A North Carolina State Court of Appeals will soon decide how many signatures an independent candidate needs to get on the ballot for Orange County Commissioner. The law says an independent needs 4% of the number of registered voters in the district. In Orange County, there are two rounds for County Commissioner elections. In the first round, the voters of district two are the only voters. But in the run-off, the entire county votes.
See this story. The independent candidate, Connor Fraley, argues that the 4% should be calculated on the number of registered voters in district two, not in the entire county. He lost in the lower court but is appealing.
Yeah, it is common in NC counties to nominate from districts, while electing countywide.
PCT OF ACTUAL VOTES IN ELECTION AREA IN PRIOR GENERAL ELECTION – OR FILING FEES.
4% seems high for a local race
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=136376
PROF BOOK ON BALLOT ACCESS – COMING SOON
It’s a sad state of affairs that voting access rules can take books to explain. I can fit all my proposed rules on one normal size sheet of paper in normal font size and spacing. Even if you disagree with some or all of my exact proposals, that should be the case. Why do people take such complexity as either unavoidable or ok?
That also applies to written laws in general:
It’s a sad state of affairs that written laws can take books to print, and more books to explain. It’s an even sadder state of affairs that they have to have entire postsecondary educated and licensed professions to interpret, revise, arbitrate, consult, lobby over, argue adversely, report on, etc, etc, much of it at taxpayers expense. It’s a giant, self-perpetuating racket, which is being manipulated by a globalist cabal bent on taking over every aspect of human life on the planet and centralizing all power while killing off 90% of humanity and enslaving the rest.
I can fit all my proposed rules on one normal size sheet of paper in normal font size and spacing. Even if you disagree with some or all of my exact proposals, that should be the case. Why do people take such complexity as either unavoidable or ok? Can anyone provide a serious and well thought out answer, or is that asking too much of this audience?
MAXZIM –
WHAT / WHEN / WHERE WAS THE FIRST MINI-GROUP TO BE KILLED OFF / ENSLAVED BY ANOTHER GROUP ???
—
LATER — DARK AGES AFTER FALL OF W. ROMAN EMPIRE – CREATION OF *MODERN* NATION-STATES —
TAKEOVER BY LAYERS OF *NOBLE* ARMED GANGS OF LOCAL AREAS – BY FORCE, THREATS/BRIBES
ENGLAND, FRANCE, SPAIN
DELAYED A BIT IN GERMANY AND ITALY — 1860S
I’m not sure why A”Trump=Hitler”Z is asking me history questions. He’s capable of reading the Bible in at least one language, if more. If he doesn’t own one, he can also read it at no charge online. The “dark” ages have been much maligned; it seems to me that our “illuminated” or “enlightenment” age is in fact much darker. Modern nation states have been a particularly bad problem, in that they are much too large, especially in terms of population, but in most cases also in terms of land area.
I propose a compromise wherein a national defense military would continue to guard the borders of a national state at that scale, since military defense seems to work better at that scale historically, while other kinds of peacekeeping would be at the local scale (about 100,000 people, of whom about 100 would be voters, and perhaps 10 peace officers, hopefully part time), and everything else would be done outside of government. Commerce would also be mainly, but not exclusively, within the precinct.
My reading of history is that nobility, whatever problems it had, was an important check against overly rapid change and ideological mass delusions which spread like deadly contagious disease. It should not be unbalanced with other power structures, or an iron door against all social mobility, as was often the case in the past. However, we have nowadays gone way too far in the other direction, and the resulting social decay and mass morbidity is far worse than the millennia of nontrivial nobility engendered.
Remember, my proposal is not to create utopia, which is by definition impossible. Neither the past not the present is perfect. Some things have been worse than others, and modern certainly doesn’t mean better. I seek to blend the best of the past and today’s world to make the future the least bad it can be; perfection is unachievable until Jesus returns.
As for layers and armed gangs, I’ve spelled out numerous reasons why my proposal would prevent that. They have been largely unaddressed, except by a commenter going by only Jim, who believes I misunderstand human nature. To my knowledge, he did not respond to evidence and arguments which I offered to the contrary, although I would have to go back and look to say that with certainty.
@Max,
Would there be any need for the Internet under your proposal?
I would think it probably wouldn’t just go away. It’s likely that military defense units of nation states, internet services providers, website operators, and certainly family patriarchs would place some restrictions on content. There could also be restrictions on content accessed by employees at work, students who physically attend schools or universities, and so on. Providers of content would likely restrict who accesses it, some more than others.
What other aspects of internet have I failed to consider, if any? Fraud online is still fraud. Theft by deception online is still theft by deception. Sex crimes online are still sex crimes. Harassment online is still harassment. And so on. It doesn’t necessarily require new laws.
It may require voluntary cooperation between peace officers in different precincts when possible, better development of cyber security (probably best without government interference, as is the general rule with most things), more content restrictions by various entities as explained above, or some combination. Additional context may be needed to provide a better answer.
Could my proposal work if internet somehow were to shut down? Probably, but I have not considered that as a likely enough possibility to put any thought into why it may not. It seems to me that particular genie is out of the bottle and not going back inside.
On the other hand, perhaps my proposals would only stand a chance of being implemented, at least in the next few human generations, if society collapsed first, so maybe there would be no internet. I suspect it would be rebuilt in fairly short order. In any case, I can’t bring myself to wish for social collapse.
MAXZIM TYRANNY –
WOULD HAVE TO SHUT DOWN INTERNET-
SERFS MIGHT SEE DEMOCRACY INFO.
SEE RED CHINA – PURGE OF ALL INTERNET *DEMOCRACY* STUFF.
Nonsense. The AI A”Trump=Hitler”Z bot is lying, as usual. It is programmed to post 99% plus lies and gibberish.