• way, way, way OT: modern voting comes to Florida

    From Wolffan@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 3 12:21:36 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Wolffan on Mon Jan 3 10:22:20 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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.

    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?

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha on Mon Jan 3 10:36:12 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2022-01-03 9:22 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha 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.

    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.

    (And yes, if asked, I will provide the support for that).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to taustinca@gmail.com on Mon Jan 3 12:47:05 2022
    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.

    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
    things, dead voters vote Rep.
    --

    Qualified immuninity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Mon Jan 3 14:26:06 2022
    Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote in news:t2o6tgl7no1b9gd0u27c7pprsuatonnuj9@4ax.com:

    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.

    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
    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
    *prevent* *live* voters from voting.

    You should keep a scorecard, so as not to be confused by the
    stereotypes.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Mon Jan 3 21:05:14 2022
    On 1/3/22 3:47 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
    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.

    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
    things, dead voters vote Rep.

    Getting slightly more on topic, that reminds me of an episode of
    _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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joshua Kreitzer@21:1/5 to Wolffan on Mon Jan 3 20:36:35 2022
    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.

    --
    Joshua Kreitzer
    gromit82@hotmail.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Joshua Kreitzer on Tue Jan 4 03:38:45 2022
    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.


    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Tue Jan 4 08:06:13 2022
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 3:38:48 AM UTC-5, Gary McGath wrote:
    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.

    There's a long history of governments jailing political opponents
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 4 08:57:08 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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.
    --
    "I begin to envy Petronius."
    "I have envied him long since."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Joshua Kreitzer on Tue Jan 4 08:27:31 2022
    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.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Tue Jan 4 08:28:18 2022
    Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in news:sr112l$jb1$1@dont-email.me:

    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.

    Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
    juries do.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Paul S Person on Tue Jan 4 09:09:55 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to taustinca@gmail.com on Tue Jan 4 13:25:31 2022
    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.
    --

    Qualified immuninity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to taustinca@gmail.com on Tue Jan 4 13:16:35 2022
    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:
    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.

    Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
    juries do.

    You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors bring
    charges.
    --

    Qualified immuninity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to taustinca@gmail.com on Tue Jan 4 13:28:30 2022
    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. ;)
    --

    Qualified immuninity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Tue Jan 4 14:27:50 2022
    Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote in news:d0e9tg1p548tvjo3rb0gncjrp9tt3gd9fk@4ax.com:

    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:
    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.

    Your clever plan ha a flaw: Prosecutors don't convict people,
    juries do.

    You're both right. Juries convict suspects, but prosecutors
    bring charges.

    And juries often follow the prosecutor's lead. But prosecutors
    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.)

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Tue Jan 4 17:33:41 2022
    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,
    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 http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Tue Jan 4 17:35:35 2022
    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.

    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Tue Jan 4 14:36:56 2022
    Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote in news:g6e9tghjio4fh684fi3gi3s39ubhvo705d@4ax.com:

    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."

    "In your heart, you know he's right."
    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.

    And one-time Grand Wizard of the KKK.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Tim Merrigan on Tue Jan 4 14:39:29 2022
    Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote in news:6ue9tg5tq2k0h6hkvcl3p6g4echn60n6rb@4ax.com:

    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. ;)

    And furthermore, while preliminary results could be announced from
    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.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Tue Jan 4 14:40:38 2022
    Gary McGath <garym@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.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Keith F. Lynch@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Wed Jan 5 04:10:30 2022
    Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
    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.

    Right. For instance offer to drop charges against others in return
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wolffan@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 14 09:14:55 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 14 08:45:47 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 09:14:55 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    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.
    --
    "I begin to envy Petronius."
    "I have envied him long since."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kevrob@21:1/5 to Paul S Person on Fri Jan 14 20:28:28 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary R. Schmidt@21:1/5 to Kevrob on Sat Jan 15 16:41:01 2022
    On 15/01/2022 15:28, Kevrob wrote:
    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?

    Cheers,
    Gary B-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kevrob@21:1/5 to Gary R. Schmidt on Sat Jan 15 03:19:29 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to Gary R. Schmidt on Sat Jan 15 13:54:43 2022
    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
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Keith F. Lynch@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Sat Jan 15 17:14:28 2022
    Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
    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!

    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.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to Keith F. Lynch on Sat Jan 15 10:48:30 2022
    On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
    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.

    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

    Besides, pretty much any algorithm will have many valid solutions,
    some of which will favor one side, some the other.

    Pt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Sat Jan 15 12:39:51 2022
    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.
    --

    Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to petertrei@gmail.com on Sat Jan 15 21:57:41 2022
    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
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to tppm@ca.rr.com on Sat Jan 15 21:59:06 2022
    Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
    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.

    Oh yes, they did that in the Phillipines too. They had a secret ballot
    that was SO secret, even you couldn't know who you had voted for.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Keith F. Lynch@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Sat Jan 15 22:34:33 2022
    Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
    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.

    Exactly. I expected better of Peter.

    This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
    which of course neither party will like.

    Both parties are unhappy about the maps generated by the Virginia
    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.

    It's not possible to ignore census boundaries if we're relying on
    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.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kevrob@21:1/5 to Keith F. Lynch on Sat Jan 15 16:25:00 2022
    On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 5:34:35 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
    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.
    This is apt to result in gains and losses for both parties randomly,
    which of course neither party will like.
    Both parties are unhappy about the maps generated by the Virginia
    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.
    It's not possible to ignore census boundaries if we're relying on
    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.
    --

    The Voting Rights Act complicates things.

    [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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Merrigan@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Sat Jan 15 17:22:19 2022
    On 15 Jan 2022 21:57:41 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    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

    The optimum shape with equal distribution of population would be
    hexagonal, as honeycombs, or combat game maps.
    --

    Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

    Tim Merrigan

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Peter Trei on Sun Jan 16 05:47:45 2022
    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."



    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wolffan@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Sun Jan 16 08:58:14 2022
    On 2022 Jan 16, Gary McGath wrote
    (in article <ss0t4i$p7o$1@dont-email.me>):

    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."

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to merri...@gmail.com on Sun Jan 16 20:34:12 2022
    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
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary R. Schmidt@21:1/5 to Peter Trei on Mon Jan 17 17:47:13 2022
    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:

    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
    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-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wolffan@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 17 07:26:56 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    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. 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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kevrob@21:1/5 to Gary R. Schmidt on Mon Jan 17 07:28:00 2022
    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:
    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
    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-)

    One "square" US state with 3 lower house congresscritters is Nebraska. It has one
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to Gary R. Schmidt on Mon Jan 17 07:23:27 2022
    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:
    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
    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??

    Poor urban centers with minorities vs rich white suburbs is the classic example.

    pt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to petertrei@gmail.com on Mon Jan 17 15:32:31 2022
    Peter Trei <petertrei@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,
    whereas you can with rectangles. Which is why I suggested rectangles.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Wolffan on Mon Jan 17 08:52:32 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 1/17/2022 4:26 AM, Wolffan wrote:
    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.

    He has to or Trump will disown him.


    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 17 09:00:08 2022
    XPost: rec.arts.sf.written

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 07:26:56 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    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.
    --
    "I begin to envy Petronius."
    "I have envied him long since."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rkshullat@rosettacondot.com@21:1/5 to Peter Trei on Tue Jan 18 20:06:24 2022
    Peter Trei <petertrei@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:
    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
    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??

    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).

    Robert
    --
    Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to rksh...@rosettacondot.com on Wed Jan 19 14:25:26 2022
    On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-5, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
    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:
    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
    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??

    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).

    There are all kinds of different divides; anytime factions are not evenly 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)