On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:03:01 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

<snippo, the 47% "prefers Independent" appears to have conceded, but
whether the people running the election have to pay attention to that
in this case remains to be seen>

>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/

And I thought the whole /point/ of the election is to let the voters
express themselves, with the write-in option as a way to escape the
forced choice between parties.

Also, how is Cthulhu ("Why vote for the /lesser/ evil?") going to
register?

>We don't seem to have the sticker system.

I don't think we do here, either.

>We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

That would be interesting, but how would the Parties react to learning
that, say, 70% of the voters don't want /either/ of them?

>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.

We have a minimum for levies in Special Elections (something like "60%
of the number of voters in the last General Election") but that, of
course, is not the same thing. Still, the concept does exist.

>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.

Anybody who gets less than 60% doesn't have a "mandate", IMHO.

And a candidate would need to be in the neighborhood of 90% to have a
/real/ mandate, not just an honorary one. Again, IMHO.

>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.

And will be doing so again for one of the /exact same races/ they did
this for two years ago. (One of the Senate seats then was to replace a
Senator with two years left and, guess what?, the two years are up!)

>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.

Sounds a lot like the arguments for ranked voting and multivoting.

I don't think our City knows yet whether it will be changing the
system for such offices as Mayor and City Councilcritter (in the
primary only), but, if we did approve the change, it will be ranked
voting (just what we need, more rankness) that is implemented.

>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.

Big on dreams, short on realism.

But if you have no dreams, you will accomplish nothing.

>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/
--
"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 11/11/2022 9:11 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:03:01 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snippo, the 47% "prefers Independent" appears to have conceded, but
> whether the people running the election have to pay attention to that
> in this case remains to be seen>
>
They don't and shouldn't.

>> 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/
>
> And I thought the whole /point/ of the election is to let the voters
> express themselves, with the write-in option as a way to escape the
> forced choice between parties.
>
> Also, how is Cthulhu ("Why vote for the /lesser/ evil?") going to
> register?
>
Why do you think they implemented this? To get rid of the Cthulhu and
Mickey Mouse votes.

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

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 2:22:06 PM UTC-5, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 9:11 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:03:01 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snippo, the 47% "prefers Independent" appears to have conceded, but
> > whether the people running the election have to pay attention to that
> > in this case remains to be seen>
> >
> They don't and shouldn't.
> >> 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/
> >
> > And I thought the whole /point/ of the election is to let the voters
> > express themselves, with the write-in option as a way to escape the
> > forced choice between parties.
> >
> > Also, how is Cthulhu ("Why vote for the /lesser/ evil?") going to
> > register?
> >
> Why do you think they implemented this? To get rid of the Cthulhu and
> Mickey Mouse votes.
> --

MM & C might not be eligible, due to residency requirements.
Mickey is a resident of Calisota, so he might be able to run there.

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Mouseton

....which is a bit of a swim from R'lyeh. I presume
Cthulhu's digs are in international waters.

--
Kevin R

On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
> constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>
> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!

Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding of
>> constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>
>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>
>Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.

Orange man /very/ bad.

And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to prove
it!
--
"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:j1r4nh9vfm9h5b2s309sr3utq3k28bfdrt@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
>>> of constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>>
>>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>>
>>Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.
>
> Orange man /very/ bad.
>
> And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to
> prove it!

With Democrats in charge, convictions have no relationship whatsoever
to whether or not one has committed a crime. (If it did, most of hte
Demcorats would be doing life without parole.)

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>We should habe a "None of the above" option here.

(Hal Heydt)
The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the Above"
is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above" because if
NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the most votes.
I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA, but I doubt
it'd slow your average politician down very much.

What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
have a new election and none of those on the ballot are eligible
to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been rejected by the
electorate.

>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.

Alternatively, another state could adopt the system now in place
in Alaska of ranked choice on the ballot.

Another possibility is what California has, where all candidates
are on the primary ballot, but only the top two advance to the
general election. This does, at times, result in two members of
the same party running against each other in the general
election. It does two good things, though. It works strongly
against nut job candidates and, in areas where one party
completely dominates, it allows choices in intraparty
differences.

On 2022-11-14 08:04, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:j1r4nh9vfm9h5b2s309sr3utq3k28bfdrt@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
>>>> of constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>>>
>>>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>>>
>>> Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.
>>
>> Orange man /very/ bad.
>>
>> And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to
>> prove it!
>
> With Democrats in charge, convictions have no relationship whatsoever
> to whether or not one has committed a crime. (If it did, most of hte
> Demcorats would be doing life without parole.)
>

You really ARE delusional, aren't you?

:-)

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:

> In article
> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>, Kevrob
> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the Above"
> is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above" because if
> NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the most votes.
> I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA, but I doubt
> it'd slow your average politician down very much.

Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>
> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
> have a new election and none of those on the ballot are eligible
> to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been rejected
> by the electorate.

The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
Scheduling another election can take months.
>
>>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.
>
> Alternatively, another state could adopt the system now in place
> in Alaska of ranked choice on the ballot.
>
> Another possibility is what California has, where all candidates
> are on the primary ballot, but only the top two advance to the
> general election. This does, at times, result in two members of
> the same party running against each other in the general
> election. It does two good things, though. It works strongly
> against nut job candidates and, in areas where one party
> completely dominates, it allows choices in intraparty
> differences.
>
Except in California, nobody is going to get on the ballot without
the backing of the party, and the party only backs moonbats.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 17:49:06 UTC, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 08:04, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> > news:j1r4nh9vfm9h5b2s3...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> >>>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
> >>>> of constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
> >>>
> >>> Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.
> >>
> >> Orange man /very/ bad.
> >>
> >> And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to
> >> prove it!
> >
> > With Democrats in charge, convictions have no relationship whatsoever
> > to whether or not one has committed a crime. (If it did, most of hte
> > Demcorats would be doing life without parole.)
> >
> You really ARE delusional, aren't you?
>
> :-)

On the /outside/.

On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article
>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>, Kevrob
>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the Above"
>> is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above" because if
>> NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the most votes.
>> I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA, but I doubt
>> it'd slow your average politician down very much.
>
> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>
>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
>> have a new election and none of those on the ballot are eligible
>> to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been rejected
>> by the electorate.
>
> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
> Scheduling another election can take months.

Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be done in
two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest idea how that
could be possible.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in
news:u7dc4j-03s.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au:

> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Kevrob
>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the
>>> most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA,
>>> but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very much.
>>
>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
>>> have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been
>>> rejected by the electorate.
>>
>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>
> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
> done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
> idea how that could be possible.
>
Your point? Rushing it guarantees it will be done poorly, which
seems to be your goal. You must be a Democrat.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:49:01 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-11-14 08:04, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:j1r4nh9vfm9h5b2s309sr3utq3k28bfdrt@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
>>>>> of constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.
>>>
>>> Orange man /very/ bad.
>>>
>>> And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to
>>> prove it!
>>
>> With Democrats in charge, convictions have no relationship whatsoever
>> to whether or not one has committed a crime. (If it did, most of hte
>> Demcorats would be doing life without parole.)
>>
>
>You really ARE delusional, aren't you?
>
>:-)

No, no he's just in Full Bot Mode.
--
"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 2022-11-15 09:00, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:49:01 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-11-14 08:04, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:j1r4nh9vfm9h5b2s309sr3utq3k28bfdrt@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 09:19:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-11-06 17:20, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> As usual, you conclusively prove you have zero understanding
>>>>>> of constitutiona law, or real life, or much of anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, hey, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Orange man has almost certainly committed multiple felonies.
>>>>
>>>> Orange man /very/ bad.
>>>>
>>>> And, with any luck, we will eventually have the convictions to
>>>> prove it!
>>>
>>> With Democrats in charge, convictions have no relationship whatsoever
>>> to whether or not one has committed a crime. (If it did, most of hte
>>> Demcorats would be doing life without parole.)
>>>
>>
>> You really ARE delusional, aren't you?
>>
>> :-)
>
> No, no he's just in Full Bot Mode.

No... ...I don't think so.

I think he really is the zealot some seem to feel he merely poses as being.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>, Kevrob
>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the Above"
>>> is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above" because if
>>> NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the most votes.
>>> I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA, but I doubt
>>> it'd slow your average politician down very much.
>>
>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
>>> have a new election and none of those on the ballot are eligible
>>> to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been rejected
>>> by the electorate.
>>
>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>
>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be done in
>two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest idea how that
>could be possible.

You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.

His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves, originated
in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall protecting the
Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the walls of reality are
closing in on Trumpland.
--
"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:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Kevrob
>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very
>>>> much.
>>>
>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>
>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>
>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>>
>>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
>>done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
>>idea how that could be possible.
>
> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>
> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.

Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with three
races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead (with 99%
reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging in two
California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so far - in
the House.

And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that is
worthwhile is nothing.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 16/11/2022 01:59, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in
> news:u7dc4j-03s.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au:
>
>> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Kevrob
>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got the
>>>> most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to NOTA,
>>>> but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very much.
>>>
>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>
>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins, you
>>>> have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all* been
>>>> rejected by the electorate.
>>>
>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>>
>> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
>> done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
>> idea how that could be possible.
>>
> Your point? Rushing it guarantees it will be done poorly, which
> seems to be your goal. You must be a Democrat.
>
No, I'm an anarcho-socialist, but you won't know what that means either.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pd...@4ax.com:
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
> > <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >>> news:rLCMJ...@kithrup.com:
> >>>
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Kevrob
> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Hal Heydt)
> >>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
> >>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
> >>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
> >>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
> >>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very
> >>>> much.
> >>>
> >>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
> >>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
> >>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
> >>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
> >>>> been rejected by the electorate.
> >>>
> >>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
> >>> Scheduling another election can take months.
> >>
> >>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
> >>done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
> >>idea how that could be possible.
> >
> > You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
> >
> > His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
> > originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
> > protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
> > walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
> Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
> control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with three
> races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead (with 99%
> reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging in two
> California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so far - in
> the House.
>
> And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
> between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
> Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that is
> worthwhile is nothing.

Its going to be interesting watching the GOP tear itself apart over the
next year or two.

More fun, anyway, than watching the Dems try to find a candidate with
appeal.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:32f2e41a-93ae-4c08-9660-7eec77498239n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pd...@4ax.com:
>> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>> > <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> >>> news:rLCMJ...@kithrup.com:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article
>> >>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>> Kevrob
>> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Hal Heydt)
>> >>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>> >>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>> >>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>> >>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose
>> >>>> to NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician
>> >>>> down very much.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead
>> >>> for months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>> >>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot
>> >>>> are eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've
>> >>>> *all* been rejected by the electorate.
>> >>>
>> >>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the
>> >>> meantime? Scheduling another election can take months.
>> >>
>> >>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can
>> >>be done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the
>> >>faintest idea how that could be possible.
>> >
>> > You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>> >
>> > His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>> > originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>> > protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So
>> > the walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>> Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin
>> in control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with
>> three races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead
>> (with 99% reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging
>> in two California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats -
>> so far - in the House.
>>
>> And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>> between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>> Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do
>> that is worthwhile is nothing.
>
> Its going to be interesting watching the GOP tear itself apart
> over the next year or two.

The way that the Democrats are doing now?
>
> More fun, anyway, than watching the Dems try to find a candidate
> with appeal.
>
Heh. Appeal, or brains, or anything remotely resembling ethics.

--
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.

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in
news:rjud4j-tfn.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au:

> On 16/11/2022 01:59, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in
>> news:u7dc4j-03s.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au:
>>
>>> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down
>>>>> very much.
>>>>
>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>>>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>
>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>>>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>
>>> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can
>>> be done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the
>>> faintest idea how that could be possible.
>>>
>> Your point? Rushing it guarantees it will be done poorly, which
>> seems to be your goal. You must be a Democrat.
>>
> No, I'm an anarcho-socialist, but you won't know what that means
> either.
>
For all practical purposes, it's the same thing.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:38:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very
>>>>> much.
>>>>
>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>>>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>
>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>>>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>
>>>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
>>>done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
>>>idea how that could be possible.
>>
>> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>>
>> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
>> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>
>Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
>control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with three
>races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead (with 99%
>reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging in two
>California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so far - in
>the House.
>
>And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that is
>worthwhile is nothing.

I actually agree with you on that.

Except that I prefer the old days, where it meant they actually worked
together and produced solutions both sides could live with.

Politics, IOW, not ideology.

Meanwhile, the Senate can just keep on approving Biden's judicial
nominees. Provided, of course, they deserve confirmation.
--
"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:4b4anhlpp9pcva15pd163p62ebd2nues6g@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:38:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down
>>>>>> very much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead
>>>>> for months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the
>>>>> meantime? Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>>
>>>>Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can
>>>>be done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the
>>>>faintest idea how that could be possible.
>>>
>>> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>>>
>>> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>>> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>>> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
>>> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>>
>>Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
>>control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with
>>three races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead
>>(with 99% reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging
>>in two California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so
>>far - in the House.
>>
>>And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>>between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>>Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that
>>is worthwhile is nothing.
>
> I actually agree with you on that.
>
> Except that I prefer the old days, where it meant they actually
> worked together and produced solutions both sides could live
> with.

The good old days were never as good as we remember them.
>
> Politics, IOW, not ideology.

Tell that to the oppressed minorities of the day. It was, after
all, the good old days that did things like Jim Crow laws.
>
> Meanwhile, the Senate can just keep on approving Biden's
> judicial nominees. Provided, of course, they deserve
> confirmation.

And in doing so, reinforce the cost of letting fascist lefties run
things. (And, of course, whatever fascist coup those lower level
judges try to legislate from the bench can be overturned by SCOTUS,
and there is no expectation of Biden's puppeteers getting a chance
to appoint even one new justice, much less two. Unless the
Democrats resort to outright assassination.)

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-11-16 10:09, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:4b4anhlpp9pcva15pd163p62ebd2nues6g@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:38:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>>>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down
>>>>>>> very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead
>>>>>> for months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the
>>>>>> meantime? Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can
>>>>> be done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the
>>>>> faintest idea how that could be possible.
>>>>
>>>> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>>>>
>>>> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>>>> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>>>> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
>>>> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>>>
>>> Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
>>> control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with
>>> three races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead
>>> (with 99% reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging
>>> in two California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so
>>> far - in the House.
>>>
>>> And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>>> between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>>> Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that
>>> is worthwhile is nothing.
>>
>> I actually agree with you on that.
>>
>> Except that I prefer the old days, where it meant they actually
>> worked together and produced solutions both sides could live
>> with.
>
> The good old days were never as good as we remember them.
>>
>> Politics, IOW, not ideology.
>
> Tell that to the oppressed minorities of the day. It was, after
> all, the good old days that did things like Jim Crow laws.

Riiiiiight...because we jump straight from Jim Crow (ending circa 1965)
to today!

>>
>> Meanwhile, the Senate can just keep on approving Biden's
>> judicial nominees. Provided, of course, they deserve
>> confirmation.
>
> And in doing so, reinforce the cost of letting fascist lefties run
> things. (And, of course, whatever fascist coup those lower level
> judges try to legislate from the bench can be overturned by SCOTUS,
> and there is no expectation of Biden's puppeteers getting a chance
> to appoint even one new justice, much less two. Unless the
> Democrats resort to outright assassination.)

Or he chooses to expand the court...

On 11/16/2022 10:37 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:38:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down very
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead for
>>>>> months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the meantime?
>>>>> Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>>
>>>> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can be
>>>> done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the faintest
>>>> idea how that could be possible.
>>>
>>> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>>>
>>> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>>> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>>> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
>>> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>>
>> Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
>> control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with three
>> races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead (with 99%
>> reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging in two
>> California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so far - in
>> the House.
>>
>> And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>> between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>> Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that is
>> worthwhile is nothing.
>
> I actually agree with you on that.
>
> Except that I prefer the old days, where it meant they actually worked
> together and produced solutions both sides could live with.
>
> Politics, IOW, not ideology.
>
> Meanwhile, the Senate can just keep on approving Biden's judicial
> nominees. Provided, of course, they deserve confirmation.

These are the good old days now. Tough times are coming.

Lynn

On 11/16/2022 12:09 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:4b4anhlpp9pcva15pd163p62ebd2nues6g@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:38:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:4hh7nh1qrnosb95pdlp72ua0srl1hnsut7@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 23:28:19 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>>>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/11/2022 04:30, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>>> news:rLCMJ5.1Bzp@kithrup.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <ea984fb6-cf32-45fc-a22a-7c0da0bbf629n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Kevrob
>>>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We should habe a "None of the above" option here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> The only state I know of, off hand, that has "None of the
>>>>>>> Above" is Nevada, and it isn't truely "None of the Above"
>>>>>>> because if NOTA wins, the race goes the candidate that got
>>>>>>> the most votes. I dare it's kind of embarrassing to lose to
>>>>>>> NOTA, but I doubt it'd slow your average politician down
>>>>>>> very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not as embarassing as losing to someone who has been dead
>>>>>> for months, with a great deal of publicity about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I'd like to see would be a system where if NOTA wins,
>>>>>>> you have a new election and none of those on the ballot are
>>>>>>> eligible to run in the new one. After all, they've *all*
>>>>>>> been rejected by the electorate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difficulty there is who fills the office in the
>>>>>> meantime? Scheduling another election can take months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or in civilised countries, no more than three weeks. It can
>>>>> be done in two, if necessary, but you wouldn't have the
>>>>> faintest idea how that could be possible.
>>>>
>>>> You'll have to excuse the bot you are responding to.
>>>>
>>>> His long-anticipated Red Wave (which, like all Red Waves,
>>>> originated in Moscow) just broke on the Blue Breakwall
>>>> protecting the Constitution, and ... failed. Miserably. So the
>>>> walls of reality are closing in on Trumpland.
>>>
>>> Look like the Republicans are going to have a bit of a margin in
>>> control of the House, actually. They're one short now, with
>>> three races still being counted in which they are clearly ahead
>>> (with 99% reporting in Colorado, but a more significant marging
>>> in two California districts. Republican have gained 8 seats - so
>>> far - in the House.
>>>
>>> And strictly speaking, I actually prefer control to be split
>>> between the two sides of Congress, because that will paralyze
>>> Congress that much more, since the *only* thing they can do that
>>> is worthwhile is nothing.
>>
>> I actually agree with you on that.
>>
>> Except that I prefer the old days, where it meant they actually
>> worked together and produced solutions both sides could live
>> with.
>
> The good old days were never as good as we remember them.
>>
>> Politics, IOW, not ideology.
>
> Tell that to the oppressed minorities of the day. It was, after
> all, the good old days that did things like Jim Crow laws.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the Senate can just keep on approving Biden's
>> judicial nominees. Provided, of course, they deserve
>> confirmation.
>
> And in doing so, reinforce the cost of letting fascist lefties run
> things. (And, of course, whatever fascist coup those lower level
> judges try to legislate from the bench can be overturned by SCOTUS,
> and there is no expectation of Biden's puppeteers getting a chance
> to appoint even one new justice, much less two. Unless the
> Democrats resort to outright assassination.)

Hah, John Grisham wrote a book about that, "The Pelican Brief". And a
very good movie was made of it too.

Lynn