Here is the announcement from the League of Women Voters of California. The first link in the LWVCA announcement takes one to the Ballotpedia page that explains the implications of Yes or No votes on this initiative.
This is one more instance of a troubling and growing trend of conflating the term “Ballot Access” with “Voters’ Rights.” I (and, I do believe, Richard Winger) think that the term ballot access should continue to address candidates’ ability to be on ballots, and that the term “Voters’ (or Voting) Rights” refers to the ability of the electorate to cast a vote.
We think the cause of a robust and effective democracy would be served by adhering to that demarcation.
VOTERS = ELECTORS
QUALIFICATIONS / REGISTRATION
BAAADE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS IN CA – ESP DUE TO CA TOP 2 PRIMARY.
MANY VOTERS N-O-T VOTING IN GENL ELECTIONS – ESP IF 2 D OR 2 R IN A GERRYMANDER DISTRICT.
—
NOOO PRIMARIES
PR/APPV
Voter ID is absolutely necessary. The LEV is a communist organization.
Why would someone change their name and not get an updated ID?
No candidates, no right to vote. No sellers means nothing to buy.
Re: Bill Redpath. Is the prohibition of write-in voting an infringement of the right to candidacy, the right to vote, or BOTH! Denying a candidate access to voters deprives voters of right to vote effectively.
“Voter ID is absolutely necessary. The LEV is a communist organization.”
True!
Also, “voting rights” is ingsoc newspeak for diluting legitimate votes and making them meaningless, effectively negating the actual voting rights of legitimate voters.
Those legitimate voters do not include women. The 19th is one of many – indeed, most – constitutional amendments long overdue for repeal.
“No candidates, no right to vote. No sellers means nothing to buy.”
Not true. Under the standing count, vote would be by party, no candidates. But there would be a vote held every year.
Proportional representation and approval voting are bad ideas.
However, not having government run or financed primaries is a good idea.
I support Patriarchy by supporting Donald Trump. I support Donald Trump by supporting Patriarchy!
https://genius.com/Mentors-sfcc-lyrics
Donald Trump is the most stablest geniusest genius of all Times.
tyrant trump is one more tyrant subverting/overthrowing a Constitution – esp doing foreign wars in violation of 1-8-11
AND trying to subvert the States in defying Electors –1-2-1 / 17 Amdt, para 1.
If only REAL citizens cast censored ballots it will change everything?
It would be better if voting didn’t involve ballots. And it wouldn’t be censored.
If Liberator Trump was a tyrant, the nAZi-666 spambot would already be deprogrammed, it’s programmer would already be dead or in prison, and this website would already be offline. Duh!
Mexico passed Voter ID back in the 1990’s.
Jim Riley,
Because IDs cost money, take time to apply for (still during limited office hours?), and require other documents which might be hard for some people to get or even turn into a circular trap?
The point of the post is that the statement opposing the voter ID measure is titled “Voting Rights Groups Vow to Defeat Measure Restricting Ballot Access”. It would have been useful if the post included this in its text, rather than just linking to the statement.
Maybe if that happened, the comments might have addressed that issue rather than the general issue of voter ID requirements. Of course, like most posts on this site recently, even the comments that discuss voter ID requirements are overwhelmed by the rantings of right-wing nut jobs. Or are those rants the “clever” satire of others trying to make the right look crazy (but effectively making BAN’s comments section near useless)?
Calling a fish an “elephant” doesn’t make it into one.
The comments Dave Kadlecek ridiculously mischaracterized as “rantings” and “nut jobs” address the exact issue, they just point out that the propaganda spin wording of the release turn reality on its head.
For example, I hinted at why what the propaganda masters of deception.call “voting rights” end up having the opposite effect.
My comments are not satire or crazy. Mr. Kadlecek is just overwhelmed by his cognitive dissonance stemming from his inability to address those points.
Stanley said, “It would be better if voting didn’t involve ballots. And it wouldn’t be censored.”
Would you enlighten us how that would work?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/12-places-trumps-name-image-090000020.html
TYRANT TRUMP NAME / PICTURE — MONARCH MANIAC MACHINATIONS
NEXT- USA = TRUMPLAND ???
CAPITOL – TRUMP, DISTRICT OF TRUMP ???
LIVING IN TRUMP HOUSE ON TRUMP AVE ???
Dave Kadlecek = Robert K Stock?
I’ve only explained it how many thousand times, as have other’s, including directly to you in particular? Standing Count by party is my ideal, but traditional in person voice vote to election officials would be a large incremental improvement.
For voting access, I suggest that a party would consist of qualified voters on election night in the election hall and remain standing together at the voting cutoff. The winning party then picks officeholders and replaces them at will or swaps them in and out until the following year’s election.
An independent would be a party of one.
Thank you, Stanley. Should work in a small village. Citizens out of out of town or country or can’t stand get no vote.
The size of voting areas I envision would average about 100,000 total human population, ranging from maybe 10k to 1 million, of whom very roughly 1 in 1k would qualify to vote. That would yield an average voting meeting of 100 voters, but it could range from 10 to 1k.
I’ve seen standing count used successfully in meetings of about 1k voters. Those meetings also found other ways to accommodate those who can’t physically stand up, although there are other reasons such people would not qualify to vote. Note: I wouldn’t either. Off the top of my head, I’m too old for front line military or law enforcement duty, even in a reserve capacity, and divorced. Either of those alone would be among the many reasons to disqualify people from voting.
Out of town or out of country shouldn’t be much of an issue in the future, given technological development.
Manufacturing could be automated at the atomic or subatomic level, which would take away the need to ship physical resources around.
Communication technology, while not there yet, will approach a fully realistic in person experience, so there would be no more need to physically travel to meet anyone or experience a place, given that it could be experienced virtually and feel completely real.
Thus, I expect very few people or goods would ever cross international borders again, with nations averaging 100k population.
Big cities could constitute multiple nations within the city.