FWIS3

Interestingly, the gun control camp wildly outspent their opponents. I rather expected a headline screaming that the opposite was true.

Yosh wrote:Interestingly, the gun control camp wildly outspent their opponents. I rather expected a headline screaming that the opposite was true.

I think that was because of a couple of things. One is that it is damn hard to unseat a sitting elected official. Especially when they haven't actually broken any laws. Secondly, Colorado is starting to see what a lot of other states are seeing. Urban demographics tend to lean toward the left. And when there 1 million of them and only 200,000 of you it takes a lot more energy to move the needle in the direction you want to go. Money = Energy.

You have seen it in NY and we see it in Washington state where only one or two counties in the state can practically carry a statewide election all by themselves.

The gun lobby also managed to quash all mail in voting, which is how most Coloradans vote. They also managed to get the voting times greatly reduced (Thursday, Friday and Monday 7-5, Saturday 7-5 and Tuesday 7-7 instead of 10 days of voting with polls open 12 hours a day)... In other words... make it as difficult as possible for the other guys to get their people out there.

Not to mention it's an off off year...

Now, people... 2014 is an "off" year election -- you don't like what your Congress Critter is doing and he/she is up for re-election?? VOTE! Quit your damned whining and exercise your Constitutional right and vote!

We're doomed anyway. Democrats can't compete with Republicans in the sleazy politics game. Didn't used to be that way.

geonuc wrote:We're doomed anyway. Democrats can't compete with Republicans in the sleazy politics game. Didn't used to be that way.

That's because the traditional powerbase of the democrats has been gutted. The unions, which were a strong bastion of democrat support, have been decimated. Not sure how or when it happened but someone convinced the average voter that organized labor was worse than the mafia, Charles Manson, and The Borgia's all combined. To some extent they helped by being complacent and losing sight of what they were really supposed to be doing in some cases. Teamster's for example really were in bed with the Mafia.

When you eliminate the middle or working class who supplied a large part of the war chest for the democrats that doesn't leave much affluence to buy votes with.

brite wrote:The gun lobby also managed to quash all mail in voting, which is how most Coloradans vote. They also managed to get the voting times greatly reduced (Thursday, Friday and Monday 7-5, Saturday 7-5 and Tuesday 7-7 instead of 10 days of voting with polls open 12 hours a day)... In other words... make it as difficult as possible for the other guys to get their people out there.

Not to mention it's an off off year...

Now, people... 2014 is an "off" year election -- you don't like what your Congress Critter is doing and he/she is up for re-election?? VOTE! Quit your damned whining and exercise your Constitutional right and vote!

Aren't you talking about North Carolina?

Nope... Colorado... Whoa... and you thought they only worked in the South... your brown shirted, jack booted, neo-con brethren are working over time, babe!

brite wrote:The gun lobby also managed to quash all mail in voting, which is how most Coloradans vote. They also managed to get the voting times greatly reduced (Thursday, Friday and Monday 7-5, Saturday 7-5 and Tuesday 7-7 instead of 10 days of voting with polls open 12 hours a day)... In other words... make it as difficult as possible for the other guys to get their people out there.

Not to mention it's an off off year...

Now, people... 2014 is an "off" year election -- you don't like what your Congress Critter is doing and he/she is up for re-election?? VOTE! Quit your damned whining and exercise your Constitutional right and vote!

Not quite sure I buy that whole analysis...efforts to reduce access to the voting booth affect *everyone* in the game. Not that I approve efforts to reduce access to the voting booth.

But the "pro-gun law" camp faced exactly the same barriers as the "anti-gun law" camp. And frankly, considering that we elect our President in less than a 24-hour time-span, I'm not sure I buy that having only five days to get to the polls (versus an, from my experience, unheard of ten) is/was a huge barrier.

Restrictions on access to the polls, be it shorter time, fewer hours, ID requirements, fewer locations, clearly affect the less well off disproportionately. They might be working two jobs, working jobs that don't allow time off to vote, they might not have a car, etc. And the less well off tend to vote Democratic.

geonuc wrote:Restrictions on access to the polls, be it shorter time, fewer hours, ID requirements, fewer locations, clearly affect the less well off disproportionately. They might be working two jobs, working jobs that don't allow time off to vote, they might not have a car, etc. And the less well off tend to vote Democratic.

I agree. Except the usual caricature of the average gun-owner is a lower class, blue-collar, redneck. So the "pro gun" camp would be the one most at a disadvantage, neh?

Yosh wrote:

geonuc wrote:Restrictions on access to the polls, be it shorter time, fewer hours, ID requirements, fewer locations, clearly affect the less well off disproportionately. They might be working two jobs, working jobs that don't allow time off to vote, they might not have a car, etc. And the less well off tend to vote Democratic.

I agree. Except the usual caricature of the average gun-owner is a lower class, blue-collar, redneck. So the "pro gun" camp would be the one most at a disadvantage, neh?

No... the average voter is disadvantaged, regardless of what side of the issue he comes in on. I heard reports that there was a less than 10% turn out... Because Coloradans are used to voting by mail, having more hours to vote, and it, in general, being easier to vote.

But the real question becomes....

They voted these people in last year.... and because a few people didn't like how they voted on one bill... should that have forced a recall? Is that how we are now going to govern ourselves?

The recalls in Wisconsin were about bigger issues than just one bill... and reached all the way to the governors office (and failed... due, again, to lack of voter turn out)..

So the message that we are giving out here is... sure... run for office.... but vote the way the lobbyists want you to vote, or they will force a recall on you....

brite wrote:

Yosh wrote:

geonuc wrote:Restrictions on access to the polls, be it shorter time, fewer hours, ID requirements, fewer locations, clearly affect the less well off disproportionately. They might be working two jobs, working jobs that don't allow time off to vote, they might not have a car, etc. And the less well off tend to vote Democratic.

I agree. Except the usual caricature of the average gun-owner is a lower class, blue-collar, redneck. So the "pro gun" camp would be the one most at a disadvantage, neh?

No... the average voter is disadvantaged, regardless of what side of the issue he comes in on. I heard reports that there was a less than 10% turn out... Because Coloradans are used to voting by mail, having more hours to vote, and it, in general, being easier to vote.

But the real question becomes....

They voted these people in last year.... and because a few people didn't like how they voted on one bill... should that have forced a recall? Is that how we are now going to govern ourselves?

The recalls in Wisconsin were about bigger issues than just one bill... and reached all the way to the governors office (and failed... due, again, to lack of voter turn out)..

So the message that we are giving out here is... sure... run for office.... but vote the way the lobbyists want you to vote, or they will force a recall on you....

Ignoring the specific issue at the moment (i.e., gun control), but looking further at the dynamic; I'm not sure I understand the substance of your concern. Colorado has a mechanism for recall voting. Per this site, 21 states allow recall elections.

That mechanism appears rigorous enough to prevent its casual use. According the site I've referenced above, in Colorado they had to get signatures equaling 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled. And they had only 60 days to do it. Some portion of the electorate was unhappy with its elected officials, whether or not they elected them only a year earlier isn't really germane. Could have been "buyer's remorse."

Or, it could be a factor of chronic, low turn-out by voters. It becomes easier for smaller numbers of our citizens to shape local governments. That, however, is a self-inflicted wound.

So, they go through the process of garnering those signatures. They trigger a recall election. Their opponents wildly outspent them (as established), yet they still won.

Once again, I politely note that here in NY we get *one day* to vote in an election. They had multiple days to do it. So, speaking purely from my experience and perception, the reduction in the *number* of days to get your vote in just doesn't ring true as a Machiavellian manipulation of poll access. You're going to tell me you couldn't find an hour, in all that time, to get to a polling station to cast a ballot about something you feel is profoundly important? (Not "you," brite...rather a generic "you.")

If you object to the recall process itself, then we can dissect whether or not it is desirable and/or it's properly difficult enough that it cannot be used to casually.

But thus far, it appears to me that everyone played by the current rules.

brite wrote:But the real question becomes....

They voted these people in last year.... and because a few people didn't like how they voted on one bill... should that have forced a recall? Is that how we are now going to govern ourselves?

The recalls in Wisconsin were about bigger issues than just one bill... and reached all the way to the governors office (and failed... due, again, to lack of voter turn out)..

So the message that we are giving out here is... sure... run for office.... but vote the way the lobbyists want you to vote, or they will force a recall on you....

I am betting that the people who voted to recall them didn't vote for them. And once they (the democrat state senators) were voted into office they had an obligation to represent all the people of their district. Not just the urbanites who wanted gun control. In essence it wasn't the lobbyists who are sending the message. It is the people of those two districts who basically are saying "If you aren't going to represent us too then we will throw you out and get someone who will".

Yosh.... In New York State... An employer MUST give an employee time off to vote(up to 4hours), polls are open from 6am -9pm on Election Day... In the 2012 election less than 43% of eligible voters turned out to vote, in New York. When we were kids we used to get the day off from school.

The problem with the recall elections (any of them) is not necessarily the money spent (though that is a factor), but low voter turn out, but manipulation of the local election laws. If you are used to getting the time off to vote, and are told that if you take that time, you will be fired, and the polls are closed before and after work, how are you going to try to vote on the weekend if there is weekend polling? If you are used to mailing in your vote, and they take that option away from you, and leave only the physical polls as an option, how hard are you going to work to vote?

Part of the issue, as I see it, is that we have too many election laws. Why not make Election Day a federal holiday, make the polls open from 6-9on that day and the day before and after. Give everyone who is eligible a national voter id, and when young people register for the armed services, they get their voter id. We "oldsters" can be grandfathered in....

Crap.... I think I just. Found my policy paper for polisci.... LOL

brite wrote:Yosh.... In New York State... An employer MUST give an employee time off to vote(up to 4hours), polls are open from 6am -9pm on Election Day... In the 2012 election less than 43% of eligible voters turned out to vote, in New York. When we were kids we used to get the day off from school.

The problem with the recall elections (any of them) is not necessarily the money spent (though that is a factor), but low voter turn out, but manipulation of the local election laws. If you are used to getting the time off to vote, and are told that if you take that time, you will be fired, and the polls are closed before and after work, how are you going to try to vote on the weekend if there is weekend polling? If you are used to mailing in your vote, and they take that option away from you, and leave only the physical polls as an option, how hard are you going to work to vote?

Part of the issue, as I see it, is that we have too many election laws. Why not make Election Day a federal holiday, make the polls open from 6-9on that day and the day before and after. Give everyone who is eligible a national voter id, and when young people register for the armed services, they get their voter id. We "oldsters" can be grandfathered in....

Crap.... I think I just. Found my policy paper for polisci.... LOL

Better get to writing. I think it's due it two weeks.

It's not due till the end of November.... I have time.... :p