Slashdot Mirror

That's when two groups I had up til then respected (if not always agreed with) stepped in. A bunch of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women realized Prop 118, regardless of how fair it was, would reduce the number of legislators sympathetic to their cause in both the State and Federal government. They flooded TV and radio with ads telling people it was bad and to vote against it, without even explaining what it was or how it was bad. It ended up losing by a 2:1 margin.

Whups, must have messed up the formatting. But I'll explain the real problem with it. It just makes a 2/3 vote. That's doing nothing and pretending it's meaningful. It's not stopping the partisanship, it's just making people find some way to still abuse it. And it leads to deadlock, rather than resolution.

Now obviously, I don't know what these organizations wanted, or what they said, maybe you missed it, but no, it's not a solution. Just the number of states with HEAVILY GERRYMANDERED Legislatures over 2/3 partisan representation already exist. Even California is 1 short, and it isn't even using legislatively drawn maps. It is not sufficient, nor effective. And consider New York's State Senate.

If you brought it to me, I'd tell you come back with something real. With teeth. I could point you to several today. Including one approved in the very same state. And I don't even find it truly satisfying. But it's doing a better job than your empty suggestion.

As I said already, get over your anger, you're griping over a petty bullshit amendment, which wouldn't have solved a damn thing.

And this captcha is ostrich. Ostrich as in the bird alleged to hide its head in the sand. Not true, but...you should REALLY consider that Slashdot KNOWS.

I used to care about this back in the 1980s. Only back then it was the Democrats who gerrymandered the districts in their favor to control the House for 40 years. I admit a slight political bias (I tend to vote conservative). But it was mostly the principle of the thing - gerrymandering is bad regardless of your political beliefs since it manipulates that essential link between voter and representative.

Oddly, and you may be surprised by this, the most gerrymandering was by the conservatives. Especially in the South. There was a reason why Baker v. Carr and Reyonds v. Sims involved Southern states. Don't be confused that it was Democrats, it was Conservative Democrats, who had little, if anything, in common with the party as you probably have known it.

In the 1990 election in California, a fix for this came up as a ballot initiative. It simply required a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature for redrawn districts to be approved, thus preventing a 50%+1 majority from leveraging their slim advantage into a bigger one in future elections. I helped spread the word about it, the problem it tried to solve, why it was good for everyone. I was delighted that once I explained the problem and how this fixed it, even diehard liberals grudgingly agreed it was the right thing to do and said they would vote for it. Early polls showed it passing.

That is a bloody complicated Christmas Tree of an Amendment. I'd ban it for not focusing on a narrow subject, but being way too complicated. I'll get more into the real problem later, but I just wanted to say that.

That's when two groups I had up til then respected (if not always agreed with) stepped in. A bunch of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women realized Prop 118, regardless of how fair it was, would reduce the number of legislators sympathetic to their cause in both the State and Federal government. They flooded TV and radio with ads telling people it was bad and to vote against it, without even explaining what it was or how it was bad. It ended up losing by a 2:1 margin.

The Republicans took the time to figure out how to undo the Democrat gerrymandering. First they worked on winning the governorships so they could veto the gerrymandered redistricting. That usually kicked the matter into the courts, who usually took it upon themselves to redraw the districts (since the had to be redrawn to reflect population shifts, and the legislature/governor were deadlocked). Which allowed more Republicans (or rather, the correct number of Republicans) to win office as state legislators. Which gave them more control over future redistricting. Which combined with the governorship allowed them to eventually gerrymander things in their favor.

Uh no. You may be thinking of Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, but that wasn't quite involving the governorships. No, it was rather simple, what gave Republicans the edge was the Southern Strategy. They took advantage of the Democrats repudiating the conservative racists of the South by embracing said racists. Don't bother denying it. Don't bother bringing up Robert Byrd. I've heard it all before. Your arguments will do not prevail, spawn of Udun, Go back to the Shadow.

I suppose I should still be concerned about this on principle. But the whole thing scarred my young, optimistic self and my belief that people are inherently good and fair, and will make

Oh and the congressional districts are gerrymandered by the Republicans. This is also a form of rigging.

I used to care about this back in the 1980s. Only back then it was the Democrats who gerrymandered the districts in their favor to control the House for 40 years. I admit a slight political bias (I tend to vote conservative). But it was mostly the principle of the thing - gerrymandering is bad regardless of your political beliefs since it manipulates that essential link between voter and representative.

In the 1990 election in California, a fix for this came up as a ballot initiative. It simply required a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature for redrawn districts to be approved, thus preventing a 50%+1 majority from leveraging their slim advantage into a bigger one in future elections. I helped spread the word about it, the problem it tried to solve, why it was good for everyone. I was delighted that once I explained the problem and how this fixed it, even diehard liberals grudgingly agreed it was the right thing to do and said they would vote for it. Early polls showed it passing.

That's when two groups I had up til then respected (if not always agreed with) stepped in. A bunch of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women realized Prop 118, regardless of how fair it was, would reduce the number of legislators sympathetic to their cause in both the State and Federal government. They flooded TV and radio with ads telling people it was bad and to vote against it, without even explaining what it was or how it was bad. It ended up losing by a 2:1 margin.

The Republicans took the time to figure out how to undo the Democrat gerrymandering. First they worked on winning the governorships so they could veto the gerrymandered redistricting. That usually kicked the matter into the courts, who usually took it upon themselves to redraw the districts (since the had to be redrawn to reflect population shifts, and the legislature/governor were deadlocked). Which allowed more Republicans (or rather, the correct number of Republicans) to win office as state legislators. Which gave them more control over future redistricting. Which combined with the governorship allowed them to eventually gerrymander things in their favor.

I suppose I should still be concerned about this on principle. But the whole thing scarred my young, optimistic self and my belief that people are inherently good and fair, and will make the right decision if they're properly informed. I tried to help fix gerrymandering for all people, only to see my hard work shot down by unrpincipled groups who were only interested in their own benefit regardless of how unfair it was. Screw them. The shoe's on the other foot now. They made their bed. They can lie in it. If another ballot initiative comes up which makes gerrymandering harder, yeah I'll vote for it. But I'm not going to put additional effort into helping people out of a gerrymandered hole they put themselves into.

No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.

http://fairvote.org/

I do like the Instant Runoff Vote that fairvote.org is championing. I see that Maine just apporved via a ballot measure for "Ranked Choice Voting" to be used to elect U.S. senators, U.S. representatives, the governor, state senators, and state representatives,

https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_...

Maine already splits its EC votes rather than sending them as a block to the sate-wide winner.

No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.

http://fairvote.org/

I like "Instant Runoff Voting" too. It looks like Maine passed a ballot inniative that will give them "Ranked Choice Voting" in future elections starting in 2018. Not for president, but for "U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative".

https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_...

Maine voters just enacted ranked choice voting (= instant runoff voting) for every office except president. It was a ballot initiative; Question 5. I'm not sure why they didn't do it for president. Since they manage the scope of the vote counting for president by district to assign electors, they could just run the ranking algorithm within each district's group of votes.

You've been eating up everything the media (biased, even though they claim they're not) has been saying about Trump. I tried to warn people like you. Trump is not a right-wing extremist like the media has been trying to portray him to help get Clinton elected. He was actually one of the most politically moderate candidates running in the primaries. That's a large part of the reason the Republican party leaders were horrified he won the nomination. They wanted someone more solidly right-wing (which is why he selected Pence as VP - to mollify the party bosses).

His political beliefs aligned pretty closely with the American mainstream, not the skewed viewpoint the party faithful think is "normal" (either party). I warned you to take him seriously, but instead the press went off-topic onto witch hunts looking for any dirt they could come up with on him, while Clinton supporters got busy planning a transition into a Clinton Presidency. The only poll which seems to have got it right was the USC / Los Angeles Times poll, which tried to correct for how people who refused to answer polls would vote. Apparently with all the public lambasting of Trump going on in the media, a lot of Trump supporters weren't comfortable telling strangers (pollsters) that they were voting for him.

I don't really care enough to dig up documentary evidence.

And that's why nobody gives a shit about it when you blather on about it. Really, it's your own choice. You have produced nothing but innuendo and aspersion, or when you do claim evidence, it's tenuous fabrications, so...what do you think is going to happen?

I'll tell you what happens, people stop giving a shit about what you have to say.

It's happening - there were ample records of this back in the 90s in New York City - in particular, the 1989 mayoral election.

This would be more persuasive if you hadn't previously said it was occurring in cities where nobody expected a competitive election. But no, Giuliani's claim isn't that legitimate. Maybe if he'd effectively proven his allegations then, you'd get some reform beforehand, but oh wait, he didn't, he just managed to win in 1993. And 1998. Then he got the only reason he has any claim to fame, though oddly he seemed to have some memory loss for partisan reasons.

Personally I'd just point to them being off-year elections, never favored those myself. Don't need to prove any allegations there. Of course, that'd be dozens of state elections, but eh, what do you care?

My father was involved in Jersey politics...no one there would argue the position you are arguing, since we all knew it to be true.

Then why don't you get your father to turn in his evidence? Why don't you turn him in yourself? That's what you'd do if you had integrity.

But, i'll leave this here for you, since you doubt such things.

Yeah, you choose to link to a spectacularly non-informative page where most of the page is google news feed links?

That does you a LOT of harm to your credibility. Really, a vapid and vacuous article, and that's what you choose to link? That's almost worse than if you'd linked that Veritas stuff. C'mon, show some discernment, and realize how badly you're messing up.

Be honest with yourself. Be serious about your own conduct.

I don't really care enough to dig up documentary evidence. It's happening - there were ample records of this back in the 90s in New York City - in particular, the 1989 mayoral election. My father was involved in Jersey politics...no one there would argue the position you are arguing, since we all knew it to be true.

But, i'll leave this here for you, since you doubt such things.

Lets be sure we all understand what has long been going on. For decades the Democrats were in power and set up voting districts. There was one insanely gerrymandered district that cut across a large portion of the state, and the Democrats were quite clear that they had done it for racial reasons.

Yes, they were required under the VRA to make a district that black candidates could win, rather than dilute their voting power too much.

When the Republicans finally got power and drew up districts the Democrats claimed they improperly used race as a basis to create the districts, and Democratically controlled federal courts sided with them.

Yes, the GOP decided to make it so that the black candidates could win by more in some districts, but it had the impact of making them less likely to win in other districts. A clear problem of intentional abuse.

Based on their own testimony admitted into court.

See anything strange there?

No, I don't consider your deceitful presentation of the facts being suspect to be strange. I consider it normal for you. It isn't unusual or strange at all, it's rather expected. The court didn't agree with you, and with the Supreme Court divided, and Republican Senators obstructing, it's not likely to be overruled.

What you should consider though, is that North Carolina's US House representation is 3 Democrats, and 10 Republicans. That's pretty bad when the total votes tend to be much closer to 50-50. Do you really want to support such blatant partisanship? Or could you consider proportional elections?

I doubt it. You're probably thinking about a response about Democratic gerrymandering in the South, including with Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.

But all your hand-wringing over Democrats won't change the problem of today. Nor will your citing of already disproven allegations. We know you're a partisan hack. It's not going to persuade anybody. The only thing you can do is change the song.

Lets be sure we all understand what has long been going on. For decades the Democrats were in power and set up voting districts. There was one insanely gerrymandered district that cut across a large portion of the state, and the Democrats were quite clear that they had done it for racial reasons.

Yes, they were required under the VRA to make a district that black candidates could win, rather than dilute their voting power too much.

When the Republicans finally got power and drew up districts the Democrats claimed they improperly used race as a basis to create the districts, and Democratically controlled federal courts sided with them.

Yes, the GOP decided to make it so that the black candidates could win by more in some districts, but it had the impact of making them less likely to win in other districts. A clear problem of intentional abuse.

Based on their own testimony admitted into court.

See anything strange there?

No, I don't consider your deceitful presentation of the facts being suspect to be strange. I consider it normal for you. It isn't unusual or strange at all, it's rather expected. The court didn't agree with you, and with the Supreme Court divided, and Republican Senators obstructing, it's not likely to be overruled.

What you should consider though, is that North Carolina's US House representation is 3 Democrats, and 10 Republicans. That's pretty bad when the total votes tend to be much closer to 50-50. Do you really want to support such blatant partisanship? Or could you consider proportional elections?

I doubt it. You're probably thinking about a response about Democratic gerrymandering in the South, including with Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.

But all your hand-wringing over Democrats won't change the problem of today. Nor will your citing of already disproven allegations. We know you're a partisan hack. It's not going to persuade anybody. The only thing you can do is change the song.

And where is this long history of voter fraud pray tell? I found 436 cases going back to 2000 and none of them mention party affiliation with few even giving hints. According to the Heritage Foundation none the less: (pdf) http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....

Here's a good quick reference for you:
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_...

And google is your friend:
https://www.google.com/search?...

I personally thing we have more of a problem with political fraud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation.

Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term. Speaking fees, legal stock market trading on confidential information, there's all kinds of things congress has decided to allow themselves because they "don't amount to corruption," in a quid-pro-quo sense. Not saying it's good; just saying it's normal.

But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted. In this case, the Clintons have been in public office for 30 years; they and their foundation have been subject to public disclosure of their financial records for much of that time. The Trumps have made their money by selling their name and managing mob-controlled construction projects and has kept his finances strictly private. DJT, in particular, has made a special point of emphasizing that he doesn't do anything unless he gets paid. How is he going to get paid as President?

A few people have a problem with it, so in a few small venues (like your examples) there's better systems, but overall there aren't.

Depends on what you mean by a few small venue. Obviously America as a whole hasn't adopted it, but that doesn't mean nobody has.

Obviously, of course, the system can still be corrupt, but that's a different problem.

Heck, if you did a poll of random Americans, you'd probably find most of them think FPTP is just fine and we should stick with that.

Well, you may think that result would come from a poll, but I think it'd depend on how you presented it. After all, Americans in California, Arizona, and Florida have all voted for reforms of various kinds.

Of course, Alternative Vote didn't pass in the UK, but again, they don't even elect the Prime Minister.

A few people have a problem with it, so in a few small venues (like your examples) there's better systems, but overall there aren't.

Depends on what you mean by a few small venue. Obviously America as a whole hasn't adopted it, but that doesn't mean nobody has.

Obviously, of course, the system can still be corrupt, but that's a different problem.

Heck, if you did a poll of random Americans, you'd probably find most of them think FPTP is just fine and we should stick with that.

Well, you may think that result would come from a poll, but I think it'd depend on how you presented it. After all, Americans in California, Arizona, and Florida have all voted for reforms of various kinds.

Of course, Alternative Vote didn't pass in the UK, but again, they don't even elect the Prime Minister.

At the time of the election Alabama had an unemployment rate of just under 3%, a small but consistently shrinking deficit and manageable debt.

I note that in 2011, unemployment in Alabama was near 10% not near 3%; that the education fund (which makes up a large portion of the Alabama budget) had been cut back by 20% over the previous three years prior to the 2010-2011 budget (which means it might be a "conservative economics" action, but not one by the present governor); and it's state debt per capita is really low, going from $1,738 in 2011 to $1,867 in 2015 (which I think we can all agree is not a significant enough difference to go from .

Alabama's deficite is now larger than the total state revenue.

Every link I look at says something like Alabama's budget is around $5-6 billion per year while it's deficits vary a great deal from year to year, but haven't gone over a billion dollars per year.

You know, this looks a lot like your claim that 45% of all carbon emissions come from whips-and-chains slave labor, that is, it is complete bullshit.

This is not only a Democratic pillar, as your conservative candidate may also oppose this rendition of the treaty.

Socialism IS mainstream Democrat ideology. Take abortion - how many pro-life Democrat candidates are there? The GOP field had everything from Cruz to Chafee covering the entire spectrum of 100% pro-life, a mix, and 100% pro-choice. That's ideological diversity. Something the Democrats don't have or tolerate.

The whole voter registration shenanigans that Republicans are pulling to keep brown people from voting

Looks like you bought that whole controversy...
No, no one is trying to prevent anyone from voting, Texas even offered people free IDs, though living in today's society is nearly impossible without ID, so they should have already had one.

AND, many Democrat controlled states already have voter ID laws that are roughly the same as the Texas Voter ID law from last election season.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But let's play the party line, it was all about racism and preventing black voters!

http://www.votetexas.gov/regis...

Heck, if you can't afford to get an ID, just vote by mail, that shouldn't be too hard should it?

That's true, that's what's happened in California.

Fortunately, California has a referendum and initiative system, which lead to...Proposition 11 and gave Californians the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

They also changed to a Non-Partisan Blanket Primary..

You seem to be a bit out of touch, since by your words, you appear to be using a present tense, but I hope this helped inform you a bit better.

(And FWIW, California's partisan breakdown is 39-14 for the US House, making it in-line with their overall statewide vote(60-40). North Carolina, however, is 10-3, and well, that doesn't reflect their statewide vote well at all(55-44).

I suspect that's his strategy. Despite the media portraying him as a looney out in right field, Trump is actually the most moderate candidate still left in the race. Even you point out he advocates liberal NE policies. His stance on core issues aligns pretty closely with the American mainstream.

How does a moderate candidate get past the primaries to run for President in our polarized two-party system? By highlighting his few extremist views to appeal to extremists in one party during the primaries to win the nomination, then coming back to center in the general election to win over the mainstream.

See https://ballotpedia.org/Top-tw... .

Citation provided!

Clinton was undecided, when she was Secretary of State it was her job to support whatever trade deals her boss, the President, was having negotiated. The deal was not yet actually negotiated though. Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a political role; they are not even supposed to be providing their opinions, they provide the official US Government opinions, because they're not elected they're appointed.

Post Secretary of State, when she is giving her own opinions, she started out undecided but hopeful, and as soon as the details of the agreement started leaking, she was opposed. She's been solidly opposed to it.

"You know, take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, `this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded I could not." --Hillary Clinton, during the Democatic Party debates

Fact-checking isn't even hard. https://ballotpedia.org/2016_p...

She didn't change her position for the primary, that is a silly accusation. Was she supporting it during the TPA debate? No, she was already opposing it. When she was Secretary of State and made statements in support, she had also been told that they were going to include strong worker rights protections, and environmental protections, neither of which are included. None of the people who supported the idea of the deal before it was negotiated were told the deal would be as it actually is; they were told it would have the worker and environmental protections that past trade agreements lacked. Lots and lots of people would have supported a deal that had the right sort of protections, because trade barriers are often bad. The deal that was negotiated does a lot of other things, and almost none of those hopeful early supporters are supporting the deal.

Clinton has opposed the deal consistently since it was actually negotiated and existed as a thing with known details.

The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.

https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature

I wonder if you can effectively be a representative without unduely impacting your full time job? At the very least, I would think it would be appropriate to be paid the local minimum wage for the hours you are expected to be "working".

I have always thought that tying legislators' wages to some multiple of the mimimum wage would be a good way to keep the two numbers reasonable - in NH they could make that number one.

The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.

https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature

2016 presidential candidates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal

Based on my understanding of their positions:
Clinton (D) - Mixed, mostly against as a presidential candidate
O'Malley (D) - Against
Sanders (D) - Against
Bush (R) - For
Cruz (R) - Mixed, initially for. 1 of 5 Rs in the Senate that voted against the TPA bill
Fiorina (R) - Unclear due to lack of details... possibly for
Huckabee (R) - Against
Jindal - (R) Mostly against
Kasich (R) Unclear
Paul (R) Against, 1 of 5 Rs in the Senate that voted against the TPA bill
Rubio (R) For
Santorum (R) For
Trump (R) Against

http://ballotpedia.org/ACORN_a...

You notice the word "limited" has pretty much been ignored, too.

The founders were not micro-managers.

The limits of copyright were meant to be defined by legislation.

The average length of a state constitution is 26,000 words (compared to about 8,700 words for the U.S. constitution). The longest state governing document is that of Alabama, which has over 172,000 words. That document is also the most amended state constitution in the Union, with over 770 amendments. The average state constitution has been amended about 115 times. The oldest state constitution still in effect is that of Massachusetts, which took effect in 1780. The newest is the Georgia Constitution, which was ratified in 1983.

Georgia has had nine constitutions. Massachusetts one.

State constitution

The success of the framers of the U.S. Constitution in writing a document geared to serving the varied and changing needs of Americans has been complemented by an ability on the part of successive Congresses and courts to readapt it to these changing demands. The Constitution's 27 amendments, added over a period of 200 years, have in most cases plugged minor loopholes rather than changed the focus or the general structure of the document. As Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt stated in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933, ''Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced.'' Constitution of the United States

All but 17 states require an ID to vote. We have some damn classist states than. I went through several of the states and wasn't able to find as single one that doesn't require ID at all. In order to register to vote, you have to have an ID of some sort, or show ID your first time in many of those states where an ID isn't needed.

http://ballotpedia.org/Voter_i...

'There are multiple exemptions to what types of records are available under the Kansas Open Records Act.' ref.

We pay their salaries, but lobbyists pay more. Hood himself has raised over $400k this year, through the end of May.

My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money?

From 2009 to 2012, the average net worth change of a freshman member of the 112th Congress in three years was 50% source. They don't really need to find a cushy post-government job - they generally profit quite well and quite legally from their time in congress. This data is quite revealing.

Republicans don't like the fact that Democratic Governor Brown put a tax increase on the ballot in 2012, a majority of voters voted yes (55.4%), and the state budget has a budget surplus this year and next year. That doesn't fit the doom-and-gloom narrative that California is on the verge of an economic collapse.

Do you really trust any campaign promise? If elected indeed. After people are elected the average year over year gain in net worth is 15.4%. The highest is Pingree (D-ME) at a whopping 73,039%. She has been on the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Agriculture comittees. Eight out of the top ten representatives that increased their net worth are on committees relating to agriculture, military, or homeland security. Two of them are laughably on the ethics committee.

The pattern is clear.

Source with plenty of data

Additionally, the Slashdot story is disingenuous (shocking!) when it brings up Microsoft's opposition to Washington proposition I-1098 a couple years back. Yes, Ballmer was a big contributor against the initiative but it was widely unpopular across the entire state, failing at the polls by a 2-to-1 margin.

Quick recap on what that was for non-Washington residents: WA is one of seven US states with no personal income tax. Sales taxes vary by locality, but in general they are higher than average in WA in order to make up for the lack of a sales tax (in Seattle, for example, sales tax is nearly 10%).

I-1098 proposed that individuals making more than $200K/year or families making $400K/year pay a state income tax, with a higher rate applying to those above $500K/$1M. Given WA's economically skewed demographics, the tax would hit many in the greater Seattle area (around the top 3% including Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Google, Nintendo etc. employees), while outside Seattle it would be more like the top .01%.

Interestingly, Bill Gates was a visible I-1098 supporter, while Steve Ballmer was a major opponent. But keep in mind the above: the demographics of Washington State are such that had this been an issue of just Microsoft and other big corps fighting it, or "rich Seattle" against the rest of the state which is not so full of rich techies, it would have won handily. Instead, it lost by a 64-36 ratio because voters across the entire state, including a majority of Democrats, thought it was a backdoor way to introduce a state income tax whose threshold would conveniently be lowered by the state legislature whenever it found itself in a money crunch.

So long story short - it may very well be true that Microsoft is dodging state taxes that it should be paying. If so, it should definitely be held to account. However, the fact that Ballmer or Microsoft supported a widely popular anti-state income tax initiative is not related to whether the company is shirking its tax duties.

By me: http://slashdot.org/submission...
"Caroline Murray reports for the Sacandaga Express: "Just this year, the Broadalbin-Perth Central School District completed Phase 1 of a plan to install high-tech security cameras in every school across the district. For the first time, high school and middle school students started off the school year with security cameras pointed at them from every direction, including hallways, staircases, and public rooms, such as the cafeteria and gymnasium. For some veteran students, the cameras feel a bit invasive. "It is like '1984' with big brother," senior Hunter Horne said while walking down the hallway. ... Superintendent Stephen Tomlinson said safety is the driving force behind the technology, however, admitted student behavior also plays a role in utilizing the equipment. Tomlinson said students have rights, and he wants to respect their privacy, but their rights change when students step foot on school grounds. ... Tomlinson said he already notices the culture has changed in the high school. He believes the amount of bullying and vandalism in the hallway is greatly reduced already. Gennett said faculty and teachers have peace of mind now, knowing the entire school is under surveillance. "It would be very difficult to find a location in our buildings where you can hide, or you can go, and intentionally do something that is not acceptable in our buildings," Tomlinson said. Some of the administrators view the security cameras as entertaining. Seniors Smith and Horne said certain staff members will call-out students over the loud speaker, and tell them to take off their hats."

One question not addressed in the article is whether forcing a child to submit to total one-way surveillance is a form of bullying or in some other way a vandalism of privacy or democracy? See also David Brin's "The Transparent Society" for another take on surveillance, where all the watchers are also watched."

Original source: http://www.sacandagaexpress.co...

The inclusion of spending on "security" without any explanation of accountability or privacy issues is a reason I voted against the most recent New York State bond issue for educational technology in schools, as much as I am all for educational technology and also recognize the importance of security for all (the issue being how we go about ensuring security effectively in a broad sense).
http://ballotpedia.org/New_Yor...
"The New York Bonds for School Technology Act, Proposal 3 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in New York as a legislatively-referred bond question, where it was approved. The measure authorized the state comptroller to issue and sell bonds up to the amount of $2 billion. The revenue received from the sale of such bonds are, according to the proposal, used for projects related to the following:[1]
* Purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets and high-speed broadband or wireless internet.
* Constructing and modernizing facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and replacing classroom trailers with permanent instructional space.
* Installing high-tech *security* [my emphasis] features in school buildings."

For the unaware, the USA has no official language.

But English is the official language of California by ballot proposition and constitutional amendment (Article 3 Section 6).

I believe this is the group that pushed the defeated Prop 46 this year. This is a proposition that 1. increase the cap on malpractice sue from the current $250K to $1M and 2. required doctors and nurses undergo random drug test.

http://ballotpedia.org/Califor...

I live in California, but stayed in hotels in several other states in the last couple of weeks... 14% occupancy tax does seem high, but this is San Francisco, they love taxes up there...

Dallas = Room + 2% DTPID Fee + 7.1% City Tax + 6.1% State Tax
NYC = Room + Sales Tax 8.875% + Occupancy Tax 5.875% + Room Tax $2.00 + Room Unit Tax $1.55
Boston = Room + State Tax 5.7% + City Tax 6% + CCF Tax 2.75%
Philadelphia = Room + Lodging Tax 8.5% + Sales Tax 8%


In Europe they are much more civilized about it -- they just toss in some huge VAT tax (like 20%) and may or may not mention that it is "included" (how thoughtful of them.) In some places there are still more taxes - in Dublin Ireland, my hotel bill had the room fee, with VAT included, but also added "other local taxes and fees" amounting to 9.25% of that...

In general, the observation that taxing visitors is popular is accurate, and accelerating, it seems.

this is so important because california's legislature is so horribly disfunctional, and because you need 2/3 vote to pass any bill that levies taxes, it means a minority can basically shut down regular operation.

btdubs this was just one of the reforms passed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I think will be remembered as one of the best governors in CA history.

First, the legislature was so screwed up because it used to take a 2/3 majority to pass a budget, which meant the minority party could shut down the government if they threw a hissy fit. Since Prop 25 passed in 2010, we've had a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic governor and gridlock is gone. Balanced budget! Surplus! Arnold didn't support Prop 25.

Second, Arnold didn't "pass" anything regarding open primaries. Prop 14 was a constitutional amendment that passed both houses of the legislature and then was approved by the voters. Arnold supported it but didn't pass it.

this guy is presumably up for re-election.

It would seem so:

Latta was re-elected in 2012. He beat Democratic nominee, Angela Zimmann and Libertarian nominee, Eric Eberly. He was endorsed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the NRA and National Right to Life.

2012 U.S. House of Representatives Bob Latta Republican Votes: 201,514 (57.27% )

Angela Zimmann Democratic Votes: 137,806 39.16%

Eric Eberly Libertarian Votes: 12,558 3.57%

Ballotpedia: 2014 candidates: Ohio's 5th Congressional district:

Incumbent: Bob Latta, Democratic: Robert Fry, Libertarian: Eric Eberly

this guy is presumably up for re-election.

It would seem so:

Latta was re-elected in 2012. He beat Democratic nominee, Angela Zimmann and Libertarian nominee, Eric Eberly. He was endorsed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the NRA and National Right to Life.

2012 U.S. House of Representatives Bob Latta Republican Votes: 201,514 (57.27% )

Angela Zimmann Democratic Votes: 137,806 39.16%

Eric Eberly Libertarian Votes: 12,558 3.57%

Ballotpedia: 2014 candidates: Ohio's 5th Congressional district:

Incumbent: Bob Latta, Democratic: Robert Fry, Libertarian: Eric Eberly

You are truly Google fail. Took three seconds tops.

California Proposition 1A, High-Speed Rail Act (2008)

Brendan Eich publicly funded a political campaign to destroy the marriages and families of about 25% of his fellow Californians.

25%? Where did that come from? The share of LGBT folks in California is estimated at about 4%, and there were about 100,000 same-sex households out of a population of roughly 38 million as of 2010, according to this.

Married couples were told that their marriages were invalid. People died while their marriages were invalidated, and their partners got kicked out of the home they had lived in for years because the house was taxed as a gift between two platonic friends.

I'd like to see a citation for that claim. As far as I can tell, the only same-sex marriages that took place in California that were subsequently annulled were the handful performed by Gavin Newsom in 2004. The fact is that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place after the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 and before the passage of Prop 8 were not invalidated

.

1. Can you sight a case of right-wingers cutting social services, causing mentally ill people to be loose on the streets?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176745/suicide-rate-climbs-30-percent-kansas-government-slashes-mental-health-budgets#

In Kansas, the government is the Republicans.
There's no one else the blame can be shifted to.

Massachusetts resident here and the taxes here are actually less than they are in states near by such as New York or Connecticut. Plus, there are a lot of people that regularly do such things as start voter-initiated ballot questions to get rid of the income tax. As far as services go, I've lived in other states that claimed to be (or actually were) fiscally conservative and you got what you paid for when it came to government services.

Seems your placement when it comes to education is a bold faced lie

Students First, which was founded by Michele Rhee (if you don't know who she is then you haven't been paying attention to education) in 2010 to advocate for measured performance based improvements in American public schools, grades California an 'F' for 2013 along with 10 other states placing us in the bottom quintile of US public schools. Exactly how bad it is depends upon whom you ask but by any objective measure California public schools compare poorly with those in most other US states. California taxpayers are definitely not receiving good value for their money when it comes to education. As for the 50% requirement, California Proposition 98 (1988) amended the state constitution to mandate it.

I don't understand how you can call government services a waste of money on essential things

I'm not against spending money on essential things and I believe that education is one of those things. However, that doesn't mean that I will accept failure on the part of the schools to achieve results with that money. The left argues that we should throw more money at the problem indiscriminately, but how will that improve performance? That will only reward failure on the part of teachers and school administrators to do the jobs that we've already paid them to do. I submit that if they cannot meet our standards that we must fire them and get people who can. I don't mind paying for performance, but I refuse to pay for failure. I don't stand for it when companies that I invest in fail to perform to my expectations so why should I accept it when government wastes my tax money?

Things like medical care that would cover more people and cost less is a taboo here because too many rich people would have to wait more than 5 minutes to see their doctor,

If you want healthcare, pay for it out of your own damn pocket or purchase insurance. Healthcare is expensive in the United States primarily because it lacks an effective mechanism to communicate prices to consumers in a competitive market. Try asking your doctor how much something might cost and they cannot even tell you because they have no idea. What other good or service is there where you cannot get the price upfront? We would never put up with this elsewhere in the economy so why do we continue to pay for our health care in this manner? There's a long and complex history to that, and I won't profess to give a whole answer here, but suffice it to say that government policies, and especially tax incentives, have encouraged Americans to purchase their healthcare in the most opaque and inefficient way possible. If your interested, you can read more here.

Fucking sociopath libertarians.

Am I to understand that the intellectually superior and enlightened left, when failing to carry the argument, resorts to name calling? If that's what four years of Harvard or Yale got you then I suggest you ask them for a refund.

When I was first presented with that proposition it seem like a no-brainer YES vote but because it was such an obvious yes why did it have to go all the way to the voters to get approval? That was a huge red flag and like you said, the voters guide provided basically no information. Thankfully we now have excellent resources such as balletopedia which pointed that part out to me. But not everyone else is as well informed and are stuck with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" so my vote against amounted to nothing.

So, here in AL we have to, yet again, try to repeal some lingering Jim Crow content from our ridiculously long constitution. A similar measure failed in 2004, since people here seem to feel that guaranteeing children an education is significantly worse than making sure they are segregated by race.