How Would You Have Voted?

[Adam's Apple]

Let's pretend that you could have voted in any of the elections that were held yesterday. Based on what you know about the issues or candidates that were up for election, which election would you have participated in and why?

 

[nosarcasm]

Enforce the suspension of voting rights in California
and give Arnold card blanche to change the corrupt system.


or more democratically support three of his 4 amendments Arnold pushed.

 

[Zhukov]

The D referendum to make Ohio election districts 'competitive' failed, so that's fine.

Therefore I would have voted for probably all of Arnold's referendums except the one about the panel of retired judges redrawing election districts. If it was like the Ohio one, then I would have voted against that as well.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I would have voted in CA, and I would have voted for all of the referendums, including the gerrymandering issue. I think the proposition to have retired judges determine the voting districts would have resulted in a more equitable distribution for the functioning of a two-party system than what they now have. Guess the Dems couldn't trust their retired judges to see things the way they see them. Too bad for California.

 

[Zhukov]

Well here's my question:

Was the panel of retired judges supposed to create 'competitive' districts, as was the idea in Ohio?

If so, I don't like the idea of that. Members of state legislative bodies should be representative of coherent groups of people as organized by geography. By that I mean if town X is predominantly middle-class whites who vote R, and town Y is predominantly lower-class blacks who vote D, and towns X and Y are adjacent, elective districts shouldn't be formed from half of town X and half of town Y just to make elections 'competitive'.

Instead town X and town Y should be seperate elective districts.


I just don't know what the California referendum's intent was, because I don't live in California and so didn't bother to investigate it.

If it was just a Republican backed political manoeuvre to even the playing field because the California state legislature is dominated by Democrats, then I don't support it.

Do I believe California would be better off with a legislature dominated by Republicans? Yes I do. But I don't believe this is the way to achieve it.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps that wasn't the intent at all.

 

[USViking]

I like Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. of Oklahoma.

He specializes in taking on Pork, and the other Senators
are ganging up on him,
and are telling him it is a violation of Senate Ethics for him
to deliver a baby.

He's got the coolest name, too- who was the coolest
of The Magnificent Seven?- James Coburn, by far.

 

[William Joyce]

I like Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. of Oklahoma.

He specializes in taking on Pork, and the other Senators
are ganging up on him,
and are telling him it is a violation of Senate Ethics for him
to deliver a baby.

He's got the coolest name, too- who was the coolest
of The Magnificent Seven?- James Coburn, by far.

Coburn is one of the good ones, along with Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul in the House.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well here's my question:

Was the panel of retired judges supposed to create 'competitive' districts, as was the idea in Ohio?

If so, I don't like the idea of that. Members of state legislative bodies should be representative of coherent groups of people as organized by geography. By that I mean if town X is predominantly middle-class whites who vote R, and town Y is predominantly lower-class blacks who vote D, and towns X and Y are adjacent, elective districts shouldn't be formed from half of town X and half of town Y just to make elections 'competitive'.

Instead town X and town Y should be seperate elective districts.


I just don't know what the California referendum's intent was, because I don't live in California and so didn't bother to investigate it.

If it was just a Republican backed political manoeuvre to even the playing field because the California state legislature is dominated by Democrats, then I don't support it.

Do I believe California would be better off with a legislature dominated by Republicans? Yes I do. But I don't believe this is the way to achieve it.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps that wasn't the intent at all.

An independent commisison utilizing the decennial census figures to establish districts on the basis of population...not party affiliation...not racial demographics...not income distribution is the only equitable solution. That is, after all, the whole raison d'etre for the census.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I would have voted in texas for proposistion making marriage between a man and a woman, and make it 76% who passed it instead of 75%