6 ms·

> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" sen

> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.

rhizome 10y ago
I think it's more like Jay Bybee's appointment to the 9th Circuit: it keeps the weirdos out West from getting too out of hand.
incongruity 10y ago
The two party system is decidedly broken. Primaries force us into accepting evil or awful because we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  California doesn't have party primaries. There's a June election and the top two vote winners go on to November, even if from the same party. That's why California has a chance to prevent a second Feinstein in Kamala Harris. It will be two Democrats in November: drug prosecutor Harris and grassroots liberal Loretta Sanchez.
  - jonah 10y ago
    This is new though.
  - incongruity 10y ago
    That's a start, but until you can let people stop having to pick between voting their conscience and voting out of fear, the parties and incumbents can still wield a lot of power, IMHO. Having an election that lets people rank their preferences could remove the voting out of fear and let us actually focus on voting for our hopes and our ideals.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    That's just a recognition of reality, though. The Democrats are so dominant these days the party primary is the election. They thought it might be nice to hold the election on election day.
- raddad 10y ago
  >we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. I've always thought every ballot should have the option of: [ ] None of the above, choose new candidates.
  - bhauer 10y ago
    That is a sentiment I share at times, however, as a score voting advocate, I'd like to point out that the consolidation of candidates we see over the course of a campaign, and possibly the small size of the initial field of candidates as well, are largely caused by our plurality voting model. I call it "forced field consolidation" [1] and feel it's a poisonous effect of plurality voting. It causes rifts between the electorate as voters are repeatedly forced to select one and only one candidate at the expense of all others; creating a highly polarized voter landscape. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting
    - raddad 10y ago
      People also have to wonder how a candidate can receive the most votes and still looses the election. * 1824: John Quincy Adams won over * 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes * 1888: Benjamin Harrison * 2000: George W. Bush All these presidents won without the votes. Hayes was chosen by The House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Added later: The article you presented on approval and score voting is interesting and I like the idea. I have believed for some time that we need to do away with the party system and let each candidate stand or fall on their own merit. I don't really fit into any party as I am an independently conservative liberal libertarian with social and anti social leanings.
- bhauer 10y ago
  > Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly. Agreed. I believe score voting is the best option. It's remarkable easy to understand (just rate each candidate, like you rate movies or whatever), minimizes voter regret, avoids spoilers/splits, and avoids the two-party rule we suffer with our current plurality voting model. I prefer score voting to ranked voting for one simple reason: the voter is free to vote any way he or she chooses. It is not necessary to rank the candidates. If you are equally in favor of two or more candidates you can express that with score voting (give them the same score). Ranked voting requires that you rank candidates. https://electology.org/score-voting https://electology.org/score-voting
  - incongruity 10y ago
    Those are all really good points – I wasn't necessarily focused on IRV – but, rather, the idea that there are many better options than the current single choice system that would allow people to more freely express their preferences without fear that they'd be "throwing their vote away" or "letting someone else win" by voting they way they really wanted to. Thanks for the pointer to score-voting – I think I probably agree with your take on its superiority.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    I like to point people to https://modernballots.com/ https://modernballots.com/ It's great because it has good shiny examples and serves as a practical and superior alternative to sites like Survey Monkey for those common office elections such as "Where should we go for team lunch?".
zeemonkee3 10y ago
It seems bizarre a Californian senator would want to introduce a bill that hurts one of the most important industries in her state. It would be like a West Virginian senator introducing an anti-coal mining bill.
- progressive_dad 10y ago
  Its more like a West Virginia senator on the climate control committee introducing a carbon tax. She's negotiating between a regulatory body and her constituents and coming down firmly on the side of the regulatory body. There will be an eventual compromise, but not before her constituency gets the clear signal they should be upping their campaign contributions.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > There will be an eventual compromise, but not before her constituency gets the clear signal they should be upping their campaign contributions. Considering how long she's been selling her constituents out, the clear signal seems to be that they should be upping their campaign contributions to anyone running against her.
jason46 10y ago
The Feinstein situation is not new, at this point seems a stump should be able to win against her, seems odd for sure..

rhizome 10y ago

I think it's more like Jay Bybee's appointment to the 9th Circuit: it keeps the weirdos out West from getting too out of hand.

incongruity 10y ago

The two party system is decidedly broken. Primaries force us into accepting evil or awful because we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly.

WildUtah 10y ago
California doesn't have party primaries. There's a June election and the top two vote winners go on to November, even if from the same party. That's why California has a chance to prevent a second Feinstein in Kamala Harris. It will be two Democrats in November: drug prosecutor Harris and grassroots liberal Loretta Sanchez.
- jonah 10y ago
  This is new though.
- incongruity 10y ago
  That's a start, but until you can let people stop having to pick between voting their conscience and voting out of fear, the parties and incumbents can still wield a lot of power, IMHO. Having an election that lets people rank their preferences could remove the voting out of fear and let us actually focus on voting for our hopes and our ideals.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That's just a recognition of reality, though. The Democrats are so dominant these days the party primary is the election. They thought it might be nice to hold the election on election day.
raddad 10y ago
>we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. I've always thought every ballot should have the option of: [ ] None of the above, choose new candidates.
- bhauer 10y ago
  That is a sentiment I share at times, however, as a score voting advocate, I'd like to point out that the consolidation of candidates we see over the course of a campaign, and possibly the small size of the initial field of candidates as well, are largely caused by our plurality voting model. I call it "forced field consolidation" [1] and feel it's a poisonous effect of plurality voting. It causes rifts between the electorate as voters are repeatedly forced to select one and only one candidate at the expense of all others; creating a highly polarized voter landscape. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting
  - raddad 10y ago
    People also have to wonder how a candidate can receive the most votes and still looses the election. * 1824: John Quincy Adams won over * 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes * 1888: Benjamin Harrison * 2000: George W. Bush All these presidents won without the votes. Hayes was chosen by The House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Added later: The article you presented on approval and score voting is interesting and I like the idea. I have believed for some time that we need to do away with the party system and let each candidate stand or fall on their own merit. I don't really fit into any party as I am an independently conservative liberal libertarian with social and anti social leanings.
bhauer 10y ago
> Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly. Agreed. I believe score voting is the best option. It's remarkable easy to understand (just rate each candidate, like you rate movies or whatever), minimizes voter regret, avoids spoilers/splits, and avoids the two-party rule we suffer with our current plurality voting model. I prefer score voting to ranked voting for one simple reason: the voter is free to vote any way he or she chooses. It is not necessary to rank the candidates. If you are equally in favor of two or more candidates you can express that with score voting (give them the same score). Ranked voting requires that you rank candidates. https://electology.org/score-voting https://electology.org/score-voting
- incongruity 10y ago
  Those are all really good points – I wasn't necessarily focused on IRV – but, rather, the idea that there are many better options than the current single choice system that would allow people to more freely express their preferences without fear that they'd be "throwing their vote away" or "letting someone else win" by voting they way they really wanted to. Thanks for the pointer to score-voting – I think I probably agree with your take on its superiority.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  I like to point people to https://modernballots.com/ https://modernballots.com/ It's great because it has good shiny examples and serves as a practical and superior alternative to sites like Survey Monkey for those common office elections such as "Where should we go for team lunch?".

zeemonkee3 10y ago

It seems bizarre a Californian senator would want to introduce a bill that hurts one of the most important industries in her state. It would be like a West Virginian senator introducing an anti-coal mining bill.

progressive_dad 10y ago
Its more like a West Virginia senator on the climate control committee introducing a carbon tax. She's negotiating between a regulatory body and her constituents and coming down firmly on the side of the regulatory body. There will be an eventual compromise, but not before her constituency gets the clear signal they should be upping their campaign contributions.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > There will be an eventual compromise, but not before her constituency gets the clear signal they should be upping their campaign contributions. Considering how long she's been selling her constituents out, the clear signal seems to be that they should be upping their campaign contributions to anyone running against her.

jason46 10y ago

The Feinstein situation is not new, at this point seems a stump should be able to win against her, seems odd for sure..