View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Tammy Messina: Election integrity matters

Posted: February 7, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 7, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Elections have consequences. It’s a phrase we often hear. Getting the right people in office to represent us is a critical function of our citizen-led government.

Too often, the citizens forget about the role they play in every step of this process.

From our local political clubs to our state government all the way up to the president of the United States, we each have a part in this process. When we don’t do our part, the process breaks down and the wrong people rise to power.

Most people think all they need to do is simply vote. And, yes, that’s a crucial part of the process, but it isn’t the whole process.

Take the local political clubs, for instance. This is where activists begin their work.

They’re the grass roots. Clubs are roughly modeled after our own government systems with elected officers, checks and balances and constituents (aka members).

With the Santa Clarita City Council races in full swing, the clubs are actively holding forums and endorsing candidates.

I know what you’re thinking — I’ve thought it myself: “What impact can a political club have on an actual election?”

The answer is plenty. Gaining a club’s endorsement opens up a world of new donor possibilities — especially in elections where there are contribution limits — through political action committees. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that money wins elections.

And here’s where integrity in the voting process comes into play. As with our local, state, and federal elections, all aspects of the voting process must be transparent. Otherwise, it is subject to abuse and misuse.

When all aspects are transparent and open to the public, the outcome cannot be questioned. It’s our job as voters to ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained.

Check your club processes, especially as they relate to voting and endorsements. Hold your elected officers accountable to be fully transparent in every process.

Remember, those who are elected work for us, the voters. We hire them. We can also fire them, with our vote!

At the local, state and federal levels, what can you do? I hear people say all the time that their one little vote can’t make a difference. They’re wrong. So many races have been won, or lost, by one vote per precinct.

That’s less than one vote per neighborhood! If you had just taken your neighbor to the poll with you, you might have changed the outcome of an election.

And it really is just that simple. It’s also the reason it’s so important that we maintain integrity in the voting processes.

Keeping our elections fair and honest should be a concern for every citizen. Election outcomes affect our lives and our children’s futures. So what can you, Joe Citizen, do to help?

To start, get involved with local clubs and local campaigns to help get honest people elected.

When Barack Obama ran for president, it wasn’t his first campaign. He started locally and worked his way up.

Get to know the candidates. Weed out the undesirables, and work hard for good candidates.

Next, get involved in the voting process. Did you know that — while we cast secret ballots — the ballots are really not that secret? In all of our governmental elections, the entire ballot process is open to the public.

Constituents and candidates alike are able to closely monitor and observe the handling of ballots and voter rolls, from the time the ballot is cast at a polling location until the final count is performed by the governing agency.

Not only are we “allowed” to do it, it’s actually our “job” to do it. Be a poll worker, observer or volunteer with a grassroots group like www.electionintegrityproject.com.

Over the years, we’ve lost sight of that civic responsibility. We’re all busy with life in general. But it’s time we wake up, especially here in California.

Our voter rolls are a mess. Computer systems are outdated and databases are less than accurate. It will take a citizen uprising to clean them up.

And until that happens, our elections will continue to be subject to fraud and abuse.

One way we can improve election integrity under the current systems is by requiring photo identification at the polls and when registering to vote.

It’s a simple measure to ensure one vote per person, and there’s a ballot initiative under way now. Get involved collecting signatures.

And, yes, it will make a difference.

This isn’t a party issue, it’s a people issue. It matters to anyone who votes.

For more information, go to www.GuardMyVote.org.

Tammy Messina is a resident of Santa Clarita, a local business owner and a producer for “The Real Side Radio Show.” She can be reached at tmessina@wildcat.la.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: February 7, 2014 6:37 a.m.

Everybody votes on paper. All votes counted by hand, on TV.

There is no such thing as impersonation voter fraud. It is a crime with no payoff, no motivation to commit. When we vote we sign our line in the book. Once the book is signed, no one else can vote my votes.

I still believe in Good Faith. You have to be pretty paranoid to worry about armies of ghost voters tipping elections. Voter ID is all about inconveniencing certain economic classes to discourage them from voting. Get real.


chico: Posted: February 7, 2014 7:21 a.m.

There is a big payoff for cheating - especially when politicians dole out freebies.

But think about it, the effort it takes to get a Voter ID could lead to someone getting all sorts or other credentials that have purpose in their life!

An ID could be a step in the journey of one's life - but some people think it's preferable you stand still, and don't exhale CO2.


chico: Posted: February 7, 2014 8:46 a.m.

Then it's the boxes of uncounted ballots that appear, on TV.


philellis: Posted: February 7, 2014 8:51 a.m.

Chico, exhaling is OK, the problem is the inhaling. Can you imagine how problem free we would be if we could put a stop to that?


technologist: Posted: February 7, 2014 10:49 a.m.

"Voter ID is all about inconveniencing certain economic classes to discourage them from voting. Get real."

Asserted ad nauseum but never validated. That's reality.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States.

Background[edit]

A 2005 Indiana law required all voters casting a ballot in person to present a United States or Indiana photo ID. Under the Indiana law, voters who do not have a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they cannot afford one.[1]

At trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements. The defendants were likewise unable to present any evidence that the corruption purportedly motivating the law existed.

The District Court and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals both upheld the law. The circuit court was deeply divided, with the dissent characterizing the law as a thinly-veiled attempt to disenfranchise low-income Democratic Party voters.

Summary

In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

(cont.)


technologist: Posted: February 7, 2014 10:50 a.m.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation:

"It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board


therightstuff: Posted: February 7, 2014 11:30 a.m.

I think Tammy presumes too much with her title about integrity. So for our Obama loyalists and Democrat voter friends, allow me:

in·teg·ri·ty
inˈtegritē/
noun
noun: integrity

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.


ricketzz: Posted: February 8, 2014 6:59 a.m.

The United States Supreme Court is a corrupt criminal enterprise. They frequently exceed the scope of matters before them and make sweeping rulings that overturn years of statute and precedent, purely for ideological reasons. They are in a word, Fascists.

That being said, and your irrelevant cite aside, Voter ID laws inconvenience poor people greatly and are part of a nationwide effort by ALEC and others to disenfranchise poor people. The effect is that of denying mostly suburban and rural poor people the right to vote by requiring them to spend days gathering "proper documentation".

Show us one instance of impersonation voting. It is a non-issue. The machines that count votes are way more troublesome.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 9:14 a.m.

The Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) is an "irrelevant cite"? What curious standards of relevance you have, ricketzz. It's fortunate you don't intend to practice law.

You're making the disenfranchisement assertion. The burden of proof is on you, not I.

If you have an actual interest in voter fraud instances and convictions, you're capable to looking them up yourself.


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 8, 2014 11:24 a.m.

"I still believe in Good Faith. You have to be pretty paranoid to worry about armies of ghost voters tipping elections."

This, coming from a guy who thinks that Supreme Court justices are "corrupt" "fascists," doesn't trust "anyone in a suit," claims that "plutocrats own the government," that it's okay for our president to knowingly lie to get the biggest piece of legislation in generations passed because "all politicians lie," thinks that millionaires are evil and have mental disorder, and countless other conspiracy theories that he's shared with us over the past few years.

He has zero trust in our system and the individuals running them. He thinks that those in power use their authority to gain even more, yet appears oblivious as to what could be gained through voter fraud.

It makes no sense whatsoever.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 12:31 p.m.

One additional point to your cogent summation, JC; ricketzz no doubt is an active voter and advocates direct democracy, i.e. mob rule, tyranny of the majority, etc. He appears to view violent revolution with admiration, expropriation of private property without due process and anarchy in general.

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 1:24 p.m.

In case anyone missed this gem:

"Please explain your trail of conclusions, how you first heard about this grand conspiracy." - ricketzz


Indy: Posted: February 8, 2014 1:32 p.m.

I’m not sure voter suppression is the answer to voting.

The voter fraud issue being championed by the RNC I guess as a follow up to their effect gerrymandering of the House is really no issue at all.

From here: http://voterfraudfacts.com/
“Between 200 and 2010 there were 649 million votes cast in general elections and 13 cases of in-person voter impersonation.”

From the conservative perspective: http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
The site has a very impressive list of facts and figures that for the most part have more to do with keeping voter rolls accurate as people move and die and little to do with those things causing voter fraud.

In any event, republicans have done well with their gerrymandingering to the point that they received about .5 million votes less than democrats yet still hold a slim majority in the House:

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/

“Or they would if they'd actually won more votes. But they didn't. House Republicans did the equivalent of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post's Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That's a close election -- 48.8%-48.5% --but it's still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn't likely to flip.”

Anyway, working the public over on voting with great sounding slogan based statistics sound great but fail on their merits.

Likewise, trying to stop people from legally voting to corrupt elections is really what the focus should be about.


Indy: Posted: February 8, 2014 1:38 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Posted: February 7, 2014 11:30 a.m.
I think Tammy presumes too much with her title about integrity. So for our Obama loyalists and Democrat voter friends, allow me:

in•teg•ri•ty
inˈtegritē/
noun
noun: integrity

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

Indy: From what I can see, Tammy is doing a great got recital a RNC position but fails to really understand her role in voter suppression.

I don’t think there’s anything honorable about that at all . . .

She does address a problem about the voter rolls but if those computer systems need updating, does anyone believe that if you had a photo ID it would match anything on those computers?

And that’s the problem with this approach in that many folks have been voting for decades, are known by their precinct volunteers, and anyone trying to commit voter fraud would have to have access to those rolls.

Let’s see if before we stop people from voting, let’s address the rolls issues.

One of the problems, however, as republicans have shrunk government to fit their tax ideology goals, the funding for addressing this issue may not be present.

Perhaps Assemblyman Scott Wilk and State Senator Stephen T. Knight can get to work on this issue of updating our voter rolls for dead or people that have moved before blowing this issue out of proportion.

The only question for me, is what are they waiting for?


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 1:56 p.m.

Indy: "From what I can see, Tammy is doing a great got recital a RNC position but fails to really understand her role in voter suppression."

Your assertion begs the question. You must provide a valid instance of voter suppression with a credible cite.

Transparent processes to ensure accurate voter registration rolls and validation of legal qualifications to vote, i.e. citizenship, age and residency aren't partisan issues. They're a correct concern of every citizen.

No process is perfect and diligence is not discrimination or suppression.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 2:10 p.m.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote. Only 25% oppose such a requirement."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2013/59_believe_voter_id_laws_do_not_discriminate


Indy: Posted: February 8, 2014 4:06 p.m.

technologist wrote: Indy: "From what I can see, Tammy is doing a great got recital a RNC position but fails to really understand her role in voter suppression."

Your assertion begs the question. You must provide a valid instance of voter suppression with a credible cite.

Indy: This is where your naiveté really shines through . . .

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376
Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?

“Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.”

Thus, placing restrictions on voters many of whom vote democratic, is clearly a partisan ploy just like the gerrymandering done in House districts where republicans can’t win the majority of votes yet still have a majority of House seats?

technologist wrote: Transparent processes to ensure accurate voter registration rolls and validation of legal qualifications to vote, i.e. citizenship, age and residency aren't partisan issues. They're a correct concern of every citizen.

Indy: Your statement sounds great but it’s basically a poor attempt to justify voter suppression on a issue that has no merit.

Sadly, this is the classic ‘double speak’ brought forth by the author of 1984.

We know today that low info voters are the primary target of the focus group tested slogans developed by the RNC.

But most Americans are aware that ‘ignorance is strength’ is false . . . and trying to influence people with nonsense versus educating them for intelligence is pathetic.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 4:36 p.m.

"Sadly", but as expected, you didn't respond to this:

"Your assertion begs the question. You must provide a valid instance of voter suppression with a credible cite." - technologist

Repetition and projecting does nothing to support your position. Assertions are not facts. Where's the credible proof of suppression, Indy?

"Thus, placing restrictions on voters many of whom vote democratic, is clearly a partisan ploy…" - Indy

Again, you beg the question.

"…just like the gerrymandering done in House districts…" - Indy

Are you asserting that gerrymandering is engaged in solely by Republicans? I don't condone the practice but it has been part of the political spoils systems for quite some time and is engaged in by both parties equally when in a position to do so. That's why a number of states have turned this function over to commissions and panels of judges. And you assert I'm naïve?

Prove your assertion or quit. Bloviating about me is irrelevant. --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: February 8, 2014 5:16 p.m.

"""And you assert I'm naïve? Prove your assertion or quit."""

You're only naive tech if you think Indy will prove his assertion.


Indy: Posted: February 8, 2014 5:54 p.m.

technologist wrote: "Sadly", but as expected, you didn't respond to this:

"Your assertion begs the question. You must provide a valid instance of voter suppression with a credible cite." – technologist


Repetition and projecting does nothing to support your position. Assertions are not facts. Where's the credible proof of suppression, Indy?

Indy: Well, let’s try the legal end:

Judge strikes down Pennsylvania voter ID law, calls it burdensome
By Allie Malloy, CNN
updated 12:15 PM EST, Fri January 17, 2014

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania judge Friday struck down a law requiring voters in the state to show photo identification at the polls, saying the requirement imposed "unreasonable burden" on voters and represented "a legislative disconnect from reality."

State Judge Bernard McGinley's ruling comes nearly two years after civil and voters' rights groups challenged the law, which Gov. Tom Corbett signed in March 2012, that never went into effect because of the court case.

"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," McGinley said in his ruling.”

Indy: The RNC approach is to gain advantage before the consequences are apparent.

This judge understood that and ruled accordingly.

technologist wrote: Again, you beg the question.
"…just like the gerrymandering done in House districts…" - Indy

Are you asserting that gerrymandering is engaged in solely by Republicans? I don't condone the practice but it has been part of the political spoils systems for quite some time and is engaged in by both parties equally when in a position to do so. That's why a number of states have turned this function over to commissions and panels of judges. And you assert I'm naïveIndy: I agree that that gerrymandering is wrong and should not be tolerated

Indy: Does this, however, permit the RNC to more aggressive in republican controlled states? Shouldn’t our politics be directed for constructive change relative this political nonsense?

In any event, the judge noted above and my comments indicate that those that need to see the ‘disaster’ before making a judgment are in my view naïve.

technologist wrote:? Prove your assertion or quit. Bloviating about me is irrelevant.

Indy: LOL


Indy: Posted: February 8, 2014 5:58 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: """And you assert I'm naïve? Prove your assertion or quit."""

You're only naive tech if you think Indy will prove his assertion.

Indy: Again, it’s always interesting to watch somebody here . . . you . . . make statements like this when you’ve quoted out of context statistics ad infinitum to support conservative ideology positions.

And of course, you’ll never accept the debate as a debate when you can simply makes such statements as this.

But the naiveté in the voter suppression situation is that conservatives want to see the disaster where people lose their constitutional right to vote while still gaining the election.

That again, is the wish that you want people like me to naive . . . sorry to disappoint.

And thankfully, a judge saw through the nonsense.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 6:16 p.m.

What of the SCOTUS decision and opinion, Indy? Additionally, you failed to mention the state will appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Again, where's the evidence of voter suppression?

Meanwhile in Texas:

Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes.

According to court documents, the typical payment to a voter was $10, a sign of the extreme poverty in the Rio Grande Valley, which is home to some of the poorest counties in America. Two of the three women — Rebecca Gonzalez and Guadalupe Escamilla — are accused of paying some voters as little as $3 for each of their votes. One voter was given a pack of cigarettes. Others were taken to buy drugs after they received cash for voting for a politiquera’s candidate.

Ms. Gonzalez, Ms. Escamilla and the third woman, Diana Castaneda, said the candidates and their campaign managers would give them the cash and instruct them to use it to pay voters in the 2012 primary and general elections, the F.B.I. said in court documents. The three women worked for several candidates running for seats on the board of the Donna Independent School District, though court documents do not identify any candidates or campaign managers.

No candidates have been arrested, although the investigation continues in an area that, unlike most of Texas, is overwhelmingly Democratic. Days after the three women were arrested in December, one of the four Donna school board members who won re-election in 2012 — Alfredo Lugo, the board’s president and a former administrator at a nearby school district — committed suicide at his home. Officials have declined to talk about the motive, and a spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said she could not comment on whether Mr. Lugo had been a focus of the investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/politics/texas-vote-buying-case-casts-glare-on-tradition-of-election-day-goads.html


stevehw: Posted: February 8, 2014 8:36 p.m.

"Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes."

And how, exactly, would a voter ID have prevented this? In other words, these actions, albeit illegal, are completely irrelevant to the issue of requiring voter IDs.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 9:32 p.m.

However, they are entirely relevant to the issue of voter fraud, the topic at hand that Indy has asserted is a nonissue.

Specific to voter ID, see examples further in the thread. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 9:39 p.m.

In addition, and relevant to suppression, there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxcMKtsm5BU


ricketzz: Posted: February 9, 2014 6:11 a.m.

There is no evidence of any impersonation fraud. The paperless voting systems, which are easily hacked and cannot be recounted, are the real threat to electoral democracy.

Techno characterizes me as potentially violent. Good. We have Liberty.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 8:39 a.m.

My recollection is I compared you to a lost puppy on the threat scale, ricketzz. But perhaps The Who lyrics would be more apt.

I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight
If you can get up and walk away"

I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair

Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)

I took the tube back out of town
Back to the Rollin' Pin
I felt a little like a dying clown
With a streak of Rin Tin Tin

I stretched back and I hiccupped
And looked back on my busy day
Eleven hours in the Tin Pan
God, there's got to be another way


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 8:48 a.m.

"There is no evidence of any impersonation fraud." - ricketzz

A Mexican who was deported decades ago for drug trafficking pleaded guilty this week to living illegally in Escondido under a false identity and fraudulently voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, federal authorities said Friday.

Ricardo Lopez-Munguia, 45, pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted entry to the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and voter fraud by an illegal alien, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Sep/07/escondido-mexican-man-admits-to-voter-fraud/

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN KROGER AND SECRETARY OF STATE KATE BROWN ANNOUNCE GUILTY PLEA IN VOTER FRAUD CASE

Attorney General Kroger Press Release, September 15, 2010

Lafayette Frederick Keaton pleaded guilty to two counts of making a false statement in violation of state elections law
Attorney General John Kroger and Secretary of State Kate Brown today announced the successful prosecution of a Portland man accused of repeatedly casting ballots in the name of his dead son.

“Violating elections law will not be tolerated,” said Attorney General Kroger.

http://oregoncatalyst.com/3510-Oregon-AG-gets-guilty-plea-voter-fraud-case.html


stevehw: Posted: February 9, 2014 9:56 a.m.

"However, they are entirely relevant to the issue of voter fraud, the topic at hand that Indy has asserted is a nonissue."

How? There's no indication that the voters were not citizens, entitled to vote however they wish. That someone was bribing them with booze or whatever (certainly not new in the history of *this* country) has absolutely ZERO to do with voter fraud and voter ID laws.

As for the two cases of actual voter fraud you cite...all I can say is...wow. Two whole cases. I'm underwhelmed.

And it certainly fits in with the statistics that shows that actual voter fraud is so low as to be a complete non-problem.

Look, unless you've been living under a rock for the last 6 years, it's patently obvious what's going on with the Republican push for voter ID laws and other barely-disguised voter suppression tactics. There's no mystery here.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 10:39 a.m.

Since you're inclined to be tendentious, Steve, I'll digress to explain my thought process more fully. I know you're capable of deeper analysis based on your posting history and thus consider it worth the additional effort.

I concur that the data on voter fraud, in whatever form, is statistically very small. The 2 examples I provided to rebut the absolute assertion that "There is no evidence of any impersonation fraud." were representative and not intended to document evey incident recorded. In this forum, that's a rational approach, is it not? In the first example I provided, I doubt you're asserting that buying votes isn't a from of fraud.

No doubt you're familiar with the Broken Windows Community Policing Theory and how it was credited with reduction of the crime rate in NYC. The gist is that enforcement of the law, even for minor infractions, reduces more serious crimes that are more likely to occur in an environment of permissiveness that lax enforcement presents.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/

In the academic environment, proctoring, rotation of tests, etc. are undertaken even though the incidence of widespread, systemic cheating likely doesn't justify the expense.

Similarly, the lax requirements of voter registration, maintaining registered voter databases poorly and the ready ability to misrepresent your valid residence and citizenship status are permissive. States have a legitimate interest in ensuring that elections are free, fair and transparent.

"…it's patently obvious what's going on with the Republican push for voter ID laws and other barely-disguised voter suppression tactics. There's no mystery here."

Others, and now you, continually make this assertion without supporting evidence. Stating that it's "patently obvious" does not suffice. The SCOTUS has ruled on a case it has reviewed that an ID requirement doesn't present a significant burden.

In light of the ubiquitous use of ID by all segments of society in a wide variety of governmental interactions, the argument isn't compelling.

If you can present one, make it. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 1:54 p.m.

Here's a link to a model agreement in the State of Ohio pertaining to improvement in maintenance of voter registration rolls:

OH Final Agreement- Signed by JC/Ohio

http://www.scribd.com/doc/198544915/OH-Final-Agreement-Signed-by-JC-Ohio

Original filing quote:


10. Based on an examination of the data in the 2010 U.S. Census and the EACReport, the number of individuals listed on voter registration rolls in the following three counties in the State of Ohio exceeds 100% of the total voting age population in these counties: Auglaize, Wood, and Morrow. (And in both Auglaize and Wood, the voter registration rolls exceed 105% of total voting age population.) This data demonstrating the discrepancy in voter registration rolls to total voting age population in each of these counties constitutes prima facie evidence that the State of Ohio has failed to comply with its voter list maintenance obligations under Section 8 of the NVRA.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104449069/Complaint-Ohio-NVRA


Indy: Posted: February 9, 2014 2:23 p.m.

technologist wrote: What of the SCOTUS decision and opinion, Indy? Additionally, you failed to mention the state will appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Indy: So we’ll get republicans again promoting voter suppression and ignoring the points the judge put forth?


technologist wrote: According to court documents, the typical payment to a voter was $10, a sign of the extreme poverty in the Rio Grande Valley, which is home to some of the poorest counties in America.

Indy: Yeah, the poverty issue for republicans is just calling them ‘lazy’! Priceless.

Perhaps you can get another ‘black’ economist to support lowering or eliminating the minimum wage since the economist is an minority and lacks the fundamental economic awareness that a oversupply of labor with limited resources drives wages down EEBE.

Anyway from above:
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376
Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?

“Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.”

So indeed you’re willing to obstruct regular Americans from voting for 3 more folks ‘paid’ to deceive? That’s the type of twisted logic that supports the RNC voter suppression movement.

Anybody with brains realizes the shame being put forth here . . .


Indy: Posted: February 9, 2014 2:28 p.m.

stevehw wrote: And it certainly fits in with the statistics that shows that actual voter fraud is so low as to be a complete non-problem. Look, unless you've been living under a rock for the last 6 years, it's patently obvious what's going on with the Republican push for voter ID laws and other barely-disguised voter suppression tactics. There's no mystery here.

Indy: From what I can gather about libertarian conservatives, their worldview is developed very closely in tight quarters of ‘like mind’ thinkers.

In other words, even though voter fraud is almost non-existent; they continue to assert that actions that would harm many more regular voters is the Ok!

Thus, the ‘intent’ to suppress voters of various voting sectors that don’t vote republican.

It’s so blatantly obvious that it’s shocking this guy can’t see it . . . but again, his worldview is so shrouded that he can’t see the reality the rest of us do.

And that’s the mark of a true ideologist . . . willing to put his ideology over the public’s interest.


technologist: Posted: February 9, 2014 2:53 p.m.

*Yawn* Still no evidence of obstruction or suppression, only assertions. Time to move on from the faith based ideology.


chico: Posted: February 9, 2014 8:18 p.m.

It may not be voter fraud, but what the IRS did to the Tea Party is disenfranchisement.


stevehw: Posted: February 10, 2014 10:03 p.m.

How?

A) The "tea party" is not an actual political party
B) Just as neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party casts a vote (people vote, not parties), neither did any "tea party" organization cast a vote (or was denied the ability to cast a vote
C) Liberal and progressive organizations were subjected to scrutiny, as well
D) The *only* group denied tax-exempt status was a liberal group
E) IRS approval as a 501(c)(4) is not required.

Any citizen who was a member of *any* of the organizations which were scrutinized could still vote; I've not heard of anyone who asserted that members of these organizations, liberal or conservative, were "disenfranchised" (btw, the proper word is "disfranchised").

Next we'll here about Benghazi being some sort of anti-conservative-voter tactic. LOL!


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 10:05 p.m.

Indeed, chico. It was tantamount to suppression of free speech and unequal treatment.

That's what Chicago style gangster government does.


stevehw: Posted: February 10, 2014 10:05 p.m.

And ricketzz is correct...the lack of accountability in paperless/computerized voting systems is much more of a concern than any (tiny) number of people committing true "voter fraud".


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 11:19 p.m.

All the more reason to implement robust systems and processes rather than waste energy on spurious charges of racism and voter suppression.


CaptGene: Posted: February 10, 2014 7:59 a.m.

If people weren't required to provide ID to write a check, the incidence of check forgery would seem nonexistent as well. --edited.


Indy: Posted: February 10, 2014 1:15 p.m.

technologist wrote: *Yawn* Still no evidence of obstruction or suppression, only assertions. Time to move on from the faith based ideology.

Indy: The poster displays another popular religious conservative strategy but simply stating that the arguments for voter suppression will be ignored.

And why shouldn’t this surprise anyone about an ideologist since by definition, they ignore anything that doesn’t fit their ideology.

But let’s again visit what the judge said:

“(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania judge Friday struck down a law requiring voters in the state to show photo identification at the polls, saying the requirement imposed "unreasonable burden" on voters and represented "a legislative disconnect from reality."

State Judge Bernard McGinley's ruling comes nearly two years after civil and voters' rights groups challenged the law, which Gov. Tom Corbett signed in March 2012, that never went into effect because of the court case.

"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," McGinley said in his ruling.”

It’s a good strategy to distance yourself from the harm of voter suppression by stating what seems obvious about a ‘photo ID’ provided there was actually any voter fraud of any magnitude going on. There is not.

So disguising voter suppression using a false premise of a problem is no doubt geared toward the ‘low info’ voters that simply vote party line whether the party is helping them or not.

The bigger issue here, however, is that photo ID is just the ‘first step’.

The next step is ‘what photo ID’ followed by pruning the IDs down to where they do fit the conservative demographic being put forth here to skew elections.

I’m not sure if this poster understands the ‘end game’ here . . . but let’s be clear; using focus group testing slogans like ‘photo ID’ are there to hide the underlying motive of voter suppression using the multi-step process indicated.

That’s why I’ve offered this poster to help him as I’m doing here to understand what the ‘words’ mean strung together and how people using words to deceive as we’re seeing in this voter suppression strategy.


Indy: Posted: February 10, 2014 1:17 p.m.

technologist wrote: All the more reason to implement robust systems and processes rather than waste energy on spurious charges of racism and voter suppression.

Indy: LOL


Indy: Posted: February 10, 2014 1:24 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: If people weren't required to provide ID to write a check, the incidence of check forgery would seem nonexistent as well. --edited.

Indy: As we see here, a ‘quick quip’ parroter here tries to support the main thesis of voter suppression but sadly fails miserably since I doubt if the majority of people today use checks over credit cards.

Further, the checks today can be run through a small scanner that approves them immediately.

In any event, don’t be fooled by parroters that try to show a ‘majority’ of consensus when in reality as the facts actually show, there is no voter fraud problem in America.

The voter suppression effort by conservatives is to limit voters . . . especially older, college students, and minorities that more often vote for democrat candidates.

I think the most telling thing here is that conservatives can win election anymore on their failed ideology.

They must find ways to ‘trick’ people to voting for them . . . and what does that say about them? Not very much.

Anyway, there’s a reason why the republican voter registration is now the lowest it’s been ever . . . less than 30% here in CA as residents have realized that republicans are no longer engaged in trying to find solutions to our modern problems.

The RNC now just uses gerrymandering to ‘secure’ safe seats if you will where their conservative brethren just eat up focus group tested slogans and vote for republicans that no longer work for them as we see today as wealth concentrates, jobs are off shored, and removing safety net programs designed to cushion the shortcomings of capitalism are seen as ‘job 1’ by the GOP!


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 2:00 p.m.

"But let’s again visit what the judge said:…"

Yes, let's do.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

As I wrote earlier, the State of Pennsylvania is appealing the ruling of the state judge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who has not ruled on the matter. Cases of import are frequently appealed to higher courts including the Federal appellate level and SCOTUS.

Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled on a similar case that voter ID laws aren't unconstitutional, do you really think a state judge's initial ruling will stand? Probability doesn't favor it and many states already have voter ID laws in place. 2012 election statistics show that minority voter turnout was higher, not lower.

Facts trump assertions every time. Indy, I'm not going to respond to you further on this topic unless you actually introduce something novel to the thread. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: February 10, 2014 6:44 p.m.

Indy Nile: "...I doubt if the majority of people today use checks over credit cards"

Which has nothing to do with the point I made.

More Indy Nile: "Further, the checks today can be run through a small scanner that approves them immediately"

Really? No need for ID? Amazing. Why not prove it. Try this experiment; fill out one of your personal checks for $20, make it out to "cash", then take it to your bank and ask them to cash it. When the teller asks you to swipe your debit card and put in your PIN or a photo ID, tell them you're too busy to provide that and insist that they just run it through their "small scanner".

Bonus points if you try it with your neighbor's check.


stevehw: Posted: February 10, 2014 8:50 p.m.

Please point out where in the Constitution it says that citizens have the right to use checks or put their money in a bank.

I'm pretty sure, IIRC, that it *does* have a few things to say about this thing called a right to vote.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 11, 2014 5:01 a.m.

Steve, the Constitution also says something about the right to bear arms. Good luck exercising that right without a valid ID.


ricketzz: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:14 a.m.

Technologist plays a drunken rant by an uneven rock band to express his deepest feelings, like a frustrated all night DJ. Dig deep, sir. Get it all out.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:07 a.m.

"I remember throwin' punches around
And preaching' from my chair"

Get off the chair, ricketzz. You might hurt yourself.

Speaking of digging…

"You can't govern 300,000,000 people without Totalitarian means, period." - ricketzz

Every day and in every way, you tell us more about you, ricketzz.


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:25 p.m.

"Constitution also says something about the right to bear arms. Good luck exercising that right without a valid ID."

You don't need any sort of id to have a gun in your home or place of business, even here in California. You need some sort of ID to purchase one, but after that...nada.


Indy: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:29 p.m.

technologist wrote: Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled on a similar case that voter ID laws aren't unconstitutional, do you really think a state judge's initial ruling will stand? Probability doesn't favor it and many states already have voter ID laws in place. 2012 election statistics show that minority voter turnout was higher, not lower.

Indy: Again:

” “(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania judge Friday struck down a law requiring voters in the state to show photo identification at the polls, saying the requirement imposed "unreasonable burden" on voters and represented "a legislative disconnect from reality."

Now let’s look to Texas:
Texas voter-ID law is blocked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/2012/08/30/4a07e270-f2ad-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html
By Sari Horwitz, Published: August 30, 2012E-mail the writer

“A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters.

Describing the law as the most stringent in the country, the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel marks the first time that a federal court has blocked a voter-ID law. It will reverberate politically through the November elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether tough voter-ID laws in a number of states discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.”

Indy: You see in this case, all judges agreed about the undue burden.

Yet, you’re here trying to sell us another version, the RNC kind, that essentially does as I noted previously:

“It’s a good strategy to distance yourself from the harm of voter suppression by stating what seems obvious about a ‘photo ID’ provided there was actually any voter fraud of any magnitude going on. There is not.”

Trying to put forth road blocks to voting must be seen as the un-American activity that it is.

Finally, the fact that many minority voters were willing to wait hours in lines in states run by republicans that reduced ‘early voting’ and the number of polling places is irrefutable evidence of ‘voter suppression’.

Sad that you can’t see that through your libertarian eyes . . .


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 2:27 p.m.

steve, you miss the point. The anti-ID folks insist that there is essentially no voter fraud because there are so few cases being prosecuted. How on earth are they finding any cases at all if the poll workers aren't asking for ID? If stores and banks didn't ask for ID, there would be no way to prove check fraud, and those cases would drop to near zero as well.

As far as The Constitution and voting, yeah, it's quite clear:

Article XV
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...

"Citizens" of the US, not just people that happen to be here. Anyone that is not a citizen that votes in a federal election is in violation of Constitutional Law. How do you suggest we insure that it is just citizens that vote steve, or do you not care that those people would be trampling The constitution?

If it is disenfranchising the poor to require them to produce ID to vote, why is it not disenfranchising the poor to require them to produce ID when they apply for welfare?


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:24 p.m.

"If it is disenfranchising the poor to require them to produce ID to vote, why is it not disenfranchising the poor to require them to produce ID when they apply for welfare?"

Well, first off, the *franchise* is the right to vote. Disfranchisement is the denial or deprivation of that right. Not disenfranchisement, by the way...that's like saying "irregardless". But I digress.

Mostly, because there's no Constitutional right to receive services like "welfare" (a blanket term, but we'll let it go). You can't be disfranchised from a right you don't have.

Look, I'm really neither here not there about showing an ID to prove who you are, but it's clear from the implementation of these laws that the targets of the Republican legislatures that are passing them are, de facto, the groups which tend to vote more Democratic. And in many states, it *is* burdensome to acquire the required forms of ID (such as traveling significant distances to state offices during working hours, which for many people necessitates a loss in pay, etc.).

Honestly, it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that these laws are there to "prevent voter fraud". We weren't born yesterday...we know what the Republicans/right-wing are doing, and so does everyone else.

I'd have more respect for right-wing partisans if they just admitted it, instead of continually thinking they're the smartest people in the room and *nobody* else can figure out what's going on.


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:33 p.m.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/voter-id-laws-racism


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:36 p.m.

And BTW, a little research turns up the fact that ID is not required for welfare...there are other ways the caseworker can verify the information needed for the applicant to receive benefits.

Any other red herrings up your sleeve?


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:43 p.m.

dis·en·fran·chise transitive verb \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
: to prevent (a person or group of people) from having the right to vote
"the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disfranchise

Here's the link for "disfranchise", it directs you to "disenfranchise":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disfranchise

Not too long ago, someone warned me about the perils of correcting people on the web. It was great advice, I thanked them for it!


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:45 p.m.

My research says otherwise. I'll dig mine up again and post it, I'm surprised you didn't post yours.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:47 p.m.

The Constitution says that right is reserved for citizens, in order to stick to The Constitution one should have to prove citizenship, being here does not do that. Why would be OK with non citizens voting?

Oh, and Mother Jones? Please.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:50 p.m.

From CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES:

Proof Needed to Get Benefits
• Identification (Driver’s License, State ID card,
passport).

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/forms/English/CF285.pdf


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:56 p.m.

Call me old-fashioned. I was taught years ago by rather strict English teachers that it was disfranchisement, and hearing "disenfranchisement" still strikes me as awkward-sounding...like "irregardless". I'd have to dig out my ancient copy of the Chicago Manual of Style to see what it says, but you're right...disenfranchisement has become so commonplace now that it's accepted (even if wrong to my aging ears). :)


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:57 p.m.

"I'd have more respect for right-wing partisans if they just admitted it, instead of continually thinking they're the smartest people in the room and *nobody* else can figure out what's going on."

Steve, I'd have more respect for the positions of anti-ID folks if they'd stop imputing motives because they just "know" it's racism and can't provide a verified instance of where voter suppression has occurred. It's an ideological position rather than a rational one.

I support voter IDs laws for the reasons I've previously expounded on. Am I racist? If that's your assertion, prove it.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:58 p.m.

"but you're right...disenfranchisement has become so commonplace now that it's accepted"

It's been around since 1633. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:06 p.m.

I prefer the definition of the Oxford Dictionary that includes archaic usage.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/disenfranchise

To my mind, it's akin to the usage of respect and disrespect.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:13 p.m.

Oxford also sends you to "disenfranchise" when you look up "disfranchise".


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:24 p.m.

Concur, CG. Alternate spellings with the same meaning. There's also this:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enfranchise

Quibbling over semantics, usage and spelling is so…useful.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:24 p.m.

For the record, I am with you all the way on "irregardless"...nails on a chalkboard. The other one is "heighth".

Makes me nuts. From MW on "irregardless":

"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:24 p.m.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/ord/entres/getinfo/pdf/EASMLGP_1301.pdf

See 42-433.2.21, and notice that there is an "escape" clause where documentation is unavailable, at the end of that section.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:32 p.m.

"Honestly, it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that these laws are there to "prevent voter fraud". We weren't born yesterday...we know what the Republicans/right-wing are doing, and so does everyone else"

It's equally disingenuous to act like you're worried about "disenfranchising" voters when it's your party that benefits from anyone being able to vote. We know why the dems/libs are against ID laws, and so does everyone else.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:32 p.m.

Did *I* say all these new voter ID laws were racist? Nope. I said they are being enacted to suppress the votes of groups who are more likely to vote for the opposition. That they have the *effect* of suppressing votes of minority groups is a side-effect.

As an example of a voter suppression tactic which does not target minorities, but simply tries to reduce Democratic votes, are laws which do not allow college students to vote in the district where they attend school, but rather require them to travel back to the district in which their parents live, thus creating a burden on them which few could or would attempt to overcome. Voila! Fewer students (i.e., predominantly liberal/Democratic) voters casting ballots.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:34 p.m.

That doesn't eliminate the Constitutional stipulation that "citizens" have the right to vote. Tell me how you can assure that it's only citizens that are voting. Telling me there are no cases of voter fraud doesn't cut it.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:34 p.m.

I find it odd that nobody was worried about all these mythical non-citizen voters until Obama was elected. Why, pray tell, was this not an issue until after 2008? Hmmmmm....


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:36 p.m.

"It's been around since 1633."

I'm not THAT old, CG! :)


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:42 p.m.

The next section (.22) closes the door after 90 days if the "escape clause" documents can't be converted to proof of citizenship. In other words, it's temporary and then denied if proper ID can't be established.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:48 p.m.

"Why, pray tell, was this not an issue until after 2008? Hmmmmm...."

"In 1999, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore (R) attempted to start a pilot program that required voters to show IDs at the polls"

"In the aftermath of the 2000 election, where George W. Bush narrowly won Florida by 537 votes, the American public and lawmakers became more receptive to measures against voter fraud. In 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act into law"

"In 2004, Arizona passed a law requiring voters to bring a state-issued photo ID to the polling place"

"Indiana passed a law in 2005 requiring a photo ID be shown by all voters before casting ballots"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#History

Nice try.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:49 p.m.

No it doesn't. It says that if they can't provide the documentation "or other proof as specified in .21 above" shall have their benefits terminated.

If they provided the "other proof" such as affidavits or declarations by other parties, then they're eligible.

They don't have to "convert" a statement made under penalty of perjury by said persons into anything.

Read it again.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:54 p.m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States

Keep going...look at the list of actions in the table at the end *since* 2004.

Arizona was just ahead of the rest of the Republican governors and legislatures in attempting to suppress votes. As a (thankfully) ex-Arizonan, I can attest to the right-wing nuttery that is the Grand Canyon state, and has been for a loooong time.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:57 p.m.

"Did *I* say all these new voter ID laws were racist? Nope."

The Mother Jones link you provided implied it. Do you disagree with the link you posted?


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:07 p.m.

Voter ID laws have been floating around for nine years before Obama. Your attempt to imply that ID laws were not around until Obama showed up, and so imply racism on the part of ID law supporters is laughable.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:08 p.m.

Even if it said you didn't need any ID at all, it doesn't negate the fact that The Constitution reserves the right to vote for citizens. I can't help but notice that you have avoided that fact. Hmmmm, I wonder why?


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:13 p.m.

"Tell me how you can assure that it's only citizens that are voting. Telling me there are no cases of voter fraud doesn't cut it."

http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc09e8d88_i3m6bjdeh.pdf

See section II, part A.

And I never said "no cases". I said there were so few cases as to be utterly inconsequential (ref. numerous studies, including one by the federal elections commission).


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:24 p.m.

tech...I think the *effect* they have disproportionately impacts minorities. Minorities tend to vote more Democratic. Do you really think that if these laws reduced *Republican* votes in an equal manner that we'd even be having this discussion? Come on, even you aren't that obtuse.

CG...a couple of cases prior to the 2008 elections does not negate the 30 or so states which are trying to or have implemented more restrictive laws on voting and registration since then. Seriously? You're going to hang your hat on *Arizona* in 2004?

I never avoided the patently obvious fact that only citizens can vote. But thank you for admitting you were wrong on state welfare benefits eligibility criteria. Oh, wait, you didn't do that. Sorry, my apologies.

Look, before 2008, you registered to vote by filling in the form and signing under penalty of perjury that you were eligible to vote (a citizen). At the polls, you signed the book by your name. That seemed to work just fine as a) the penalties for filing a false registration form are pretty stiff, b) there's little incentive for someone to impersonate another person at the actual polling place, because the most they could do is cast a single ballot (and again, the penalties are stiff, so the risk-reward scale is very unbalanced), and c) actual research shows that there are virtually no cases of either type of fraud occurring.

Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is too many Democratic voters casting Democratic votes.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:30 p.m.

"Your attempt to imply that ID laws were not around until Obama showed up, and so imply racism on the part of ID law supporters is laughable."

Except, there really weren't ID laws before then, with a couple of exceptions (one being Arizona, the Dirt and Shrub State, and its rampant xenophobia).

What I think it is, of course, is the right wing seeing a demographic shift which will erode their power...and attempting to stem that tide. I'm quite certain that if the old white guy population were to magically start to increase and shift to voting Democratic, they'd figure out a way to suppress THAT vote. It's not that they're out-and-out racists...it's that *their* power and base is homogenous (and white), and so attempts to maintain that necessarily will negatively impact non-whites.

The first black President just brought out that demographic truth, that's all.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:34 p.m.

"A non-citizen or other ineligible person who falsely claims eligibility and either registers to vote or votes is subject to serious criminal penalties—including five years in prison and $10,000 in fines under federal law—and also deportation."

Yes, someone that has entered the country illegally will surely worry about breaking another law. /sarc off


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:37 p.m.

Why are you completely ignoring HAVA? That came about because of an election involving two very white guys. What's the matter, doesn't fit your narrative?


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:01 p.m.

I'm not ignoring HAVA. What's that got to do with the current move for voter ID laws?

Why are YOU ignoring the evidence that voter fraud is essentially nil?


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:11 p.m.

Please steve, I gave you examples dating back to 1999, including a federal law from 2002. You only mention laws around 2008. You are being willfully ignorant.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:22 a.m.

In all of the posts above, a common thread is found. Despite the anger and outrage common to all perspectives, no concrete action is proposed or even suggested. Such concrete action is needed here at home.

The opportunity to act must be seized because the precious right to vote we think we have here in Santa Clarita is under deadly serious attack. Please see the next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:31 a.m.

Now, every four years, all of us get to choose all five of the people who exercise power over us. If we do not stand together and fight, 80 percent of our voting rights will vanish. Instead of voting for all five who control us every four years, we will get to vote for only one. Please see the next post


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:42 a.m.

In a perverse display of "bipartisanship", two very different lawyers have joined forces to take our rights away. One professes to be a "conservative" (R. Rex Parris, mayor of Lancaster). The other professes to be a "liberal" (Kevin Shenkman of Malibu).

They, together, have filed lawsuits against the Sulphur Springs Elementary School District, College of the Canyons, and the City of Santa Clarita. As soon as they can "con" other plaintiffs, they will sue our other local agencies also to further restrict our right to vote. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:54 a.m.

I recently discussed this loss of voting rights crisis with a very bright person who posts here often. This person said they were glad that the local agencies had chosen to fight this attack on our rights.

What was surprising was the willingness expressed to let "the government" have exclusive control of defending whether we keep our voting rights or not.

An aspect of many of the posts on this site is discontent and distrust of government.

Surely when our very right to vote is being attacked, strong action from the "private sector" is wise and necessary. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:08 a.m.

By court edict, the notion that 80 percent of our voting rights can be removed is odious.

This fact, however, does not mean that our present system of local government cannot be improved.

It can be, and must be.

There is a lot of energy and time expended in the posts seen here. Good minds are in evidence, on all sides of many issues.

Imagine if the energy seen here was invested in action to protect our very right to choose who governs us.

There is a great deal of local action that each of us can implement right here in our community, as well as State wide, to save our right to vote.

Perhaps others might find it invigorating to begin a discussion of what action we can take, individually and together, to keep our right to vote.

And then, of course, actually do it.


ricketzz: Posted: February 12, 2014 7:02 a.m.

You can buy guns without ID at gun shows.


17trillion: Posted: February 12, 2014 8:09 a.m.

"As an example of a voter suppression tactic which does not target minorities, but simply tries to reduce Democratic votes". Is that like the tactic of legalizing 11 million Mexicans? --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:18 a.m.

Mr. Cameron:

I note that you've altered the demeanor of your approach.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––

Quotes are Allan_Cameron's:

"First, given the amount of time these postings require, most of the "usual suspects" have considerable unencumbered time available.

Second, posting on this site comprises a primary social experience for these "usual suspects".

Third, most (but not all) of these "usual suspects" are cowards who refuse to name themselves, and guard their lack of courage with savage determination"

These are repeated assertions that can't be independently verified. The purpose is the justify your frustration, i.e. the inability to galvanize participants here for your activism. This after insulting them as socially inept lazy cowards. Failure to recognize your deeply flawed approach is reason enough to disqualify you for any type of leadership role.

"If any one of the folks who clearly have time on their hands would like to stand up and help protect our community, call me at 818-634-8669. This is my final offer along these lines."

Can I take you at your word, Mr. Cameron? Or will I need to remind you when repeated?

http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/110936/


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:30 a.m.

"You can buy guns without ID at gun shows."

Not from an FFL dealer. Have you been to a gun show?


17trillion: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:06 a.m.

"If any one of the folks who clearly have time on their hands would like to stand up and help protect our community, call me at 818-634-8669. This is my final offer along these lines."

Oh, please don't go Allan. We who have no other social outlet will miss your sage words so much.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:54 a.m.

'"You can buy guns without ID at gun shows."

Not from an FFL dealer. Have you been to a gun show?'

He didn't say that. But, I believe that even private party sales must, as of January 1 of this year, use a licensed dealer for the transaction, which then necessitates certain things like ID and (for handguns) a safety certificate or something or other.

So he was right, until 1/1/14, at which point, he was wrong :).


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:29 a.m.

Interesting, even though The Constitution grants me the right to own a gun, I will have to provide ID to do so.

I feel so disenfranchised.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:51 a.m.

CaptGene wrote: The Constitution says that right is reserved for citizens, in order to stick to The Constitution one should have to prove citizenship, being here does not do that. Why would be OK with non citizens voting?

Indy: This is the key issue for conservatives, illegals voting.

These same folks like to use their ‘cheap’ labor from everything to nannies to gardeners to fast food workers . . . the list is almost endless but they don’t want ‘conservative taxes’ providing any education or medical care.

Thus, conservatives are willing to disenfranchise Americans voters to keep their fears contained about illegals.

Where this theory falls flat on its face is the issue that illegals don’t’ want attention.

And believing that any amount of them want to ‘register’ to vote is provocative.

In any event, the poster does state the conservative drive for voter suppression.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:53 a.m.

technologist wrote: Steve, I'd have more respect for the positions of anti-ID folks if they'd stop imputing motives because they just "know" it's racism and can't provide a verified instance of where voter suppression has occurred. It's an ideological position rather than a rational one.

Indy: From above:

Now let’s look to Texas:
Texas voter-ID law is blocked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/2012/08/30/4a07e270-f2ad-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html
By Sari Horwitz, Published: August 30, 2012E-mail the writer

“A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters.

Indy: I think rational people can see through the facade known as ‘voter suppression’ . . . as our courts start to rule on this.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:14 p.m.

North Carolina Passes the Country's Worst Voter Suppression Law
Ari Berman on July 26, 2013 - 8:51 AM ET
http://www.thenation.com/blog/175441/north-carolina-passes-countrys-worst-voter-suppression-law#

Late last night, the North Carolina legislature passed the country’s worst voter suppression law after only three days of debate. Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog called it “the most sweeping anti-voter law in at least decades” The bill mandates strict voter ID to cast a ballot (no student IDs, no public employee IDs, etc.), even though 318,000 registered voters lack the narrow forms of acceptable ID according to the state’s own numbers and there have been no recorded prosecutions of voter impersonation in the past decade. The bill cuts the number of early voting days by a week, even though 56 percent of North Carolinians voted early in 2012. The bill eliminates same-day voter registration during the early voting period, even though 96,000 people used it during the general election in 2012 and states that have adopted the convenient reform have the highest voter turnout in the country. African-Americans are 23 percent of registered voters in the state, but made up 28 percent of early voters in 2012, 33 percent of those who used same-day registration and 34 percent of those without state-issued ID.

Indy: Here again, conservatives can’t get elected by their policies so they just ‘limit’ the freedoms of those they disagree with . . . it’s pathetic.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:20 p.m.

"So he was right, until 1/1/14, at which point, he was wrong :)."

I double checked my calendar. It's 2/12/14.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:28 p.m.

Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ...is it necessary for you to be so nasty all the time?

The new LAW took EFFECT on 1/1/14. Got it, smart-ass?


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:45 p.m.

"Now let’s look to Texas:
Texas voter-ID law is blocked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/2012/08/30/4a07e270-f2ad-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html
By Sari Horwitz, Published: August 30, 2012E-mail the writer" - Indy

It appears that ruling was vacated by the SCOTUS in the Shelby County vs Holder decision. Are you under that impression that the Texas voter ID law isn't in effect?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/texas-moves-to-protect-voter-id-law/

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Shelby_Cnty_v_Holder_No_1296_2013_BL_167707_US_June_25_2013_Court/3


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:48 p.m.

Lessons from the Voter ID Experience in Texas
By Hans A. von Spakovsky

The latest data from Texas about the state’s experience with its first election held after its new photographic voter identification law became effective show that this requirement has done nothing to suppress voter turnout throughout the state. In fact, turnout in last year’s constitutional elections in Texas yielded some of the highest turnout numbers in the past decade for similar type elections.[1]

Although this trend applies to statewide turnout, it is also true of various counties’ turnout rates, even those with large numbers of minority voters where voter ID laws were predicted to restrict the ability of many citizens to vote. The oft-heard claim by voter ID opponents that such laws discriminate against poor and minority voters has once again been shown to be untrue.

Voter ID

Passed in 2011, Senate Bill 14 requires all in-person voters in Texas to present a valid photo ID when voting. Forms of acceptable ID include:
A Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS),
A Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS,
A Texas personal identification card issued by DPS,
A Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS,
A U.S. military identification card containing the person’s photograph, or
A U.S. passport.[2]

A Texas Election Identification Certificate can be obtained for free from any DPS driver’s license office, as well as county offices in 37 additional counties.[3] Prior to the November 2013 election, DPS also set up mobile ID stations in 41 other counties.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder objected to the Texas voter ID law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on March 12, 2012, and a federal district court in Washington, D.C., refused to dismiss his objection.[4] But that court opinion and the objection became moot in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court held in a separate case, Shelby County v. Holder, that the coverage formula for Section 5—which dictated the state’s inclusion under the Section 5 preclearance regime—was unconstitutional.[5] The Texas voter ID law immediately went into effect.

(cont.)


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:49 p.m.

Improved Minority Turnout

A major concern among opponents of voter ID in Texas was that the law would have a particularly negative effect on poor and minority voters. These worries appear to have been unnecessary based on an analysis of voter turnout data by county for the 2013 election.

Webb County has a population that is 95 percent Hispanic, and 30.6 percent of the residents are below the federal poverty level.[8] Yet it experienced a huge jump in voter turnout amongst registered voters in 2013, after the new photo ID law was in effect: 2,223 people came out to vote in Webb County in 2009, and only 1,285 people voted in 2011. This number spiked to 10,600 voters last year—an increase of more than eight times the amount of voters from 2011.[9]

Similarly, Fort Bend County—whose population is 24 percent Hispanic, 21.4 percent black, and 18.1 percent Asian[10]—saw nearly 13,000 more voters show up at the polls for the 2013 election,[11] nearly doubling turnout from 2011.[12] Whites are only 36 percent of the population.

Hidalgo County, which is 91 percent Hispanic and has 35 percent of its residents living below the poverty level, saw its voter turnout increase by four times in 2013: 16,000 people voted in last year’s election, compared to just 4,000 in 2011.

Cameron County, another overwhelmingly Hispanic county (35 percent poverty level), experienced a similar increase in voter turnout in 2013.[13]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-texas


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:54 p.m.

Why so excitable, Steve? Citing facts and dates isn't "nasty". :-)


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:30 p.m.

Indy Nile: "This is the key issue for conservatives, illegals voting"

Yeah Indy Nile, us conservatives have this thing about people entering the country illegally, then trampling our Constitution by voting illegally as well.

Apparently Indy Nile is in favor of criminals voting. Why am I not surprised?

What a knucklehead.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:32 p.m.

Spare us your fake innocence. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:42 p.m.

You call that nasty? Here's an example of nasty from a week ago:

""Comical. There's a reason you left off any link to your source, it's because your not only illiterate, your dishonest. "

Ah, the perils of insulting someone's language skills."

Look familiar steve? What a hypocrite.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:51 p.m.

Yes, you are.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 2:32 p.m.

Did a five year old hack your account steve?

Wait, on second thought, that would raise the level of your posts!


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 3:15 p.m.

Says the cyberstalker who comes up with his own "cute" nicknames for people, like "Indy Nile". Hardy har har. A regular laff riot.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:14 p.m.

You would be correct to call me a hypocrite if I called someone a name and then cried about it when someone was nasty to me. Apparently you are no more familiar with the meaning of the word "hypocrite" than you are with the word "disenfranchise". Shall I post the definition for you?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:32 p.m.

There is both an opportunity and an obligation before every poster on this site who says they care about voting.

The issue must not be about attempting to gain advantage in a discussion.

Many of the posters on this site have kids and grandkids.

What action do you intend to take, either individually or in concert with one another to protect their right to vote, as well as your own?

Perhaps you all might give this some thought and offer an action plan.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:37 p.m.

Would any one on this site care to offer an opinion on the deadly attack in progress at this moment to remove 80 percent of your right to vote?


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 7:20 p.m.

Shouldn't your priority be an apology to those you so casually insulted just weeks ago, Mr. Cameron?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:48 p.m.

I did not insult anyone. I rendered a diagnosis identifying conduct, all based on observation.

I honored the dictum of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said in his essay on character "speak the truth in hard words".

It would appear that your feelings are hurt, so much so that you place a greater "priority" on noting the exact language of an old post of mine, over engaging with and stopping a deadly attack on your right to vote. If what I trust is mild offense moves you and others to protect yourselves from the harm that awaits you, GREAT!

I did not include my phone number nor did I advance any offer to assist anyone in the posts I just placed regarding voting. Others did that in my place, which frankly means not a damn in the context of what is at stake for you and everyone in Santa Clarita.

It is now fully established that the purpose of these posts (from the usual suspects) is not to actually accomplish anything. They are the modern equal of the "chop out sessions" of my youth, and the "duzzens" insult contests memorably noted by the late George Carlin.

They waste time. They propose no remedy or corrective action.

Mr. "technologist", you edited my original post when you reproduced it here. Again, no matter. If you find your feelings wounded when your actions are described, you have a choice.

Change your actions, or toughen up.

But all of the above is beneath being trivial.

You and I both posted in response to a column about the importance of being able to vote.

It is stunning that the posters, all of them, regardless of their viewpoints had no acknowledgement about the pending loss of 80 percent of their personal voting rights.

That is what is important, that we not lose those rights. If this means that all the anonymous posters here convene an action meeting, and bar me from attending.....wonderful. Maybe all the energy invested in these posts might be channeled into constructive accomplishment, which is badly needed right now, here in this community.

What do all of you who post here want to see engraved on your headstones? How about

"I saw an attack on the voting rights won for me by my forbears. I researched, I organized, I led, I acted, and I never gave up. I give with pride and gratitude to my children all the liberty that was given to me, protected by the way I used my life."

Or as an alternative:

"I was known by all who paid heed, as always having the 'best and final zingers' on the Signal's Web site. But no one knew my real name."

A lot of you are bright people. With me, or without me, please get moving.



ricketzz: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:08 a.m.

The Texas voter stats above don't say if the increased turnout was due to more people registering or more angry people voting. You need exit polls for that sort of thing. Heritage Foundation is a radical right lobbying outfit, BTW. Minus 20 points for failure to exit Bubble when looking for relevant data.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:59 a.m.

+20 points restored to me by your poison the well attempt and failing to apply the same "standard" to Indy's thenation.com/blog reference, ricketzz.

Facts, without regard to source, remain so. And the facts are, voter turnout in purportedly suppressed cohorts post Texas voter ID law rose and didn't fall as opponents predicted.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:25 a.m.

"I did not insult anyone. I rendered a diagnosis identifying conduct, all based on observation." - Allan_Cameron

"Second, posting on this site comprises a primary social experience for these "usual suspects". - Allan_Cameron

While noting your inability to validate your "diagnosis", please explain how the 2nd quote used as an example isn't insulting and derogatory.

"I did not include my phone number nor did I advance any offer to assist anyone in the posts I just placed regarding voting."

However, you did do so in a prior posting that I provided a URL as a reference. That you didn't include some portions in your recent appeal is sophistry. Stating that I edited your post while quoting it directly and providing a source link, implying that I altered the content in some fashion renders your assertion disingenuous.

My feelings aren't hurt as you don't have the capability to do so. As I pointed out in my original response, I question your ability to lead on any issue due to your behavior. When given the opportunity to own your error in judgement, you demure and add to your original defect. It reveals much about your character, to my mind.

Whether you value the interaction in this "town square" or not, you have no way of knowing the actions of private persons beyond the scope of this forum. To assert that you can perform a "diagnosis" is absurd. --edited.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:21 p.m.

"Whether you value the interaction in this "town square" or not, you have no way knowing the actions of private persons beyond the scope of this forum. To assert that you can perform a "diagnosis" is absurd."

True, but I'll bet Indy could pull it off. He has a MBA from Northridge!


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 1:15 p.m.

"True, but I'll bet Indy could pull it off. He has a MBA from Northridge!"

So I've heard. Repeatedly. Did you also know he's the Ambassador to the USA from Burkina Faso?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 13, 2014 5:14 p.m.

This thread purports to address voting rights issues.

Here in Santa Clarita, our voting rights are under deadly attack.

The loss of 80 percent of our voting rights is a real possibility.

Who among the people who take the time to type on this site is concerned with this loss of THEIR personal voting rights?


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 6:28 p.m.

I'll address Santa Clarita when you resolve YOUR intellectual integrity issue, Mr. Cameron. Seems a fair exchange.


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 6:40 p.m.

I'll be leaving Santa Clarita soon, so I really don't care what happens.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:02 p.m.

If you don't mind my asking, where are you off to, CG?


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:34 p.m.

Our jumping off point will be Central California, however, I'm researching an Idaho Summer/Arizona Winter situation. Are you looking to move? If you don't mind me asking... --edited.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:03 p.m.

"...Arizona Winter..."

THERE'S a surprise. Not.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:39 p.m.

You get to add petty jealousy to your resume...impressive!


technologist: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:41 p.m.

No, I just purchased a home in Santa Clarita in 2011. I escaped from L.A.

I like Idaho. Can't say the same for Arizona except Flagstaff.


stevehw: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.

Oh, yeah, I'm positively pea-green with envy at your forthcoming snowbird status.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 10:04 p.m.

Flagstaff or Sedona was where we were thinking; still gets a Winter, but not too harsh. Property values should continue to rise since stevehw won't be there, so, that's a plus.


technologist: Posted: February 14, 2014 11:05 p.m.

Yes, I forgot about Sedona, which is nice as well.

Happy hunting to you!


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 6:23 a.m.

Let me know if you have some place you're targeting for retirement, I'd like to add it to the list:

fightafire4hire@aol.com --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: February 14, 2014 7:22 a.m.

I don't read Indy. I thought that was already clear.

Reno is better than Flagstaff, IMHO.


17trillion: Posted: February 14, 2014 8:11 a.m.

Reno is a butt ugly city and not at all better than Flagstaff. Northteastern Arizona is really nice.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:16 a.m.

"Reno is better than Flagstaff, IMHO"

That's not at all surprising.


technologist: Posted: February 14, 2014 2:35 p.m.

Thanks, CG. I've got a ways to go until I'm at that stage but I'll keep that handy.


ricketzz: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:32 a.m.

I am from Arizona


ricketzz: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:34 a.m.

Mr. Cameron, How do we unseat incumbents without "parties" and or "districting"?


CaptGene: Posted: February 15, 2014 8:21 a.m.

Just my unasked for advice, but it's really smart to prepare early as circumstances change unexpectedly; I'm going out five years earlier than I should due to health problems that have changed my priorities. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 15, 2014 11:17 a.m.

Concur, CG. The inclination is to assume present circumstances will continue. As you noted, that can change in a time frame you have little ability to control.

I intend to work as long as I can be compensated for brain work so my wife can retire when she wants. For now, we have 2 sons in college and 1 in HS so we're maximizing earnings to offset expenses.

However, I've been deferring composition for years with a corporate match and have made smart technology investments that attained significant ROI. We were also fortunate in market timing for our home purchase in Santa Clarita and thus have positive equity despite the significant upgrade (2x + pool).

I've already floated the prospect of home size reduction when we're empty nesters but my wife isn't a fan. I suspect I'll have my work cut out for me as she's in the medical field and isn't accustomed to rational review of a business case. ;-)


CaptGene: Posted: February 15, 2014 5:48 p.m.

Outstanding! We have one graduating college this year, we've been paying as we go so there won't be any debt when the sheepskins are handed out. As far as the smaller house, well, good luck!


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:12 a.m.

To the person known on this site as "ricketzz". You asked a most significant question a few posts back. Namely "How can incumbents be unseated without 'districts', or 'parties'?"

Very pressed for time to contend with what is part of a larger most complex issue.

A quick, direct answer is that the voters must be presented with a clear choice. "The present office holder should be replaced, here are the top ten reasons why. I, the challenger should be elected, here are the top ten reasons why, and what they each mean to you, the voter."

In Santa Clarita history, no campaign waged by anyone has ever presented such a "clear choice" campaign to the voters. This is true of the campaigns now under way.

Santa Clarita is now 26 years old. In that time, 15 people have been elected to the City Council. Two siting council people who sought re-election were defeated. (These were Dennis Koontz and Laurie Ender). They were replaced by Jill Klajic and Tim Ben Boydston.

Three council members did not seek re-election after serving a single term. These were Buck McKeon, George Pedersen, and the late Clyde Smyth.

Tim Ben Boydston is in the middle of his first term.

This leaves nine people who sought and won additional terms as incumbents.

A few elections back, there were only three people on the ballot. Two were incumbents (Cameron Smyth and Bob Kellar), and the lone challenger was Henry Schultz. Bob defeated Henry by a modest margin. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:28 a.m.

The victories of Jill Klajic and Tim Boydston were both studies in "Campaign compensation". By this, I mean that neither of these two winning campaigns had anything near an adequate budget. They "compensated" for this shortfall with superb "sweat equity".

There is no "free lunch". There are relentless requirements for a successful campaign for elective office.

Some feel that a smaller "districted system" offers systemic advantages to a prospective candidate. That is actually not the case. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

The truth is that a "Districted System", and an "at large system" both have pros and cons.

However, both benefit from "patches", or "tweeks" to make them better and more responsive to the needs of the voters.

When all of the "tweeks" to each system are fully implemented, the choice between the two systems becomes very clear. The "at large" system, where the voters are able to choose all the people who govern them is definitely
the better system.

Here in Santa Clarita, none of the improvement "tweeks" have been put into practice. They must be. There are about 15 of these "Tweeks".

I am sorry that I do not have time to list them, nor do I have time to list why a small district is actually worse, not better, for someone seeking office.

Please see next post.







Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:57 a.m.


"ricketzz"!!! There is an exception to every rule. I have respect for people who stand up for what they say with the reality of who they are. (In other words, just saying their name.)

You made some amazingly courageous disclosures about physical challenges you face, and have essentially overcome. You are a brave, candid man. In view of what you have revealed, I would suggest that you NOT disclose your name.

This, by no means, applies to the rest of all those who lurk in the shadows.

Back to what is really important, and that is our local right to vote.

Please see next post.


ricketzz: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:13 a.m.

It wasn't a conscious struggle. I presumed everybody was like me and it was easy as long as I was able to delude myself into thinking I owned the place. I didn't get diagnosed w/ ASD until I started taking SSRIs a few years ago. Once the anxiety faded I could think more normally [very relative here]. Google pushed an ad; "Aspergers Disorder?" and that was when the tumblers all fell into place. Official diagnosis answers a lot of "why did I do this stupid thing" questions.

I appreciate the civility and the concern. I made it this far...


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:13 a.m.

Around our town, there is a fervent group of people who are actually "campaigning" to lose 80 percent of their own voting rights.

There is a reason, highly personal to each of these folks, why this is so. Each of them made an amazing commitment at one time in the past. They actually sought election to a public office. This takes true courage and commitment, and each of these individuals should always be honored for what they attempted.

Sadly, for each, they lost their race, some more than once.

Their perspective is colored by this trauma. Again, with all the "tweeks" in place, the at large system we have now is actually better for those seeking office as well


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:30 a.m.

It occurs to me that some (very, VERY few will have read down to here) that some may ask why my perspective has any value. My information is based on considerable experience.

I was a charter member of the failed early 1980' attempt to form a City in Santa Clarita Valley.

I was an elected member (one of 16) of the City of Santa Clarita Formation Committee Steering Committee. In 1987, with a campaign budget of 80 thousand dollars, we overcame a 600,000 dollar campaign to defeat us, and the City of Santa Clarita became the largest city at the time of its creation in United States history.

Of the then 85 cities in Los Angeles County, Santa Clarita instantly was the fifth largest. Now, of 88, it is number three.

I was then honored to serve as a volunteer consultant to the successful City Formation efforts for Diamond Bar, Malibu, and Calabasas, and for the (sadly) unsuccessful incorporation efforts of Hacienda Heights and East Los Angeles.

In each and every one of these incorporation efforts, the issue of "shall we be governed by districts, or at large, was one the ballot, along with the question of "shall be break away from the County and become a City?".

Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:43 a.m.

Here in Santa Clarita, the question of "shall we be districts, or at large" was debated 80 percent as much as was the question "shall we become a city, yes or no?" Both questions were exhaustively explored.

Santa Clarita is not alone in this experience. Eight new cities have formed in Los Angeles County in the last 30 plus years. They are Lancaster, La Canada Flintridge, Agoura Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Clarita, Diamond Bar, Malibu, and Calabasas.

All eight, at free elections at the polls, chose to elect all of the people who would govern them, not just one. (In other words,"at large").

Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:13 a.m.

This issue deserves a "web site" worth of content, which I do not have time to provide. (City, here's your chance)

It is significant. Something that someone called "technologist" posted here is not.

I would suggest, Miss (Mr.?, how am I to know) that your sense of proportion should be recalibrated.

This is a thread about voting rights. On this, you actually posted that you would "address Santa Clarita", if I would deal with my "intellectual integrity", as if the two "issues" were somehow of equal "weight". For this community, your "equation" lacks balance.

The significance of any debate you think you might have with me does not equate with 250,000 people losing 80 percent of their voting rights.

Santa Clarita does not need "addressing". It needs people of action.

But I will walk onto your playing field, but with a gently counter offer.

First a bit of helpful background. When the Signal Newspaper began to charge for letters endorsing candidates, Ray Kutylo was offended.

Ray did not submit long posts to a blog with faux outrage.

He took action. He created "Santa Clarita Valley Letters to the Editor", which is a blog centered on facebook. It took off life a wildfire.

Here in Santa Clarita alone, I understand there are more than 1000 members. More amazing, however, is that there are exact copies of "LTE" now all over the world, with uncounted tens of thousands of participants. Antelope Valley has the next closest one to us.

In addition to Ray, Matt Denny formed another facebook blog called "Santa Clarita Valley Open Forum", which is also quite successful, with about a thousand members. (Please see next post)


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:37 a.m.

There is a common aspect to these facebook centered blogs. All over the world, all the posters do this.

They use their real names.

So far, reports of accelerated hair loss, canceled dates and the like are not found.

"Technologist" attempted to compare this Signal site, with a "Town Hall". Actually, this is such a radical innovation, that analogies with older human efforts are difficult, but a "town hall" is not an accurate choice for how you use this site.

Why? Well, of course, all attendees at historic "town halls" identified themselves. You do not. Were you to attend any "town halls" (we do have them in Santa Clarita), I cannot imagine you would do so in disguise.

What you are doing is more akin to the anonymous graffiti found on building walls.

So, here is my offer. Just like the thousands of people on all the "Letters to the Editor" blogs do all the time, identify yourself, by your real name.

It is not much of a "spine transplant". Then, and only then, will I engage with you further.

Seems like a fair trade. You know who I am. You remain masked. I am frankly sorry I took this time.

God knows that there are real crisis calling to all of us. If only we all would listen and then act.


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:58 a.m.

You seem fixated on people using usernames instead of the real names. I suggest you go take a look at the cases of cyberstalking, threats, *real* stalking, harassment, violence and even murder which have happened when people get fixated on someone else on-line.

There's absolutely no reason for someone to feel as if they should disclose their real name in an on-line forum. The risks are very high (we have a few people on these forums whom I suspect of tilting towards stalking, threats and violence). In fact, you might be one of them, based on your insistence that people tell you their real names.

The arguments one makes should stand or fall on their own, not based on the person who is making them. All you have done is make an ad hominem attack.

Nope...too many nutcases out there; nobody should be posting their real names in on-line fora such as this. It's a foolish thing to do.


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 5:22 p.m.

"The arguments one makes should stand or fall on their own, not based on the person who is making them. All you have done is make an ad hominem attack."

Concur and well said, Steve.

Mr. Cameron, you presume to dictate to others how to manage their privacy based on their individual circumstances. I suspect you're in a retired age cohort and therefore can't rationally evaluate risk in the internet age.

I note you still refuse be accountable for your casual insults and your counteroffer is null because you know my response in advance based on previous statements.

Risible as rickezz also uses a pseudonym but you praised his courage because his query provided the platform you desperately seek.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:28 p.m.

This thread topic is voter rights. "Tecky" has hijacked it for his own purposes.

"Tecky" states I refuse to be accountable for my statements?

How odd.

They were posted here, using my real name, and my phone number.

Review this long thread. Check for insults. Pay attention to those posted by you.

Just in the last two posts, "Tecky" "suspects" I am not rational. Steve HW speculates that I may be a "stalker".

One wonders if ant of these people would make such statements if they were truly held accountable, which they strenuously avoid.

I stand people all over the world who post on "Letters to the Editor", and here in Santa Clarita on "Open Forum".

All of them use their real names.

"rickets" asked me a question, directly. Staying on the thread topic, I answered it. Very briefly, I diverted from the thread to comment on something that "ricketts" did that was amazing, and had nothing to do with answering his question.

He disclosed personal medical information about himself that is shielded from disclosure by California State Law. That took courage. Expect nameless cowards who post here to attempt to hurt this man, using his astounding candor. It was this, not his question about voter rights that prompted my brief acknowledgement of his courage. "Tecky's" version raises questions about his ability to comprehend what he reads.

I wish "ricketts" had done two things. First, used his real name as a matter of course. Second, I wish, for his sake long term, that he had not disclosed his personal medical information. Now, in view of his medical disclosures, he really should not reveal his real name.

Although, his candor can, without doubt, ease the suffering of others who share his, and other afflictions.

This last post, (unlike the ones that addressed voter rights) has been a waste of my time, (except for one thing). It did not in any way further protecting 80 percent of Santa Clarita's voting rights from being extinguished.

Large numbers of our fellow citizens are enlisted in the battle, however.

Since this thread was about voter rights, I hoped people concerned about this vital issue would choose to engage with it on their very doorsteps.

Turns out that my hopes have been realized.

Weeks ago, I said that, with the last posting of my phone number, that this given post would be my "final offer" to help with this issue.

I kept my word in this regard. I did not offer to help, nor did I list my phone number in my posts on this thread.

However, someone named "Technologist" chose to list my phone number on this thread, all though for very different purposes than protecting our voting rights.

It surprised me, (no ASTONISHED me) that anyone actually read these threads when they get so long.

Thank you to all who called. With the kind of commitment you discussed, we do have a chance to save 80 percent of our voting rights.



Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:50 p.m.

This statement is beneath being trivial, but about ten people seem obsessed with my making it.

I do not retract anything that I said weeks ago about anonymous posters on this site. I repeat it and reinforce all of it here. I do not apologize for telling the truth. So, ALERT THE MEDIA!

My apologies for those who wanted to read about voting rights, instead of something so astoundingly, sadly petty.


CaptGene: Posted: February 17, 2014 6:16 a.m.

Wow. What a piece of work.

Okay everybody, the line to follow Allan forms right here...what, nobody? But he used his real name!


17trillion: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:26 a.m.

Cameron, it's because of people like you that people like me don't use their real names. Your fixation is odd to say the least. Truth be told I'm fairly comfortable with the vast majority of posters here knowing my name, with the possible exception of you!


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:26 a.m.

Please do not let lil' ol me hold you back from bathing in the flood of endorphins that will cleans your system when you have overcome your fear. It is so simple to do. Just look at the tens of thousands of people who post on all the "Letters to the Editors" world wide including at least 1000 here in Santa Clarita. They are joined by a like number who post on "Open Forum", also in Santa Clarita, started by the very hard working Matt Denny.

They are different from you. All of them use their real names.

But I digress, and I apologize for doing so to the folks who called me, super concerned (as well they should be) about losing 80 percent of their right to vote.

I owe an unexpected debt to "Technologist". If he (I guess its he) had not taken the extraordinary time and trouble to file and then repost an old post of mine, then the kind folks who called would have had a much harder time locating me. There were several real "take charge" types, which our world and this issue needs desperately. They will not need me, in any way, to act to save their voting rights. Just the information was sufficient.

So, "Technologist", thanks again for posting my phone number. I owe you one.










17trillion: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:35 a.m.

If only we could be as noble and brave as you are!


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:45 a.m.

You seem rather annoyed, Mr. Cameron, that others here have earned respect that you so demonstrably aren't entitled to. Thanks for clarifying your arrogant obstinance.

Additionally, you seem to misunderstand that your postings become a matter of public record that are indexed by search engines. That you subsequently take issue when someone quotes and references your written word demonstrates an amusing disconnect from reality. When you subsequently lecture others on how to manage their privacy it's just delicious.

Unfortunately for you, it'll garner zero media attention. We do indeed have your number.

Thanks for playing.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:53 a.m.

LOL! Despite your slow uptake, now you're turning your complaint into a positive. Neat!

You're welcome, Mr. Cameron, for those "several real 'take charge' types". No doubt they're worth what you owe me. ;-)


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:59 a.m.

Thanks "17", but I doubt that I would be a potential "role model" that would be of any interest to you. The thousands of others, here in Santa Clarita who know that what they say must stand on the platform of who they are, should be the people you might choose to emulate. (You know, the people who stand up and are accountable for what they say.)


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:52 a.m.

I am blessed in that my work allows me a flexible schedule. At this time, however, I must return to it. In addition, this has indeed devolved into a pale copy of the late George Carlin's "duzzens", instead of any discussion related to voting rights. It is a great challenge for any of us to edit or even critique our own work.

Despite this natural impediment, I have a suggestion for my newly found "Technologist" friend.

Purely from a construction standpoint, take a careful look at your post, listed by the Signal at being received at 10:45AM.

Again, purely from a construction standpoint, I counted four, and perhaps five insults. There is a frequent criticism that I note you level at the postings of others. You say "these are assertions that cannot be independently verified".

If you would like to elevate your insults, aimed at me, to a truly world class category, take a stab at making "assertions that CAN be independently verified". You may notice that the ones you included this morning do not quite meet that test.

In any event, "Technologist" you are obviously a very bright guy. You certainly do not need me to "guide" you into making a huge, positive difference in the Santa Clarita Valley if you choose to do so. There are at least 40 actual emergency situations here that need all the help they can get. Right now, in addition to my work, I am involved in only two, which are the "chloride scam/rip off", and the attempt to take away 80 percent of our voting rights.

You might dive into one of the other real "hot spots", and we might never meet. This is, after all, the third largest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, with 205,000 residents.

You spend a lot of your talent on this site. There are a lot of people who are understaffed and overwhelmed in trying to meet the challenges of all the other issues that afflict our community. (I forgot to mention CEMEX!!!!)

These overwhelmed people would be profoundly grateful if someone of your ability showed up, and started to really help.

I have no doubt that your personal rewards would increase a hundred fold if you did.


ricketzz: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:32 a.m.

The Globalist elite don't believe poor people should vote. They say only taxpaying landowners should vote. This is the plan Ms. Tammy champions and a big reason why this libertarian socialist doesn't believe in private ownership of real property.

Any citizen affected by the laws of a jurisdiction should have equal access to the lawmaking process, regardless. We are all naked and equal in the eyes of government or "The Lord".


technologist: Posted: February 19, 2014 1:44 p.m.

"…why this libertarian socialist doesn't believe in private ownership of real property."

Do you own any?


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:00 a.m.

We all do. When the extraction enablers demand we allow drilling on public lands they are talking about property Americans collectively own. I am not going to go into the pros and cons of left libertarian thinking here. You likely wouldn't get it, anyway. Let's just say it has to do with hierarchy and control for the sake of bullying. I don't believe in jurisdictions that expand past the horizon, either. (Remember, this is Utopian thinking and not meant as a practical solution to today's problems. I am Green Party and I vote.)

Thinks cabins in the National Forest. Think nomadic villages that follow the nice weather (like Quartzite). I have nothing against 99 year leases.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:55 a.m.

"You likely wouldn't get it, anyway."

Because I'm unable to scale the heights of your intellect, is that right?

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full


Indy: Posted: February 22, 2014 2:17 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Despite this natural impediment, I have a suggestion for my newly found "Technologist" friend . . . Purely from a construction standpoint, take a careful look at your post, listed by the Signal at being received at 10:45AM.

Again, purely from a construction standpoint, I counted four, and perhaps five insults. There is a frequent criticism that I note you level at the postings of others. You say "these are assertions that cannot be independently verified". If you would like to elevate your insults, aimed at me, to a truly world class category, take a stab at making "assertions that CAN be independently verified". You may notice that the ones you included this morning do not quite meet that test.

Indy: Allan, these conservative libertarians here can’t suport their ideology and thus just either ‘quick quip’ you . . . or just recite some other nonsense including remarks as you’ve seen.

The main intent of this is to ‘drive off’ moderate or intelligent posters so they are left ‘guarding Santa Clarita from the ‘left’’!

In any event, you’ve got to be persistent as this guy is and hope the ‘guest readers’ see the lack of support for his positions.

In fact, he’s too embarrassed to reveal what his education is in but I’m sure it’s not economics or business, topics he likes to discuss and rant about his ‘market fundamentalism’ that has shown not to work.

In any event, I don’t have any respect for this guy at all . . . but his remarks need to be clarified and outlined where they are false and misleading.


CaptGene: Posted: February 22, 2014 2:24 p.m.

Hey Allan, Indy Nile is on your side! Before you let that go to your head you should know that it's not a good thing.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:58 p.m.

"In any event, I don’t have any respect for this guy at all . . . "

I consider that a badge of honor. :-)

Why don't you list the others that occupy this elevated position in our community, Indy?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 23, 2014 3:35 a.m.

Could this thread, and the folks who use it please return to the issue of voting rights? One poster here said that, since they were leaving Santa Clarita, they did not care that this community was about to lose 80 percent of its voting rights.

There is legislation pending all over the country that does similar damage.

The line needs to be drawn some where. Let it be here.


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 10:08 a.m.

So give us the pros and cons of the alternatives. Don't just blather on about how we're going to "lose 80 percent of its voting rights", which is not true. Everyone can still vote, nobody is losing any rights. It's just that under each system proposed or currently in operation, we're voting for different things.

Stop with the name-calling, insults, attacks on anonymous posters, blah blah blah, and just list for us the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

Facts, in other words.

There are jurisdictions all over the country which use different systems, including the one you're against. What do you know that they don't?

In other words, give us a *reason* to support your cause, not just because you don't like people on an on-line forum using "handles".


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:16 a.m.

I invite "Steve HW" to do several things if he wishes to engage in his own protection.

1. You may scan through this very thread, where-in I listed quite a few facts about what is at stake here.

2. Engage in your own research beyond the facts I have already listed.

3. Please do not think of this as "my cause". It is yours, and it belongs to everyone who votes here in Santa Clarita. As an example of why this issue belongs to the entire community, the three local government agencies who have been attacked (The City of Santa Clarita, The Sulphur Springs Elementary School District, and the Santa Clarita Valley Community College District) have all vowed to fight for our rights. As our local history has taught us many times, the government will need the full support of its local citizens.

In Steve HW" post, he makes a factually incorrect statement, which I hope does not obtain wide circulation, because it is dangerous.

This "dangerous' statement is the entire first paragraph of his post.

I am not going to retype it. Read it yourself.

But to simply verify some of the facts which can be found in earlier posts on this very thread, here is the fact on the loss of 80% percent of our voting rights.

In the present all inclusive voting system we enjoy in all three of the districts under attack, in a four year period, we are able to choose all five of the people who govern us.

In the system our antagonists wish to impose upon us, that will be replaced by being able to vote for only one of the people who govern us, every four years.

That is a loss of 80 percent of our ability to choose who governs us.

Again, please review the previous posts on this very thread, addressing the facts of this vital issue.

As a point of additional fact, although of absolutely no real consequence in the voting rights crisis, if anyone reviews this entire lengthy thread, there is something that they will not find.

That absent material is any name calling, any insults, or any other such wastes of time placed here by me.


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 2:13 p.m.

"being able to vote for only one of the people who govern us"

Sort of like how we can only vote for one person to serve as Representative to Congress?

It's hardly accurate to call the change in how our local system works as a "deadly attack" on any voting rights. Last time I looked, I could still go to the polling place and cast my vote, so it appears my "voting rights" are intact. I'm still "enfranchised" :).

That the number and district composition of whom we can elect is changed may or may not be a concern. So far, I don't think you've made your case. You just keep saying "it's bad because we used to be able to elect 5 people to represent the entire valley, now we'll only be able to elect 1 to represent 1/5 of the valley".

That's not making a sound argument. That's just stating the situation.

*Why* is the change bad? And as I've said, it's the same system used in countless other jurisdictions, including the House of Representatives (and the State Assembly).

Make your case. Please.

Oh, and yes, when you start "calling people out" because they chose not to use their actual names in an on-line forum, that's both insulting and a waste of time. In fact, "outing" someone's real name on these fora are grounds for being banned (see the Signal's policies).


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 26, 2014 9:07 p.m.

An analogy between national government and local government as far as structure is concerned does not hold up under careful scrutiny. This becomes especially true when one realizes that the entire United States in 1776 had a population similar to Los Angeles County now.

You have asked me to "make MY case". (Your post verbiage suggests that a change has already taken place. It hasn't)

As far as "making my case" is concerned, some (although certainly not all) of the reasons for our current voting system were listed on this very thread already. Please review these. I do not wish to be repetitive.

However.

The case for the system we presently have was made for me by what is the highest real authority on this subject in our community.

These are the voters of Santa Clarita acting a free election, at the polls.

The voters were given the choice between choosing just one of the people who will govern, versus choosing all five who will govern. The voters made the obvious, highly informed choice. They chose to elect all five. As I said in this same thread in several places, Santa Clarita is not unique in making this same choice, for a long list of compelling reasons. Santa Clarita is only one of the eight newest cities in Los Angeles County who were faced with the same choice. All chose as did Santa Clarita

A lawyer named R. Rex Parris is one of the two lawyers pursuing the law suits seeking to change what was chosen by the voters. He is notorious for his ultra right wing, extremist views. He is also the Mayor of Lancaster. One of the eight new Cities that chose as we did is Lancaster, with one fascinating difference. Lancaster actually chose "our" system not once, but twice, in free elections separated by more than 20 years.

You ask me to essentially educate you on this subject. Again, please read the other entries on this subject. That is only a mild start.

If you would really like to get up to speed on the issue, here is a list of initial research you might find worthwhile.

Former Santa Clarita Mayor and City Formation Committee Chairman Carl Boyer has actually written a book on this subject. You may obtain a copy of it from him directly. His number is listed in the phone book.

The Signal Newspaper "morgue" is available at the Valencia Library branch. In 1985, 1986, and 1987 you can locate hundreds of articles that explore these questions in great detail. The Signal was much more then than now.

If you search "Santa Clarita City Formation Committee" on the Los Angeles Times web site, you will also find very helpful material.

Checking the archives of LAFCO (The Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission) will also be an excellent resource.

For you, these evidently will be new experiences. I hope you enjoy yourself and find the experiences rewarding.

I don't have the time to revisit all these places again at this time.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 26, 2014 9:30 p.m.

Please forgive me. The following is not directly related to voting rights. It has to do with one of the lawyers seeking to take 80 percent of our voting choices away.

R. Rex Parris has a whole section to himself in the archives of the Los Angeles Times. To view it, just go to the Los Angeles Times web site and search "R. Rex Parris" articles. Lawyer Parris is also the Mayor of Lancaster.

Here are only a few highlights of what you will see.

1. Parris ordered drones hired from the Feds as used in the Middle East to fly over and spy on Lancaster.

2. Parris ordered surprise, fully armed "inspections" by the Sheriffs Department of innocent people who lived in section 8 homes.

3. Lancaster is under Federal Civil Rights Violation investigation for racial profiling, performed by the Sheriffs Dept. at the direction of the City of Lancaster "administration".

4. Lancaster "addressed" its homeless population by giving all of its homeless citizens bus tickets to destinations out of California.

There are 15 more such articles on the Times web site.

Parris, Mayor of Lancaster, is suing our three local government agencies in a "private attorney general action", purportedly under provisions of the "California Civil Rights Act" of 2001.

Frequently in life, who you are places what you say and do in very different contexts from just your words, said in the abstract.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 26, 2014 9:37 p.m.

I made an error in the above post. The law that Parris is using as the basis for his lawsuits is called the "California Voting Rights Act of 2001".


ricketzz: Posted: February 26, 2014 6:31 a.m.

From "Tragedy of the Commons" as suggested by Roger B. Technologist.

"In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated."

Who knew someone could be so prescient in 1968?

"...and I come back to find the stars misplaced
and the smell of a world that has burned,
the smell of a world that has burned...

Maybe it's just a change of climate.." -Jimi Hendrix "Up from the Skies" 1968


technologist: Posted: February 26, 2014 11:26 a.m.

Who has a better environmental record, market economies with pluralistic political systems or single party socialist/communist political systems with centrally planned economies, ricketzz? Aren't centrally planned economies the ne plus ultra of regulation?

How have fisheries managed as a public rather than private resource worked out?


technologist: Posted: February 26, 2014 7:46 p.m.

To assist in your determination:

Scientists: Beijing's Air Pollution Is Like Being in Nuclear Winter

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-beijings-air-pollution-is-like-being-in-nu-1531535212


stevehw: Posted: February 26, 2014 8:41 p.m.

Allan,

Seriously? I read through your posts on this op-ed, and I don't see any arguments for the at-large system or against the districting system. And no, I'm not going to go call some dude to buy his book and "come up to speed", or go the library and dig through the archives, or what have you.

This is your issue...you ought to be able to line up a few bullet points to at least make your case in an on-line forum.

And Lancaster's mayor is Lancaster's problem.

Do you honestly think people are going to make a career out of doing research on this issue because you can't or won't just post, in simplified form, your arguments?

Well, if you can't or won't even do that, then why should I bother to support your position?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 27, 2014 9:04 a.m.

Steve HW. This voting rights issue, is not "my" issue. It is the issue of all three public agencies here in Santa Clarita who have announced that they will fight for our rights to keep our at large system, as the voters chose.

It is the issue of the voters of Santa Clarita who, at the polls, given the chance to choose either districts or at large, chose at large.

It's the issue of all the last eight cities to form in Los Angeles County, each of which had the choice, in an election, between districts versus at large.

All eight chose at large.

The Santa Clarita City Formation Committee was far more than just the 16 leaders on the Steering Committee. It was hundreds of unpaid volunteers who gathered about 18 thousand petition signatures, held meetings in their homes, went door to door, wrote letters to elected leaders, the media, stood on street corners holding signs, attended public hearing by the hundreds in down town Los Angeles, during the business day, stood up to insults thrown at them (especially in the early days), staffed tables in front of supermarkets, visited other cities to see how they worked, answered questions by the hundreds, and more.

All of them did exactly what was necessary to be able to speak and write with authority on this complex issue. They all did research along the lines I suggested for you. I thought you might wish to take advantage of the paths all these people forged.

There is more.

This issue is taken back to "square one" every time there is a city formation effort. I saw that first hand in Diamond Bar, Malibu, Calabasas, Hacienda Heights, and East Los Angeles.

There have been more than 30 annexations of land out of a "Districted" system (Los Angeles County) into an "At large" system (Santa Clarita).

This question arose in many of those annexations (back to square one, the wheel to be invented once again).

Frankly, in all of the local 30 plus annexations, the ability to chose all the people who govern, instead of only one, was always seen, on its face, as a self evident significant benefit.

No other explanation was needed. In the formation effort however, it was a contentious question. As I have shared on this thread several times, the end result was always the same. "At large" ended up being chosen by the voters in free elections.

The issue is complex, with "theory" being contradicted by "experience" time after time. This renders a "bullet point" comparison chart (in simpler issues, often an excellent tool) impractical. In all the circumstances I have listed, direct, personal communication in small groups or even one on one was the only tool that worked.

I am a very poor typist. Based on my experience, one sub issue of the larger question prompts another. I am out of typing time.

If you would like to discuss this issue in a more efficient format (simple conversation) call me. I would be pleased to meet with you, or discuss this issue further on the phone.


stevehw: Posted: February 27, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Dude, I'm NOT GOING TO CALL YOU. Get over the need to find out people's real-world identity, would you?

Thanks for the history lesson...sounds like the argument is simply an appeal to popularity.

"All these other cities did it, therefore it must be good."

Unconvincing.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 27, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Steve HW. You may be a resourceful guy. Surely you could call about this extremely significant issue, purely to save yourself the research time so many others have chosen to invest. You could do the following:

1. Block your outgoing caller ID.

2. Use one of the now common voice disguise devices.

3. Throw all caution to the wind, speak in your real voice, and just use your artificial name. I will still share the extensive information about this issue with you.

I already shared one of the primary reasons with you. Choosing five who can vote on you makes more sense than letting four of them "vote on you" while you can only vote on one of them. Who gives up four/fifths of their voting power with clear eyes?

Forgive me. I thought the fact that eight very different areas of Los Angeles County, all faced with the same choice (districts or at large), and all cho0sing "at large" might have prompted this question.

"Gee, I wonder why they all did the same thing?"

I have listed them on this thread before, but to make things easier, here is the list again.

Lancaster, La Canyada Flintridge, Agoura Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Clarita, Diamond Bar, Malibu, and Calabasas.

If you choose not to do as so many others have done, and do your own research, or choose not to contact me, or any of the other 6 remaining members of the Santa Clarita City Formation Steering Committee who still live locally (I think they would be glad to speak with you), I am unable to assist you further, given my lousy typing ability and time constraints.


stevehw: Posted: February 27, 2014 4:02 p.m.

You're not assisting me now, so it's not much a loss.

All you've done is say "this will be bad", "all the *other* kids are doing it that way", and "I don't have time to tell you why".

Thanks for nothing! Good luck with your campaign.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 27, 2014 7:33 p.m.

Give a person corn and you feed them that day. Teach them to grow corn, you feed them for a lifetime.

On this issue, I have attempted to help you "grow corn". You referred to Carl Boyer in a previous response as "some dude". In case you have not noticed, Carl Boyer has a most thoughtful opinion column piece on this very Signal web site, right this minute. I invite you to read it. (What will your response be to THIS invitation?)

It deals with some very important issues for this community. Among them are bits of history that explain why the eight newest cities in Los Angeles County all fled a "Districted" system (the County) to form Cities and why all chose to be "at large".

Carl Boyer is a most humble man. A person with less ego strength would have had statues erected of himself here long ago.

Carl Boyer was a career teacher of government at the high school level for many years. He did something remarkable during that time. He amended the courses on government issued by the State of California to include sections on local government, which is a vital subject. Except for rare people like Carl, local government is still not taught in California schools.

Carl was an elected public official on the governing boards of the William S Hart Union High School District, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, and the mayor of the City of Santa Clarita.

He was also elected to the Board of Supervisors of Canyon County, the new County that the voters of Northern Los Angeles County voted to form (twice), but which was subject to the vote of all areas not in the boundaries of the new county. Those other areas declined to let us secede.

Carl then became the elected Chairperson of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee, the group which gave us our City.

Among us all, Carl was wise enough to understand the historic nature of what we were about, (which resulted in the largest city at the time of its formation in United States History) and kept extraordinary notes about it.

It was these notes that formed the basis for the book Carl wrote.

I suggested that you contact Carl, obtain it, and read it at your convenience.

You have refused.

I have suggested that you speak with me, or some of the other remaining members of the formation committee.

You have refused.

Although the suggestion was not as clear as my others, you could have also chosen to locate and contact the members of the other seven new city formation committees in Los Angeles County, such as Malibu and the others.

That is also an option you could exercise. But save me the suspense. I am guessing you may refuse that opportunity also, but maybe I will be surprised.

You say I have not assisted you, and you thank me for nothing.

Forgive me for trying. On this issue, it appears that your personal "corn crop" will never be planted and you will never harvest it.


stevehw: Posted: February 28, 2014 8:19 a.m.

What an awesome approach! Tell people they should support your view, don't tell them why, and then when they ask why they should support you, tell history stories and give other peoples' resumes...and tell them they should go off and do their own research as to why they should support you.

Good luck with that. Do you notice that you're not getting any traction around here? Think maybe that has something to do with it?

As with pretty much everything on these (or any other) fora, this is YOUR issue; if you want people to become invested enough to support you (let alone invested enough to go and make a career out of learning about it, as you suggest), you're going to have to at least make a prima facie case as to why they should.

So far, you have done ZERO to accomplish that. So like I said...

Good luck with your cause! You'll need it!


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 28, 2014 10:00 a.m.

To keep calling this "my issue" flys in the face of facts that are all over the media, all of the time, from the Los Angeles Times, the Antelope Valley Press, numerous other media, and this newspaper

The issue has been the subject of numerous legally noticed public hearing before three Santa Clarita public agencies, which are the City of Santa Clarita, the Santa Clarita Community College District,(College of the Canyons), and the Sulphur Springs Elementary School District.

The issue has been featured on the "Real Side" radio show with Joe Messina for the last six months.

The two City Council incumbents running for re-election (Marsha McLean and Laurene Weste have repeatedly informed their supporters and the general public about this fight. For several of the challengers running for City Council (the election is April 8), it is (as it should be) a major facet of their campaigns.

You repeatedly ask for what amounts to a private tutorial on a major public policy issue that dominates the agendas of many of the 2000 public school districts and the 482 Cities in California.

At this moment, with yet another blizzard of local and regional media paying attention to it, there are at least two different legislative acts pending in Sacramento about the question of "disricts" versus "at large".

I have, more than once, paid you and the ten other people who dominate this "posting site" the courtesy of saying "rather than me telling you what I think your position should be about this complex issue, here are resources you can use to make up your own mind, with real facts at your command".

Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: February 28, 2014 10:26 a.m.

The fact that so many people are so ignorant about how local government works is the result of many factors.

I had no clue about the subject until I was in my mid 30's.

Here (again) is one astonishing aspect of why the ignorance is so pervasive.

Local government is not taught, anywhere in California, at any level, in any public school, from K-8, High School, or college.

Most folk do not know that a Santa Clarita City Council member has more power over much of their daily life than does the President of the United States.

You balk at doing your own work. This is in marked contrast to the hundreds of people who formed this City, who DID do the research you evidently will not perform.

In addition to our own local stalwarts, there are also the thousands of other folks who also have worked as I suggest you might. As I have said many times on this thread, they are found all over Los Angeles County, in all the areas that formed their own city.

There is no free lunch. This might take a few hours of your time. Carl Boyer's book is a fast read.

Contact any of them for information. I suggest that you do not insist that you are calling about "Allan Cameron's issue".

You can lead a horse to water.......




stevehw: Posted: February 28, 2014 8:59 p.m.

"Private tutorial"? Hardly...

You post on an internet forum about what you term are grave, dire, horrible threats to voting rights, and then you provide no *reason* for your claim.

This is a discussion forum...give us your rationale, the pros and cons, and then we'll discuss it.

Just saying "you should oppose this...to know why, go buy a book" isn't going to work.

Read the various threads on these pages...we argue our position, citing (hopefully) real-world cases, the law, examples, etc. We provide reasons and rationales for our positions. We try to convince others why their position is erroneous or misguided or ill-informed.

What nobody else here does is what you do: "You're wrong, I'm right. To know why that is so, here's a biography of a guy who agrees with me. If you want to know more, go to the library."

Lame.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 11:40 a.m.

On this site, the few who post here constantly do exactly what I have done. There are endless examples. People demand that external web sites be consulted. They cite outside magazines, historic sources, newspaper articles, TV programs and more. They often list the technical means to use, so that these "off site" sources can be reached. The clear assumption is that they will be read.

There is an interesting tactic used in rhetoric, if it can be used without challenge. It is sometimes called "creating a straw man", but there are many other titles. "Steve HW" has attempted, consciously or other wise to repeatedly employ it here.

The tactic is, to create, unilaterally, a false argument. The next step is to then to endlessly repeat it, in what is often the vain hope that others will believe that another party has actually put forth the false argument.
Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 12:02 p.m.

Steve HW has tried to assert that the voting rights of the people of Santa Clarita is somehow exclusively "my issue".

It isn't.

On this thread, I have shown the width and breadth of concern for this issue repeatedly.

There is a steady claim that I have provided no facts about "districts" versus "at large' voting".

That is false.

I have provided quite a few. The facts I have provided have proved their worth in numerous actual elections, all across the southland for a long time.

I have never used the phrase "your wrong, I'm right". Instead, as the usual posters often do, I provided a wealth of sources of information on this critical topic. The point is for people get the facts, and then make up their own minds.

To make it even simpler, I provided the necessary leads to real human beings who are genuine authorities, all who should be pleased to share what they know. If they are only asked.

Steve HW has referred to Carl Boyer here, as "some dude", and "a guy". He is, in point of fact, a massive source of historic and current knowledge about a topic that is, astoundingly, not well known. That is local government.

He is to local government, what James Madison is to federal government.

I wonder if Steve HW, is any discussion of federal government, would refer to Madison as "some dude", or "a guy".

Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 12:18 p.m.

Steve HW, says that the numerous sources I have listed here as references are all, somehow, "stacked" in "my positions" favor.

Having refused to engage with any of them, how would he possibly know that?

As a point of fact, I may have a significantly different perspective on several recent local government changes, than does my friend and colleague Carl Boyer. I look forward to discussing them with Carl directly.

This claim of Steve HW's is also false.

It is risky to assume things.

Steve HW says that R. Rex Parris is not our problem.

Funny, because Parris is planning to get paid millions of dollars of our tax money, that, please believe, has better uses. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 12:39 p.m.

Here are several facts that I did not include earlier.

R. Rex Parris is one of the two lawyers who is presently suing three of our local government agencies over voting rights. He plans to sue more.

Parris is also the elected mayor of Lancaster.

After a number of these lawsuits were filed (Parris and his "sidekick" Shenkman have quite a few going across the State), Parris finally was confronted with a fascinating inconsistency.

His own City of Lancaster has the EXACT same "at large" voting system that he says, in LAWSUITS! is so terrible in other cities.

What's more, Lancaster is unusual in that regard. The Lancaster voters chose this "at large" system, not once, but TWICE!, in free elections. The first was when the City formed some 36 years ago, and the second was just a few years ago, when Lancaster became a Charter City instead of a General Law City.

After months and months of being hounded by the media about this hypocrisy, Parris ordered that a "commission" be formed. The purpose of the commission?

Why, to study if another commission should be formed. This "other commission" would study whether or not Lancaster should stay "at large", or be divided into "districts". Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 12:49 p.m.

I attended the first meeting of this "commission" of Parris's. They were given so specific charge of action. They were given no staff support. They were given no budget.

Not knowing what to do, they began their meeting with one hour of comments from those in attendance, and then adjourned. No "next meeting" date was selected.

Parris clearly knew that even he could not succeed with such a charade.

Please see next post for what he did next.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 1:03 p.m.

Some six months after this first Lancaster "commission to study if a commission should be formed" met a second time.

At this second meeting, a presentation was given. First, some background.

For R. Rex Parris's lawsuit against his neighboring City of Palmdale, his law firm hired a "professional demographic study 'expert' " to give paid testimony at the trial.

This paid testimony was programmed to support Parris's claim that Palmdale should be forced to abandon its "at large" system and be broken up into "Districts".

This paid consultant did the job asked of him and collected his checks. His "report" said that Palmdale should be broken into districts.

So, somehow, Parris got the City of Lancaster to hire this exact same consultant to "study" Lancaster to see if Lancaster should also abandon its "at large" system, and go to "Districts". Please see next post for the results of this "independent" study.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 1:13 p.m.

I am sure anyone can guess the outcome.

At the presentation at the Lancaster "Commission" the consultant who said that Palmdale should be broken into districts said this.

Lancaster is just fine staying as an "at large" city.

Parris thinks he is "off the hook" as far as his hypocrisy is concerned.

He isn't.

The "action item" that is important here, is that this "presentation" was widely reported all across southern California.

Except here, in neither the Signal, SCV TV, or KHTS.

We need to know the kind of persons we are fighting, and this item did just that. Please see next post


Allan_Cameron: Posted: March 2, 2014 1:54 p.m.

This is my final post on this thread, and it is off the topic of voting rights.

First, I forgot about another blog where people use their real names as a matter of routine.

Its called Facebook. Last report said they had about 1,000,000,000 (one billion) members.

FOOLS ALL!! Guess they all fail to realize their extreme danger, the murderers, etc.

Second, Steve HW said here that an opinion from someone who does not reveal their identity should be taken on its face value, stand on its own, and that anything to do with who is saying it must not be considered.

Its a novel opinion, but I thought I might help garner additional support for that point of view.

I am quite certain that thousands of letters supporting Steve HW's statement can be obtained, so his system could gain wider use. Here is the list of people who would, (as individuals, or as a class) no doubt be ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED if they could speak up, but escape accountability by remaining anonymous.

1. All of the "expert witnesses" who stated under oath that the water in Hinkley California was not PG&E's responsibility.

2. All of the "expert witnesses" who said that (and continue to say) that nuclear power is "safe".

3. All of the "spokespeople" for the Boy Scouts of America, and the Catholic Church who swore for years the child molestation in their organizations was isolated and rare.

4. The leadership of Bell California, who insisted that they salary and administrative practices were routine and just fine.

5. All the "impartial experts" who have claimed that tobacco products use does not cause health damage.

6. All the supporters of the oil industry who assert that they are not hiding the real damage to the world from the "wells into the water" in Kuwait in 1991, the EXXON Valdez, the BP spill in the Mexican gulf, and many more.

7. All of the 'Doctors' who swear that their practice does not consist only of trying to allow insurance companies not to pay claims, and who never see or treat a patient.

This list is potentially far longer and larger. But imagine, just for a moment, if this "hiding" practice became widespread.

But you can easily see how delighted all these folks would be, if they could do what they do under phony names, get away with it, and never have who they are be part of assessing what they say.

Bye


technologist: Posted: March 2, 2014 6:07 p.m.

"Its called Facebook. Last report said they had about 1,000,000,000 (one billion) members.

FOOLS ALL!! Guess they all fail to realize their extreme danger, the murderers, etc."

Facebook at least has a modicum of privacy controls. Please demonstrate your expertise and point out the equivalent on this site.

https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/

Here's something to address another area of ignorance:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fake+name+generator

You mock yourself with false equivalencies, Mr. Cameron.

"Bye"

How can we miss your "wisdom" if you never leave? --edited.


technologist: Posted: March 2, 2014 6:09 p.m.

It appears Mr. Cameron, noted internet security expert, missed this:

Oklahoma City man killed after Facebook comment, police say

Oklahoma City police said a man was fatally shot after commenting on Facebook page about another man's girlfriend.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-man-killed-after-facebook-comment-police-say/article/3882882


CaptGene: Posted: March 2, 2014 6:10 p.m.

Allan_Cameron: "I forgot about another blog where people use their real names as a matter of routine. Its called Facebook."

You have such an issue with "real names", yet you spend your time here. You haven't posted on FB since December of last year. So why would any rational person waste their time here?

I know, the question answers itself.


technologist: Posted: March 2, 2014 6:24 p.m.

Indeed, CG.

As Steve and I have demonstrated, Mr. Cameron's mask slips when pressure is applied.


stevehw: Posted: March 3, 2014 10:03 p.m.

"Steve HW, says that the numerous sources I have listed here as references are all, somehow, "stacked" in "my positions" favor."

I never said that.

I said that you are relying on several fallacies: appeal to popularity (all these other cities have an at-large system) and appeal to authority.

This should be a very simple thing to answer:

What are the pros and cons of each of the alternatives?

Just list them! Shouldn't be that hard to do, I'd think. I could probably come up with half a dozen each if I were so inclined. You seem passionate about this issue, why can't you?


stevehw: Posted: March 3, 2014 10:11 p.m.

"On this site, the few who post here constantly do exactly what I have done. There are endless examples. People demand that external web sites be consulted. They cite outside magazines, historic sources, newspaper articles, TV programs and more. They often list the technical means to use, so that these "off site" sources can be reached. The clear assumption is that they will be read."

We don't "demand" that they be read in order to somehow ascertain the key elements of our arguments. We first state what our argument is, then utilize expert sources as references or citations to support those arguments.

You state your conclusion (districts are bad) and then challenge people to go find out why.

You made 7 long posts, not once giving a single reason why district voting is bad, instead giving us a history of some local political activity. I'm not interested in what Lancaster did, or the CVs of people whom you say agree with you, or whatever.

Just *tell us the pros and cons of each system*.

And enough with the diatribes about anonymous internet posts. Whether a poster remains anonymous or not is *irrelevant* to the truth or falsity, or validity or invalidity, of *what they are saying*.


CaptGene: Posted: March 3, 2014 11:22 a.m.

I recently posted my email address on this forum. When I next checked my email I was required to prove it was mine because of multiple failed attempts at accessing it.

Was it one of you guys, or maybe someone else that has access to the WORLD WIDE WEB? Perhaps it was Allan_Cameron; he seems to be fixated on peoples real names.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...