California's primary system advances the top two vote-getters to the general >election regardless of party. With a large number of Democrat candidates >(around a dozen or more) potentially splitting the Democrat vote, and a just >two prominent Republicans (Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco) polling strongly, >there is concern (and panic) that Republicans could finish in the top two-- >leaving no Democrat on the November ballot for governor.
Newsom was asked about this during a recent press conference and he responded >that there's an emergency "break the glass" contingency plan that involves the >use of state agencies to prevent Democrats from being locked out of the race.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AAOdt2uRmmY
Democrats originally supported this top-two primary system (passed in 2010) >precisely to marginalize and shut out Republicans in this deep blue state. Now >that they're the ones facing a shut out, suddenly democracy no longer matters >and vague and shadowy state agencies will step in and remove the people from >deciding things.
It's okay to shut out Republicans from an election, but not Democrats. No, >Democrats are special, you see, so there are special rules to protect them.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
California's primary system advances the top two vote-getters to the general >> election regardless of party. With a large number of Democrat candidates
(around a dozen or more) potentially splitting the Democrat vote, and a just >> two prominent Republicans (Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco) polling strongly, >> there is concern (and panic) that Republicans could finish in the top two-- >> leaving no Democrat on the November ballot for governor.
Newsom was asked about this during a recent press conference and he responded
that there's an emergency "break the glass" contingency plan that involves >> the
use of state agencies to prevent Democrats from being locked out of the race.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AAOdt2uRmmY
Democrats originally supported this top-two primary system (passed in 2010) >> precisely to marginalize and shut out Republicans in this deep blue state. >> Now
that they're the ones facing a shut out, suddenly democracy no longer matters
and vague and shadowy state agencies will step in and remove the people from >> deciding things.
It's okay to shut out Republicans from an election, but not Democrats. No, >> Democrats are special, you see, so there are special rules to protect them.
This isn't a primary; there is no primary at all. California hardly
innovated it. Most southern states use it or something very similar.
I've never had the impression that the motivation was to guarantee
domination by a single party. If anything, it makes it possible to run
as a third party candidate without the expense of a primary nearly no
one will participate in.
California should have gone all the way. Even if a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round -- I don't know if this ever
happened -- there's still a top-two runoff in November.
My objection is to the top-two runoff as that forces a phony majority.
I blame primaries for nominating candidates who reject centrism, so both parties tend to nominate nutcases.
On May 23, 2026 at 8:50:12 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
California's primary system advances the top two vote-getters to the generalThis isn't a primary; there is no primary at all. California hardly
election regardless of party. With a large number of Democrat candidates >>> (around a dozen or more) potentially splitting the Democrat vote, and a just
two prominent Republicans (Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco) polling strongly, >>> there is concern (and panic) that Republicans could finish in the top two-- >>> leaving no Democrat on the November ballot for governor.
Newsom was asked about this during a recent press conference and he responded
that there's an emergency "break the glass" contingency plan that involves >>> the
use of state agencies to prevent Democrats from being locked out of the race.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AAOdt2uRmmY
Democrats originally supported this top-two primary system (passed in 2010) >>> precisely to marginalize and shut out Republicans in this deep blue state. >>> Now
that they're the ones facing a shut out, suddenly democracy no longer matters
and vague and shadowy state agencies will step in and remove the people from
deciding things.
It's okay to shut out Republicans from an election, but not Democrats. No, >>> Democrats are special, you see, so there are special rules to protect them. >>
innovated it. Most southern states use it or something very similar.
I've never had the impression that the motivation was to guarantee
domination by a single party. If anything, it makes it possible to run
as a third party candidate without the expense of a primary nearly no
one will participate in.
California should have gone all the way. Even if a candidate receives a
majority of the vote in the first round -- I don't know if this ever
happened -- there's still a top-two runoff in November.
My objection is to the top-two runoff as that forces a phony majority.
I blame primaries for nominating candidates who reject centrism, so both
parties tend to nominate nutcases.
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to L.A. >and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to L.A. >and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to
L.A.
and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >> there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
Uh, ID isn't required to register to vote? Since when can someone vote without registering (except in North Dakota)?
On Sun, 24 May 2026 20:35:51 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 23, 2026 at 8:50:12 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
California's primary system advances the top two vote-getters to the general
election regardless of party. With a large number of Democrat candidates >>>> (around a dozen or more) potentially splitting the Democrat vote, and a just
two prominent Republicans (Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco) polling strongly,
there is concern (and panic) that Republicans could finish in the top two--
leaving no Democrat on the November ballot for governor.
Newsom was asked about this during a recent press conference and he
responded
that there's an emergency "break the glass" contingency plan that involves
the
use of state agencies to prevent Democrats from being locked out of the >>>> race.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AAOdt2uRmmY
Democrats originally supported this top-two primary system (passed in 2010)
precisely to marginalize and shut out Republicans in this deep blue state.
Now
that they're the ones facing a shut out, suddenly democracy no longer >>>> matters
and vague and shadowy state agencies will step in and remove the people from
deciding things.
It's okay to shut out Republicans from an election, but not Democrats. No,
Democrats are special, you see, so there are special rules to protect them.
This isn't a primary; there is no primary at all. California hardly
innovated it. Most southern states use it or something very similar.
I've never had the impression that the motivation was to guarantee
domination by a single party. If anything, it makes it possible to run
as a third party candidate without the expense of a primary nearly no
one will participate in.
California should have gone all the way. Even if a candidate receives a >>> majority of the vote in the first round -- I don't know if this ever
happened -- there's still a top-two runoff in November.
My objection is to the top-two runoff as that forces a phony majority.
I blame primaries for nominating candidates who reject centrism, so both >>> parties tend to nominate nutcases.
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to
L.A.
and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >> there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
And an equal number of tweets calling them idiots. Mostly for not
realizing (or admitting) that they can't vote if not registered to
vote.
May 24, 2026 at 1:40:37 PM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote: >>Sun, 24 May 2026 20:35:51 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna
go to L.A. and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they >>>know I don't live there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
And an equal number of tweets calling them idiots. Mostly for not
realizing (or admitting) that they can't vote if not registered to
vote.
They don't understand the extent of the fix the Dems have engineered into the >system. E.g., we also have same-day voter registration.
On May 24, 2026 at 1:56:56 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna
go to L.A. and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they >>>know I don't live there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
Uh, ID isn't required to register to vote? Since when can someone vote >>without registering (except in North Dakota)?
Well, to further streamline and facilitate the voter fraud, we have same-day >registration here, so...
California should have gone all the way. Even if a candidate receives a >majority of the vote in the first round -- I don't know if this ever
happened -- there's still a top-two runoff in November.
My objection is to the top-two runoff as that forces a phony majority.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to L.A.
and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >>there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
Uh, ID isn't required to register to vote? Since when can someone vote >without registering (except in North Dakota)?
My state's voter registration requirements, including ID, implement
federal Motor Voter law. Before Motor Voter, there was no application.
With ID, one registered with a registrar. There was a three part state
form, one part of which became the voter registration record used at the >precinct. Since Motor Voter, there is an application and one isn't
registered till a back-office procedure finds you on the combined
driver's license/SSN database used in voter registration under federal
law.
Once again, not buying that this is a massive opportunity for fraud,
unlike the mass distribution of unsolicited ballots by mail.
But yes, every presidential year, I consider somehow moving to a swing
state so my vote counts.
On Sun, 24 May 2026 20:35:51 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
I've been seeing a *bunch* of tweets saying things like, "I'm gonna go to
L.A.
and vote for Pratt on Election Day. I mean, how will they know I don't live >> there? What are they gonna do? Ask me for my ID?"
And an equal number of tweets calling them idiots. Mostly for not
realizing (or admitting) that they can't vote if not registered to
vote.
Maybe you don't 'memba this, but I do. Dogs are voting in California, but >don't worry Gavin Newsom assures us that illegal aliens aren't!
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1964106387522539602
The Orange County District Attorney's office has charged a Costa Mesa woman >with illegally registering her dog to vote in California and casting mail-in >ballots in her dog's name. The dog's vote was successfully counted in the 2021 >recall of Governor Newsom, but was rejected in the 2022 primary. The woman >posted photos of her dog, which has since passed away, on social media with an >"I voted" sticker.
Per OC DA office:
"Proof of residence or identification is not required for citizens to register >to vote in California elections nor is it required to cast a ballot in state >elections. However, proof of residence and registration is required for >first-time voters to vote in a federal election. As a result, the 2022 primary >ballot cast in Maya Jean's name (the dog) was challenged and rejected."
One must now wonder - how many animals will be successfully voting in >California's elections this fall?
What made this whole thing even more ridiculous is that when the Orange County >Board of Supervisors asked the registrar to send them information on the dog's >voter registration, he refused, citing privacy laws.
For a dog!
For a dead dog!
Does every animal have privacy rights under California law or is this just >limited to civic-minded canines?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 176:19:16 |
| Calls: | 218 |
| Files: | 21,503 |
| Messages: | 81,788 |