Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Democrats in WA Should Change Their Name 91

Journal by pudge

Democrats in Washington have completely given up any pretense that they actually care about democracy. I am not one to normally make overt partisan attacks, but what other way is there to say it, when the Democratic party is united in attacking the will of the voters?

It is difficult to understand how they could justify their stance on election reform: by not requiring identification to vote, they are diluting the power of each legal voter's ballot, because if you don't check identification, people can more easily vote illegally, which means more people will vote illegally, which means my vote has less meaning.

Not only that, but in refusing to take such action, they violate federal voting law (HAVA) and, arguably, the state and federal constitutions, which set out guidelines for eligible voters that are violated when proper identification is not required.

But that democracy-destroying inaction pales in comparison to the new law passed by the Democrats this week that overturns voter initiative 601, which required 2/3 of the legislature to pass tax increases.

I am not going to argue a supermajority is democratic while a majority is not; that's foolish, and Governor Gregoire's argument that she "believes in a majority vote" is a straw man, because the point is not that a supermajority is in some way inherently superior, but that this is the clear and expressed will of the people of Washington, and the Democrats abolished it simply because it was inconvenient for them.

The Democrats are sending an unmistakable signal: when they are in power, they don't care about the will of the voters; what Gregoire "believes in" is more important than what the voters want. The clear message voters should get from this is that Democrats should not be in power.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats in WA Should Change Their Name More

Democrats in WA Should Change Their Name

Comments Filter:
  • Well, they're at least out of step with the national Democrats, who will no doubt denounce their Washington state comrades.

    Majority vote? I thought that trampled all over minority rights!
    • Two different issues.

      WA: The people of the state demanded an action and congress overruled it.

      Fed Senate: The constitution in article 2, section 2, clause 2 specifically mentions that the senate's duty is advise and consent for judges, which only requires > 50% vote. We know this because it specifically calls for a 2/3 for treaties and is silent on other appointments so > 50% is implied by "consent."

      Personally, I think a good idea would be an amendment to the WA (or all state) constitutions that m
  • This site: http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html [soundpolitics.com] shows that my Uncle (who voted Rossi) did not vote at all, but that my cousin over in Korea voted, but he didn't even send his ballot in. I've found a lot of little errors like that. Well maybe not a lot, but enough to be disheartening. We're going to have to recall Gregoire before she raises taxes till we all have to move, not just Doctors and businesses.

  • Is the issue photo id? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by extra88 ( 1003 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @12:55PM (#12283049)
    I assume the issue is not identifcation as a concept, surely you have to identify yourself *somehow*, but specifically photo ids. I'm opposed to requiring photo ids. Requiring a photo id is an unnecessary barrier to exercising one's Constitutional right. In New York, your voter registration includes your signature and your polling place has a book containing a copy of the signature. When you go to vote, they look up your name and have you sign one side of the page while the other side is covered. The volunteer uncovers the other side and compares the signatures. If they're a match, you vote (still using mechanical booths here). I'm not sure what happens if there's a dispute about your signature not matching, most likely you fill out a provisional ballot.
    • Sorry, but you lost me on the photo id part. How is that a barrier?

      Perhaps we should have voter ids which have a picture (like drivers licenses).
      • First, you have to get the id. If we're talking about a typical DMV office, that in itself is a barrier. They're not free so you have pay money for it on a regular basis. Hello, Poll Tax!

        Voter regstration requires the minimum amount of information necessary for a person to vote (name, signature for "id," address to determine district, optional party affiliation for voting in primaries) but photo ids typically require a good deal more than that. Privacy nuts who don't have a driver's license and pay for eve
        • First, you have to get the id. If we're talking about a typical DMV office, that in itself is a barrier. They're not free so you have pay money for it on a regular basis. Hello, Poll Tax!

          Yes, but again, this is easy to rectify: make state IDs free, or maybe free to registered voters who don't have a driver's license (you're allowed to register to vote when you get your ID, so if you're not already registered, this is not a problem either).

          Voter regstration requires the minimum amount of information nece
          • Proof of citizenship should be required.

            But isn't that what the registration process is for? They confirm that you are a citizen via tax records/etc. That information is correlated from the information that you give at the time of registration.

            How does the photo id prove citizenship? What additional information are you getting beyond a signature comparison. Photo ids don't offer more protection for absentee ballots. What exactly does a picture get you that the normal registration process does not?

            • But isn't that what the registration process is for? They confirm that you are a citizen via tax records/etc.

              Not in this state, no. They take no action of any kind to verify citizenship of voters, and the Democrats are actively fighting to prevent that.

              It seems that many people here think I am using hyperbole on this. I'm not. They ask for your DL# or the last four digits of your SSN, neither of which could positively identify you as a citizen, and they do no research to verify your citizenship once
              • Photo IDs cloud your argument then. I am glad to see that you aren't as adamant about them, as it originally seemed.

                I have no qualms about checks to prove citizenship... but I am opposed to photo ideas as that "proof" as it doesn't prove anything. What is needed is a process that proves citizenship upon registration.

                The problem that you will run into, though is that you will have to have everyone re-register to vote under the new verification process and I doubt that you would ever get that approved.
                • Photo IDs cloud your argument then

                  Yes, which is why I didn't include them in the post.

                  The problem that you will run into, though is that you will have to have everyone re-register to vote under the new verification process and I doubt that you would ever get that approved.

                  No, you could grandfather existing voters in, in combination with purging the rolls, which is something that should happen regularly anyway.

                  I don't know if WA can do this -- I highly doubt it -- but if they can tie voter registratio
    • I left it intentionally vague only because it is a bit complex, but you hit on some of the issues.

      Basically, there is no requirement in WA to confirm citizenship, either at registration or at the polls. This is the real problem the Democrats are fighting against: they want illegals to vote. Instead of requiring proof of citizenship, they are putting a checkbox on the form that you have to check affirming you are a citizen, and a warning that if you lie you can be prosecuted.

      And the Democrats say, we don
    • Washington does something similar.

      They have signature matching software that automaticly matches signatures with the signature on the voter registration. Any that the software flags as not matching are reviewed by humans to see if they match.

      According to the Secretary of State this actually works well both for verifying voters and verifying signatures on ballot measures.

      Remember that we are talking at most a handful of votes that shouldn't have counted. Most of these are people who were registered but sh
      • While it is possible to lower the already low error rate you will never eliminate it entirely.

        This is no excuse to taking the minimally reasonable action of requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Note that while I favor photo ID requirement at polls, that was not in my post, as I am more concerned with the fact that there is no proof of positive identification -- meaning, you prove you are a citizen who is legibile to vote -- required *at all,* not even at registration.

        Maybe there are not a lot of ill

        • Re:Is the issue photo id? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ces ( 119879 )
          Well I had to give my WDL number and I believe my SSN when I registered. To be honest I really have no idea what verification of this takes place on the back end but given access to the SS and DOL databases it shouldn't be too hard to match signature, address, and name on the voter registration against the other two.

          Frankly I don't really understand the scarmongering about illegal aliens voting. I certainly don't think it is a big problem at least in this state. Far more likely would be legal aliens voting
          • Well I had to give my WDL number and I believe my SSN when I registered

            It's one or the other. And an SSN does not guarantee citizenship: legal immigrants can get them. And it is not checked anyway, since you only provide the last four digits (see the form [wa.gov]).

            Also, you can get a DL without ID. It is marked "not valid for identification." How much you wanna bet our elections officials don't cross-reference to make sure that someone is not using such a DL to register to vote?

            So no, you do not have to pr
            • As I said I'll support the reforms Secretary of State Sam Reed supports which are nowhere near as radical as you propose.

              I really can't believe that you thing registering to vote should be as much of a pain in the ass as applying for a passport. All for what? To solve a *potental* problem that I have yet to see any proof of happening anywhere in the United States in anything more than a handful of isolated cases, much less in Washington State.

              If you can show me a pattern of non-citizens voting in any sign
              • As I said I'll support the reforms Secretary of State Sam Reed supports which are nowhere near as radical as you propose.

                I cannot accecpt that requiring someone to prove they are eligible to vote is "radical." On the contrary, it is radical to say that this is radical.

                I really can't believe that you thing registering to vote should be as much of a pain in the ass as applying for a passport. All for what? To solve a *potental* problem that I have yet to see any proof of happening anywhere in the United
                • It certainly is radical to require the level of proof and hassle required to obtain a passport in order to register to vote. I am unaware of any jurisdiction that currently does this.

                  You may say that you are advocating no such thing. However I will point out that at least part of the reason passports are such a pain to get and take so long is because the Government wants to be damn sure you are who you say you are before they issue you one. Any system that required absolute proof of identity and citizenshi
                  • It certainly is radical to require the level of proof and hassle required to obtain a passport in order to register to vote.

                    I never said anything about requiring the hassle of obtaining a passport. I did talk about a similar level of proof, but I don't think providing a birth certificate is a "hassle," let alone "radical." Neither does any other person I've talked to, except for you, and officials of the Democrat party.

                    Any system that required absolute proof of identity and citizenship prior to regist
                    • Again why do you and our Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed disagree on what reforms are needed?

                      Given that he has over 25 years experience in running elections as a County Auditor and as Secretary of State I tend to think he has a pretty good idea of where the problems in the system are.
                    • If I though the question had any relevance whatsoever, I would answer it. What Sam Reed thinks simply doesn't matter to what I am talking about. If you want to go by experience, Slade Gorton has more than Sam Reed does, and he agrees with me. Playing this game isn't difficult, and it is exceedingly boring.
                    • Considering that Sam Reed has been the top election official for both Thurston County and for the State of Washington I think what he has to say is quite relevant. Certainly many of the members of the Washington State Legislature from both parties seem to be listening to him with regard to what reforms are needed to state election law.

                      To the best of my knowledge Slade Gorton has never been responsible for running an election so I think Reed's experience trumps Gorton's in this area.
                    • Yes, because no one is allowed to disagree with Sam Reed. What he says is gospel!

                      If you're not going to be serious, why are we having a discussion at all?
                    • No what Reed says isn't gospel, however on the issue of electoral reform what he has to say is quite influential because of his experience.

                      If Reed doesn't think the ID requirements need to be toughened to the level you are advocating then I'm willing to defer to his professional judgement. Certainly he is in a better postition than I to know how much of a problem fraudulent registrations are.

                      You know, I get as sick of some on the right bringing up the boogie man of "illegal immigrant voting" as if it was
                    • I continue to skip over your fallacial appeal to Reed as the final arbiter of truth on the matter, and get to this:

                      You know, I get as sick of some on the right bringing up the boogie man of "illegal immigrant voting"

                      Huh. I never once made any reference to illegal immigrant voting. If this is your problem, then you've invented a rather colorful straw man. I was talking about illegal voting by noncitizens, but that did not mean I was talking about illegal noncitizens.

                      Anyway, you continue also with the
                    • I continue to skip over your fallacial appeal to Reed as the final arbiter of truth on the matter,

                      Yea, whatever. If I have a question about cancer I'm going to take the word of an experienced oncologist over yours.

                      The people who are responsible for running elections in this state believe that the current standards of identification, both during registration and during elections are sufficent. The registration information is already matched against the DOL or SS databases. The voter's signature is alread
                    • If I have a question about cancer I'm going to take the word of an experienced oncologist over yours.

                      It's extraordinarily specious to compare opinions about how government should work to technical medical opinions. Worse, you ignore the fact that many elections officials across the country say citizenship verification is necessary. And no, I am not going to mention any. Duelling Experts is a stupid game that you insist on playing.

                      The people who are responsible for running elections in this state bel
  • Watch the slow but inescapable grind of the Republicanization of Kalifornia.

    The voter are also bemoaning our full-time fully-benefited legislators' inability to fix the bloated budget.

    Give it a matter of time before most of us republican (and I mean that in a ballistic manner.)
    • You're kidding right? What happens this year, and which Democrat runs for Governor in 2006, will determine if Schwarzenegger was a Republicans fluke. I mean whether there is a special election, or if compromises are reached, and how the public views the outcomes.

      You know that Scwarzenegger has also been pushing back the budget's overspending until next year, don't you? He refuses to consider tax hikes, even though agencies state-wide are increasing fees for services, parks, permits, tuition, because the
      • It is only a reflection of what I see at a San Joquian Valley regional-wide level (forget about the iconoclastic powerhouse Bay Area) and this trend is very much clear to me that Republicanization is occuring around me, left and right. Placer, Yolo and Sutter County (fastest growing) are also going Republican at an amazing clip!.

        I did say this to be in a ballistic manner, to be construed as voter outrage of paying taxes/fees here and taxes/fees there.

        Couple that with rising housing/mortgage cost and you
        • Aren't housing costs largely a result of supply and demand? Millions of people want to come to the state, so either housing prices go up, or we build until the entire central valley is houses instead of farms. Of course we don't have enough water for that many houses at current usage levels...

          Seems like people in those counties are growing more Republican because of factors out of their control. Alternatively, CA could scrap much of the social services, letting the inner cities crumble from crime and po
          • It's like raising the tax rate on the highest bracket

            Which shouldn't be done.

            I'm not in favor of creating a corporate royalty class composed of tremendous wealth and influence.

            What you mean is that you are in favor of trying to prevent such a class, not that you are not in favor of its creation. The absence of your ideas would not create such a class, but would allow them to exist, while your proposals would prevent them from existing.

            Or so the reasoning goes. In fact, the people who suffer least f
            • Is it still true that

              according to the IRS, only one in 25 farmers leaves a taxable estate. The inheritors of such estates pay very little. In 1992, the median estate tax paid by farmers was $5,000. Much of the value of inherited land is offset by the deduction of debt. Farmers and owners of small businesses also enjoy special exemptions. For instance, their heirs may pay off the estate tax over 14 years at very low interest--an option not available to others. ?

              How are you defining suffering? Based on m
              • How are you defining suffering?

                Paying taxes.

                Based on quality of life impact?

                Yes, now we get to the part where you proceed to judge other peoples' relative quality of life. This is the greatest flaw in the liberal view: since someone else "needs" my money more than I do, based on some external party's inherently flawed judgments, I get taxed more.

                I reject it categorically.
                • What if you happen to agree with the external party that some of your money is needed more by Cause X? Then in that case the external party's "inherently flawed" judgment was correct.

                  I reject that the individual is more important than the group.
                  • What if you happen to agree with the external party that some of your money is needed more by Cause X?

                    Feel free to give your money. But that is not what is happening here, is it?

                    Then in that case the external party's "inherently flawed" judgment was correct.

                    No, it is not. The judgment is that this party knows better than you do what is best for you to do with your money. Just because you happen to agree doesn't mean they were right to make the judgment in the first place.

                    I reject that the indivi
                    • Supporting social safety nets created by the state and paid for by taxes is supporting the group. I wonder how many Americans reject your definition of Americanism?
                    • Supporting social safety nets created by the state and paid for by taxes is supporting the group.

                      I was not talking about that. Why do you think I was? Either you think I mean to be saying something I am not, or you don't understand the core of what I am saying.

                      The point is not providing social services (although I could argue about your views on that too). The point is, rather, about your mistaken view that it is reasonable for anyone to say that one person should be taxed more just because they don't
                    • Why do you think I was?

                      Simple. You said I reject it categorically. in reference to the subject two lines above it.

                      I replied to that subject, and left my own I reject that the individual is more important than the group. Because it's related to the subject two lines above it. You replied to all three sentences seperately, but they're all linked. Hence my reply.

                      your mistaken view that it is reasonable for anyone to say that one person should be taxed more just because they don't "need" their money as
                    • Simple. You said I reject it categorically. in reference to the subject two lines above it.

                      I reject the notion that anyone other than me can judge what money I need. That was clearly stated as what I was rejecting.

                      What if my view is that unproductive people should commit suicide? What if this view is based on my philosophy that furthering humanity's achievements is the most important thing for people to do? My philosophy is an opinion. It is subjective. So my view isn't mistaken based on my philosophy.
                    • In this case, you actually are trying to harm other people.

                      The Group is composed of all Americans. 55% would be very much harmed by adopting a 17 or 20% flat tax and cutting services. Under the current system the top 15% are harmed relatively little. The middle 30% would be relatively uneffected by the cumulative effects of either system. So by my philosophy a flat tax is bad. Under a flat tax, you are actually trying to harm more people moreso than as present.

                      I favor representative democracy in man
                    • The Group is composed of all Americans. 55% would be very much harmed by adopting a 17 or 20% flat tax and cutting services.

                      As noted in my other reply, this would never happen. Even if it were 17 to 20%, there would be significant enough personal exemptions to make sure no one had an actual tax increase.

                      Under the current system the top 15% are harmed relatively little.

                      In your incorrect opinion, which is incorrect. You must have drank a lot of left-wing kool-aid to be fooled into thinking that taking
                    • You're forgetting that a poor person needs to consider if he should treat himself to kool-aid, or a candy bar. A rich person doesn't. I judge by impact on the quality of life. Tens of thousands of dollars has very little impact on someone earning a million or more each year.

                      It's mathematically impossible for nobody's taxes to increase, decrease for others, and still bring in the same amount of revenue. The counter argument is that the economy picks up and other taxes bring in more. Except that goverme
                    • I judge by impact on the quality of life ... which you are definitionally incapable of judging.

                      Tens of thousands of dollars has very little impact on someone earning a million or more each year.

                      You're wrong.

                      It's mathematically impossible for nobody's taxes to increase, decrease for others, and still bring in the same amount of revenue.

                      Sorry, when I said no one's taxes would increase, I was referring to lower-income and middle class. It would increase on the rich, who on average pay a *smaller* effe
                    • I'm incapable of judging as well as the person directly effected, but outsiders judge all the time. Analysts, designers, regulators. Your problem with outsiders judging is probably shared by a minority of the population.

                      Since impact is relative, I'm right.

                      except

                      I thought the sentence but didn't type it. If revenue increases when there are less taxes, we should abolish taxes alltogether...except then there would be no revenue to pay for government to run. That means there's an equilibrium to be foun
                    • I'm incapable of judging as well as the person directly effected, but outsiders judge all the time.

                      And they are all incapable of it.

                      Analysts, designers, regulators. Your problem with outsiders judging is probably shared by a minority of the population.

                      Do you intend this to be a meaningful argument, even if it is true? It's not.

                      Since impact is relative, I'm right.

                      That's not possible. You cannot know what money I need, and what money I do not need. It is not possible for you to be right in your a
                    • It's not about you. It's about percentages of the Group. According to all the people who allow legislators to spend their tax dollars on non-essential programs, the outsiders don't have to be 100% right. Just close enough to maintain the support of the voters. These voters are okay with progressive taxation, with brackets defined by outsiders, ostensibly based on what is a fair share of the burden.

                      You said Yes, Americans who are ignorant of, or apathetic toward, the Constitution."

                      It sounded like you
                    • It's not about you. It's about percentages of the Group

                      So you know that x% of people in a certain group don't need a certain amount of money?

                      No, you do not. You cannot. It's not possible. For all you know, all of them need all their money.

                      These voters are okay with progressive taxation

                      Because they are ignorant, greedy, or they are antagnoistic toward personal liberty, as you are.

                      It sounded like you were implying that if the 10th were enforced, there wouldn't quickly be an amendment allowing the
                    • So you know that x% of people in a certain group don't need a certain amount of money?

                      I don't have to be 100% sure, but it's okay by the voters if I'm pretty sure that the upper 15% of income earners can afford being taxed at 30% and still have their quality of life impacted less than the lowest 50% getting taxed at 15%.
                    • if I'm pretty sure that the upper 15% of income earners can afford being taxed at 30% and still have their quality of life impacted less than the lowest 50% getting taxed at 15%.

                      You cannot be pretty sure of that. You're not getting this. You have no idea. You cannot even make a reasonable guess.

                      What you are really doing is not saying what people need, or can afford. What you are saying is what you THINK they should live on, or what you THINK they should BE ABLE to afford. You are really telling the
                    • Why can't I make a reasonable guess? If I'm a statistician analyzing numbers for how much people gave to charity, how much they spent on food, shelter, luxuries, how much they saved, polls of whether people thought they were being taxed more than their fair share, why can't I have some idea and make a reasonable guess?

                      Consider the outcome. Theoretically a few rich people are overly burdened, but there is money for social safety nets for lower classes. A few people suffer while many more benefit.
                    • Why can't I make a reasonable guess? If I'm a statistician analyzing numbers for how much people gave to charity, how much they spent on food, shelter, luxuries, how much they saved, polls of whether people thought they were being taxed more than their fair share, why can't I have some idea and make a reasonable guess?

                      Because none of that has anything to do with what we are discussing.
                    • Of course it does. A key point of progressive taxation is being able to estimate how much higher a percentage of income the rich can do without and not suffer a worse drop in their quality of life.
                    • A key point of progressive taxation is being able to estimate how much higher a percentage of income the rich can do without and not suffer a worse drop in their quality of life.

                      None of what you said addresses that.
                    • The problem is you want to steer the topic towards it's effects on one person. I want to talk about it's effects on the Group.
                    • The problem is you want to steer the topic towards it's effects on one person. I want to talk about it's effects on the Group.

                      The problem is you still can't tell me how you can know I don't need my money, and if you can't do that, how can you tell that any x% of people don't need theirs? There is no possible statistic to show it. You listed a whole bunch of things that don't tell you what you say you are determining.

                      You might as well be saying, "We asked people what their favorite color was, and from t
                    • The problem is you still can't tell me how you can know I don't need my money, and if you can't do that, how can you tell that any x% of people don't need theirs?

                      I won't know for you specifically, but I can do surveys and research on samples of people in similar economic situations as you are. Then I can extrapolate that for the economic population you're a part of, about how much money your group needs per person.
                    • I won't know for you specifically, but I can do surveys and research on samples of people in similar economic situations as you are.

                      No you cannot. It is not possible.

                      First, what you are saying doesn't even make internal sense: if you cannot figure it out for the individual, you cannot figure it out for anyone in a given survey. This is a truism in surveys. Surveys are not capable of extrapolating down from the group to the individual, they work the other way 'round, extrapolating out from individuals
                • Ok, so how do you propose to pay for roads, schools, police, fire protection, and the courts?

                  The money has to come from somewhere and I don't think voluntary donations are going to cut it.

                  This seems to be the fundamental dilemma of government, people tend to like the things government pays for but dislike paying taxes themselves.
                  • Ok, so how do you propose to pay for roads, schools, police, fire protection, and the courts?

                    Are you implying I am against all taxation? I never stated nor implied that.

                    This seems to be the fundamental dilemma of government, people tend to like the things government pays for but dislike paying taxes themselves.

                    How is that a dilemma?
                    • How is that a dilemma?

                      Because you either have to convince people to pay for the goodies they claim they want or convince them to do without the goodies.
                    • Because you either have to convince people to pay for the goodies they claim they want or convince them to do without the goodies.

                      And how is that a dilemma?

                      It seems to me this is how it should work, and how it necessarily does and always will.
                    • The dilemma comes because people want the goodies but want someone else to pay for them.
                    • The dilemma comes because people want the goodies but want someone else to pay for them.

                      Yes, that is a problem, which is solved in part by decentralization/defederalization, a flat tax, etc.
          • Rising housing costs are primarily driven by the newly introduced zero-interest rate mortgage (no payment toward principal) PLUS the investors (probably of the Bay Area kin-folks) pouring money into the San Joquain Valley housing industry over the last 5 years. No doubt about that.

            What is nominally 11% of the housing market is invested and rented out over the past decade is now at a peak of 24% of housing market being invested and rented out (ONE IN F*CKIN' FOUR!).

            I can already sense the impending doom w
          • Flat taxes is good, make no mistake about this.

            From a governmental standpoint of view, flat tax is an excellent way to reduce overhead of societal burdens of maintaining the poor and lower-class.

            For a societal point of view, this means lower taxes for everyone.

            If these kinfolks can't afford CA and its flat taxes, they'll move elsewhere. It's that simple.

            No need to make more "magnet" legislations to keep the beacon of light shining for more influx of poor and untenables from out-of-state and out-of-coun
            • I really like your honesty, it's so very refreshing.

              The thing is, I ideally want the poor in my city, state, country, and world to have a minimum quality of life, and extra options to increase it.

              How high a percentage would the flat tax have to be to provide the level of services the federal government offers today? Won't this percentage mean higher taxes on the lower class and some of the middle class?

              If lower income people move to Oklahoma, where things are less expensive, will there be jobs? How abo
              • Thank you on the honesty part. This isn't something that I just whipped up overnite. It's been a long thought out process on how to invigorate the economy of USA as a whole.

                I'm just despondant that middle class used to represent the bulge of the class strate for quite some time until recently. This bulge is slipping toward lower class (or worse two-class system, instead of 3 or better, seamless).

                When its hammered repeatedly on the thoughts (and I assure you this isn't happening at all at public schools
                • I agree that Prop 13 is a problem, though any solution needs to phased in slowly. Even with that change, will you agree that the SJ/Bay Area is a more desirable place to live for more people than say, Fresno? A huge number of people do want to live in CA for the climate and the things to do, more than they want to live in Oklahoma City. That is going to increase demand and prices for housing in Berkeley, SJ, and most of the state.

                  As for comparing Texas and CA, it reminds me of two factories, one in the
                • Interesting about Texas.

                  By way of contrast you can look at Washington. Housing prices in the Seattle area are getting to be insane (not yet Bay Area insane but on their way).

                  We have no state income tax and nothing like Prop 13. But housing around Seattle is getting to be difficult for the middle class to afford. The poor have already mostly been driven out to the cheaper suburbs.

                  OTOH while not booming to the level of DFW there seems to be a fair bit of investment capital sloshing around so the money isn'
              • How high a percentage would the flat tax have to be to provide the level of services the federal government offers today? Won't this percentage mean higher taxes on the lower class and some of the middle class?

                Short answer, no: several congresspeople have presented viable plans that represent no tax increases for anyone (IIRC, by exempting a larger number of low-income workers, especially those on the 10% bracket). And if anyone did see a tax increase, it would not be the middle class, as the flat tax ra
      • Here's a question I've been wondering about. Is it legal for a state to write legislation that only goes into effect on the condition that another state adopts identical legislation?

        I see no reason why not. I can't say that I think it would be a good idea, politically or otherwise, though.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Since you prefer pay-per-use does that mean bus and light rail tickets should be $5 and $10 dollars? Because it takes state and local subsidies to operate them. Fares only pay for about a third of costs. Should regional and state parks double or triple use fees so only the users pay the price of preserving these areas and providing services to them? Should only parents with children in a school have to pay for funding it? I have no children, but property taxes from everyone pay for schools I don't use

  • Hey! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ces ( 119879 ) <christopher.stefan#gmail.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:18PM (#12283352) Homepage Journal
    You forgot the [tt].

    But seriously I have to comment on the following:

    But that democracy-destroying inaction pales in comparison to the new law passed by the Democrats this week that overturns voter initiative 601, which required 2/3 of the legislature to pass tax increases.

    Sorry, but WA state law allows initatives to be repealed by a vote of the legislature after a set period of time (two years I believe). It is perfectly legal and if you don't like it there is a legislative election coming up in 2006. For that matter you can always pass another initative with similar language. Republican controled legislatures have repealed initatives too in the recent past.

    You could also change state law such that initatives can no longer be repealed by the legislature, but remember that cuts both ways, there are likely to be initatives passed that the GOP doesn't like and would otherwise attempt to repeal when they have the votes to do so.

    • Re:Hey! (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      It is perfectly legal

      I never implied otherwise. Trust me, if I thought it were illegal, I would have said so. :-)

      if you don't like it there is a legislative election coming up in 2006

      Yes, that is precisely the point I made in the last sentence.

      • Re:Hey! (Score:2)

        by ces ( 119879 )
        I'll also remind you again that the Republicans have done the exact same thing (repeal initatives) when they've had the votes to do so.

        601 is probably far enough in the past that most voters won't even remember what it was about.

        Still repealing 601 probably isn't the best strategy if the Democrats are serious about wanting to pick up seats in Eastern Washington or suburban and rural areas of Western Washington.
    • Sorry, but WA state law allows

      Can/Should. He didn't say they couldn't. Said they shouldn't. "Just because you have a right, doesn't make it right." Same goes for the Rs. Initiatives should trump.

      • Re:Hey! (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        Yeah, I am against voter initiatives in general, just becacuse I like representative democracy better. But when the people speak, you should respect that, and while they can repeal it, when they are doing it only because they know they have to do it to increase taxes, and there is no voter mandate of any kind to raise taxes ... you could not have a more clear example of disregarding the will of the people.

        I suppose one could attempt to make the case that voters only intend the initiatives to stand for two

        • I am against voter initiatives in general

          In California, it's the only thing keeping the far left from going hog-wild.

          I like the voter initiative. It allows for a more grass-roots form of democracy while keeping the representative aspects fully intact. It's not "easy" to get an initiative on the ballot and it's not meant to be. It also acts as an addional 'check' of state power.

          It may be easy for a democrat to get elected (and re-elected) in most of California -- but it *IS* hard for them to push too

          • Re:Hey! (Score:2)

            by pudge ( 3605 ) *
            I am not flatly against them ... I just prefer things get done through the representative democracy, whenever possible, resorting to initiative only when necessary, and even then, the threshold for getting it on the ballot should be very high.
  • We have to show some form of ID, but it doesn't have to be a state ID card, or municipal ID card. It could be a phone bill, or library card, or student-id card, something, anything that the election official is willing to accept. I'd say forcing one to have an ID is kinda weird though as it would impose a barrier to your right to vote.
    • The only alternative is a continued increase in illegal voters, which hurts all of the legal voters. Without proof of citizenship, this is the inevitable result. Pick your poison.
      • I think the last time I just presented my voter's registration card, which was assigned to me when I updated my address at the drivers license office. When I think back on thsi, I seem to recall some ability to get access to the list of registered voters in my district, so that I might scrutinize them for whatever reasons. Would that capability be enought to thwart vote fraud?
        • In theory, but the Democrats are ALSO blocking the ability of citizens to challenge other voters.
          • Ok so how are votes validated then? I mean in the end, the situation needs to be that nobody votes twice, nobody delegates their vote to somebody else, and that the districts number of votes doesn't exceed the districts number of registered voters. I would also think it is important for anonymity in the form of not having the informat9ion be known who you voted for in the final tally.

            I suppose I can theorize on technological systems, like a finger print scan upon registering to vote, and validation of your
            • I mean in the end, the situation needs to be that nobody votes twice, nobody delegates their vote to somebody else, and that the districts number of votes doesn't exceed the districts number of registered voters

              And that people who aren't allowed to vote, do not.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with money is it costs too much!

Close