info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
way, way, way OT: modern voting comes to Florida
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Wolffan
Jan 3, 2022, 12:21:42 PM1/3/22
to
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a special election
on to replace him.
Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at least the last
four elections. Even dead, he could probably win now.
Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d primaried the
previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t won in this district in a
very long time.
Fact #3: I’m registered Rep. There aren’t very many of us in this
district, and most of us don’t like Trumpanzees. Trump managed to alienate
a bunch of hard-core will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-it’s-a-Rep guys
over the last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even
when there’s someone other than a ZCongresscritter to vote for, is expected
to be abysmal.
Fact #4: the Reps are running someone in the district, after many years.
Unfortunately, only two Reps showed for the primary. One was a local boy
whose main claim to fame was that he does sport fishing. One was an
out-of-area carpetbagger who literally had been convicted of multiple
drug-related felonies. The felonious carpetbagger won the primary, as he
visibly was a close to Trump as he could get. Seriously, the law-and-order
Trumpists voted for a drug thug. (Of course, he was a _white_ drug thug, so
that’s alright.) I didn’t bother voting in the primary, I didn’t like
either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons can’t hold political office unless they jump
through a few hoops. M’man has neglected to jump through the hoops.
Legally, even if he wins the election, he can’t serve. The deadline for
hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasn’t finished all the hoop-jumping by
18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he can’t serve. I don’t see
how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but that’s me.
Fact #6: M’man’s campaign has reached out to registered Reps in the
district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I know.) Apparently he
doesn’t think that it’s fair that the girl (the _black_ girl...) that the
Dems are running has pointed out that he’s a felon and can’t serve. (No,
he’s not trying to hide the fact that he’s a felon; one of his campaign
slogans is that “I fought the law and now I’ll fight for you”. Yes,
seriously.) I replied to a couple texts and emails, asking if/when he was
going to go hoop-jumping. No reply, not that I expected any. The regular mail
was two attempts to get funding and went into the circular file.
Fact #7: Early voting started on Sunday. This morning I went down to the main
library, where there’s an early voting center. There was no line. All of
the nine or ten poll workers inside were idle, other than talking to each
other. I presented my driver’s license (NOT the voter registration card,
they didn’t want that, they’ve never wanted that in all the times I’ve
voted here; I carry it just in case they ever change their minds) and filled
out some stuff on a touch-screen thingie, then ‘signed’ it with my finger
in an unreadable scrawl and got a slip of almost cardboard paper, with my
data printed on it. I went across to another touch-screen thingie, inserted
the paper, answered more questions, hit next, verified that the thingie had
properly recorded my answers (which included who I was voting for. Hint: not
the felon) and hit next again. The thingie asked one more time if I was sure.
Yes I was. The thingie spat the almost cardboard back out, with additional
stuff printed. I took the almost-cardboard to the actual voting machine, put
it in, got a notification that I had voted, got the little “I Voted!”
sticker from a poll worker, and was out of there. Elapsed time: just under 10
minutes. I could have done it in half the time if I’d pushed it. As I left,
another voter walked in. I had been the only voter in the place until then.
There was a poll watcher for the felon’s campaign present; he was busy
chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll
watcher for the Libertarian guy’s campaign, who wasn’t. The Green and the
Independent didn’t bother sending out poll watchers, they’re not going to
get significant votes anyway.
on to replace him.
Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at least the last
four elections. Even dead, he could probably win now.
Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d primaried the
previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t won in this district in a
very long time.
Fact #3: I’m registered Rep. There aren’t very many of us in this
district, and most of us don’t like Trumpanzees. Trump managed to alienate
a bunch of hard-core will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-it’s-a-Rep guys
over the last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even
when there’s someone other than a ZCongresscritter to vote for, is expected
to be abysmal.
Fact #4: the Reps are running someone in the district, after many years.
Unfortunately, only two Reps showed for the primary. One was a local boy
whose main claim to fame was that he does sport fishing. One was an
out-of-area carpetbagger who literally had been convicted of multiple
drug-related felonies. The felonious carpetbagger won the primary, as he
visibly was a close to Trump as he could get. Seriously, the law-and-order
Trumpists voted for a drug thug. (Of course, he was a _white_ drug thug, so
that’s alright.) I didn’t bother voting in the primary, I didn’t like
either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons can’t hold political office unless they jump
through a few hoops. M’man has neglected to jump through the hoops.
Legally, even if he wins the election, he can’t serve. The deadline for
hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasn’t finished all the hoop-jumping by
18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he can’t serve. I don’t see
how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but that’s me.
Fact #6: M’man’s campaign has reached out to registered Reps in the
district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I know.) Apparently he
doesn’t think that it’s fair that the girl (the _black_ girl...) that the
Dems are running has pointed out that he’s a felon and can’t serve. (No,
he’s not trying to hide the fact that he’s a felon; one of his campaign
slogans is that “I fought the law and now I’ll fight for you”. Yes,
seriously.) I replied to a couple texts and emails, asking if/when he was
going to go hoop-jumping. No reply, not that I expected any. The regular mail
was two attempts to get funding and went into the circular file.
Fact #7: Early voting started on Sunday. This morning I went down to the main
library, where there’s an early voting center. There was no line. All of
the nine or ten poll workers inside were idle, other than talking to each
other. I presented my driver’s license (NOT the voter registration card,
they didn’t want that, they’ve never wanted that in all the times I’ve
voted here; I carry it just in case they ever change their minds) and filled
out some stuff on a touch-screen thingie, then ‘signed’ it with my finger
in an unreadable scrawl and got a slip of almost cardboard paper, with my
data printed on it. I went across to another touch-screen thingie, inserted
the paper, answered more questions, hit next, verified that the thingie had
properly recorded my answers (which included who I was voting for. Hint: not
the felon) and hit next again. The thingie asked one more time if I was sure.
Yes I was. The thingie spat the almost cardboard back out, with additional
stuff printed. I took the almost-cardboard to the actual voting machine, put
it in, got a notification that I had voted, got the little “I Voted!”
sticker from a poll worker, and was out of there. Elapsed time: just under 10
minutes. I could have done it in half the time if I’d pushed it. As I left,
another voter walked in. I had been the only voter in the place until then.
There was a poll watcher for the felon’s campaign present; he was busy
chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll
watcher for the Libertarian guy’s campaign, who wasn’t. The Green and the
Independent didn’t bother sending out poll watchers, they’re not going to
get significant votes anyway.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 3, 2022, 1:22:23 PM1/3/22
to
Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
> special election on to replace him.
>
> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
> now.
Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
don't they always?
--
Terry Austin
Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
> special election on to replace him.
>
> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
> now.
an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>
> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
> won in this district in a very long time.
>
Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
> won in this district in a very long time.
>
don't they always?
--
Terry Austin
Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan
Jan 3, 2022, 1:36:14 PM1/3/22
to
On 2022-01-03 9:22 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>> special election on to replace him.
>>
>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>> now.
>
> Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
> an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>
>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
>> won in this district in a very long time.
>>
> Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
> don't they always?
>
As has been proven in the 2020 election, the dead were voting Republican.
> Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>> special election on to replace him.
>>
>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>> now.
>
> Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
> an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>
>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
>> won in this district in a very long time.
>>
> Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
> don't they always?
>
(And yes, if asked, I will provide the support for that).
Tim Merrigan
Jan 3, 2022, 3:47:06 PM1/3/22
to
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>> special election on to replace him.
>>
>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>> now.
>
>Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
>an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>
>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
>> won in this district in a very long time.
>>
>Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
>don't they always?
Only where a Dem machine is running things. Where Rep machines run
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>> special election on to replace him.
>>
>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>> now.
>
>Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
>an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>
>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
>> won in this district in a very long time.
>>
>Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
>don't they always?
things, dead voters vote Rep.
--
Qualified immuninity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 3, 2022, 5:26:08 PM1/3/22
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in
news:t2o6tgl7no1b9gd0u...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>>news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>>> special election on to replace him.
>>>
>>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably
>>> win now.
>>
>>Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost
>>- as an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after
>>all.
>>>
>>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps
>>> ain’t won in this district in a very long time.
>>>
>>Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote
>>Democrat. don't they always?
>
> Only where a Dem machine is running things.
Which, if you can work out what Skippy said in his dumbass smart
quote unicode crap, is exactly the situation described. "Reps
*prevent* *live* voters from voting.
You should keep a scorecard, so as not to be confused by the
stereotypes.
news:t2o6tgl7no1b9gd0u...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>>news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
>>> special election on to replace him.
>>>
>>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably
>>> win now.
>>
>>Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost
>>- as an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after
>>all.
>>>
>>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps
>>> ain’t won in this district in a very long time.
>>>
>>Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote
>>Democrat. don't they always?
>
> Only where a Dem machine is running things.
quote unicode crap, is exactly the situation described. "Reps
>>> ain't won in this district in a very long time."
> Where Rep machines
> run things, dead voters vote Rep.
No, voting the graveyards is a Democrat trick. The Republicans
> run things, dead voters vote Rep.
*prevent* *live* voters from voting.
You should keep a scorecard, so as not to be confused by the
stereotypes.
Gary McGath
Jan 3, 2022, 9:05:18 PM1/3/22
to
On 1/3/22 3:47 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>> news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote in
>> news:0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> special election on to replace him.
>>>
>>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>>> now.
>>
>> Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
>> an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>>
>>> Fact #2: the now dead Congresscritter had been a Dem. He’d
>>>
>>> Fact #1: the now dead Congresscritter had run unopposed for at
>>> least the last four elections. Even dead, he could probably win
>>> now.
>>
>> Wouldn't be a first. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost - as
>> an incumbent - to a dead man in a US Senate race, after all.
>>>
>>> primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps ain’t
>>> won in this district in a very long time.
>>>
>> Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
>> don't they always?
>
> Only where a Dem machine is running things. Where Rep machines run
> things, dead voters vote Rep.
Getting slightly more on topic, that reminds me of an episode of
>>>
>> Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote Democrat.
>> don't they always?
>
> Only where a Dem machine is running things. Where Rep machines run
> things, dead voters vote Rep.
_Highway to Heaven_ where Jonathan, an angel, arranges with God to have
a dead Senator show up in Congress as a ghost to vote for a bill to give
money to pharma companies.
I was going to say you can't make this stuff up, but some scriptwriter did.
--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
Joshua Kreitzer
Jan 3, 2022, 11:36:36 PM1/3/22
to
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:21:42 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a special election
> on to replace him.
>
> The Congresscritter for my area died last year. There’s a special election
> on to replace him.
>
> Fact #5: In this state, felons can’t hold political office unless they jump
> through a few hoops. M’man has neglected to jump through the hoops.
> Legally, even if he wins the election, he can’t serve. The deadline for
> hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasn’t finished all the hoop-jumping by
> 18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he can’t serve. I don’t see
> how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but that’s me.
This is questionable. There's Supreme Court precedent that says that the states can't add qualifications for serving in Congress beyond what the Constitution says -- that is, for the House of Representatives, being at least 25 years old, being a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and being an inhabitant of the state at the time of election. (See _U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton_, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).) That case had to do with a state imposing term limits on its own members of Congress, but the court mentioned that "an impressive number of [state] courts have determined that States lack the authority to add qualifications .... Courts have struck down state imposed qualifications in the form of ... restrictions on those convicted of felonies ...."
> through a few hoops. M’man has neglected to jump through the hoops.
> Legally, even if he wins the election, he can’t serve. The deadline for
> hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasn’t finished all the hoop-jumping by
> 18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he can’t serve. I don’t see
> how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but that’s me.
The state of Florida can ban felons from serving in state or local office, but being able to ban them from serving in Congress is a different story.
Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional election and thus the issue will be moot as to him. And it's possible that if a case about states disqualifying felons from serving in Congress came to the Supreme Court now, the Court might decide differently and uphold the disqualification. But the felon candidate has a good legal argument in favor of being allowed to serve in Congress.
--
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
Gary McGath
Jan 4, 2022, 3:38:48 AM1/4/22
to
just long enough to keep them from running for Congress, knowing that
the appeal will throw the conviction out. There are often good reasons
for restrictions on state or federal power that aren't obvious at first
glance.
Peter Trei
Jan 4, 2022, 11:06:14 AM1/4/22
to
to keep them from running or serving.
I could see a curious situation where Trump gets convicted of
fraud in NY, and runs for president from his cell on Riker's
Island. However, if elected, he couldn't pardon himself (even if
doing so is legal), since he can only pardon Federal convictions.
pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 11:27:34 AM1/4/22
to
Joshua Kreitzer <grom...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:de2058ee-7785-40b2...@googlegroups.com:
> Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
> election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
Anywhere but Florida, that'd be the way to bet. Anywhere but Florida.
news:de2058ee-7785-40b2...@googlegroups.com:
> Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
> election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 11:28:22 AM1/4/22
to
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
news:sr112l$jb1$1...@dont-email.me:
Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
juries do.
news:sr112l$jb1$1...@dont-email.me:
juries do.
Paul S Person
Jan 4, 2022, 11:57:40 AM1/4/22
to
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 12:21:36 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:
Back when we actually /went/ to the polls, we needed our voter cards
to show which precinct we were in so they could find our names in the
voter book and have us sign. This meant that you could vote in only
one place.
But my understanding is that modern systems allow you to vote at any
voting location, as the voting machine will determine your precinct
(or, rather, determine which issues/offices you can vote on).
And systems with the separate paper ballot are /much better/ than
those without, when it comes time to do recounts.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
wrote:
to show which precinct we were in so they could find our names in the
voter book and have us sign. This meant that you could vote in only
one place.
But my understanding is that modern systems allow you to vote at any
voting location, as the voting machine will determine your precinct
(or, rather, determine which issues/offices you can vote on).
And systems with the separate paper ballot are /much better/ than
those without, when it comes time to do recounts.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 12:10:00 PM1/4/22
to
Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:ctu8tg53e9hss7sms...@4ax.com:
Electronic voting machines are a wonderful thing. They make it very
efficient and cost effective to provide ballots in as many
languages as needed, and can be very accessible to people with
special needs.
And the *only* way they should be used is to print human readable
paper ballots that can be verified by the voter before being
deposited in a ballot box.
news:ctu8tg53e9hss7sms...@4ax.com:
efficient and cost effective to provide ballots in as many
languages as needed, and can be very accessible to people with
special needs.
And the *only* way they should be used is to print human readable
paper ballots that can be verified by the voter before being
deposited in a ballot box.
Tim Merrigan
Jan 4, 2022, 4:16:50 PM1/4/22
to
charges.
Tim Merrigan
Jan 4, 2022, 4:25:33 PM1/4/22
to
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:27:31 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Joshua Kreitzer <grom...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:de2058ee-7785-40b2...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
>> election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
>
>Anywhere but Florida, that'd be the way to bet. Anywhere but Florida.
It also depends on who their opponent is. Champaign slogan used in
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Joshua Kreitzer <grom...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:de2058ee-7785-40b2...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
>> election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
>
>Anywhere but Florida, that'd be the way to bet. Anywhere but Florida.
Rep sponsored ads several years ago in Louisiana: "Vote for the
crook, this time it matters." The Dem candidate was a typical crooked
Louisiana politician, the Rep candidate was David Duke, a well known
Klansman and Nazi*.
*Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
Party.
Tim Merrigan
Jan 4, 2022, 4:28:31 PM1/4/22
to
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 5:27:54 PM1/4/22
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in
news:d0e9tg1p548tvjo3r...@4ax.com:
often bring charges because the evidence shows the defendant
actually committed the crime, rather than because they are
politically inconvenient.
(And if the jury would go along with it for political reasons,
let's face it, the guy had no real chance of winning anyway.)
Gary McGath
Jan 4, 2022, 5:33:43 PM1/4/22
to
On 1/4/22 4:16 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
>> juries do.
> You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
> charges.
> --
Correct. I was putting brevity over precision. But it's not a flaw,
>> Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
>> juries do.
> You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
> charges.
> --
since prosecutors can not only bring charges but invent or withhold
evidence, bring in "experts," and otherwise do things that are likely to
influence the jury.
Gary McGath
Jan 4, 2022, 5:35:36 PM1/4/22
to
On 1/4/22 4:25 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> *Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
> Party.
Nitpick: Hyperbola = a type of curve.
> *Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
> Party.
Hyperbole = exaggeration.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 5:36:59 PM1/4/22
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in
news:g6e9tghjio4fh684f...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:27:31 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joshua Kreitzer <grom...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:de2058ee-7785-40b2...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
>>> election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
>>
>>Anywhere but Florida, that'd be the way to bet. Anywhere but
>>Florida.
>
> It also depends on who their opponent is. Champaign slogan used
> in Rep sponsored ads several years ago in Louisiana: "Vote for
> the crook, this time it matters."
Barry Goldwater, 1964
"In your guts, you know he's nuts,"
Lyndon Johnson, 1964.
> The Dem candidate was a
> typical crooked Louisiana politician, the Rep candidate was
> David Duke, a well known Klansman and Nazi*.
>
> *Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American
> Nazi Party.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 5:39:33 PM1/4/22
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in
news:6ue9tg5tq2k0h6hkv...@4ax.com:
computer totals or machine counts, the actual, official vote should
be constitutionally required to be a count of paper ballots with
human eyeballs, with mandatory, public recounts in the event the
human count varies from the machine count by more than a
vanishingly small percentage.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Jan 4, 2022, 5:40:41 PM1/4/22
to
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in news:sr2i3n$el7$2
@dont-email.me:
> On 1/4/22 4:25 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> *Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
>> Party.
>
> Nitpick: Hyperbola = a type of curve.
> Hyperbole = exaggeration.
>
Well, it's not hyperbole, but it's certainly not hyperbola, either.
Just because it's nonsensical doesn't means it's incorrect.
@dont-email.me:
> On 1/4/22 4:25 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> *Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
>> Party.
>
> Nitpick: Hyperbola = a type of curve.
> Hyperbole = exaggeration.
>
Just because it's nonsensical doesn't means it's incorrect.
Keith F. Lynch
Jan 4, 2022, 11:10:31 PM1/4/22
to
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
> Tim Merrigan wrote:
for their false testimony against the defendant*, threaten to bring
charges against anyone who testifies for the defense, or postpone the
trial indefinitely while the defendant remains in jail until he agrees
to plead guilty in return for being sentenced to time already served.
Also, to keep someone from winning an election it's not necessary to
actually convict them. The charges can all be quietly dropped the day
after election day.
The system actually works pretty well, but only if the defendant can
afford a million dollars or two for a decent defense. For the rest of
us, we almost might as well be standing trial in North Korea.
* This offer was made to me, 44 years ago. I refused to perjure
myself. It turns out there's a six year prison sentence for the
crime of honesty.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
> Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
>>> juries do.
>> You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
>> charges.
>>> Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
>>> juries do.
>> You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
>> charges.
> Correct. I was putting brevity over precision. But it's not a
> flaw, since prosecutors can not only bring charges but invent or
> withhold evidence, bring in "experts," and otherwise do things that
> are likely to influence the jury.
Right. For instance offer to drop charges against others in return
> flaw, since prosecutors can not only bring charges but invent or
> withhold evidence, bring in "experts," and otherwise do things that
> are likely to influence the jury.
for their false testimony against the defendant*, threaten to bring
charges against anyone who testifies for the defense, or postpone the
trial indefinitely while the defendant remains in jail until he agrees
to plead guilty in return for being sentenced to time already served.
Also, to keep someone from winning an election it's not necessary to
actually convict them. The charges can all be quietly dropped the day
after election day.
The system actually works pretty well, but only if the defendant can
afford a million dollars or two for a decent defense. For the rest of
us, we almost might as well be standing trial in North Korea.
* This offer was made to me, 44 years ago. I refused to perjure
myself. It turns out there's a six year prison sentence for the
crime of honesty.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Wolffan
Jan 14, 2022, 9:15:02 AM1/14/22
to
On 2022 Jan 03, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com>):
The Dem won, with 79.something % of the vote. The felon got 19.something. The
other three split what was left. The majority of Rep voters stayed home, only
the rabid Trumpanzees showed up to vote, same as in the primary. Of course,
even if all Rep voters had held their noses and voted for the felon, that
still wouldn’t have been enough to get the felon elected.
Some of the Trumpanzees (not the felon) are making noises about ‘election
fraud’. Really? Your guy gets thumped by five to one and you think that you
can overturn the results? Are you _insane_? Oh. Wait. They’re Trumpanzees.
Yes, they’re insane.
(in article<0001HW.2783682005...@news.supernews.com>):
other three split what was left. The majority of Rep voters stayed home, only
the rabid Trumpanzees showed up to vote, same as in the primary. Of course,
even if all Rep voters had held their noses and voted for the felon, that
still wouldn’t have been enough to get the felon elected.
Some of the Trumpanzees (not the felon) are making noises about ‘election
fraud’. Really? Your guy gets thumped by five to one and you think that you
can overturn the results? Are you _insane_? Oh. Wait. They’re Trumpanzees.
Yes, they’re insane.
Paul S Person
Jan 14, 2022, 11:46:20 AM1/14/22
to
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 09:14:55 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:
No, no, no.
They are simply using the Republican definition of "election fraud":
any election they don't win. Just as "voting fraud" means "votes for
Democrats were counted" and "voter fraud" means "voting for
Democrats".
Once you figure out their code, everything they say makes perfect
sense. "Massive voter faud in 2020" == "Lots of people voted for
Biden". Which they did.
Their insanity does not consist in claiming election fraud. It
consists in believing the /they/ are, in fact, in charge, no matter
what the election results may be.
wrote:
They are simply using the Republican definition of "election fraud":
any election they don't win. Just as "voting fraud" means "votes for
Democrats were counted" and "voter fraud" means "voting for
Democrats".
Once you figure out their code, everything they say makes perfect
sense. "Massive voter faud in 2020" == "Lots of people voted for
Biden". Which they did.
Their insanity does not consist in claiming election fraud. It
consists in believing the /they/ are, in fact, in charge, no matter
what the election results may be.
Kevrob
Jan 14, 2022, 11:28:29 PM1/14/22
to
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:46:20 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
[snip]
> They are simply using the Republican definition of "election fraud":
> any election they don't win. Just as "voting fraud" means "votes for
> Democrats were counted" and "voter fraud" means "voting for
> Democrats".
[/snip]
I've lived where the GOP was dominant [1970s Suffolk County, NY
had the 2nd-highest majority for Nixon in 1972. Next door, Nassau
County had the highest.] I've lived where the Donkeys ran everything.
[Decades in Milwaukee. I'm on Connecticut, but since Gov Rell declined
to run for re-election, it's been all Dems here for statewide offices,
Federal House seats and US Senators. My state Senate and House seats
flipped to the Democrats after the Republican House minority leader retired.
My considered opinion is that local dominant parties try very hard to write
rules that make it easier for their partisans to vote and harder for the other
side. "The cemetery vote" is a classic tactic of 19th century to mid-20th C
urban machine and "boss" politics, as were late reporting of certain precincts
or counties and even manipulation of vote totals from mechanical voting
machines. Refusing to register voters due to strict residence requirements
only was truck down in 1972. [Dunn v. Blumstein set a 30-day maximum
waiting period ]
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/405/330.html
Of course, before the 60s, white folks who moved in an election
year may have been inconvenienced by such laws. Non-whites
might have cried a few crocodile tears for them, given the quite
often insurmountable barriers they had to negotiate, recently
torn down, in law, if not in the minds of the old guard who ran
Jim Crow states. The choice of the white power structure after
the Voting Rights Act was between treating newly enfranchised
black voters like any other interest group (farmers, unions, various
immigrant groups) and folding them into the old coalition, or to
realign: Dixiecrats bolting to the Republicans. [Strom Thurmond,
as the ur-example.]
I vote Libertarian, so the internal struggle over who runs the local
donkey or elephant parties/machines is a spectator sport. I do
like to see the occasional prosecution of actual crooks.
Some of the derided practices, such as "ballot harvesting" and
"walking-around-money" have had both legal and illegal versions.
See:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state and
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/10/what-exactly-is-walking-around-money.html
The party that would benefit from collecting ballots from congregate settings
usually wants loose regulations, with the organization that would stand to gain
fewer votes being against it .
In the early days of same-day voter registration, while I was living in dormitories
on a college campus, I could have been registered in two different states and
voted by absentee ballot and in person. I moved a couple of times in a two-year
period, which means I could have been on file in 3 different wards for in-person
voting . Communications and computing has vastly improved since then, so
competent and technically clueful officials could probably purge duplicate names
from those lists, but the volunteers we use as election staff are frequently not
equipped nor trained to do that, and certainly not interstate.
This is the kind of fraud that happens near me: a "snowbird" votes in his
old home town up north, and also in Florida.
https://patch.com/connecticut/milford/former-milford-homeowner-allegedly-voted-twice-2020-election
In bigger cities, instead of two-address folks who just "forget" that they can
only vote in one jurisdiction, more aggressive multiple votes can be cast, especially
where registration is same-day.
One party attempts to sabotage the other's GOTV efforts in 2004:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2006/01/20/Plea-bargain-reached-in-tire-slash-case/82431137794120/
There should be a commission made up of true independents
and members of parties outside the "duopoly" to recommend
reforms without advantaging Blue over Red, or vice versa.
Non-partisan groups proposing electoral maps after the decennial census,
where no one party dominates, is also a good idea.
Ohio has to try again.
[quote]
In 2018, Ohio voters approved a state constitutional amendment that put up guardrails for legislators
during the congressional redistricting process. The amendment limited legislators' ability to split
municipalities and forbade them from drawing a map "that unduly favors or disfavors a political party
or its incumbents." It also said a map passed solely along partisan lines would only be in effect for four
years, not the usual 10 years for most states' redistricting procedures.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly, with nearly 75 percent of voters in favor.
[/quote]
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/14/ohio-congressional-map-struck-down-527116
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
[snip]
> They are simply using the Republican definition of "election fraud":
> any election they don't win. Just as "voting fraud" means "votes for
> Democrats were counted" and "voter fraud" means "voting for
> Democrats".
I've lived where the GOP was dominant [1970s Suffolk County, NY
had the 2nd-highest majority for Nixon in 1972. Next door, Nassau
County had the highest.] I've lived where the Donkeys ran everything.
[Decades in Milwaukee. I'm on Connecticut, but since Gov Rell declined
to run for re-election, it's been all Dems here for statewide offices,
Federal House seats and US Senators. My state Senate and House seats
flipped to the Democrats after the Republican House minority leader retired.
My considered opinion is that local dominant parties try very hard to write
rules that make it easier for their partisans to vote and harder for the other
side. "The cemetery vote" is a classic tactic of 19th century to mid-20th C
urban machine and "boss" politics, as were late reporting of certain precincts
or counties and even manipulation of vote totals from mechanical voting
machines. Refusing to register voters due to strict residence requirements
only was truck down in 1972. [Dunn v. Blumstein set a 30-day maximum
waiting period ]
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/405/330.html
Of course, before the 60s, white folks who moved in an election
year may have been inconvenienced by such laws. Non-whites
might have cried a few crocodile tears for them, given the quite
often insurmountable barriers they had to negotiate, recently
torn down, in law, if not in the minds of the old guard who ran
Jim Crow states. The choice of the white power structure after
the Voting Rights Act was between treating newly enfranchised
black voters like any other interest group (farmers, unions, various
immigrant groups) and folding them into the old coalition, or to
realign: Dixiecrats bolting to the Republicans. [Strom Thurmond,
as the ur-example.]
I vote Libertarian, so the internal struggle over who runs the local
donkey or elephant parties/machines is a spectator sport. I do
like to see the occasional prosecution of actual crooks.
Some of the derided practices, such as "ballot harvesting" and
"walking-around-money" have had both legal and illegal versions.
See:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state and
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/10/what-exactly-is-walking-around-money.html
The party that would benefit from collecting ballots from congregate settings
usually wants loose regulations, with the organization that would stand to gain
fewer votes being against it .
In the early days of same-day voter registration, while I was living in dormitories
on a college campus, I could have been registered in two different states and
voted by absentee ballot and in person. I moved a couple of times in a two-year
period, which means I could have been on file in 3 different wards for in-person
voting . Communications and computing has vastly improved since then, so
competent and technically clueful officials could probably purge duplicate names
from those lists, but the volunteers we use as election staff are frequently not
equipped nor trained to do that, and certainly not interstate.
This is the kind of fraud that happens near me: a "snowbird" votes in his
old home town up north, and also in Florida.
https://patch.com/connecticut/milford/former-milford-homeowner-allegedly-voted-twice-2020-election
In bigger cities, instead of two-address folks who just "forget" that they can
only vote in one jurisdiction, more aggressive multiple votes can be cast, especially
where registration is same-day.
One party attempts to sabotage the other's GOTV efforts in 2004:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2006/01/20/Plea-bargain-reached-in-tire-slash-case/82431137794120/
There should be a commission made up of true independents
and members of parties outside the "duopoly" to recommend
reforms without advantaging Blue over Red, or vice versa.
Non-partisan groups proposing electoral maps after the decennial census,
where no one party dominates, is also a good idea.
Ohio has to try again.
[quote]
In 2018, Ohio voters approved a state constitutional amendment that put up guardrails for legislators
during the congressional redistricting process. The amendment limited legislators' ability to split
municipalities and forbade them from drawing a map "that unduly favors or disfavors a political party
or its incumbents." It also said a map passed solely along partisan lines would only be in effect for four
years, not the usual 10 years for most states' redistricting procedures.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly, with nearly 75 percent of voters in favor.
[/quote]
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/14/ohio-congressional-map-struck-down-527116
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Gary R. Schmidt
Jan 15, 2022, 12:44:06 AM1/15/22
to
Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions follow sensible
boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many people live here" census
data, voters are registered and so on, who also oversee elections so
that the various - oops, USA, only two - parties aren't able to fiddle
the outcome.
Something like <https://www.aec.gov.au> for the Federal stuff, and
<https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/> for the State stuff.
Or would that allow too much power into the hands of the people, rather
than those who created the original imbalanced power structure?
Cheers,
Gary B-)
Kevrob
Jan 15, 2022, 6:19:30 AM1/15/22
to
On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 12:44:06 AM UTC-5, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
[snip]
> Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an Electoral
> Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions follow sensible
> boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many people live here" census
> data, voters are registered and so on, who also oversee elections so
> that the various - oops, USA, only two - parties aren't able to fiddle
> the outcome.
>
> Something like <https://www.aec.gov.au> for the Federal stuff, and
> <https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/> for the State stuff.
>
> Or would that allow too much power into the hands of the people, rather
> than those who created the original imbalanced power structure?
>
I'd think that a very good idea, except that the operatives of Party A and
Party B would howl at the appointment of anybody meant to represent
members of other parties or no party at all. The Republicans/conservatives
would shriek that the commission was being stacked with faux-independents
who were actually Democrats/liberals/progressives, while the Dems would
squeal that those seats were going to fake indies who really support Republicans/
conservatives/business interests. A doesn't trust B not to cheat and vice versa.
Some states do have redistricting commissions, with various levels of influence
or interference from those who hold public office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission
Remaps often wind up in court.
--
Kevin R
[snip]
> Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an Electoral
> Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions follow sensible
> boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many people live here" census
> data, voters are registered and so on, who also oversee elections so
> that the various - oops, USA, only two - parties aren't able to fiddle
> the outcome.
>
> Something like <https://www.aec.gov.au> for the Federal stuff, and
> <https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/> for the State stuff.
>
> Or would that allow too much power into the hands of the people, rather
> than those who created the original imbalanced power structure?
>
Party B would howl at the appointment of anybody meant to represent
members of other parties or no party at all. The Republicans/conservatives
would shriek that the commission was being stacked with faux-independents
who were actually Democrats/liberals/progressives, while the Dems would
squeal that those seats were going to fake indies who really support Republicans/
conservatives/business interests. A doesn't trust B not to cheat and vice versa.
Some states do have redistricting commissions, with various levels of influence
or interference from those who hold public office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission
Remaps often wind up in court.
--
Kevin R
Scott Dorsey
Jan 15, 2022, 8:54:45 AM1/15/22
to
Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an Electoral
>Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions follow sensible
>boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many people live here" census
>data, voters are registered and so on, who also oversee elections so
>that the various - oops, USA, only two - parties aren't able to fiddle
>the outcome.
Why not have a machine do it, and have representatives of all parties sit
>Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an Electoral
>Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions follow sensible
>boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many people live here" census
>data, voters are registered and so on, who also oversee elections so
>that the various - oops, USA, only two - parties aren't able to fiddle
>the outcome.
down and agree that the algorithm used is fair, and then codify that
algorithm into law? You could in fact draw a straight grid with population
weighting, not taking geographical features into account. Back in the
18th century, having a district split by a river would have been terrible,
but today it would not be that big a deal.
Get Multivac to do it!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Keith F. Lynch
Jan 15, 2022, 12:14:30 PM1/15/22
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an
>> Electoral Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions
>> follow sensible boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many
>> people live here" census data, voters are registered and so on
> Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Why don't you just create an independent body, call it, oh, an
>> Electoral Commission, whose job is to ensure that distributions
>> follow sensible boundaries, based on simple "thus and so many
>> people live here" census data, voters are registered and so on
>> who also oversee elections so that the various - oops, USA, only
>> two - parties aren't able to fiddle the outcome.
> Why not have a machine do it, and have representatives of all
> parties sit down and agree that the algorithm used is fair, and then
> codify that algorithm into law? You could in fact draw a straight
> grid with population weighting, not taking geographical features
> into account. Back in the 18th century, having a district split by
> a river would have been terrible, but today it would not be that big
> a deal.
> Get Multivac to do it!
Here in Virginia, the two major parties were unable to agree on
>> two - parties aren't able to fiddle the outcome.
> Why not have a machine do it, and have representatives of all
> parties sit down and agree that the algorithm used is fair, and then
> codify that algorithm into law? You could in fact draw a straight
> grid with population weighting, not taking geographical features
> into account. Back in the 18th century, having a district split by
> a river would have been terrible, but today it would not be that big
> a deal.
> Get Multivac to do it!
redistricting, so it went to the state's Supreme Court. Which is,
of course, itself partisan.
My proposal is to open it to everyone. Whoever comes up with the best
map will win a large cash reward. "Best" should be defined as:
* The correct number of districts
* Every part of the state is within one and only one district
* Districts are equal in population to within 1%
* Boundaries follow census tract boundaries
* Less total length of perimeters than any rival map
Minimizing total perimeter lengths minimizes gerrymandering.
Peter Trei
Jan 15, 2022, 1:48:31 PM1/15/22
to
often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
Besides, pretty much any algorithm will have many valid solutions,
some of which will favor one side, some the other.
Pt
Tim Merrigan
Jan 15, 2022, 3:39:54 PM1/15/22
to
On 15 Jan 2022 13:54:43 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Why not have a machine do it,
Wasn't that how it was done throughout the 19th and into the 20th
>Why not have a machine do it,
century?
Oh, wait, you mean a "mechanical/electronic brain". Nevermind.
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Scott Dorsey
Jan 15, 2022, 4:57:43 PM1/15/22
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
>often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
>in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
>https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
Right, but the key is that nothing goes into the algorithm other than
>
>Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
>often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
>in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
>https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
population data. So the algorithm can key on nothing other than
geography and population.
This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
which of course neither party will like.
I think one of the other keys to making this work might be to ignore census
boundaries (and all other geographic indications) and just make square
or rectangular districts of varying size.
Scott Dorsey
Jan 15, 2022, 4:59:07 PM1/15/22
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2022 13:54:43 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Why not have a machine do it,
>
>Wasn't that how it was done throughout the 19th and into the 20th
>century?
>
>Oh, wait, you mean a "mechanical/electronic brain". Nevermind.
Oh yes, they did that in the Phillipines too. They had a secret ballot
>On 15 Jan 2022 13:54:43 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Why not have a machine do it,
>
>Wasn't that how it was done throughout the 19th and into the 20th
>century?
>
>Oh, wait, you mean a "mechanical/electronic brain". Nevermind.
that was SO secret, even you couldn't know who you had voted for.
Keith F. Lynch
Jan 15, 2022, 5:34:35 PM1/15/22
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
>> often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
>> in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
>> https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
> Right, but the key is that nothing goes into the algorithm other
> than population data. So the algorithm can key on nothing other
> than geography and population.
Exactly. I expected better of Peter.
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
>> often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
>> in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
>> https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
> Right, but the key is that nothing goes into the algorithm other
> than population data. So the algorithm can key on nothing other
> than geography and population.
> This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
> which of course neither party will like.
Supreme Court. They complain that they put the homes of some
legislators outside their districts. To which I respond, so what?
It's not intended to make legislators or their parties happy or secure.
> I think one of the other keys to making this work might be to ignore
> census boundaries (and all other geographic indications) and just
> make square or rectangular districts of varying size.
the census to determine the population of each area. I don't think
the census is particularly reliable, but at least it's (presumably)
not biased between the two parties.
Kevrob
Jan 15, 2022, 7:25:01 PM1/15/22
to
[quote]
In the context of redistricting, federal law provides that majority-minority districts can be
created in order to prevent the dilution of minorities' voting strength in compliance with
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
[/quote ] - https://ballotpedia.org/Majority-minority_districts
One consideration that is often derogated in the interests of creating "safe
seats" by gerrymander is that, where practicable, smaller political units ought
not be divided. If you can avoid it, don't carve up a county. If you don't have to,
don't split up the towns, cities, villages within the county.
If you can get an entire metropolitan area into one congressional district,
that's better than lumping a bunch of voters into an adjoining district that
looks to the leading city of another area. Sometimes this can't be helped.
Other times, a party figures, if they can give each district a chunk of the
local "big city" and some of the suburbs and even exurbs, compact urban
districts that are normally won by supermajorities are still "safe," with the
opposition's regular strongholds becoming more competitive.
One irony of the process is that Republican-dominated legislatures,
by packing as many reliable Democratic voters into as few districts as
possible, often made at least some of those districts "majority-minority."
Suburban districts would have fewer minorities. The phenomenon of
long-time white incumbent Democrats representing increasingly minority-
populated districts caused some disgruntlement, leading to things like
the primary victory of Sandy O-C over 10-termer Joe Crowley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_New_York%27s_14th_congressional_district_election
--
Kevin R
Tim Merrigan
Jan 15, 2022, 8:22:21 PM1/15/22
to
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
Gary McGath
Jan 16, 2022, 5:47:48 AM1/16/22
to
On 1/15/22 1:48 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
> Besides, pretty much any algorithm will have many valid solutions,
> some of which will favor one side, some the other.
That is totally silly. A shell sort produces a sequence according to the
> Besides, pretty much any algorithm will have many valid solutions,
> some of which will favor one side, some the other.
sorting constraints. Multiplication by repeated addition doesn't take sides.
I'm aware that many people use the word "algorithm" to express fear and
hostility, and I've seen demands that software be written without using
any algorithms, but leave idiocy to idiots.
That Wikipedia article is a prime example of such idiocy. Any article
that puts "privileging one group of users over others" in the first
sentence isn't worth reading to the second sentence, but I did. The
second sentence goes on to conflate an algorithm with the data it uses,
and it goes on to gibberish about algorithms' alleged "ability to
organize society."
Wolffan
Jan 16, 2022, 8:58:21 AM1/16/22
to
On 2022 Jan 16, Gary McGath wrote
(in article <ss0t4i$p7o$1...@dont-email.me>):
It’s Wiki. I stopped taking Wiki seriously after I had a good look.
Compare, for example, the Wiki pages for ‘African Wild Dog’ in English,
German, French, and Spanish. It would help to know how to read all four
languages, but really a good look at the total size of the articles in
question at the tables (or lack thereof) in the articles, at the
illustrations, at the references... (African Wild Dogs are also known as
Painted Wolves. I like wolves.) There’s at least one spot in the grossly
abbreviated article in German which directly contradicts the other three. (It
could be that my German is bad, but I doubt it. That article, in German is
less than a quarter of the size of the article in English, lacks the tables,
almost all of the images, and is written at a lower intellectual level, not
that the English article is any great prize.) Wiki is _filled_ with this kind
of thing. A search for anti-semitic articles on Wiki will turn up all kinds
of gems, many of which have been edited to be somewhat less anti-semitic and
then edited back to be worse. (One such edit, before it was removed,
suggested that Jews in general and Israelis in particular subsist on the
blood of Palestinian children. Hmm. Gee, now where have we seen something
like that before? Could it be in a certain book of Protocols? ’Tis a
puzzlement.) Repeatedly. Some are now locked, to end the edit wars. There’s
a _reason_ why I check the references and the editing history when I look at
something in Wiki. I make notes of the particularly stupid edits and who
committed them, and have a look for edits perpetuated by those idiots in
other articles.
Wiki is not to be trusted, except as a pointer to stuff better written and
more authoritative. YMMV.
(in article <ss0t4i$p7o$1...@dont-email.me>):
Compare, for example, the Wiki pages for ‘African Wild Dog’ in English,
German, French, and Spanish. It would help to know how to read all four
languages, but really a good look at the total size of the articles in
question at the tables (or lack thereof) in the articles, at the
illustrations, at the references... (African Wild Dogs are also known as
Painted Wolves. I like wolves.) There’s at least one spot in the grossly
abbreviated article in German which directly contradicts the other three. (It
could be that my German is bad, but I doubt it. That article, in German is
less than a quarter of the size of the article in English, lacks the tables,
almost all of the images, and is written at a lower intellectual level, not
that the English article is any great prize.) Wiki is _filled_ with this kind
of thing. A search for anti-semitic articles on Wiki will turn up all kinds
of gems, many of which have been edited to be somewhat less anti-semitic and
then edited back to be worse. (One such edit, before it was removed,
suggested that Jews in general and Israelis in particular subsist on the
blood of Palestinian children. Hmm. Gee, now where have we seen something
like that before? Could it be in a certain book of Protocols? ’Tis a
puzzlement.) Repeatedly. Some are now locked, to end the edit wars. There’s
a _reason_ why I check the references and the editing history when I look at
something in Wiki. I make notes of the particularly stupid edits and who
committed them, and have a look for edits perpetuated by those idiots in
other articles.
Wiki is not to be trusted, except as a pointer to stuff better written and
more authoritative. YMMV.
Peter Trei
Jan 16, 2022, 11:34:13 PM1/16/22
to
On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:22:21 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2022 21:57:41 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
> >>often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
> >>in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
> >>https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
> >
> >Right, but the key is that nothing goes into the algorithm other than
> >population data. So the algorithm can key on nothing other than
> >geography and population.
> >
> >This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
> >which of course neither party will like.
> >
> >I think one of the other keys to making this work might be to ignore census
> >boundaries (and all other geographic indications) and just make square
> >or rectangular districts of varying size.
> >--scott
> The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
> hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
> On 15 Jan 2022 21:57:41 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Im surprised. Keith is I'm sure aware that algorithmic mechanisms
> >>often simply codify the prejudices of the algorithm creators, as seen
> >>in code for determining sentencing and loan applications.
> >>https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias
> >
> >Right, but the key is that nothing goes into the algorithm other than
> >population data. So the algorithm can key on nothing other than
> >geography and population.
> >
> >This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
> >which of course neither party will like.
> >
> >I think one of the other keys to making this work might be to ignore census
> >boundaries (and all other geographic indications) and just make square
> >or rectangular districts of varying size.
> >--scott
> The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
> hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
voters makes that unworkable.
Consider a square state where you need 3 districts. Faction A is 1/3
of voters, and is almost totally in the southern 1/3 of the state. Fation B
occupies the other 2/3, and the population density is uniform.
Clearly, the fair result is one rep from faction A, and 2 for faction B.
That what you get if you draw districts as 3 even horizontal bars.
But if you draw it as 3 vertical bars, faction B is 2/3 of every district,
and faction A is locked out.,
Drawing districts without regard to where each faction lives is likely
to advantage one faction over the other.
Pt
Gary R. Schmidt
Jan 17, 2022, 1:49:05 AM1/17/22
to
faction is geographically limited? Ghettos? Jim Crow Laws??
Cheers,
Gary B-)
Wolffan
Jan 17, 2022, 7:27:02 AM1/17/22
to
On 2022 Jan 14, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02...@news.supernews.com>):
update: the felon, despite having been thumped 79.x to 19.y, not only refuses
to conceed, but has filed suite challenging the results.
No further comment necessary at this time.
(in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02...@news.supernews.com>):
to conceed, but has filed suite challenging the results.
No further comment necessary at this time.
Peter Trei
Jan 17, 2022, 10:23:28 AM1/17/22
to
example.
pt
Kevrob
Jan 17, 2022, 10:28:02 AM1/17/22
to
On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:49:05 AM UTC-5, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
district [the 2nd] that is essentially Omaha, the state's metropolis. The 1st is based on the
capital, Lincoln, also home to the state's largest public university campus. The last
district dwarfs the other two in land area, and contains the state's vast agricultural areas.
[quote]
The [2nd] district, encompassing Omaha and most of its suburbs, is by far the most
competitive in a state that’s overwhelmingly Republican. It’s also one of the most
competitive districts nationally.
[/quote] - "Democrats see Nebraska’s 2nd District as competitive in 2022" | April 6, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/NE2-apnews
Which is:
https://apnews.com/article/don-bacon-omaha-sean-patrick-maloney-general-elections-elections-77ef5ca72ecf8d7d47542bd2c04526c8
NE is one of our more westerly states, which tend to be rectangular.,
and cover more area. More easterly states have, on the whole, less
regular boundaries.
--
Kevin R
Scott Dorsey
Jan 17, 2022, 10:32:32 AM1/17/22
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:22:21 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
>> hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
>
>The requirement that each district have about the same number of
>voters makes that unworkable.
Right, because you can't tile a plane with hexagons of different sizes,
>On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:22:21 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
>> hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
>
>The requirement that each district have about the same number of
>voters makes that unworkable.
whereas you can with rectangles. Which is why I suggested rectangles.
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 17, 2022, 11:52:32 AM1/17/22
to
On 1/17/2022 4:26 AM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2022 Jan 14, Wolffan wrote
> (in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02...@news.supernews.com>):
>
>>
> On 2022 Jan 14, Wolffan wrote
> (in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02...@news.supernews.com>):
>
>>
>> The Dem won, with 79.something % of the vote. The felon got 19.something. The
>> other three split what was left. The majority of Rep voters stayed home, only
>> the rabid Trumpanzees showed up to vote, same as in the primary. Of course,
>> even if all Rep voters had held their noses and voted for the felon, that
>> still wouldn’t have been enough to get the felon elected.
>>
>> Some of the Trumpanzees (not the felon) are making noises about ‘election
>> fraud’. Really? Your guy gets thumped by five to one and you think that you
>> can overturn the results? Are you _insane_? Oh. Wait. They’re Trumpanzees.
>> Yes, they’re insane.
>
> update: the felon, despite having been thumped 79.x to 19.y, not only refuses
> to conceed, but has filed suite challenging the results.
>
He has to or Trump will disown him.
>> other three split what was left. The majority of Rep voters stayed home, only
>> the rabid Trumpanzees showed up to vote, same as in the primary. Of course,
>> even if all Rep voters had held their noses and voted for the felon, that
>> still wouldn’t have been enough to get the felon elected.
>>
>> Some of the Trumpanzees (not the felon) are making noises about ‘election
>> fraud’. Really? Your guy gets thumped by five to one and you think that you
>> can overturn the results? Are you _insane_? Oh. Wait. They’re Trumpanzees.
>> Yes, they’re insane.
>
> update: the felon, despite having been thumped 79.x to 19.y, not only refuses
> to conceed, but has filed suite challenging the results.
>
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
Jan 17, 2022, 12:00:13 PM1/17/22
to
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 07:26:56 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:
Our last Guv's race was like that: the Republican, IIRC with known
alt-right associations, insisted he was the victim of voter fraud
because more people voted in King County than lived there.
He was wrong, of course -- but it /is/ true that we had a much larger
turnout than usual, so considerably more votes were cast than was
normal. This may be what he was actually referring to.
Something to do with everybody wanting to express an ... opinion ...
about Trump, I suspect. Overwhelmingly negative, to be sure.
wrote:
alt-right associations, insisted he was the victim of voter fraud
because more people voted in King County than lived there.
He was wrong, of course -- but it /is/ true that we had a much larger
turnout than usual, so considerably more votes were cast than was
normal. This may be what he was actually referring to.
Something to do with everybody wanting to express an ... opinion ...
about Trump, I suspect. Overwhelmingly negative, to be sure.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
Jan 18, 2022, 3:08:04 PM1/18/22
to
In Texas the divide is much more urban/rural with the suburbs splitting the
difference (with some exceptions). Dallas County (2.6 million population,
$66k median household income and more urban) went 65% Biden in the last
election. Collin (1.0 million population, $102k median income and mostly
suburban) went 51% Trump. Fannin (25k population, $60k median income) went
81% Trump. Hall (3k population and $37k median income) went 85% Trump. The
heaviest vote in favor of Biden was in Travis (1.3 million population,
$83k median income, urban).
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Peter Trei
Jan 19, 2022, 5:25:28 PM1/19/22
to
distributed, the drawer of constituencies can influence the outcome, either
shutting out or reducing the number of representatives from a given faction,
or making some seats unassailable.
Even seeming neutral 'faction blind' districting algorithms can result in results favoring
one side or the other; you just pick the one that favors the side you want.
The goal shouldn't be to be blind, but to be fair, with the distribution of representatives
reflecting the numbers of voters in each faction.
pt
0 new messages