|
I use a magnifying glass to burn my votes into the surface of a home-made wooden boomerang, and then I drive to the capitol building in Sacramento and hurl it in through the front doors and run away.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Sacramento made the most sense for a state capital instead of SF or LA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
It used to be Benicia. And before that, Vallejo, and before that, San Jose. All between 1850 and 1853. This is what LA looked like in 1855:  Not exactly a spectacular location for the state capitol. San Francisco was exploding in size due to the gold rush, but (and this is entirely supposition) it might have been considered too lawless and chaotic to be the seat of state government?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Sacramento would have been much closer to the Mother Lode and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
As a general rule you don't want to put your capitol in your largest city because your capitol is going to have a fair amount of population just by virtue of being the center of government. Basically it helps stem the notion that everyone not in [big city's region] is a bunch of dumbshit rednecks who don't deserve to be listened to (though that certainly hasn't helped some states, e.g. New York).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
By the way, primary election results are trickling in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading. 31 may have the same thing happen, again. gently caress, I move to the one part of the IE with not a poo poo ton of republicans. . . .
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
At least if we have two R controllers in the general, I imagine they will be scrambling to moderate because the first to turncoat will be the first to win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:At least if we have two R controllers in the general, I imagine they will be scrambling to moderate because the first to turncoat will be the first to win. You'd have thought that, but in my district last time when two Rs ran in a dem district, they still tried to out crazy each other. Most people I know just left that blank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading. The margin is close enough that a Democrat could still end up going to the general, depending on what's outstanding (Yee is only ~10k votes behind Evans). That said, it's obvious that if all the Democratic votes were pooled together, they would best the Republicans jointly, so it's entirely possible that Tammy Blair's presence could actually spoil the Democratic vote enough to bring both Democratic candidates below both Republicans. It also doesn't help that the highest turnout is in Republican counties, and aside from LA County, many of the counties with >90% of precincts outstanding are Republican leaning (Orange has only 8.5% of its precincts in, for example). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
It's important to remember that so far only 20% of the precinct results are reported on the site. Los Angeles County, for example, has only reported 2.1% of their precincts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Maybe 3 democrats and a green was 1 too many.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Maybe 3 democrats and a green was 1 too many. Don't worry, I'm sure we'll blame the Green and not the 3 Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Don't worry, I'm sure we'll blame the Green and not the 3 Democrats. State Bank? What are you? Mad? Should have voted for a Democrat! At least they would have gotten elected if you'd spread your 5% of votes evenly across all Democratic candidates! Tammy Blair? Not her fault! At least she had the guts to run as a Democrat!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Don't worry, I'm sure we'll blame the Green and not the 3 Democrats. I'm sure the 2 candidates with ~5% of the vote will be equally blamed, but the greens will use their usual "third parties are important" bs to run again and again. While at best the democratic machine further constricts who can run, to prevent republicans from beating them by doing the same. Which is to say...I'm grumpy that we just ignore the mathematical realities of our electoral systems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
This map is a thing of beauty   Now if only Donnelly could pull into 2nd place. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure the 2 candidates with ~5% of the vote will be equally blamed, but the greens will use their usual "third parties are important" bs to run again and again. While at best the democratic machine further constricts who can run, to prevent republicans from beating them by doing the same. Which is to say...I'm grumpy that we just ignore the mathematical realities of our electoral systems. Part of the Top-Two system is that there is no restriction on who can claim to be associated with which party. The Republicans can theoretically run 13 candidates claiming superficial affiliation with the Democratic party to confuse voters and there is little the Democratic party can do about this but spend advertising money to try to promote the "correct" Democratic candidate. Granted, you might get caught, but that probably won't prevent ALL of those candidates from making it onto the ballot, and you probably will get a slap on the wrist at best (Vanlandingham was kept on, and has done his job in preventing Vanila Singh from getting the votes needed to make it to the general. Khanna was not indicted.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Part of the Top-Two system is that there is no restriction on who can claim to be associated with which party. The Republicans can theoretically run 13 candidates claiming superficial affiliation with the Democratic party to confuse voters and there is little the Democratic party can do about this but spend advertising money to try to promote the "correct" Democratic candidate. How does that not fail in the same way the previous system was ruled unconstitutional because it forced the parties to support candidates without their consent? At least the bar for entry is high enough...that only well funded candidates can use a shotgun approach....oh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How does that not fail in the same way the previous system was ruled unconstitutional because it forced the parties to support candidates without their consent? Because it turns it on its head. Rather than a party having to accept affiliation of multiple candidates on the ballot, you'll note that the ballot is designed so that the candidates instead express a "party preference". This frees a party to endorse only one (or no) candidate if it so chooses, while also supporting the right of each candidate to affiliate with a particular party by expressing that party as the candidate's "preference." The fact that this is effectively indistinguishable to the voter is a feature, not a bug. EDIT: With a little over 40% in, EDITx2: Nearing 50% in, and Alameda's margin is clearly pulling Yee closer, as she's now within 7k votes of Evans, but this conversely means that Evans can expect to grow that gap back with many of the rural counties still incomplete and Alameda nearing 70% reporting. Yee may still pull ahead of Evans as Los Angeles comes in, but Perez's relative popularity there means that her margins will grow more slowly than they do with Alameda's votes being added to the total. EDITx3: With only San Bernardino significantly outstanding at this point (19.7% in; everyone else nearing 50% in at least) and strongly favoring Evans over Yee by a nearly 2 to 1 margin in the precincts that have been counted, it looks like Evans has about 40k more votes than Yee still outstanding to count (he ran up the margin considerably more in rural areas than Yee was able to gain in urban areas), so it looks very probable that the Controller race will be a Republican-Republican race in November. Granted, I could be wrong, as this was just a raw county-by-county analysis of margins assuming that each uncounted precinct contained roughly as many voters as the counted ones, but the board definitely strongly suggests that Yee will be unable to close the gap on Evans. EDITx4: With more precincts in, the gap narrowed to anywhere between a 2k marginal gain for Evans to a 10k marginal gain for Yee, but Evans is still ahead by 12k votes, so it's still unclear if Yee can close the gap. Mendocino County remains a question mark as it's nominally in Yee's column, but with only 3.2% in, it probably isn't hiding as many Yee votes as I have tabulated. On the other hand, Perez is gaining on Yee thanks to his margin in LA County, so it's possible he may be able to top both Yee and Evans in the end. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Donnelly conceded. Ah well, Brown will only beat Kashkari 60-40 instead of beating Donnelly 70-30.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
I was one of the votes for Laura Wells. I guess this is what it felt like to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Heyyyy, Perez got in over Evans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Aspergeoisie posted:Heyyyy, Perez got in over Evans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
AYC posted:I was one of the votes for Laura Wells.  Vote Green every day Negative Entropy posted:It's such a razor-thin difference between the two D candidates and Evans that I suspect a recount will happen for the controller elections. I'm almost hoping we do end up with two Republicans in November, so everybody can immediately see the downside of Top Two primaries. Really, the media should be championing alternative voting systems like Instant-Runoff Voting or Range Voting; they'd have so much more fun stuff to explain on election nights!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't really pay attention to when the Top Two thing started but holy poo poo it's retarded. Also, whoever says their vote doesn't count... 1 vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Yeah, I didn't really pay attention to when the Top Two thing started but holy poo poo it's retarded. Since they'll face each other in the general election regardless, the fact they're only separated by one vote doesn't matter. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Well, it looks like Dem John A. Pérez managed to eke out a second place finish over Republican David Evans for Controller. 21.7% to 21.6%A COMPUTER GUY posted:Donnelly conceded. Ah well, Brown will only beat Kashkari 60-40 instead of beating Donnelly 70-30. Phooey, I voted for Donnelly hoping he'd hurt downticket races. Now instead of a marvelous implosion we'll get party-line talking points and a shitton of TV ads. How boring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Well, it looks like Dem John A. Pérez managed to eke out a second place finish over Republican David Evans for Controller. 21.7% to 21.6% As mentioned above, with less than 10k votes separating second and fourth place, this is going to depend on the results of proper canvassing and possibly a recount (though I don't know CA's rules on that account). It's unlikely Yee will top Perez, but 2.5k votes is small enough that Evans may yet make it to November. While the number of provisional ballots will likely be low in this low-turnout election, it may still make a difference. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Really, the media should be championing alternative voting systems like Instant-Runoff Voting or Range Voting; they'd have so much more fun stuff to explain on election nights! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
On a side note how that wild high speed rail coming along? In hindsight it probably would have been better to use the money to just unfuck masstransit for all the main population centers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
This Secretary Of State race is retarded, and I hate both my options. Why the gently caress would 10% of the state vote for Leland Yee?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This Secretary Of State race is retarded, and I hate both my options. Why the gently caress would 10% of the state vote for Leland Yee? 10% of the 20% of registered voters that voted. But still, goddamn morons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
etalian posted:On a side note how that wild high speed rail coming along? Kern County just added a new lawsuit to the pile, while the state is still busy appealing Kings County's previous lawsuit that's blocking access to bond money. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This Secretary Of State race is retarded, and I hate both my options. Why the gently caress would 10% of the state vote for Leland Yee? Because it's funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This Secretary Of State race is retarded, and I hate both my options. Why the gently caress would 10% of the state vote for Leland Yee? This race was one of several that made me want for an "against all" option. And I'd say a not-insignificant chunk of LeLand Yee voters somehow had no idea about what has transpired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
You can't argue with Yee's international experience. Isn't that what you'd want a Sec State to have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
redscare posted:This race was one of several that made me want for an "against all" option. What, David Curtis didn't deserve the nod?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
agarjogger posted:If Gov. Perry comes to blue state TV and radio stations again with his ads encouraging businesses to leave the state Speaking of which, forgive the breitbart link: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/05/10/Donnelly-Unveils-Billboard-Aimed-at-Bringing-Film-Productions-Back-to-California Donnelly was running billboards in Louisiana and Georgia targeting Californians working out of state on runaway production. Want to get a conservative to support to support welfare? Label them a "tax credit" targeted for a specific industry sector and they'll support it. That was his pitch to film industry workers.. it may work. Everyone got pretty hosed over in the business over the past few years with out of state subsidies in NY, LA and GA combined with the Canadian BC and QC handouts. I work over in Visual Effects, and watched about 3000 jobs evaporate in that field in the LA area last year.. I got hit with a layoff along with 300-400 other people over at Dreamworks.. right before Obama showed up there to give a big speech on how everything was awesome  Ah well, I wound up in the Bay Area working for another company, but it seems the Studios managed to get everyone to sign off on upgrading and expanding California's "tax rebate" with support on both sides. http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/californias-assembly-passes-expansion-of-film-and-tv-tax-credit-1201195224/ Its going back for a re-vote when the budget comes out in a few weeks. I'm not a fan of the cash-handout subsidies... it goes right into the pocket of the big 6 studios and nowhere else. And if you are swinging billions in box office revenue.. there's no excuse for it. One problem is the studios demand the "tax credit" to be guaranteed by any vendor who works on a production. That means they have to relocate the maximum number of crew/staff to a subsidized location in order to qualify for that areas rebate. It's worked out in advance so all that money gets sucked right back into the studio as a profit, so the vendors and crew along the way don't see a cent, it's already taken in account as a discount on services during contracts. Governments shouldn't be getting involved with Hollywood, it distorts the industry, especially when you have studios bullying countries [like Warners did with New Zealand who agreed to a 25% rebate on Hobbit production costs and to change labor laws to suit production]. As if WB was really going to shoot it anywhere else to begin with, there isn't enough spare production capacity in other parts of the world to handle a project that huge without creating it from scratch or paying a few percent more to do it in California.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:27
|
|
