Weekend Open Thread

17 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

1. Try not to convince them to vote against Donald Trump rather invite them to the Donald Dong Challenge: Put Twelve Minutes on the Clock We're Talking Cock. Simply ask your trump supporting friend or family member to do as trump does: talk about a dead mans penis for 12 minutes directly into camera. Let the games begin!

   Log in to Reply

2. more details from Mesa County — Daily Sentinel: Voter fraud case proves security measures work

   "But committing voter fraud is serious. It’s a class 5 felony in Colorado, punishable by up to three years in prison on each count. Mail fraud is also a federal crime because it involves the USPS."

   Newsweek reports Thousands of Colorado Ballots to Be Reexamined for Evidence of Fraud

   Now, the county is reexamining all the mailed ballots it has received—almost 30,000, Colorado Newsline reported, citing an estimate from the county clerk.

   Griswold said the affected voters would receive new ballots.

   "Colorado's elections are safe and secure, and this attempt at fraud was found and investigated quickly because of groundbreaking tools that we have here," Griswold said in the news conference.

   She referenced the signature verification process, ballot curing and the BallotTrax system.

   Log in to Reply

3. Is there tension about?  Yes? No?  Nah.  Sitting in this Blue state hoping all goes well. dum de dum dum. We in Maryland have a fight for a senate seat.  A former governor, republican, who is trying to portray an independent vibe, yet is just a middle of the road republican (not a magat).  A woman who ran one of the largest counties in the state. Maryland is a small state so our counties are important.  The fight is dirty and hard hitting, this seat could be the one that sets control of party to the Senate.  But the one to win has to be the woman, the Democrat.

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. I was recently in Maryland for a funeral and saw quite a few more Hogan signs than I had hoped to.  I was mostly outside the beltway.

      Log in to Reply

4. A lot of people claim that Prop 131 favors billionaire donors. Can someone explain how it's easier to buy a seat with 4 candidates than it is to buy the primary win for 1 candidate?

   I'm not being snarky with this question. People I respect are claiming it. But no one explains why they see it working that way.

   Log in to Reply

   1. David,  I think the general idea is if you render the two party system null and void, then running as an unaffiliated becomes a lot easier.  Then, as we all know, money is speech, so the most money gives name recognition.

      I’m not a party insider, so I don’t know the entire mechanics of the process, but basically, money buys elections. Billionaires by definition have plenty of the former and thus greater power over the latter.

      For all its faults, the party system has historically served as a vetting system and filter for the candidates, lifting up motivated and talented public servants.  There are enough uber-wealthy megalomaniac business magnates who think of themselves as omnipotent geniuses in office already (or pulling the strings of their puppets). 

      Log in to Reply

      1. That doesn't make sense to me. Polis & Hickenlooper basically bought their seats through the party primary. I think Polis is great and Hick good so I'm happy with the outcome, but you can buy your way through the party.

         And we've had some idiots who worked their way up through the party to hold office (name witheld to protect the guilty but I remember talking to one Democratic state rep who clearly was at the Sarah Palin level of intelligence). So the party does not always serve up the best and the brightest.

         And candidates will still come up primarily through the parties. It's just that we'll get the top 2 or 3 from the party. And having the occasional non party candidate like Kent Thiry is good for the system. It broadens the discussion about who to elect.

         Am I missing something in my thoughts here?

         thanks – dave

         Log in to Reply

         1. As I've said earlier, I am in favor of RCV, but not this particular "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" iteration.  An informed letter writer in Today's Denver Post Open Forum explains it well:

            Proposition 131, while masquerading as a classic Rank Choice Voting (RCV) strategy to help level the playing field, will actually accomplish the opposite if passed. This may surprise you. As a long-time proponent of RCV, I was shocked to learn about the origins of Proposition 131 and the truth about how it will impact Colorado elections. Here’s what you need to know before you vote on this measure.

            This is not a grassroots effort — it came from a group who didn’t consult election officials before putting this model on our ballot. The measure is not a traditional RCV model, but rather creates jungle primaries, forcing candidates to raise and spend more money than ever to gain name recognition and success at the polls, both in the crowded all-candidate primary and again in the general election when they’re running against not one, but three other candidates. While some RCV models can provide greater opportunities for little-known candidates, Proposition 131 opens Colorado elections up to more dark money and outside influence. Under this system, independently wealthy candidates will have a distinct advantage over everyday Coloradans.

            This measure is so far from what’s best for Colorado elections that even groups like Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado don’t support it. County clerks across the state have also raised significant concerns regarding the implementation timeline and administrative burdens the passage of this measure would create. This measure is not in the best interest of everyday Coloradans running for office, or our county election officials. Please vote “no” on Proposition 131.

            — Katherine Jarvis, Denver

            Log in to Reply

            1. No on 131 sounds right.

               Log in to Reply

         2. Polis and Hickenlooper had plenty of money … but they both worked their way up in politics. The combo of prior office plus money overwhelmed others who had one or the other. 

            Strip off all partisan limitations, and "top 4" general elections could look quite a bit different.  For example,

            2018 US House CO-06.. Present system resulted in Coffman(I) v. Crow v. minor party "who?" candidates. A Prop 131 "top 4" and preferential ballots likely creates Coffman(I) v. Crow v. Tillemann v. ??Roger Edwards??  

            In the general, I can see Tillemann pulls more votes from Crow than Edwards does from Coffman.  Then drop the lowest candidate and consider alternate "preference" votes & "exhaustion" of voter choices, and it plausibly would be Coffman moving up, maybe even to 50%+1 . 

            I don't know if things would work that way.  Campaigns would adapt to the new rules and be different.

            Log in to Reply

            1. Just to be clear, Polis' first victory was for State Board of Ed, where he spent over a million and overwhelmed his opponent, at least financially. Next up, he spent millions more than his opponents in his first congressional primary. Hick's entry into politics was a little more modest.

               Log in to Reply

         3. DavidThi808,

            I don’t think you are missing anything at all.  Ranked Choice Voting as opposed to Party Primary takes power away from political parties.  As Frederick Douglass said, Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will. This statement is profound because it’s not qualified by Power when held by the unjust… nor Power when held by our opponents…; the statement is deliberately unqualified.  And political parties (even the ones you think are the “good ones”) will fight it tooth and nail.

            Ranked Choice Voting is not a perfect social choice method, however it is implemented; in fact it was proven with mathematical rigor by Kenneth J Arrow that there is no perfect social choice mechanism.  It is of course possible to pose a situation where any system will be vulnerable due to a flaw it must have.  This is true of every social choice mechanism conceivable.  The question is whether it is better than the current system of partisan primaries.

            It has been asserted here that political primaries are serving America pretty well.   If anyone reading really believes that, then you can stop here.  Since the founding of the United States the partisanship due to political parties has distorted political discourse and hampered effective compromise, as was eloquently foretold by the founding fathers who penned Federalist Papers X (most likely primarily James Madison).  The severity of that distortion and the obstruction of good governance has gone in cycles over the history of America.  At this point in the era of social media, it is a fatal malignancy that is eating away at our social capital.

            There is money in politics now, and there will be whether 131 passes or not; that’s a federal problem made bad with Buckly v Valeo and worse with Citiizens United v FEC.  Money has the potential to influence elections in either case.  This is a separate serious problem that also needs to be addressed, but it’s existence should not be a reason to avoid addressing other issues.

            Even though I consider the influence of money in politics a possible fatal flaw in American democracy, I don’t go so far as to equate rich with evil. There are some people who became rich (or richer) because they are very effective at carrying a vision to fruition and so those people can become effective political leaders.  

            I have faith in people and specifically the voters of Colorado, in their judgment and their intelligence.  I am skeptical of arguments that seems to be based on the idea that rich out of state interests will bamboozle a naive and confused populace in the wake of 131.  Even those “lesser voters” who don’t discuss erudite policy issues have no problem following fantasy football leagues or figuring out who’s going to be voted off the island in some reality show. People are smarter than they are being given credit for … even the working class ones.

            And it doesn’t lock us into anything.  If this specific implementation needs fixing, it can be changed by the very same mechanism by which it was introduced, ballot initiative.

            I am enthusiastically voting yes on 131 and encourage others to do the same.  

            Log in to Reply

            1. Congratulations!  Kent Thiry couldn't have stated it better!  Oh, wait.  I think he just did 😉

               Log in to Reply

5. David, look for Mike Litwin's column in the Colorado Sun from a few days ago. He shows why 131 is bad for Colorado (altho it will probably win). 

   Duke: "no on 131 sounds right." Something we agree in. I voted NO on 131.

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. Yep, I'll help by providing the link to Mike Littwin's excellent column.  Here is the money quote:

      “From what I can see, the people most likely to benefit (from Prop 131) would be those with unrestricted sources of dark money. And if we do change our system and it doesn’t work as they say it would, we may never be able to change it back again. It’s only on the ballot because of a handful of wealthy people who are willing to spend $10 million. Imagine trying to raise $10 million, on $10 contributions, to overturn it.”

      Log in to Reply

   2. The answer to Mike Littwin's position in The Colorado Sun is from Mario Nicolais …. Proposition 131 is the best way to combat political polarization that plagues our system   He suggests

      Colorado’s 4th Congressional District race provides a perfect example. Rep. Lauren Boebert won her primary without a majority because five other Republicans ran against her. Now she is facing off against Trisha Calvarese in a district that heavily favors the Republican. Even Calvarese’s substantial fundraising advantage and a perfect campaign may not be enough to overcome the district’s registration numbers.

      In a Proposition 131 world, Boebert might be on the ballot with not just Calvarese, but maybe two other Republicans. There is a good chance one or both would be less extreme than Boebert. If Calvarese could not pull off the upset, voters adamantly opposed to Boebert would still get a chance to support more palatable contenders.

      The far-right Boebert would have a much more difficult time holding her seat with the rhetoric she continuously spews. 

      I'm not convinced.  In CO-04's actual primary this year, the "top 4" would have been

      Lauren Boebert…….54,605

      Trisha Calvarese…. 22,756

      Ike McCorkle……. 20,723

      Jerry Sonnenberg…..17,791

      Based on those numbers, Sonnenberg would get dropped, his votes likely go to Boebert (the other R), McCorkle (the "known" male), or are exhausted and aren't a part of the next round's calculation.  .

      Log in to Reply

6. Trump may have just lost Florida – Madison Square Garden speech.

   Log in to Reply