Dynasty Party Politics in Cali. This is how far it has gone..

[BluesLegend]

So basically they feel the millions of Republicans in California don't even deserve the change to run someone for senate, wow shocker. Now if you want to see real corruption where the outcome of elections is determined by the parties look no further than NY.

 

[emilynghiem]

Their former governor is about to take over the show that made Trump a star. There's a new path to the White House I think.

Who? My buddy Jerry Brown? He's had his shot at the WHouse. The guy is not the interesting problem solver he used to be.

Ahnold

Not a naturally-born citizen, therefore, not eligible for the Presidency.

No problem Bob Blaylock
When all the Never Trump Celebrities flee Hollywood and California secedes to form a gay union with Mexico, they can elect him as their "Governator". To set up an independent city state that recognizes residents of dual citizenship.

While he was Governor, he already proposed to build prisons in Mexico to house all the nationals who were costing CA in the billions. So there is enough economy around prisons, schools and health care, and law enforcement and security, to create a sustainable system of jobs around that. The Green Party already teaches workers how to set up and manage their own fair trade coops, and also how to organize labor pools to support local independent currency. All the workers and immigrants who want equal rights and opportunities can join the movement and create their own self governed worker owned cooperatives and form their own union between them. Like a huge corporation where the teachers police students workers and administrators own their own branch campuses and link then all together as a state.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I also lived in California back when Pete Wilson was Governor of that lovely State, and will never go back.

As for the idea of removing the political parties from the equation, well it is a wonderful idea if people would be allow to run and not just limit the choices between A or B.

Are the People of California stupid?

Yes... Now I am sure some wonderful Cali lovers will proclaim I am stupid for writing that ( which I agree I am a true idiot ) but the reality is the people of California limit their choices with the top two choices from the primary being their only choices to vote on and that is stupid to me because your might change your mind after Primary Season.

People in California along with the majority of Americans would prefer to be told who or what they should vote for because let face reality the majority of Americans are mindless sheep and if you need evidence of this then turn on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News and see the nonsense they tell these people and how they should think.

So it does not surprise me that California did this and it might just become part of the American Dream down the road but I will bet you that you are correct that when Republicans do this in Texas, North Carolina or Georgia those that support California Top Two rule will then find it wrong and racist that other states followed in California footsteps with limiting the voter choice...

It is like those that were for the Patriot Act then opposed it when Democrats gained control of all branches of the Federal Government... Watch out for what you wish for because the end result could come back to haunt you!

 

[flacaltenn]

So basically they feel the millions of Republicans in California don't even deserve the change to run someone for senate, wow shocker. Now if you want to see real corruption where the outcome of elections is determined by the parties look no further than NY.

I didn't even bring up the corruption aspect as you rightfully did.. But when you've installed your one party dynasty -- that's pretty inevitable isn't it?

So many examples of Dems disenfranchising voters. No wonder that's a mantra with them.. Screw dissent. Screw competition.. Screw the independent nominating processes of OTHER parties.... And screw the 40% who are not the majority party.. Good job Cali...

 

[flacaltenn]

I also lived in California back when Pete Wilson was Governor of that lovely State, and will never go back.

As for the idea of removing the political parties from the equation, well it is a wonderful idea if people would be allow to run and not just limit the choices between A or B.

Are the People of California stupid?

Yes... Now I am sure some wonderful Cali lovers will proclaim I am stupid for writing that ( which I agree I am a true idiot ) but the reality is the people of California limit their choices with the top two choices from the primary being their only choices to vote on and that is stupid to me because your might change your mind after Primary Season.

People in California along with the majority of Americans would prefer to be told who or what they should vote for because let face reality the majority of Americans are mindless sheep and if you need evidence of this then turn on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News and see the nonsense they tell these people and how they should think.

So it does not surprise me that California did this and it might just become part of the American Dream down the road but I will bet you that you are correct that when Republicans do this in Texas, North Carolina or Georgia those that support California Top Two rule will then find it wrong and racist that other states followed in California footsteps with limiting the voter choice...

It is like those that were for the Patriot Act then opposed it when Democrats gained control of all branches of the Federal Government... Watch out for what you wish for because the end result could come back to haunt you!

You get me. You really get me!!! Like a brother from another mother.

and that is stupid to me because your might change your mind after Primary Season.

That's how sinister this is -- you cut off access to the REAL RACE. There's no opportunity to respond or dissent for the whole run-up to the General.

As for the idea of removing the political parties from the equation, well it is a wonderful idea if people would be allow to run and not just limit the choices between A or B.

Actually getting on ballots (in FREE STATES, not in Cali) is EASIER as an "independent". Because the powers that be don't see Independents as true threats. They just don't people to organized in common cause as a Party.

In reality, the Parties should hold their OWN primaries. Series of state caucases following by a nat convention. That's the way the Greens and LParty do it. Don't LET the statists get their hooks into that process. With THIS nonsense or with any kind of "open primary". The LParty would WELCOME any 'independents' to caucus with us at a State primary.

The parties serve many useful functions. Including being a keeper of lists, records, policy, money. And they supply candidate training and support and keep the "volunteer networks" viable in the off election seasons.

 

[BluesLegend]

So basically they feel the millions of Republicans in California don't even deserve the change to run someone for senate, wow shocker. Now if you want to see real corruption where the outcome of elections is determined by the parties look no further than NY.

I didn't even bring up the corruption aspect as you rightfully did.. But when you've installed your one party dynasty -- that's pretty inevitable isn't it?

So many examples of Dems disenfranchising voters. No wonder that's a mantra with them.. Screw dissent. Screw competition.. Screw the independent nominating processes of OTHER parties.... And screw the 40% who are not the majority party.. Good job Cali...

In NY state and federal house and senate seats are traded for money and favors. The party might put you in a cushy appointment job, which are not limited by civil servant salary caps an appointee can easily make over $200k. For the appointment you might be asked to give someone's brother or wife a "no show" job in repayment. There were people earning $60k salaries for jobs who hadn't lived or been in the state for years.

NY is so corrupt it does not surprise me that virtually the entire leadership in both parties is either already in jail or being indicted. Decades of corruption, patronage, bribes and kickbacks.

Here's the sad part...with leadership blatantly pilfering the taxpayers what do the rest of the state employees do? Yes they follow their lead and the "get mine" attitude in state government is out of control.

Example: A firefighter or police officer is in their last year of service before retirement. Their retirement benefit is based on their highest year of earnings. So they game the system funneling insane amounts of overtime to this person in their final year, their retirement then earns them way more than they ever earned on the job in a normal year, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill for this bloated retirement benefit for 20 to 30 years. This is why taxes are sky high.

The wife of one of these people called into a radio show one day. She defended the practice by claiming her husband should have been paid much more while he was working so she felt justified in gaming the pension system this way.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

 

[Lewdog]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

 

[Silhouette]

Are the People of California stupid?

In this case no. This is a case of pure corruption having a stronghold that will not let go its iron grip. This is a state where gay marriage was voted down twice and a single gay judge in San Franfreakshow who wanted to marry his boyfriend said "Nope, you can't do that" without any case law or constitutional authority to say so. And from there...literally if you follow the breadcrumbs, we have Obergefell...and Obama shining the rainbow lights on the Whitehouse the same day.

Welcome to tyranny; courtesy of its crib and nursery: California.

 

[flacaltenn]

What amazes me is how persistent and stealthy this whole change has been. Never heard ANYTHING about the "top 2 " for US Senate in Cali being Dems during this election. The media doesn't freaking care that you know. I was VERY active in defeating the 1st "ballot initiative" to pass this turd in 2004.. Our LParty chapter even wrote the "dissenting" view to the proposition in the Cali Voter Handbook.. In there -- You are stacked against all the big name Dems writing for the "approve" side. We asked folks to consider the arbitrary nature of the "top 2".. Why not the "top 4"? And a lot of good questions. We BARELY won that time. So -- I guess, the nature of Cali politics has gotten more extreme since I left.

Top-two primary - Ballotpedia


California
In 2000, the United States Supreme Court struck down California's blanket primary system in California Democratic Party v. Jones. Voters narrowly defeated Proposition 62, the "Modified Blanket Primaries Act," in November 2004. In June 2010, voters approved Proposition 14, a measure known as the "Top Two Primaries Act."

Proposition 14 requires that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff. The new system took effect in the April 19, 2011, special election for California State Senate District 28.[5]

As a result of the top-two primary, same-party candidates faced off in nine of California's 53 congressional districts in the November 6, 2012, general election. In seven districts, two Democrats opposed one another; in the remaining two, two Republicans faced off.[6]

SupCt refused to take the case for appeal. The whole thing disgusts me and makes me glad I left..

 

[flacaltenn]

Once they've created a dynasty --- you won't be able to stop them. No matter who "they" are...

 

[Coyote]

Sounds like people are not getting a real choice in a state controlled primarily by one party - regardless of what party it is. There's been far too much quasi-legal disenfranchising going on - whether it's through this, through gerrymandering, through highly restrictive laws. Allowing only the two most popular candidates on the ballot effectively creates a defacto one-party state when we need to be opening up access for more then just the Big Two. Very dangerous precedent.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

 

[Lewdog]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

Yep, if someone runs a candidate with a good enough platform, then they'll do fine. This is about representing the will of the people right?

 

[Coyote]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

Yep, if someone runs a candidate with a good enough platform, then they'll do fine. This is about representing the will of the people right?

But not mob rule.

 

[Lewdog]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

Yep, if someone runs a candidate with a good enough platform, then they'll do fine. This is about representing the will of the people right?

But not mob rule.

Funny though... that since Trump won all of his supporters were saying how great the EC was and that the popular vote didn't matter. Now we have this... and it isn't even popular vote anymore, it's that Republicans can't even get on the final ticket.

So while Trump supporters yell at the top of their lungs that Liberals and the like are nothing but whiners... here we have a thread about whining about liberals.

See how that works?

I'm not a liberal, I just want the best candidate to win that best represents the will of the people. Sadly, the will of the people is the majority of the people. So I'll say it again... run a candidate that best suits the will of the people and has their best interests in mind, and you'll win.

Personally I think we should outlaw political parties and everyone should be independent, but that will never happen.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The entire state is out voted by Los Angeles and San Francisco. No matter how fabulous the platform might be, the voices of Californians are silenced by Los Angeles and San Francisco. Promise these cities more welfare, paid for by the rest of the state and that's who wins.

Which is why we will keep the electoral college nationally.

 

[Lewdog]

The entire state is out voted by Los Angeles and San Francisco. No matter how fabulous the platform might be, the voices of Californians are silenced by Los Angeles and San Francisco. Promise these cities more welfare, paid for by the rest of the state and that's who wins.

Which is why we will keep the electoral college nationally.

Sorry, but that's how it works. Now... as you were saying about people whining about the EC? I can't hear you over your whining about this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

Yep, if someone runs a candidate with a good enough platform, then they'll do fine. This is about representing the will of the people right?

Couple of problems. Let's go back to your fast food analogy. Which I took a pass on the 1st time you used it.
Once you've decided on burgers, you look at the menu and there are 2 IDENTICAL LOOKING burgers on it with a slight price difference. You have to ask what's the diff? And they tell you that one has sesame seeds on the TOP bun and the other has sesame seeds on the BOTTOM bun. Are we done with the trivial snacking now??

The other problem is --- NOBODY pays attention to the primaries. The media is not wound up to cover a "cattle call". And the POLL attendance is at best 30% of what they are on election day.

And it's EXTREMELY undemocratic to allow ONE party to control the entire General Election Campaign. Where is the DEBATE? Where is the critical challenge? Where is the TRUE competition? Because punches are pulled and the ENTIRE General campaign becomes a party advertising campaign.

Now in terms of "disenfranching voters" -- BOTH the brand name parties do this all the time. They refuse to RUN or endorse or fund their candidates in losing races. Up to 12 or 15% of US Congress races are so "locked up" that the parties just abandon that 40% minority without a viable candidate. Which is GREAT for the LParty and the Greens in FREE states (not Cali) -- because in those ABANDONED races the LP can pull up 25 or 30% and qualify for ballot access in future races. With this horrific law in Cali --- 3rd parties NEVER get the chance to pre-qualify for ballot access from a General Election..

 

[Lewdog]

Good for them! Now maybe people won't just vote straight ticket... and it allows for a system where no matter the party the best person can run and win.

Not even close. It ensures that everyone votes a straight democratic ticket. Not that many people vote in state elections and even fewer in city elections. In the 2014 election for state and city offices the turnout was only 16%. I don't vote for city or state offices at all. I vote against all the initiatives.

So you just complained against something that you don't even vote for. That makes no sense whatsoever. You just gave more energy and initiative to reply to my post than you do in your own state and city elections.

I won't vote for a Democrat and only Democrats are on the ballot. You think that somehow this system allows for other than democrats to run. Nope, other than democrats are all knocked out early.

Yep, if someone runs a candidate with a good enough platform, then they'll do fine. This is about representing the will of the people right?

Couple of problems. Let's go back to your fast food analogy. Which I took a pass on the 1st time you used it.
Once you've decided on burgers, you look at the menu and there are 2 IDENTICAL LOOKING burgers on it with a slight price difference. You have to ask what's the diff? And they tell you that one has sesame seeds on the TOP bun and the other has sesame seeds on the BOTTOM bun. Are we done with the trivial snacking now??

The other problem is --- NOBODY pays attention to the primaries. The media is not wound up to cover a "cattle call". And the POLL attendance is at best 30% of what they are on election day.

And it's EXTREMELY undemocratic to allow ONE party to control the entire General Election Campaign. Where is the DEBATE? Where is the critical challenge? Where is the TRUE competition? Because punches are pulled and the ENTIRE General campaign becomes a party advertising campaign.

Now in terms of "disenfranching voters" -- BOTH the brand name parties do this all the time. They refuse to RUN or endorse or fund their candidates in losing races. Up to 12 or 15% of US Congress races are so "locked up" that the parties just abandon that 40% minority without a viable candidate. Which is GREAT for the LParty and the Greens in FREE states (not Cali) -- because in those ABANDONED races the LP can pull up 25 or 30% and qualify for ballot access in future races. With this horrific law in Cali --- 3rd parties NEVER get the chance to pre-qualify for ballot access from a General Election..

I wasn't just talking about THE burgers. First you have to choose the burger joint you go to... and that can mean a whole lot of other things.

If your party isn't getting enough attention in the general election where the two candidates are already selected, then maybe your party needs to change its campaign strategy and start bringing more attention to the primaries. Problem solved.