djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rKw5MH.242z@kithrup.com:

> In article
> <098c485f-c9b3-480c-a1bb-ba47f36a3b52n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
>>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>>
>>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>>Democratic Presidential nomination?
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been allowed
> to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an independent. (Note
> that this opinion is completely independent of any of his actual
> political views or plans.)
>
There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what, nor should
there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).

The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn or
publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all the time.

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rKw5Hp.23rL@kithrup.com:

> In article
> <79cdc252-5058-495b-a7cd-90b0f38a8b21n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Given that: the owner of a cable TV system is the "speaker" of
>>what it transmits. Public subsidies for internet access are a
>>good thing, especially given the behavior of some cable
>>companies in the U.S., but using tax dollars or the equivalent
>>to provide a soapbox for unusual points of view is already
>>going far beyond the vision of the Founding Fathers. Compelling
>>a private entity to do so directly - as part of the fee for
>>having a lucrative cable franchise, though, it must be admitted
>>- is even stranger.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Certainly for over-the-air broadcast, and most likely cable by
> extension, requiring some form of public access or other
> constraints on what the broadcaster chooses to transmit is
> recognizing that the broadcast specturm is a limited resource.
> A broadcasting license, therefore, constrains the permission to
> use that limited resource to the public good.

There are limites on cable comanies. That is not among them,
because such licenses don't exist for them. Bandwidth on cable is
*not* limited, except by the choices (and under the control) of the
cable company.
>
> Since cable companies string their coax or optical fiber on
> poles (or underground) using facilities they don't own and that
> have finite capacity, the same arguments can be applied.

Not legally, no.

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/5/2022 1:15 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <098c485f-c9b3-480c-a1bb-ba47f36a3b52n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>>
>>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are Democrats or
>>> Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>>
>> Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>> Democratic Presidential nomination?
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been allowed
> to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an independent. (Note
> that this opinion is completely independent of any of his actual
> political views or plans.)

I'm not even sure the Democratic Party could forbid him from running as
a Democrat. They might not support him but I think that's about the
most they can do.

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

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 16:38:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 11/5/2022 1:15 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <098c485f-c9b3-480c-a1bb-ba47f36a3b52n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>>>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>>>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are Democrats or
>>>> Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>>>
>>> Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>>> Democratic Presidential nomination?
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been allowed
>> to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an independent. (Note
>> that this opinion is completely independent of any of his actual
>> political views or plans.)
>
>I'm not even sure the Democratic Party could forbid him from running as
>a Democrat. They might not support him but I think that's about the
>most they can do.

I think there is some confusion here.

Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/ of the
Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again, since the USA is
not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect that there is nothing to
prevent a political party from insisting that all claimants for /its/
nomination be members. Which Bernie is not.

He can run as /The Democratic Candidate/ only if the Democratic
Convention selects him for that honor. He cannot run /as the Dem
candidate/ against, say, Biden, should Biden be the official candidate
of the Democratic Party. Bernie would, in point of fact, be running as
an independent -- and ensuring a Republican victory by siphoning off
votes. Which would make him very much disliked by the Dems. They might
even boot him from their Senate Caucus, leaving him lonely and
friendless.

[1] Reference is to those who refuse to allow their
officially-recognized student societies to require even their officers
to actually subscribe to the program of the society. This would allow
a basketball fanatic to become President of the Chess Club, even
though he has no interest in chess and pursues a program of selling
all the chess sets to support basketball. (Actual examples are quite
incendiary, and so are omitted.)
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:uumfmh1lom35nocgtn9im744abplebcrv5@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 16:38:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/5/2022 1:15 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <098c485f-c9b3-480c-a1bb-ba47f36a3b52n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>>>>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>>>>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
>>>>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>>>>
>>>> Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>>>> Democratic Presidential nomination?
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been
>>> allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
>>> independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
>>> independent of any of his actual political views or plans.)
>>
>>I'm not even sure the Democratic Party could forbid him from
>>running as a Democrat. They might not support him but I think
>>that's about the most they can do.
>
> I think there is some confusion here.
>
> Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/
> of the Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again,
> since the USA is not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect
> that there is nothing to prevent a political party from
> insisting that all claimants for /its/ nomination be members.
> Which Bernie is not.
>
> He can run as /The Democratic Candidate/ only if the Democratic
> Convention selects him for that honor. He cannot run /as the Dem
> candidate/ against, say, Biden, should Biden be the official
> candidate of the Democratic Party. Bernie would, in point of
> fact, be running as an independent -- and ensuring a Republican
> victory by siphoning off votes. Which would make him very much
> disliked by the Dems. They might even boot him from their Senate
> Caucus, leaving him lonely and friendless.
>
> [1] Reference is to those who refuse to allow their
> officially-recognized student societies to require even their
> officers to actually subscribe to the program of the society.
> This would allow a basketball fanatic to become President of the
> Chess Club, even though he has no interest in chess and pursues
> a program of selling all the chess sets to support basketball.
> (Actual examples are quite incendiary, and so are omitted.)

I guy I used to work with ran for city council as a Republican. He
was listed on the ballot as a Republican. Everything about his
campaign was as a Republican. The Republican Party endorsed a
different candidate. He was *the* Republican candidate, I supposed,
in some unimportant way, but both were, in fact, Republican
candidates. (There were three Democrat candidates in the same
election.)

(The former coworker won, BTW, since the endorsed Demorat candidate
ran on a platform of - and I am not exaggerating - "My gang banger
son was shot by the police in a shotout," and the endorsed
Republican candidate was best described as a "carpet bagger," who
had moved into the district specifically to run for that office.
And wasn't really subtle about it.)

This sort of thing happens all the time.

In short, as usual, you're full of shit.

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <uumfmh1lom35nocgtn9im744abplebcrv5@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/ of the
>Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again, since the USA is
>not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect that there is nothing to
>prevent a political party from insisting that all claimants for /its/
>nomination be members. Which Bernie is not.

I'm not sure how this thread got here, but this actually varies from
state to state. In states with party registration, anyone can become
a "member" of any recognized political party simply by telling the
appropriate elections official -- or in some cases simpy by taking
that party's ballot at a primary. The party has no power over this at
all, so party "membership" is effectively meaningless, but candidates
who wish to *run* in a party's primary have to be "members" in this
sense. In some states, especially those using a "jungle primary",
it's possible for a party to have its *endorsement* of a particular
candidate printed on the ballot paper, even though multiple candidates
may be shown as "members". In other states, there is no party
registration, so party identification is done on some other basis --
often, as I understand it, simply based on the candidate's personal,
unverifiable, attestation of membership.[1]

Presidential elections are different, because they are national, but
more significantly because they are indirect: at the primary we elect
delegates to a party convention, and in the general election we elect
presidential electors, so the party membership of the actual
candidates doesn't matter. (In Massachusetts we also elect city and
state party committee members during the presidential primary.) As
you say, it's a matter for the rules adopted by each party's national
committee who is eligible to be the party's nominee for president.

-GAWollman

[1] Many of our European friends recoil in horror at the notion of the
government maintaining a database of who is a member of every
recognized political party, but that comes part and parcel with the
system of primary elections that we have, and as I noted, it means
"membership" in, as opposed to financial and electoral support for, a
party is for all practical purposes meaningless. But normally in
their systems a party would have its own internal, private system for
candidate selection and the party would inform the electoral
authorities who its candidates are, rather than the candidates
informing the electoral authorities which party they claim affiliation
to.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-5, Garrett Wollman wrote:
[snip-snip]
> I'm not sure how this thread got here, but this actually varies from
> state to state. [snip-snip]

It's been frequently noted that there is only one nationally applicable
rule in the American political system: there is no single nationally
applicable rule. (Except for the Guarantee Clause in Article IV,
Section 4 of the Constitution, but even that has been open to
interpretation over the years.)

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
> > In article
> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
> >>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
> >>
> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
> >>Democratic Presidential nomination?
> >
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been allowed
> > to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an independent. (Note
> > that this opinion is completely independent of any of his actual
> > political views or plans.)
> >
> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what, nor should
> there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).
>
> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn or
> publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all the time.
> --
>

Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had not
been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from primary
ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not really being
Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or Libertarians.}

The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they once
dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a Republican
in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the nominations of
a parties whose views they don't hold is a violation of the First
Amendment's Freedom of Association, and should never have
been allowed. Thanks, Progressives! Your meddling in the
workings of private associations gave us Trump!

His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party candidate,
taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign

The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the trade-restrictionist
tradition of that party, as was Pat Buchanan.

--
Kevin R

As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.

But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!

Loser.

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e-be0a-b03a28b1b5c2n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
>> > In article
>> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
>> >>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>> >>
>> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>> >>Democratic Presidential nomination?
>> >
>> > (Hal Heydt)
>> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been
>> > allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
>> > independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
>> > independent of any of his actual political views or plans.)
>> >
>> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what, nor
>> should there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).
>>
>> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn or
>> publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all the
>> time. --
>>
>
> Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had not
> been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from primary
> ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not really being
> Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or Libertarians.}
>
> The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they once
> dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a Republican
> in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the nominations of
> a parties whose views they don't hold is a violation of the
> First Amendment's Freedom of Association, and should never have
> been allowed. Thanks, Progressives! Your meddling in the
> workings of private associations gave us Trump!
>
> His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party
> candidate, taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_camp
> aign
>
> The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the
> trade-restrictionist tradition of that party, as was Pat
> Buchanan.
>

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:20:21 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> > Jibini wrote:
> >> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
> >> > In article
> >> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
> >> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
> >> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
> >> >>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
> >> >>
> >> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
> >> >>Democratic Presidential nomination?
> >> >
> >> > (Hal Heydt)
> >> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been
> >> > allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
> >> > independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
> >> > independent of any of his actual political views or plans.)
> >> >
> >> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what, nor
> >> should there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).
> >>
> >> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn or
> >> publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all the
> >> time. --
> >>
> >
> > Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had not
> > been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from primary
> > ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not really being
> > Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or Libertarians.}
> >
> > The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they once
> > dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a Republican
> > in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the nominations of
> > a parties whose views they don't hold is a violation of the
> > First Amendment's Freedom of Association, and should never have
> > been allowed. Thanks, Progressives! Your meddling in the
> > workings of private associations gave us Trump!
> >
> > His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party
> > candidate, taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_camp
> > aign
> >
> > The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the
> > trade-restrictionist tradition of that party, as was Pat
> > Buchanan.
> >

> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
> constitutiona[l] law, or real life, or much of anything.
>

Typical Terry:

Replies with an unsupported assertion and an insult.

> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>

Trump is bad. So is Biden. Think outside your red/blue box.

Republicans used to pretend to be in favor of free markets.
I've no intention to vote for either branch of the Duopoly.
> Loser.
>

At least I don't top-post.

--
Kevin R

On 7/11/22 09:50, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> [1] Many of our European friends recoil in horror at the notion of the
> government maintaining a database of who is a member of every
> recognized political party,

Based on your previous snipped explanation, the key word is member which
has a completely different meaning in New Zealand where a member of a
political party is someone who pays a membership fee to that party. For
that reason, it would be inappropriate for government to maintain such a
database. Possibly the same for your European friends, (if you have any.)

On 7/11/22 16:43, Kevrob wrote:
> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:20:21 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>>>>>>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>>>>>>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!

snip over 12 million lines of discussion.

> I've no intention to vote for either branch of the Duopoly.

Roughly quoting George Carlin.
Wall Street runs the kosher soup kitchen.
The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
Democrats or Republicans. You still swallow the same crap!

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:222bc269-83fd-4c42-9759-198b1a9505c7n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:20:21 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> > Jibini wrote:
>> >> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> >> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>> >> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>> >> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters
>> >> >>> are Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same
>> >> >>> crap!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>> >> >>Democratic Presidential nomination?
>> >> >
>> >> > (Hal Heydt)
>> >> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been
>> >> > allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
>> >> > independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
>> >> > independent of any of his actual political views or
>> >> > plans.)
>> >> >
>> >> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what,
>> >> nor should there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).
>> >>
>> >> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn
>> >> or publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all
>> >> the time. --
>> >>
>> >
>> > Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had
>> > not been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from
>> > primary ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not
>> > really being Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or
>> > Libertarians.}
>> >
>> > The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they once
>> > dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a Republican
>> > in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the nominations
>> > of a parties whose views they don't hold is a violation of
>> > the First Amendment's Freedom of Association, and should
>> > never have been allowed. Thanks, Progressives! Your meddling
>> > in the workings of private associations gave us Trump!
>> >
>> > His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party
>> > candidate, taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_c
>> > amp aign
>> >
>> > The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the
>> > trade-restrictionist tradition of that party, as was Pat
>> > Buchanan.
>> >
>
>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
>> constitutiona[l] law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>
>
> Typical Terry:
>
> Replies with an unsupported assertion

What's to support? The proof is in your post.

> and an insult.

You started it. If you don't like it, don't *do* 8t.
>
>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>>
>
> Trump is bad. So is Biden. Think outside your red/blue box.

Biden is worse. Far, far worse, in that he's too senile to have any
idea what he's doing, and his handlers are, for all intents and
purposes, a treasonous junta.
>
> Republicans used to pretend to be in favor of free markets.

Which is a step up from the left, which have always been fascists
traitors intent on a violent coup.

> I've no intention to vote for either branch of the Duopoly.

Good. the idea of your vote counting is, shall we say, unpleasnt.
>
>> Loser.
>>
>
> At least I don't top-post.
>
Instead, you just drool all over the carpet.

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:19:10 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:222bc269-83fd-4c42...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:20:21 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda
> > Jibini wrote:
> >> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> >> news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> >> > Jibini wrote:
> >> >> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >> >> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
> >> >> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
> >> >> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters
> >> >> >>> are Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same
> >> >> >>> crap!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
> >> >> >>Democratic Presidential nomination?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (Hal Heydt)
> >> >> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been
> >> >> > allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
> >> >> > independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
> >> >> > independent of any of his actual political views or
> >> >> > plans.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as what,
> >> >> nor should there be (nor could there be, constitutionally).
> >> >>
> >> >> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse, condemn
> >> >> or publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things happen all
> >> >> the time. --
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had
> >> > not been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from
> >> > primary ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not
> >> > really being Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or
> >> > Libertarians.}
> >> >
> >> > The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they once
> >> > dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a Republican
> >> > in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the nominations
> >> > of a parties whose views they don't hold is a violation of
> >> > the First Amendment's Freedom of Association, and should
> >> > never have been allowed. Thanks, Progressives! Your meddling
> >> > in the workings of private associations gave us Trump!
> >> >
> >> > His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party
> >> > candidate, taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.
> >> >
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_c
> >> > amp aign
> >> >
> >> > The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the
> >> > trade-restrictionist tradition of that party, as was Pat
> >> > Buchanan.
> >> >
> >
> >> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
> >> constitutiona[l] law, or real life, or much of anything.
> >>
> >
> > Typical Terry:
> >
> > Replies with an unsupported assertion
> What's to support? The proof is in your post.
>
> > and an insult.
>
> You started it. If you don't like it, don't *do* 8t.
> >

Where dd I insult you?

You can't mean my writing unfavorable comments
about our last President, can you?

> >> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
> >>
> >
> > Trump is bad. So is Biden. Think outside your red/blue box.
> Biden is worse. Far, far worse, in that he's too senile to have any
> idea what he's doing, and his handlers are, for all intents and
> purposes, a treasonous junta.
> >

There's no solution to that problem before the 2024 election.
If Biden dropped dead this morning, we'd get Harris, wo'd
be even worse. The only way that might work is if the
"cabal" manipulated her into nominating someone for VP
who wasn't awful, then maneuvered her into quitting.

Too many ifs and buts there.

> > Republicans used to pretend to be in favor of free markets.
> Which is a step up from the left, which have always been fascists
> traitors intent on a violent coup.

For certain values of "the left."

> > I've no intention to vote for either branch of the Duopoly.
> Good. the idea of your vote counting is, shall we say, unpleasnt.
> >

Dems will win everything in the districts I live in, and take all
the statewide offices, even if I voted R.

> >> Loser.
> >>
> >
> > At least I don't top-post.
> >
> Instead, you just drool all over the carpet.
> --
>

--
Kevin R

On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 20:50:39 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <uumfmh1lom35nocgtn9im744abplebcrv5@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/ of the
>>Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again, since the USA is
>>not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect that there is nothing to
>>prevent a political party from insisting that all claimants for /its/
>>nomination be members. Which Bernie is not.
>
>I'm not sure how this thread got here, but this actually varies from
>state to state. In states with party registration, anyone can become
>a "member" of any recognized political party simply by telling the
>appropriate elections official -- or in some cases simpy by taking
>that party's ballot at a primary. The party has no power over this at
>all, so party "membership" is effectively meaningless, but candidates
>who wish to *run* in a party's primary have to be "members" in this
>sense. In some states, especially those using a "jungle primary",
>it's possible for a party to have its *endorsement* of a particular
>candidate printed on the ballot paper, even though multiple candidates
>may be shown as "members". In other states, there is no party
>registration, so party identification is done on some other basis --
>often, as I understand it, simply based on the candidate's personal,
>unverifiable, attestation of membership.

In our version of a primary, the Parties can't say anything about it
on the ballot. (The Presidential Primary is an exception, of course).
Candidates can indicate any "preference" they wish. And list
"endoresements" in the Voter's Pamphlet. A few cycles ago, "pre-Trump
Republican" and "Old-style GOP" were quite popular -- anything, IOW,
to separate themselves from the Trump Party while attracting
Republican voters.

The Parties can, of course, support their official candidates by the
usual campaign practices. Which, apparently, now include invading
homes and hitting 80-year-olds in the head with a hammer. And
intimidating voters by watching drop boxes. And, of course, lying
about the validity of the results when they lose. And trying to
disenfranchise military voters, thus showing just how much support the
military has from the Republicans.

And the fun continues ... until tomorrow. Then the counting happens,
and /more/ fun begins!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:9fea5517-b715-4f0e-a268-b35b4720bb6dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:19:10 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:222bc269-83fd-4c42...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:20:21 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda
>> > Jibini wrote:
>> >> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> >> news:a71c6440-d7a5-4d9e...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-4,
>> >> > Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> >> >> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> >> >> news:rKw5M...@kithrup.com:
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <098c485f-c9b3-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> >>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6,
>> >> >> >>Titus G wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>> >> >> >>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>> >> >> >>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the
>> >> >> >>> waiters are Democrats or Republicans. You still eat
>> >> >> >>> the same crap!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get
>> >> >> >>the Democratic Presidential nomination?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > (Hal Heydt)
>> >> >> > It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even
>> >> >> > been allowed to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an
>> >> >> > independent. (Note that this opinion is completely
>> >> >> > independent of any of his actual political views or
>> >> >> > plans.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> There are no laws or regulation about hwo can run as
>> >> >> what, nor should there be (nor could there be,
>> >> >> constitutionally).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The party, however, is free to endorse, not endorse,
>> >> >> condemn or publicly damn him as they see fit. Such things
>> >> >> happen all the time. --
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Imagine, if you will, that in 2015 or 2016 the parties had
>> >> > not been forbidden by state law to exclude candidates from
>> >> > primary ballots or from caucus ballots due to their "not
>> >> > really being Republicans" {or Democrats, or Greens, or
>> >> > Libertarians.}
>> >> >
>> >> > The GOP insiders would have blocked Trump just as they
>> >> > once dearly wanted to keep David Duke from running as a
>> >> > Republican in Louisiana. Outsider candidates hijacking the
>> >> > nominations of a parties whose views they don't hold is a
>> >> > violation of the First Amendment's Freedom of Association,
>> >> > and should never have been allowed. Thanks, Progressives!
>> >> > Your meddling in the workings of private associations gave
>> >> > us Trump!
>> >> >
>> >> > His Orangeness had toyed with running as a Reform Party
>> >> > candidate, taking over the old Ross Perot vehicle.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidentia
>> >> > l_c amp aign
>> >> >
>> >> > The eminent domain-abusing crony capitalist was in the
>> >> > trade-restrictionist tradition of that party, as was Pat
>> >> > Buchanan.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
>> >> of constitutiona[l] law, or real life, or much of anything.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Typical Terry:
>> >
>> > Replies with an unsupported assertion
>> What's to support? The proof is in your post.
>>
>> > and an insult.
>>
>> You started it. If you don't like it, don't *do* 8t.
>> >
>
> Where dd I insult you?
>
> You can't mean my writing unfavorable comments
> about our last President, can you?

You insult the intelligence of everyone who reads your drivel.
>
>> >> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Trump is bad. So is Biden. Think outside your red/blue box.
>> Biden is worse. Far, far worse, in that he's too senile to have
>> any idea what he's doing, and his handlers are, for all intents
>> and purposes, a treasonous junta.
>> >
>
> There's no solution to that problem before the 2024 election.

Sure there is.

> If Biden dropped dead this morning, we'd get Harris, wo'd
> be even worse. The only way that might work is if the
> "cabal" manipulated her into nominating someone for VP
> who wasn't awful, then maneuvered her into quitting.

There are those who speculate that was why she was chosen in the
first place, to resign immediately to make Pelosi President. And,
being the loyal party soldier she is, Harris would, in fact, do
*exactly* as she's told.
>
> Too many ifs and buts there.

And Harris can be impeached, too.
>
>> > Republicans used to pretend to be in favor of free markets.
>> Which is a step up from the left, which have always been
>> fascists traitors intent on a violent coup.
>
> For certain values of "the left."

Ones that are strongly connected to the real world.
>
>> > I've no intention to vote for either branch of the Duopoly.
>> Good. the idea of your vote counting is, shall we say,
>> unpleasnt.
>> >
>
> Dems will win everything in the districts I live in, and take
> all the statewide offices, even if I voted R.

QED.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 20:50:39 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> >In article <uumfmh1lom35nocgt...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/ of the
> >>Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again, since the USA is
> >>not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect that there is nothing to
> >>prevent a political party from insisting that all claimants for /its/
> >>nomination be members. Which Bernie is not.
> >
> >I'm not sure how this thread got here, but this actually varies from
> >state to state. In states with party registration, anyone can become
> >a "member" of any recognized political party simply by telling the
> >appropriate elections official -- or in some cases simpy by taking
> >that party's ballot at a primary. The party has no power over this at
> >all, so party "membership" is effectively meaningless, but candidates
> >who wish to *run* in a party's primary have to be "members" in this
> >sense. In some states, especially those using a "jungle primary",
> >it's possible for a party to have its *endorsement* of a particular
> >candidate printed on the ballot paper, even though multiple candidates
> >may be shown as "members". In other states, there is no party
> >registration, so party identification is done on some other basis --
> >often, as I understand it, simply based on the candidate's personal,
> >unverifiable, attestation of membership.
> In our version of a primary, the Parties can't say anything about it
> on the ballot. (The Presidential Primary is an exception, of course).
> Candidates can indicate any "preference" they wish. And list
> "endoresements" in the Voter's Pamphlet. A few cycles ago, "pre-Trump
> Republican" and "Old-style GOP" were quite popular -- anything, IOW,
> to separate themselves from the Trump Party while attracting
> Republican voters.
>
> The Parties can, of course, support their official candidates by the
> usual campaign practices. Which, apparently, now include invading
> homes and hitting 80-year-olds in the head with a hammer.

The work, it would seem, of a Canadian who overstayed his
"temporary visitor" status.

[quote]

The man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband
with a hammer is a Canadian citizen who was in the United States illegally
and is facing possible deportation after his criminal cases are resolved,
the Department of Homeland Security said late Wednesday.

[/quote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/03/pelosi-attacker-david-depape/

> And intimidating voters by watching drop boxes.

Traditional voting prior to the advent of the drop boxes always
had multi-party and/or non-partisan poll watchers. Don't you
think there should be poll watchers at the drop-off sites, on a
similar basis? Maybe tech {dedicated CCTV cameras?} watched
by a team at a particular location - Election officials HQ?

> And, of course, lying about the validity of the results when they lose.
> And trying to disenfranchise military voters, thus showing just how
> much support the military has from the Republicans.
>
> And the fun continues ... until tomorrow. Then the counting happens,
> and /more/ fun begins!
> --

Plagues on the Red House and on the Blue House.

--
Kevin R

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 18:26:04 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 20:50:39 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
>> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <uumfmh1lom35nocgt...@4ax.com>,
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Yes, there may be no bar on Bernie running for the /nomination/ of the
>> >>Democratic Party to the office of POTUS. Then again, since the USA is
>> >>not yet an ultra-PC University [1], I suspect that there is nothing to
>> >>prevent a political party from insisting that all claimants for /its/
>> >>nomination be members. Which Bernie is not.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure how this thread got here, but this actually varies from
>> >state to state. In states with party registration, anyone can become
>> >a "member" of any recognized political party simply by telling the
>> >appropriate elections official -- or in some cases simpy by taking
>> >that party's ballot at a primary. The party has no power over this at
>> >all, so party "membership" is effectively meaningless, but candidates
>> >who wish to *run* in a party's primary have to be "members" in this
>> >sense. In some states, especially those using a "jungle primary",
>> >it's possible for a party to have its *endorsement* of a particular
>> >candidate printed on the ballot paper, even though multiple candidates
>> >may be shown as "members". In other states, there is no party
>> >registration, so party identification is done on some other basis --
>> >often, as I understand it, simply based on the candidate's personal,
>> >unverifiable, attestation of membership.
>> In our version of a primary, the Parties can't say anything about it
>> on the ballot. (The Presidential Primary is an exception, of course).
>> Candidates can indicate any "preference" they wish. And list
>> "endoresements" in the Voter's Pamphlet. A few cycles ago, "pre-Trump
>> Republican" and "Old-style GOP" were quite popular -- anything, IOW,
>> to separate themselves from the Trump Party while attracting
>> Republican voters.
>>
>> The Parties can, of course, support their official candidates by the
>> usual campaign practices. Which, apparently, now include invading
>> homes and hitting 80-year-olds in the head with a hammer.
>
>The work, it would seem, of a Canadian who overstayed his
>"temporary visitor" status.
>
>[quote]
>
>The man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband
>with a hammer is a Canadian citizen who was in the United States illegally
>and is facing possible deportation after his criminal cases are resolved,
>the Department of Homeland Security said late Wednesday.
>
>[/quote]
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/03/pelosi-attacker-david-depape/

Judging from his plans (breaking Nancy's kneecaps and then wheeling
her into the House as a warning to the others, IIRC) and his reading
habits, he was, in fact, one of those semi-fascist ultra-MAGA types.

And it doesn't matter how hard the other semi-fascist ultra-MAGA types
try to throw him under the bus. They are, so to speak, tarred by the
same brush.

>> And intimidating voters by watching drop boxes.
>
>Traditional voting prior to the advent of the drop boxes always
>had multi-party and/or non-partisan poll watchers. Don't you
>think there should be poll watchers at the drop-off sites, on a
>similar basis? Maybe tech {dedicated CCTV cameras?} watched
>by a team at a particular location - Election officials HQ?

They already are, in some places, at least.

What, you think nobody ever thought of watching them?

And these weren't just "observing". Until restrained by court order,
they were /harassing/ voters. Note that the same Judge dismissed a
similar complaint because it had no evidence of bad behavior -- and
reacted promptly to one that did.

Also, they are not official party-appointed poll watchers. They are,
if not Proud Boys and others of that ilk, close relatives of them,
wearing, in some cases, the same military-style cloathing and also
armed. Visibly armed, which some find intimidating when they are in
close conjunction with voters.

I should say, though, the the ones reported in /our/ area were very
local and dressed in normal clothing and not armed and not aggressive.
But this is a very blue area.

>> And, of course, lying about the validity of the results when they lose.
>> And trying to disenfranchise military voters, thus showing just how
>> much support the military has from the Republicans.
>>
>> And the fun continues ... until tomorrow. Then the counting happens,
>> and /more/ fun begins!
>> --
>
>Plagues on the Red House and on the Blue House.

That's coming, I suspect.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <da042825-687b-486c-b624-890c1cbbf88bn@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> And intimidating voters by watching drop boxes.
>
>Traditional voting prior to the advent of the drop boxes always
>had multi-party and/or non-partisan poll watchers.

"always" is more than a bit dubious. Never at my sleepy suburban
polling places where voters are outnumbered by poll workers 2:1.
(This year I voted by mail, and will probably continue to do so for as
long as that option is available to me, so I don't know how busy the
War Memorial was today.) The thing I would _expect_ is
representatives of parties scrutinizing the count -- if some ballot is
of dubious legibility, election officials will have to make a decision
about if and how to count it, and that might be reasonably challenged.

>Don't you think there should be poll watchers at the drop-off sites,
>on a similar basis?

What, a "poll watcher" at every mailbox? Ridiculous.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-5, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <da042825-687b-486c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> And intimidating voters by watching drop boxes.
> >
> >Traditional voting prior to the advent of the drop boxes always
> >had multi-party and/or non-partisan poll watchers.
> "always" is more than a bit dubious. Never at my sleepy suburban
> polling places where voters are outnumbered by poll workers 2:1.
> (This year I voted by mail, and will probably continue to do so for as
> long as that option is available to me, so I don't know how busy the
> War Memorial was today.) The thing I would _expect_ is
> representatives of parties scrutinizing the count -- if some ballot is
> of dubious legibility, election officials will have to make a decision
> about if and how to count it, and that might be reasonably challenged.
> >Don't you think there should be poll watchers at the drop-off sites,
> >on a similar basis?
> What, a "poll watcher" at every mailbox? Ridiculous.

Mailbox, no. Drop boxes, yes. It's feasible, particularly when, for example,
Texas restricts drop boxes to one per county, in a transparent piece of
vote suppression.

pt

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-5, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <da042825-687b-486c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> And intimidating voters by watching drop boxes.
> > >
> > >Traditional voting prior to the advent of the drop boxes always
> > >had multi-party and/or non-partisan poll watchers.
> > "always" is more than a bit dubious. Never at my sleepy suburban
> > polling places where voters are outnumbered by poll workers 2:1.
> > (This year I voted by mail, and will probably continue to do so for as
> > long as that option is available to me, so I don't know how busy the
> > War Memorial was today.) The thing I would _expect_ is
> > representatives of parties scrutinizing the count -- if some ballot is
> > of dubious legibility, election officials will have to make a decision
> > about if and how to count it, and that might be reasonably challenged.
> > >Don't you think there should be poll watchers at the drop-off sites,
> > >on a similar basis?
> > What, a "poll watcher" at every mailbox? Ridiculous.
> Mailbox, no. Drop boxes, yes. It's feasible, particularly when, for example,
> Texas restricts drop boxes to one per county, in a transparent piece of
> vote suppression.
>
> pt

I ran into a particular form of "voter suppression" today. CT ballots are
printed with a line for write-in votes. My ballot had the name of each
party's candidate or team of candidates (Gov & Lt Gov) printed, and
a blank "bubble" to be filled in. The block containing such info was
3 times the size for merely the bubble for the write-ins. I was voting,
mostly, for candidates who had not made the ballot or for "None of the
above." There was precious little space for writing in those names,
in a legible manner.

It's almost as if the powers that be didn't want to have to tally the write-ins.

--
Kevin R

In article <b0dcfe10-4ff8-4783-a4a3-68685f85f426n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>I ran into a particular form of "voter suppression" today. CT ballots are
>printed with a line for write-in votes. My ballot had the name of each
>party's candidate or team of candidates (Gov & Lt Gov) printed, and
>a blank "bubble" to be filled in. The block containing such info was
>3 times the size for merely the bubble for the write-ins.

I don't know if Connecticut is the same as Massachusetts but I would
not be surprised if it was: a "write-in" is not literally written in
on the ballot; rather, the candidate supplies their supporters with a
sticker to attach to the ballot which has printed on it the same
information (name and address) as the pre-printed candidates have, and
made to fit in the space allotted. Handwritten "write-ins" are not
counted. (Well, they're "counted" as "write-in" but nobody looks at
the ballots to see whose name was written there.) In particular,
write-in votes for candidates who have not filed the appropriate
paperwork prior to the election are treated the same as spoiled
ballots. (This is to ensure that some unrelated actor can't "draft"
an unwilling or ineligible candidate by mass-mailing stickers.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 03:19:18 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <b0dcfe10-4ff8-4783-a4a3-68685f85f426n@googlegroups.com>,
>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>I ran into a particular form of "voter suppression" today. CT ballots are
>>printed with a line for write-in votes. My ballot had the name of each
>>party's candidate or team of candidates (Gov & Lt Gov) printed, and
>>a blank "bubble" to be filled in. The block containing such info was
>>3 times the size for merely the bubble for the write-ins.
>
>I don't know if Connecticut is the same as Massachusetts but I would
>not be surprised if it was: a "write-in" is not literally written in
>on the ballot; rather, the candidate supplies their supporters with a
>sticker to attach to the ballot which has printed on it the same
>information (name and address) as the pre-printed candidates have, and
>made to fit in the space allotted. Handwritten "write-ins" are not
>counted. (Well, they're "counted" as "write-in" but nobody looks at
>the ballots to see whose name was written there.) In particular,
>write-in votes for candidates who have not filed the appropriate
>paperwork prior to the election are treated the same as spoiled
>ballots. (This is to ensure that some unrelated actor can't "draft"
>an unwilling or ineligible candidate by mass-mailing stickers.)

I would think that, if, say, 90% of the ballots had "write-in" for a
given race, someone /would/ look at them, just in case they all have
the same name.

If not, then such a situation would be lawsuit bait.

And give "voter suppression" a whole new meaning.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 03:19:18 -0000 (UTC), wollman@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <b0dcfe10-4ff8-4783-a4a3-68685f85f426n@googlegroups.com>,
>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>I ran into a particular form of "voter suppression" today. CT ballots are
>>printed with a line for write-in votes. My ballot had the name of each
>>party's candidate or team of candidates (Gov & Lt Gov) printed, and
>>a blank "bubble" to be filled in. The block containing such info was
>>3 times the size for merely the bubble for the write-ins.
>
>I don't know if Connecticut is the same as Massachusetts but I would
>not be surprised if it was: a "write-in" is not literally written in
>on the ballot; rather, the candidate supplies their supporters with a
>sticker to attach to the ballot which has printed on it the same
>information (name and address) as the pre-printed candidates have, and
>made to fit in the space allotted. Handwritten "write-ins" are not
>counted. (Well, they're "counted" as "write-in" but nobody looks at
>the ballots to see whose name was written there.) In particular,
>write-in votes for candidates who have not filed the appropriate
>paperwork prior to the election are treated the same as spoiled
>ballots. (This is to ensure that some unrelated actor can't "draft"
>an unwilling or ineligible candidate by mass-mailing stickers.)

Up here, in contrast, one of the races has these stats:
prefers Democratic Candidate 50%
prefers Independent Candidate 47%
write-ins 3%
and the word is that the write-ins might influence the outcome.

And so, presumably, be examined and counted.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 11:56:05 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 03:19:18 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >In article <b0dcfe10-4ff8-4783...@googlegroups.com>,
> >Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I ran into a particular form of "voter suppression" today. CT ballots are
> >>printed with a line for write-in votes. My ballot had the name of each
> >>party's candidate or team of candidates (Gov & Lt Gov) printed, and
> >>a blank "bubble" to be filled in. The block containing such info was
> >>3 times the size for merely the bubble for the write-ins.
> >
> >I don't know if Connecticut is the same as Massachusetts but I would
> >not be surprised if it was: a "write-in" is not literally written in
> >on the ballot; rather, the candidate supplies their supporters with a
> >sticker to attach to the ballot which has printed on it the same
> >information (name and address) as the pre-printed candidates have, and
> >made to fit in the space allotted. Handwritten "write-ins" are not
> >counted. (Well, they're "counted" as "write-in" but nobody looks at
> >the ballots to see whose name was written there.) In particular,
> >write-in votes for candidates who have not filed the appropriate
> >paperwork prior to the election are treated the same as spoiled
> >ballots. (This is to ensure that some unrelated actor can't "draft"
> >an unwilling or ineligible candidate by mass-mailing stickers.)
> Up here, in contrast, one of the races has these stats:
> prefers Democratic Candidate 50%
> prefers Independent Candidate 47%
> write-ins 3%
> and the word is that the write-ins might influence the outcome.
>
> And so, presumably, be examined and counted.
> --

I did a little checking and it seems in CT one has to file
a form declaring one is running as a write-in before Oct 25.

My write-ins probably won't be counted.

[quote]

Except as otherwise provided in this section, a write-in vote cast
for a person who has not registered shall not be counted or recorded.

[/quote] - https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2018/title-9/chapter-147/section-9-265/

We don't seem to have the sticker system.

We should habe a "None of the above" option here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

I toy with the idea that any registered voter who does not cast a ballot
should be assumed to have voted NOTA, and that some minimum turnout
percentage be met before an election is certified as valid.

Somebody who wins with 50% of a 45% turnout* shouldn't be considered
to have earned a "mandate of the people." Candidates who win by a plurality
of a minority should be even humbler.

Georgia may be a political dumpster fire, but at least they hold run-offs.
As a third-party guy, I think I'd like to give Instant Runoff Voting a try.

Proportional representation is a real longshot here.

[quote]

The only technical hitch is that Congress would also have to repeal a 1967 law mandating
single-member districts for all states with at least two allotted seats—a measure that was
passed in part because some states had used multimember districts to dilute Black votes.
Today, the single-member status quo benefits a party that’s utilized its power in Washington
and at the state level to disenfranchise minority voters. Proportional representation would
see defenders of the right to vote elected in all parts of the country, not just Democratic
strongholds.

Needless to say, there’s zero chance proportional representation gets off the ground in
Congress anytime in the very near future.....

[/quote] - https://newrepublic.com/article/165557/proportional-representation-fix-the-house

THE NEW REPUBLIC is a lefty sheet, for those not familiar.

My cynical bones suggest if we adapted PR here in the States there would be a high
threshold minor parties would have to meet to get seated. Germany uses 5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Electoral_threshold

* https://www.brookings.edu/research/will-minority-and-female-turnout-surges-seal-democratic-midterm-victories/

--
Kevin R