|
I don't think PG&E cares if you power yourself if you have a proper transfer switch and disconnect from the grid. While you have an on-grid system, they care because: 1) The inverter generating AC from your solar needs to synchronize its frequency with the grid frequency 2) Your excess generation is backfed into the grid. People working on lines need to be able to deenergize them and know that they are off. Any on-grid or hybrid solar system you can legally install needs to either turn off or disconnect itself when grid power is down.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Your city buried their infrastructure and almost never has real fire risks on anything other than the unincorp areas. I envy you for this This set of blackouts is from generator capacity, not fire risk. If demand goes up past supply, bad things happen. Solar and wind generation are below normal from messed up weather (I think patterns from the storm in the Midwest last week?), a couple of plants are offline unrelatedly, and heatwave has extra demand. When reserve generator capacity dips too low, the organization that manages the regional grip tells distribution utilities (PG&E) to cut demand immediately with little blackouts to prevent catastrophic blackouts and equipment damage. I don't know how PG&E picks what specifically to cut.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
None of these blackouts are related to PG&E's (lack of) line maintenance. They're directed by the California ISO because total power generation + reserve is smaller than demand across the grid. Comparing to something like Italy, California has more power from wind+solar (which is good), but they're less consistent than a natural gas plant. Capitalism won't build more generating capacity since it wouldn't be profitable, but even under Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, I'm not sure that building power plants that will only be used to cover a few hours of blackouts every 5 years or so is a good use of resources.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
Also, ex-convicts with experience fighting wildfires are generally banned from firefighting jobs after release because of their criminal records 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
side_burned posted:Isn't fire part of the redwoods life cycle? Sort of. They don't need it, it just hurts them less than most things, so periodic fires improve their relative position in the forest and leads to them dominating. Their bark never stops thickening and is fire-retardant+insulating. A 1000 year old tree will have over a foot thick bark. They also store more water in their live wood than most trees, so it has a higher heat capacity. A hot enough or long enough fire can still heat up the inside of the trunk enough to kill it, or heat the ground enough to kill enough roots. Young trees will be definitely dead, odds of survival will go up with age. Pre-industrial wildfires were more frequent but less intense from lack of fuel (which will have burned up in the previous fire), they do better there than in modern less frequent more intense fires
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:So without PG&E around, what was starting most of those fires? Was it just random summer lightning storms? Lighting + human slash and burn agriculture that got out of hand. Think of how far the current wildfires would go before burning out if there were no firefighting, firebreaks from highways, or cleared areas from sprawl. (on evolutionary timescales, just lightning, people haven't been in the Americas that long)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Yep. Which makes the interpretive display in the Santa Barbara Mission self-guided tour that says, "The Missionaries taught the Chumash agriculture!" even more insulting. Slash and burn agriculture is very old and has probably been reinvented many times. It has poor yield per cultivated area and is terrible for the environment, but it's labor-efficient and doesn't need metal tools or draft animals. "Burn it all down" is apparently a pretty common human answer to "how can I clear this area of trees/shrubs?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
If I were supreme dictator of California, I would set up a Army Reserve-esque program but for wildfire control. I expect you could get a decent size volunteer force to call up for digging. My understanding is that it isn't technically difficult, just labor intensive and hard work. Basically the same as the current prison labor way, but pulled from general population instead. You want to be able to surge a big labor force with modest preexisting training, but mostly they can be doing other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So I have a lot of friends who are journalists, graphic designers, performing arts, photographers, tutors, or friends with those, saying AB5 is severely hurting them because while it's designed to target Lyft/Uber and such, it's too vague and companies are scared of violating it. It will, but when they are already violating the spirit of labor law. Like a hypothetical tutoring company that claims it is just matching students and independent contractor tutors (who do nothing besides work for this one company) is going to be told that their tutors are actually employees and get employee labor protections. They're not doing anything fundamentally different from what Lyft/Uber are doing, they're just less visible. Huego posted:Yeah, I'm a freelance writer and AB5 completely killed my ability to pitch to publications in my own state. AB5 says that outlets that publish more than 35 pieces from a writer have to make them an employee. Workplaces find the idea of "automatic employee" so terrifying that now they won't hire a CA writer for even one piece. Not only did this crater my income and opportunities, it's a death blow to local journalism. AB5 is so terribly written I worry it's bad intentionally just so the entire idea of punishing employers for misclassifying employees as contractors can be struck down in court. How many things would you publish for the same paper before? 35+ (per year?) seems like past the point where you're writing exclusively for one place and are actually an employee. Places being way overconservative about hiring any contractors doesn't seem like AB5's fault. Lacrosse posted:I suggested paying tribes to do it for two reasons: Native tribes don't really have any advantage. Doing a controlled burn in a safe way isn't a traditional cultural practice kind of thing, it's a modern large engineering project kind of thing. Controlled fire is not really something where you want to go with a low-bid inexperienced contractor since mistakes spiral out of control fast. Their goals are also pretty different. Traditional agricultural burns are trying to kill everything in the area and reduce it to ash as a very inefficient fertilizer application. Wildfire reduction burns are trying to duplicate frequent lightning induced wildfires and clear understory without impacting large trees. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:Good news! We have one! You even get paid (poorly)! https://ccc.ca.gov/ CCC is full time I think? I was thinking more a "1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year" type reserve deal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Huego posted:I don't write for any papers at all. Newspapers never hired that many freelancers to begin with, and are a tiny percentage of the modern writing market. 35 blog posts, however, might not even be a full week's work at a lot of sites. FWIW I write longform magazine stuff, so it's rare I write 35 pieces total in a year, let alone for one publication. Places being "way overconservative" about complying with AB5 is absolutely AB5's fault when AB5 is overly broad and written without any consideration for how all the industries it lumped together actually work. I still strongly support CA fighting against the epidemic of employers misclassifying their workers, and I'll be happy to see Uber and Lyft die even though, as someone who doesn't own a car, it will have a large and immediate negative effect on my life. It seems reasonably well written to me? §2750.3 posted:(x) Services provided by a freelance writer, editor, or newspaper cartoonist who does not provide content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. Items of content produced on a recurring basis related to a general topic shall be considered separate submissions for purposes of calculating the 35 times per year. For purposes of this clause, a “submission” is one or more items or forms of content by a freelance journalist that: (I) pertains to a specific event or topic; (II) is provided for in a contract that defines the scope of the work; (III) is accepted by the publication or company and published or posted for sale. I read that as saying each individual "Content for $" execution is a submission, regardless of how many things are in it. Like "Deliver 50 blog posts for $500" is a single submission. If there's a standing contract where every week you deliver a new batch of 50 and they owe you $500 for it, you become an employee after 35 weeks/year, which seems legit. e.g. if someone sent in 25 blog posts and then quit, does the company owe them $250 or did they not fulfill the contract line item and are owed nothing? And if 35 pieces is more than a year's worth of work in your particular industry, it seems like a magazine should be able to trivially conclude that they'll never have any risk of accidentally triggering AB5 Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Aug 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think what you're missing is "reasonably conclude and act rationally" isn't a thing that a lot of businesses do and in the meantime people are hosed for income and there's a pandemic. Never changing any labor law because 'what if businesses think it does something it clearly doesn't do' isn't really a workable system either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Huego posted:That isn't at all how blogging pay arrangements work, much less other freelance writing and I don't see what the point of some thought experiment where you make up stuff about how you imagine an industry you don't work in runs to defend a law that doesn't affect you. I do work in the industry, I do know how it runs, I am affected, and I don't find it useful or interesting to "trivially conclude" anything. If your job is "Make N blog posts per day for our website, you will be paid X per post, continue doing this indefinitely until we tell you to stop", you are actually an employee and AB5 is doing what it's supposed to
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Huego posted:Ok so now we're up to two random goons who agree they know more about what my job is than I do. You were the one to originally bring up the hypothetical person who's job is to spam blog posts. For your job (longform magazine writing), you said that it is literally impossible for you to write 35+ pieces/year across every single one of your clients combined, but AB5 explicitly doesn't kick in for freelance writing until that point. An employer saying that they can't hire you because of AB5 is completely disconnected from what it actually says and I'm not sure how you would could write the law to make that any clearer. Arsenic Lupin posted:The threshold of 35 pieces is absurdly low. It means that one photo sold to one publication counts as much as an entire photoessay. A page-long filler piece counts as much as a fully-reported story complete with photographs. To be clear, it means that low-paid pieces that cost an hour or two are given the same weight as pieces that take weeks or months of work. It is appropriate to have some kind of limit over which you're a full-time employee, but the rules for writers and photographers were clearly written with no knowledge of how publishing works. What is a typical number of contracts executed for low-effort pieces? Selling something every week seems like a lot. The 35/year is on separate submissions, selling a whole bunch of pictures from one event would be a single submission. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:so is the problem that the quotas aren't tuned properly for the specific industry or that the imposition of any quota / test at all is an unreasonable JOB KILLING REGULATION because i'm kinda getting mixed messages here I would say that the fundamental problem is that race-to-the-bottom in the presence of regulations is a thing, and there is little-to-no natural bar to moving some kinds of work to jurisdictions with fewer protections. So CA passes more labor laws, companies move work to other states, if labor laws pass federally, jobs would move to offshore, etc... I don't think that anyone's ever found a good way to deal with it except that eventually the costs of having remote workers far away from the audience and clients catch up to the savings. Not really different from sending call center or software engineer jobs to low wage countries.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Huego posted:Fun shift to doom-and-gloom, publishing expert, but again this isn't a binary situation. Our choices aren't "let regulation hurt workers" or "don't regulate at all." We can improve laws. By listening to the people they affect. What would you recommend if you were writing a law for it? From how I've understood your experience, you've found that the paperwork burden of counting # of contracts per contractor (but still concluding they are contractors, not employees) is enough to make companies shift to out-of-state, so it seems hard to find something less burdonsome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
AB5 also isn't very novel nationwide. It switched California from Common Law test for independent contractors (the IRS one) to ABC test. About half of the US already uses ABC test (or the A&C parts), it is changing California from being in the low-regulation group to the high-regulation group. The other thing it did is let cities sue to enforce employee classification instead of only the state. The '35 pieces' thing is if you are below that you revert to previous Common Law test (there are a bunch of exceptions that cause reversion). If you are above it, you use ABC test. You can still be a contractor over that limit, you just have a more stringent test to satisfy if the government alleges you are improperly classifying employees. But if you are an employer and a California/Kansas/Nebraska (all ABC test states) writer is interchangeable with a Michigan/Arizona/New York (all common law states) one, you might as well hire from the easier pool if you don't have any other reason to like the ABC state person Silly Kitty posted:Actually Native tribes are perfectly suited to do controlled burns as long as they have the money to pay for the equipment and personnel. NorCal tribes didn't burn for agriculture, they burned to shape their environment e.g create meadow space to attract grazing animals. The Yurok tribe (largest in CA and the only one to never be completely removed from their ancestral lands at any time in history) do controlled burns every year now that they've been allowed to. If you would like to know more... 'Fire is Medicine' Native tribes can certainly do good controlled burns, the justification for hiring someone like the Yurok to go do a burn in a National Park is that they're experienced and have a good track record at it, not from cultural history. You wouldn't want to hire a group that historically practiced burns, but had their land stolen 200 years ago and hasn't done a burn since to do one now in a park now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
Huego posted:How many different times do I need to say that poo poo you imagine is not reality? On and on and on you go about "well it should be like this" and "there's no reason not to do that" and it's fuckin' fiction, man. Go write your fanfic somewhere else. Practice at it and maybe you, too, can become a writer someday. I'm confused what part you think is inaccurate? How I am characterizing how AB5 changes California law? The other thing I'm saying is about how employers are reacting to it, where I am agreeing with you that they will move contractors jobs to states with lower regulation
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
It's like 5-10% of the total for most food. More for stuff shipped air freight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This happens to me all the time on 395, what is the deal with those people? Actual answer: they aren't paying particular attention to people behind them and are driving what they feel is a natural speed for the road. They slow down on windy/narrow bits, then the passing zones are straight/wide/downhill, so the speed that feels right for that road is faster.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
My ideal affirmative action program would trigger on wealth, not race, but that's harder to administer and in aggregate right now they're equivalent. Race-based affirmative action isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Prop 13 mandated that assessed value grow at below-inflation rates. Holding a piece of property should not make your property taxes disappear over time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:The jungle primary has probably helped bury the rump CA GOP while also entrenching establishment Dems. If a general 2-candidate race between a centrist and a left-wing challenger ends with the centrist being elected, it's not really suppressing the left in an undemocratic way. The general electorate just isn't actually left. A non jungle primary system that produces general elections between a rump party right-wing candidate and either a centrist/left-wing candidate will elect the left more since the center vs left contest is done within a more liberal group, but it's less reflective of the actual general population's views (those views just suck). Which you prefer comes down to values vs practicalities.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Go with a jungle primary if you think the Florida general electorate would vote: - Generic Evil Republican > far-right wingnut > centrist/left [general is generic vs wingnut] - left > centrist > generic evil/wingnut [general is left vs centrist] Otherwise go with normal
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Jungle makes it so one candidate in the general is basically always either an establishment Democrat or establishment Republican, with the other filled by either the missing establishment candidate, a leftist candidate, or a far right candidate. Statewide in Florida, it will usually be establishment v establishment In California, it will sometimes be establishment v left In Wyoming, it would be establishment v far right Establishment is likely to win all of those matchups in a general election. You can argue about why. I think the most likely reason is that, even in California, it is matching the actual policy preferences of the voting population, regardless of how much we might wish otherwise. Effort is best spent changing the voting population by get-out-the-vote or changing minds. Normal primaries can result in left vs establishment R, left vs far right, establishment D vs establishment R, and establishment D vs far right. You can get left winners you wouldn't get otherwise in places that don't like Republicans, but also far right winners in places that don't like Democrats. The Florida amendment applies to state legislature, governor, and cabinet. The state-wide ones already seem balanced enough that it would do nothing; I don't know enough about local politics to guess about what it'd do to your state legislature. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 18, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Given that we want to eliminate cash bail, that leaves: 1) Everyone stays in jail pre trial 2) No one stays in jail pre trial 3) Someone making a discretionary decision 4) Some mechanical algorithm (3) and (4) both have the potential to be racist. Whether (4) actually is or not will depend on how it is implemented. Anything from a simple "Violent crime => stay in jail, Nonviolent crime => bail" to a super complicated opaque fitted model would fit within the text of the proposition. But there really isn't any alternative to either have it be a person making a judgment call (which may be racist/inconsistent with other judges), or making it a mechanical process without human judgment. Even if you decided to keep cash bail for some reason, you still need some way to set the amount or deny it, which is either a judgment call or not.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Probably would end up being a hand workable thing, just out of necessity for executing it. For comparison, this is the algorithm LA county uses now to set pre-arraignment cash bail amounts. Arraignment hearing happens within 48 hours of arrest (not counting weekends or holidays) and judge can modify up or down.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Most of those objections don't make sense to me. The text of the proposition tells the Judicial Council of California to come up with a list of algorithm choices, then individual courts pick from that list, but doesn't define any specific methods. There isn't any actual algorithm choice in the text to criticize, just principles that JCC is supposed to follow when coming up with them. My guess is that places will take their existing bail schedules and say "Below $X is now low risk, above $Y is high risk, in between is medium". That probably is racist in ways (e.g. LA county's 'Was the offense committed for the benefit of a gang => +$40,000 to the bail"), but it's also not a change, things like that are in the law now. There's maybe some risk in that at a hearing for a 'medium risk' person, there's a rebuttable presumption that violent felony charge implies public safety risk where right now it just triggers a big bail amount. Simultaneously objecting to a judge having leeway and objecting to a mechanical process where there is less leeway doesn't make any sense. For the probation stuff, I can't find anything that probation departments are actually even doing in the text besides giving County Chief Probation Officers reporting requirements and obligations to cooperate with the courts. It's also explicit that ""Pretrial Assessment Services" [the thing it is creating] does not include supervision of persons released under this chapter." I guess you could get an expansion of people under probation if courts take people in the medium/high groups who would before have bailed out with high dollar amounts but nothing else and make them do check ins/ankle bracelet type monitoring instead. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Oct 1, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I mean, feel free to check out that website, but I'm guessing "folks who work on justice reform every day" have a good idea of whether this is bad or not, rather than my 2nd hand reiteration of some notes I took. All of their non-soundbite stuff is off on the 'FAQ' tab if anyone else wants to dig into it. Expanding out how I understand their arguments: - They lump judges with law enforcement as wanting convictions. They think currently judges use high bail/denied bail as a lever to get guilty pleas and that Prop 25 will provide more socially acceptable cover for denying bail - Other places that do statistical risk for skipping court/committing crimes pretrial use things like past convictions, employment, housing status, etc.. that have racial divisions. Anything CA picks will probably use similar factors, even though no specific choice is mandated. - The probation department thing is that they think the restrictions on use-of-funds in Prop 25 will cause courts to put the new risk assessment service underneath police probation departments instead of using court employees or putting it under a non-police civil agency. Their desired alternative is to have anyone arrested of a nonserious crime immediately released pretrial, and all serious crimes have a hearing (presumably they'd also want those hearings to be faster than the current weekend+2days requirement*). It's similar to Prop 25 if you drew the Low-Medium line as triggered entirely by what crime was charged. Also a thing that doesn't seem realistic to me about having a new civil service agency that gets people to go to court, but somehow doesn't supervise or monitor them. * Don't get arrested on the Friday before a 3-day weekend after courts have closed
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Example of the kind of algorithm Prop 25/SB10 is likely to use:   This is from Virginia pretrial risk assessment instrument, which is one of the widespread existing ones. Racist in that past convictions, drug use, and employment are all racially correlated. They all also seem reasonably likely to be predictive. i.e. - comparing a white person with their BIPOC doppelganger, the BIPOC version is more likely to have a past conviction - comparing someone with their unemployed same-race doppelganger, the unemployed version is more likely to skip out on court can both be true
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
The thing that bothers me about the no on 25 arguments from the left is that they don't seem to propose any alternative. They don't want case-by-case discretionary decisions since judges are racist. But they also don't want broad mechanical decisions since the judicial council might choose a process that is racist. What is left? Restructuring society and abolishing prison is a fine goal, but isn't going to happen on any rapid timescale
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
My vote on 21 will probably depend on how cynical I feel about local government at the time I fill out my ballot. I've never read an argument for why price controls on housing should behave differently than price controls on anything else that didn't seem like wishful thinking. I think that agrees with observational studies on what happens in practice. Fewer existing residents evicted or voluntarily move, less housing construction, and higher market rents than comparable non-rent controlled areas. It's a power local government should have to use as a bandaid because things that increasing housing supply like building public housing or rezoning denser will take years to do anything. But rent control and then not actually doing anything else just kicks the can down the road with an even worse housing shortage to deal with later.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:yo Biden and Trump were at the bottom of the ballot for some reason. Ballots are printed with the order of candidates shuffled randomly because otherwise the person at the top wins more. We are not clever apes. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I mean, either way you're hoping for the legislature to do something on the heels of this vote. If 25 passes then you're hoping they amend/fix the bill's very real issues with minimal lag time, which is not a guarantee and in fact assumes the law was not intentionally written to preserve a racist incarceration system under the guise of reform. If it doesn't pass then you're hoping the takeaway is "we need to do better on our next attempt", not "welp the people have spoken and they like the current cash bail system" and the death of further reform attempts for the foreseeable future. If it passes, you're actually waiting for the state Judicial Council to study/fix issues. It's written as a thing where the Judicial Council is supposed to come up with the actual algorithm details consistent with some broad goals in the bill + some reports they're required to generate to the legislature. Judicial Council might still suck because it's mostly old white judges again, but it'll be bureaucracy suck instead of politician suck.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
fermun posted:When Massachusetts got rid of rent control to gently caress over Boston, rents went up drastically (even on non-rent-controlled units!), evictions skyrocketed, and development didn't increase. But surely we can try the same experiment again but this time in California! This was interesting so I went paper hunting this is the most extensive one I've been able to find. It's Elseiver though, so you would need a library subscription or some sort of paper hub to get at it. It's using census data to look at differences between never controlled units and units that went out of rent control. Also lots of math. His conclusions have Boston rent decontrol: - Not increasing building - Increasing rents (duh) - Lots of owner-occupied/non-rental units changing into rentals - No change to functional maintenance (heat, water, electricity) - Improvement in nonfunctional maintenance (paint, holes in walls, etc...) Sharks Eat Bear posted:This is one of the nuances I learned about from the JusticeLA video that Jaxyon posted earlier. One of the panelists is with Human Rights Watch and has been a public defender for decades, and he made the point that one of the biggest reasons cash bail is a problem is upstream from the bail industry itself -- prosecutors & judges are the ones that request and use discretion"to set bail, with the implicit rationale that it results in faster guilty pleas and lets the judiciary get through their court calendar faster. I do think judges use bail to clear their dockets. Somewhat hopeful that policy set bureaucratically at a 10000ft level will be less prone to that an individual judge looking at their own schedule. One of the problems with risk-assessment things that I think is true is that judges will accept the 'detain' recommendations and overrule the 'release' ones if they have discretion. For for-profit algorithms, of the widespread existing ones, there's one secret proprietary used in a couple counties (COMPAS) and the rest are all simple charts I think. I posted VPRAI-R's chart a couple pages back (it's racist in that it's triggering off of previous convictions & stuff like that, but isn't opaque about it)  is CA usage as of 2007 (with terrible colors) Expanded probation I am torn about. On one hand, expanded police is bad, but on the other hand something like having weekly check in with a parole officer is better than paying $2500 to a bail bond place to satisfy a $25k bail for a drug selling charge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
It's not super illegal for someone affiliated with a party to collect a ballot. What is illegal is having a dropbox. It would be perfectly legal for a GOP volunteer to go door to door offering to take ballots to a real dropbox. The way the law is written it requires a direct voter to specific-person-they-authorize-to-transport-their-ballot handoff. The reasoning is that it improves participation to let people who can't get to a post office/polling dropoff have a relative/neighbor/friend carry it for them and there's no specific exception to say 'unless your friend is a volunteer for a political party'
Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Ok basically last year when rumblings of AB5 first took off Postmates took a full page add in the LA Times saying "These 1,600 drivers want to remain independent contractors" with their full names printed below. Some of the people on that list noticed that they didn't agree to appear in an advertisement and raised a stink about it. So not true at all then? That article says Postmates stuck a 'Would you like to sign our anti AB5 petition?" nag in their app, people clicked it (probably) to just make it go away, then Postmates took out an ad saying "these people signed our petition". That's not at all 'we own the right to sign your name to anything'
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:I have 3 teenagers in my house. gently caress letting any of them vote. I voted for it on the assumption that the idiot teen population and the teen population motivated enough to actually go vote are mostly nonoverlapping. Class Warcraft posted:I'm not sure that's the conclusion I'd come to. Prop 20, which was the "tough on crime" prop this time around, got loving crushed so I think Prop 25 failing to pass is probably at least partly by not having unified support behind it on the left. I doubt the more-left version of no cash bail can pass either legislature or a referendum though. Getting something not-racist like an explicit ban on considering criminal history seems unlikely. Probably bail reform is dead legislatively and will have to be done by advocating for administrative rule changes per-DA and court system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Guessing difference is from the titles: "Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term" vs "Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote" 17 is pithier, sounds less complicated, and doesn't highlight that it's a constitutional amendment (both are). I can imagine someone skimming down a list checking Yes on 17 but just defaulting to No on 18
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:Lol imagine hiding behind a flowchart to explain why you can’t talk to your neighbors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2020 07:12
|
|