've won the election based on fairness is you're artificially limiting the election to just two candidates. Clinton and Trump only got 93.97% of the vote. Your "fair" projection disenfranchises 6.03% of the voters.

The problem with your projection is that you're ignoring the 40% of eligible voters who didn't vote, and then acting as if you were somehow more fair. You're not.

You're leaving out 90 million more people, without even a concern.

So in the interest of fairness, say you include as many of those 6% as you can. If you add up the votes for the liberal candidates (Clinton, Stein, Sanders, Riva), you get 49.22%. If you add up the votes for the conservative candidates (Trump, Johnson, McMullin, Castle) you get 49.89%. So in all fairness, based on the popular vote the correct winner of this election should be a conservative candidate.

And that's not fair, that's assuming what they want, based on your own biases. If you want IRV, which is fair, you have to propose an actual IRV system giving the voters the chance to make their preference clear, not assert your own priorities based on that.

I bet you didn't even poll the people who voted for those third party candidates to get some idea where their priorities lie.

That's insulting when you're claiming fairness. You're not. You're a Republican stalwart who lies to advance their agenda. Consistently.

Gov. Davis was recalled [wikipedia.org] due to California's poor economy following the dot-com bubble bursting, and the huge budget deficit [nytimes.com].

Nope. Davis was recalled due to the Enron instituted power crisis, which he did nothing about, except let it get blamed on California, as opposed to an illegally behaving company in Houston, Texas.

Gray David did make a mistake. He didn't call out the California National Guard to seize the power plants in the state that were being idled and then demand the extradition of the entire trading floor of Enron from Texas. All of them. Then they should have been tried for murder, and put on California's death row.

Then he would be cheered. Of course, Schwarzenegger did nothing of the sort himself, but it's ok, you don't need to worry. Nobody cares how badly he fucked up.

Finally, the governor doesn't control the budget. The legislature does. All the governor can do is sign or veto whatever the legislature passes. And the last time California had Republicans controlling even one branch of the state legislature was the '95-96 state assembly [ballotpedia.org].

And here we have you lying again. Because you see, you are deliberately and knowingly leaving out one factor. That Republicans DID have a controlling influence on the budget of California. How? Well, let's just consider 2004 when a certain idea favored by Republicans was promulgated.

The Republican minority in the State Legislature used it to hold the rest of the state government in check, and you'd admit this if you weren't a fraud and a liar.

But Solandri, you are, that is the way you behave. You lie so often you can't even admit the truth.

So it was Democrats who are responsible for every California problem you cite.

Only if we ignore the docum

People advocating hypotheticals based on popular vote are arguing on the basis that fairness (majority wins) should override methodology (Electoral College). The problem with arguing Clinton should've won the election based on fairness is you're artificially limiting the election to just two candidates. Clinton and Trump only got 93.97% of the vote. Your "fair" projection disenfranchises 6.03% of the voters

So in the interest of fairness, say you include as many of those 6% as you can. If you add up the votes for the liberal candidates (Clinton, Stein, Sanders, Riva), you get 49.22%. If you add up the votes for the conservative candidates (Trump, Johnson, McMullin, Castle) you get 49.89%. So in all fairness, based on the popular vote the correct winner of this election should be a conservative candidate.

Also, California's last Republican Senator was John Seymour. (Appointed to replace Pete Wilson, who ran for and won the governorship in the first election I was allowed to vote in. The Republicans had made it a priority to get him elected as governor because the 1990 census was being conducted and the governor could veto the gerrymandering Democrats had done to the state's districts.) And the problems you cite (weak economy, broke government floated on large companies) pre-date Schwarzenegger. Gov. Davis was recalled due to California's poor economy following the dot-com bubble bursting, and the huge budget deficit. Schwarzenegger didn't cause these problems as you claim - he was elected because of these problems. Finally, the governor doesn't control the budget. The legislature does. All the governor can do is sign or veto whatever the legislature passes. And the last time California had Republicans controlling even one branch of the state legislature was the '95-96 state assembly.

So it was Democrats who are responsible for every California problem you cite.

This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.

Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."

I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.

Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.

There, problem solved.

This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.

Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."

I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.

California is an English-first state. In 1986, Proposition 63, "English Is the Official Language of California Amendment" was passed declaring English the official language of California. This was followed in 1998 with Proposition 227, ""English in Public Schools" which required LEP (Limited English Proficiency) classes to be taught in English. It is important to note that over 100 languages are spoken in both Silicon Valley and the San Francisco metropolitan areas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...
https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...

California is an English-first state. In 1986, Proposition 63, "English Is the Official Language of California Amendment" was passed declaring English the official language of California. This was followed in 1998 with Proposition 227, ""English in Public Schools" which required LEP (Limited English Proficiency) classes to be taught in English. It is important to note that over 100 languages are spoken in both Silicon Valley and the San Francisco metropolitan areas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...
https://ballotpedia.org/Califo...

Florida voters narrowly (and surprisingly, to me) defeated a constitutional amendment that was funded by Florida Power & Light and other very interested parties that would have made it difficult and expensive to install solar power in the home. A rare victory for common sense in Florida.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Google tells me that a ballot initiative by the Good Guys failed to achieve enough signatures to make the 2016 ballot (due to some scam artistry by the polling company they hired) so they will try for the 2018 ballot.

https://ballotpedia.org/Florid...

I'm not comfortable with amending the Constitution for something as specific as this, but I suppose they figure the legislature could be bought out by the incumbent power companies if it were a mere lowly law on the books.

Too bad California didn't apportion it's electors, eh? That would have made Trump's electoral win even yuuge!

An initiative to divide California into six states didn't make the ballot this year. The population centers of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento are predominantly blue, but the Central Valley and northern hinterlands are predominately red. If California split into six states, it would unlock all those red voters that are drown out by a sea of blue voters.

https://ballotpedia.org/%22Six_Californias%22_Initiative_(2016)

lies.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...

-New Hampshire does not permit online voter registration, early voting, or no-excuse absentee voting.
-Voters in New Hampshire are required to present valid photo identification at the polls.
-One can also register at the polls on Election Day. Proof of age, citizenship and residence is required to register

Your "personal experience leads" you to believe........ that your anecdote is more accurate than really smart researchers who aggregated data on billions of votes over the past 16 or so year?

doubtful

California, as an example, doesn't have legalized recreational pot because THE GROWERS DON'T WANT IT TO BE LEGAL, its not as profitable that way.

Are you aware that California voters just approved Proposition 64, legalizing recreational marijuana across the state? -PCP

California, as an example, doesn't have legalized recreational pot

Oh?

Its quite remarkable that the same papers disregarded as a conspiracy theory before is now a story on the newspaper. I always thought this was an issue: https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Either way, lets hope that computerized ballots get abolished, and the voting system gets reformed, so that each state uses the system maine just agreed to use: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_...

Or even better, abolish the electoral college and implement such a ranked system based on the popular vote, but that will probably be even harder to implement I guess.

there is no paper trail to allow the results to be audited and scrutinized

This map shows the 12 states where that's true (assuming you go for electronic instead of paper in the red states):

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...

And maybe the 3 yellow states, whatever "with and without paper trail" is supposed to mean. There are 13 states that allow electronic with paper trail only, and 21 states without electronic voting.

Actually, she lost in all kinds of places. Oklahoma, for example, she did not win a single county. It looks like Oklahoma uses paper ballots. She also lost every single county in West Virginia, which uses paper or machines with a paper trail.

Here's a list of the states using paper ballots, and who got their votes:

Montana - Trump
New Mexico - Clinton
North Dakota - T
South Dakota - T
Nebraska - T
Oklahoma - T
Minnesota - C
Iowa - T
Michigan - T
Alabama - T
New York - C
Maryland - C
Vermont - C
NH - C
Mass. - C
Conn. - C
RI - C
Maine - C

The paper-only states are the ones colored gray here:

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...

For reference:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/...