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.
Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote in news:0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@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.
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?
Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote in >news:0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@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.
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?
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote in >>news:0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@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.
Well, it makes sense that all those dead voters would vote
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.
Democrat. don't they always?
Only where a Dem machine is running things.
ain't won in this district in a very long time."
Where Rep machines
run things, dead voters vote Rep.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:22:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote in
news:0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@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.
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?
Only where a Dem machine is running things. Where Rep machines run
things, dead voters vote Rep.
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.
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:21:42 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote: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
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.
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.decide differently and uphold the disqualification. But the felon candidate has a good legal argument in favor of being allowed to serve in Congress.
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
On 1/3/22 11:36 PM, Joshua Kreitzer wrote: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
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.
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.
decide differently and uphold the disqualification. But the felon candidate has a good legal argument in favor of being allowed to serve in Congress.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
I can imagine a state prosecutor bringing charges to convict someone
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.
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed primaried the >previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint won in this district in a >very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in this
district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump managed to alienate
a bunch of hard-core will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys
over the last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even >when theres 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 >thats alright.) I didnt bother voting in the primary, I didnt like
either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office unless they jump >through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to jump through the hoops.
Legally, even if he wins the election, he cant serve. The deadline for >hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by >18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see
how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps in the
district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I know.) Apparently he >doesnt think that its fair that the girl (the _black_ girl...) that the >Dems are running has pointed out that hes a felon and cant serve. (No,
hes not trying to hide the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign >slogans is that I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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 drivers license (NOT the voter registration card,
they didnt want that, theyve never wanted that in all the times Ive
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 Id 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 felons campaign present; he was busy >chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll >watcher for the Libertarian guys campaign, who wasnt. The Green and the >Independent didnt bother sending out poll watchers, theyre not going to
get significant votes anyway.
Probably the felon candidate will lose the Congressional
election and thus the issue will be moot as to him.
On 1/3/22 11:36 PM, Joshua Kreitzer wrote:
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.
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 ...."
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.
I can imagine a state prosecutor bringing charges to convict
someone 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.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 12:21:36 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed
primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint
won in this district in a very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in
this district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump
managed to alienate a bunch of hard-core >>will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys over the
last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even
when theres 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 thats alright.) I didnt bother voting in the
primary, I didnt like either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office
unless they jump through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to
jump through the hoops. Legally, even if he wins the election,
he cant serve. The deadline for hoop-jumping was... today. If
he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by 18:00 today (six
hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see how he
can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps in
the district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I
know.) Apparently he doesnt think that its fair that the girl
(the _black_ girl...) that the Dems are running has pointed out
that hes a felon and cant serve. (No, hes not trying to hide
the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign slogans is that
I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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
drivers license (NOT the voter registration card, they didnt
want that, theyve never wanted that in all the times Ive 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
Id 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 felons campaign present; he was busy chatting to the
poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll
watcher for the Libertarian guys campaign, who wasnt. The
Green and the Independent didnt bother sending out poll
watchers, theyre not going to get significant votes anyway.
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.
Joshua Kreitzer <gromit82@hotmail.com> wrote in >news:de2058ee-7785-40b2-aaa3-a25d38633387n@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.
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in >news:sr112l$jb1$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/3/22 11:36 PM, Joshua Kreitzer wrote:Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
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.
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 ...."
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.
I can imagine a state prosecutor bringing charges to convict
someone 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.
juries do.
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:ctu8tg53e9hss7smsfetdvlkrcvc6ub7cc@4ax.com:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 12:21:36 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed
primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint
won in this district in a very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in
this district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump
managed to alienate a bunch of hard-core >>>will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys over the
last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even
when theres 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 thats alright.) I didnt bother voting in the
primary, I didnt like either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office
unless they jump through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to
jump through the hoops. Legally, even if he wins the election,
he cant serve. The deadline for hoop-jumping was... today. If
he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by 18:00 today (six
hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see how he
can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps in
the district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I
know.) Apparently he doesnt think that its fair that the girl
(the _black_ girl...) that the Dems are running has pointed out
that hes a felon and cant serve. (No, hes not trying to hide
the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign slogans is that
I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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
drivers license (NOT the voter registration card, they didnt
want that, theyve never wanted that in all the times Ive 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
Id 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 felons campaign present; he was busy chatting to the
poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll
watcher for the Libertarian guys campaign, who wasnt. The
Green and the Independent didnt bother sending out poll
watchers, theyre not going to get significant votes anyway.
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.
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.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:28:18 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in >>news:sr112l$jb1$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/3/22 11:36 PM, Joshua Kreitzer wrote:Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
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.
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 ...."
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.
I can imagine a state prosecutor bringing charges to convict
someone 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.
juries do.
You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors
bring charges.
Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
juries do.
charges.
--
*Not hyperbola, he was, or had been, a leader of the American Nazi
Party.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:27:31 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua Kreitzer <gromit82@hotmail.com> wrote in >>news:de2058ee-7785-40b2-aaa3-a25d38633387n@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."
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.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 09:09:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>news:ctu8tg53e9hss7smsfetdvlkrcvc6ub7cc@4ax.com:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 12:21:36 -0500, Wolffan
<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed
primaried the previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint
won in this district in a very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in
this district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump
managed to alienate a bunch of hard-core >>>>will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys over the
last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low
even when theres 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 thats alright.) I didnt bother
voting in the primary, I didnt like either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office
unless they jump through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to
jump through the hoops. Legally, even if he wins the election,
he cant serve. The deadline for hoop-jumping was... today. If
he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by 18:00 today (six
hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see how he
can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps
in the district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I
know.) Apparently he doesnt think that its fair that the
girl (the _black_ girl...) that the Dems are running has
pointed out that hes a felon and cant serve. (No, hes not
trying to hide the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign
slogans is that I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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 drivers license (NOT the voter registration
card, they didnt want that, theyve never wanted that in all
the times Ive 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 Id 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 felons campaign present; he
was busy chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign,
who was cute, and the poll watcher for the Libertarian guys
campaign, who wasnt. The Green and the Independent didnt
bother sending out poll watchers, theyre not going to get
significant votes anyway.
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.
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.
;) Hay, how dare you say something I agree with. ;)
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.
Tim Merrigan wrote:
<taustinca@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.
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.
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 2022 Jan 03, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@news.supernews.com>):
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed primaried the
previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint won in this district in a >> very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in this
district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump managed to alienate >> a bunch of hard-core will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys
over the last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even
when theres 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 >> thats alright.) I didnt bother voting in the primary, I didnt like
either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office unless they jump >> through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to jump through the hoops.
Legally, even if he wins the election, he cant serve. The deadline for
hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by
18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see
how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps in the
district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I know.) Apparently he >> doesnt think that its fair that the girl (the _black_ girl...) that the
Dems are running has pointed out that hes a felon and cant serve. (No,
hes not trying to hide the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign
slogans is that I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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 drivers license (NOT the voter registration card,
they didnt want that, theyve never wanted that in all the times Ive
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 Id 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 felons campaign present; he was busy
chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the poll
watcher for the Libertarian guys campaign, who wasnt. The Green and the
Independent didnt bother sending out poll watchers, theyre not going to
get significant votes anyway.
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 wouldnt 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. Theyre Trumpanzees. >Yes, theyre insane.
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".
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
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?
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.
Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@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!
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
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 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.
Why not have a machine do it,
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
On 15 Jan 2022 13:54:43 -0000, kludge@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.
Peter Trei <petertrei@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 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 otherExactly. I expected better of Peter.
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,Both parties are unhappy about the maps generated by the Virginia
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 ignoreIt's not possible to ignore census boundaries if we're relying on
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.
--
Peter Trei <petertrei@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
Besides, pretty much any algorithm will have many valid solutions,
some of which will favor one side, some the other.
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 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."
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 squareThe optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
or rectangular districts of varying size.
--scott
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
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:The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
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
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
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.
On 2022 Jan 03, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@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.
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.
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.
On 17/01/2022 15:34, Peter Trei wrote:
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:The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
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
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
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.
That's odd, we don't have that sort of problem, is there a reason why a faction is geographically limited? Ghettos? Jim Crow Laws??
Cheers,
Gary B-)
On 17/01/2022 15:34, Peter Trei wrote:
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:The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
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
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
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.
That's odd, we don't have that sort of problem, is there a reason why a faction is geographically limited? Ghettos? Jim Crow Laws??
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.
On 2022 Jan 14, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02ED703070000FB3A38F@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.
On 2022 Jan 14, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2791BCDF02ED703070000FB3A38F@news.supernews.com>):
On 2022 Jan 03, Wolffan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2783682005C45DE5700008CBC38F@news.supernews.com>):
The Congresscritter for my area died last year. Theres 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. Hed primaried the >> > previous Congresscritter, also a Dem. Reps aint won in this district in a >> > very long time.
Fact #3: Im registered Rep. There arent very many of us in this
district, and most of us dont like Trumpanzees. Trump managed to alienate >> > a bunch of hard-core will-vote-for-a-dead-dog-as-long-as-its-a-Rep guys >> > over the last few elections. Rep turnout in the district, always low even >> > when theres 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
thats alright.) I didnt bother voting in the primary, I didnt like
either of the two.
Fact #5: In this state, felons cant hold political office unless they
jump
through a few hoops. Mman has neglected to jump through the hoops.
Legally, even if he wins the election, he cant serve. The deadline for
hoop-jumping was... today. If he hasnt finished all the hoop-jumping by >> > 18:00 today (six hours away as I type this) he cant serve. I dont see
how he can possibly get everything filed in time, but thats me.
Fact #6: Mmans campaign has reached out to registered Reps in the
district by text, email, and regular mail. (Guess how I know.) Apparently he
doesnt think that its fair that the girl (the _black_ girl...) that
the
Dems are running has pointed out that hes a felon and cant serve. (No, >> > hes not trying to hide the fact that hes a felon; one of his campaign
slogans is that I fought the law and now Ill 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 theres 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 drivers license (NOT the voter registration card, >> > they didnt want that, theyve never wanted that in all the times Ive
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 Id 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 felons campaign present; he was busy
chatting to the poll watcher for the Dem campaign, who was cute, and the >> > poll
watcher for the Libertarian guys campaign, who wasnt. The Green and
the
Independent didnt bother sending out poll watchers, theyre not going
to
get significant votes anyway.
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 wouldnt 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. Theyre Trumpanzees. >> Yes, theyre 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.
No further comment necessary at this time.
On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:49:05 AM UTC-5, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
On 17/01/2022 15:34, Peter Trei wrote:
On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:22:21 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:That's odd, we don't have that sort of problem, is there a reason why a
On 15 Jan 2022 21:57:41 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
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
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
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.
faction is geographically limited? Ghettos? Jim Crow Laws??
Poor urban centers with minorities vs rich white suburbs is the classic example.
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:49:05 AM UTC-5, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
On 17/01/2022 15:34, Peter Trei wrote:
On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 8:22:21 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:That's odd, we don't have that sort of problem, is there a reason why a
On 15 Jan 2022 21:57:41 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >> >>
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
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
hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
The requirement that each district have about the same number of
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.
faction is geographically limited? Ghettos? Jim Crow Laws??
Poor urban centers with minorities vs rich white suburbs is the classic example.It's not a very good example here, at least recently.
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).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:05:46 |
| Calls: | 8,356 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,895,047 |