PDA

View Full Version : VOTING


secret.asian.man
08-09-2012, 8:25 AM
i know it's kind of late but i'm still not registered to vote. and this might be a repeated question but which political parties are PRO-GUN? it's asking me in the registration form. hurry please, i want to get my registration in so i can vote no on SB249. thanks!

TakCWAL
08-09-2012, 8:27 AM
Republican. Although the party in this state is pretty much akin to that of a clubhouse...

- Tak

DVSmith
08-09-2012, 8:30 AM
Selecting a party in California only affects the ballot you get in primaries. If you want to vote in the Republican Presidential primary, you have to be a registered Republican. Most other parties will let decline to state voters vote in their primary for president. More people these days are registering decline to state. All other primary races are open to any voter and the top two candidates, regardless of party go to the November ballot for a runoff.

Hope that helps!

secret.asian.man
08-09-2012, 8:35 AM
thank you thank you thank you!

Curley Red
08-09-2012, 8:45 AM
In California we have been screwed by both democrats and republicans. the same thing can be said about presidents. For me it is not about the party but about the person. A good percentage of California gun laws were signed by republicans.

I am registered as an independent and refuse to pick one of the other parties, both sides have pissed me off.

TakCWAL
08-09-2012, 8:47 AM
I am registered as an independent and refuse to pick one of the other parties, both sides have pissed me off.

Same here, I am registered as an independent. Sick and tired of the parties and lack of choices.

- Tak

DVSmith
08-09-2012, 8:49 AM
By the way, on the new registration forms, decline to state is actually "No Party Preference".

Sorry for the confusion!

ETA: And because I didn't address it, you have to be a member of a party to vote for that party's central committee candidates.

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 9:02 AM
Republicans will never win any meaningful majority in state congress.

You're better off taking a democrat shooting, and reminding your democrat politicians that gun rights are civil rights.

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 9:02 AM
i can vote no on SB249. thanks!

You can't vote no on SB249

secret.asian.man
08-09-2012, 9:16 AM
You can't vote no on SB249

WE CAN'T? WHY NOT?

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 9:18 AM
You should probably look around and get info on how laws are passed.

Possibly take a civics class at your local community college..

dustoff31
08-09-2012, 9:29 AM
WE CAN'T? WHY NOT?

Because laws are generally made by elected representatives not by popular vote.

If one is concerned about their gun rights, they shouldn't vote for politicians who are anti-gun.

If those anti gun politicians can't get elected then they can't pass anti gun bills. If anti gun bills are never passed, then the governor can't sign them into law.

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 9:32 AM
Also, you can't even vote Yee out of office. He's termed out.

secret.asian.man
08-09-2012, 9:37 AM
yeah i know, i am in no way, shape, or form political. wtf is the point in voting then?

dustoff31
08-09-2012, 9:43 AM
yeah i know, i am in no way, shape, or form political. wtf is the point in voting then?

You can't vote for or against Yee because you don't live in his district.

What you can do, is refuse to vote for any anti gunner running for office from your district. And tell them that, to their face.

Peaceful John
08-09-2012, 9:45 AM
Guns are one of the litmus tests, but possibly not the only one. If we were to greatly simplify the history of social philosophies and their consequences, two grand ideas would need to be addressed: What do you get to do? And then what?

What Do You Get To Do?
Alternative A: Do anything you want
Alternative B: Respect for authority; group idenity,

And Then What?
Alternative C: Equal outcomes
Alternative D: Unequal outcomes

Pick one from What Do You Get to Do? and one from And Then What? If you chose A/C, then you want to "Do anything you want to do, but demand equal outcomes”. This is the philosophy of the social left and anyone who thinks cultural equivalency is a supportable position. The Liberal would argue that simply by being alive she has the right to the same standard of living as the person who just drove past her bus stop, the person who made more right decisions than wrong, who stayed in school, got pregnant only after she was in a stable marriage, took care of her husband, continued to accumulate apartment units for their old age, and raised their children to do likewise.

Regardless of all the dreadful decisions a Liberal may have made in her life, she demands that she has access to the same goods and services as anyone else. She would like you to pay for it, because, sadly, she doesn’t have the funds. The Liberal never quite gets around to what happens when she runs out of your money.

What if you prefer B/D? Then you desire “Respect for authority, you cherish group identity but you accept that no matter what, outcomes will be unequal” is associated with the social right and the USMC. The Conservative might take the position that a society’s culture establishes acceptable behavioral norms, that these norms are passed on to us by the previous generation and that these norms function as sort of a social lubricant, but there are variables in life and even if the guidelines are followed people will still wind up with unequal outcomes. There are, however, at least two types of unequal outcomes: the one that happened because you consistently made wrong choices (dropping out of high school; drugs; unwed pregnancy), and the one that just happened (think spina bifida, etc). If you believe the main stream media, the Conservative lumps those two causes together and never considers that what happens to some people might not be an individual problem. It might be a social problem. But we all know there are some things that are just too big for a family to self-insure and we’d hope that decent treatment of those who through no fault of their own (that’s an important proviso) are unable to compete should be a societal obligation.

Alternative A/D: “Do anything you want to do, but accept that outcomes will be unequal” is pretty much the Libertarian motif. Although polls have shown that few adults will admit to being Libertarians when sober, the “you made your bed, you sleep in it” philosophy has a lot to recommend it. First, people are not required to monitor the behavior of other adults, and that saves much time. Second, it lets people elevate themselves, as long as they are competent in their current corporate position, to the next level up. They can rise to the level at which they stop being promotable because they have become inadequate in their current position. This would explain a lot of things.

The difficulty with the Libertarian philosophy is that a very minor individual act can have significant complications when everyone else is doing it. Take smog, for example. That blue 1966 Bug trying to burp its way onto the freeway in front of you is just belching clouds of black smoke. If that were the only car doing so, the environment could certainly handle it. But multiply that by the (formerly) millions of pre-smog checked cars in the L.A. basin and you could have a pretty convincing reason to support many of the clean air regulations. No reasonable person could support all the regulations, of course, because they just go on and on and on. I understand there are now limits on BBQ starting fluid. The problem with government is that it just doesn’t know when to stop.

Alternative B/C: “Respect authority, cherish group identity, but demand equal outcomes” is the cry of the totalitarian state. We’re not going to spend much time here because people who chose this alternative are not nice.

Generally, a politician who recognizes "unequal outcomes" may be more likely to support gun rights.

Phouty
08-09-2012, 9:47 AM
yeah i know, i am in no way, shape, or form political. wtf is the point in voting then?

It's not only candidates you vote for.
It's also plethora of other issues. Look how many new propositions about raising taxes in CA are on Nov. ballot! There are also strictly local issues affecting your city or county you live in, which you can decide, as a voter, to pass or fail.
Always vote even though your vote might seem to be insignificant, but it nevertheless counts!
And be informed about the issues of course! Don't be swayed by 10-second sound bites from radio or TV political ads.
Educate yourself about the issues!!! ALWAYS!!!

Untamed1972
08-09-2012, 9:51 AM
Selecting a party in California only affects the ballot you get in primaries. If you want to vote in the Republican Presidential primary, you have to be a registered Republican. Most other parties will let decline to state voters vote in their primary for president. More people these days are registering decline to state. All other primary races are open to any voter and the top two candidates, regardless of party go to the November ballot for a runoff.

Hope that helps!

I thought CA was an "open primary" state now?

At the last Pres. primary I was asked which parties ballot I would like depsite my registration.

berto
08-09-2012, 9:54 AM
You can't vote on SB249. You can vote for against a legislator based on how they vote. If you don't vote you have little grounds to complain.

njineermike
08-09-2012, 9:54 AM
Everyone should register as "independent" and force the parties to cater to US for a change.

Wherryj
08-09-2012, 10:46 AM
In California we have been screwed by both democrats and republicans. the same thing can be said about presidents. For me it is not about the party but about the person. A good percentage of California gun laws were signed by republicans.

I am registered as an independent and refuse to pick one of the other parties, both sides have pissed me off.

THIS is precisely why you need to vote by party. It's just the specifics that are confused. You need to get as nearly 50/50 split on parties as possible. That way they argue amongst one another and get very little done that isn't clearly in everyone's best interest.

The problem isn't party, it's giving too much of a majority to ANY party. They ALL have agendas that will screw things up. Keep them divided.

njineermike
08-09-2012, 10:47 AM
THIS is precisely why you need to vote by party. It's just the specifics that are confused. You need to get as nearly 50/50 split on parties as possible. That way they argue amongst one another and get very little done that isn't clearly in everyone's best interest.

The problem isn't party, it's giving too much of a majority to ANY party. They ALL have agendas that will screw things up. Keep them divided.

Anybody paying attention can see gridlock in the statehouse is the best thing that could ever happen.

Wherryj
08-09-2012, 10:52 AM
Guns are one of the litmus tests, but possibly not the only one. If we were to greatly simplify the history of social philosophies and their consequences, two grand ideas would need to be addressed: What do you get to do? And then what?

What Do You Get To Do?
Alternative A: Do anything you want
Alternative B: Respect for authority; group idenity,

And Then What?
Alternative C: Equal outcomes
Alternative D: Unequal outcomes

Pick one from What Do You Get to Do? and one from And Then What? If you chose A/C, then you want to "Do anything you want to do, but demand equal outcomes”. This is the philosophy of the social left and anyone who thinks cultural equivalency is a supportable position. The Liberal would argue that simply by being alive she has the right to the same standard of living as the person who just drove past her bus stop, the person who made more right decisions than wrong, who stayed in school, got pregnant only after she was in a stable marriage, took care of her husband, continued to accumulate apartment units for their old age, and raised their children to do likewise.

Regardless of all the dreadful decisions a Liberal may have made in her life, she demands that she has access to the same goods and services as anyone else. She would like you to pay for it, because, sadly, she doesn’t have the funds. The Liberal never quite gets around to what happens when she runs out of your money.

What if you prefer B/D? Then you desire “Respect for authority, you cherish group identity but you accept that no matter what, outcomes will be unequal” is associated with the social right and the USMC. The Conservative might take the position that a society’s culture establishes acceptable behavioral norms, that these norms are passed on to us by the previous generation and that these norms function as sort of a social lubricant, but there are variables in life and even if the guidelines are followed people will still wind up with unequal outcomes. There are, however, at least two types of unequal outcomes: the one that happened because you consistently made wrong choices (dropping out of high school; drugs; unwed pregnancy), and the one that just happened (think spina bifida, etc). If you believe the main stream media, the Conservative lumps those two causes together and never considers that what happens to some people might not be an individual problem. It might be a social problem. But we all know there are some things that are just too big for a family to self-insure and we’d hope that decent treatment of those who through no fault of their own (that’s an important proviso) are unable to compete should be a societal obligation.

Alternative A/D: “Do anything you want to do, but accept that outcomes will be unequal” is pretty much the Libertarian motif. Although polls have shown that few adults will admit to being Libertarians when sober, the “you made your bed, you sleep in it” philosophy has a lot to recommend it. First, people are not required to monitor the behavior of other adults, and that saves much time. Second, it lets people elevate themselves, as long as they are competent in their current corporate position, to the next level up. They can rise to the level at which they stop being promotable because they have become inadequate in their current position. This would explain a lot of things.

The difficulty with the Libertarian philosophy is that a very minor individual act can have significant complications when everyone else is doing it. Take smog, for example. That blue 1966 Bug trying to burp its way onto the freeway in front of you is just belching clouds of black smoke. If that were the only car doing so, the environment could certainly handle it. But multiply that by the (formerly) millions of pre-smog checked cars in the L.A. basin and you could have a pretty convincing reason to support many of the clean air regulations. No reasonable person could support all the regulations, of course, because they just go on and on and on. I understand there are now limits on BBQ starting fluid. The problem with government is that it just doesn’t know when to stop.

Alternative A/C: ““Respect authority, cherish group identity, but demand equal outcomes” is the cry of the totalitarian state. We’re not going to spend much time here because people who chose this alternative are not nice.

Generally, a politician who recognizes "unequal outcomes" may be more likely to support gun rights.

I think that this should be B/C?

Nice.

Wherryj
08-09-2012, 10:53 AM
Anybody paying attention can see gridlock in the statehouse is the best thing that could ever happen.

Yeah, do we REALLY NEED 700+ new laws a year? If you equally divide them, they all propose 1000 new bills, but only 3 of them actually succeed.

njineermike
08-09-2012, 10:54 AM
Yeah, do we REALLY NEED 700+ new laws a year? If you equally divide them, they all propose 1000 new bills, but only 3 of them actually succeed.

We barely need 3.

TakCWAL
08-09-2012, 11:39 AM
We barely need 3.

Quite the contrary, I believe in an active effort to rid of many laws currently in the books. They are worthless, ineffective and impossible to enforce.

- Tak

njineermike
08-09-2012, 11:41 AM
Quite the contrary, I believe in an active effort to rid of many laws currently in the books. They are worthless, ineffective and impossible to enforce.

- Tak

That would be a negative number. And I agree with that sentiment 100% as well.

goodlookin1
08-09-2012, 12:04 PM
Your presidential vote here in CA is useless if it's for anything other than the Dem ticket.

The way to vote for bills is to vote for the legislator/representative that will vote on the bill the way you want to vote on it.

Your vote REALLY matters most in the Proposition votes.

DVSmith
08-09-2012, 12:11 PM
I thought CA was an "open primary" state now?

At the last Pres. primary I was asked which parties ballot I would like despite my registration.

It is for everything except President and Central Committee, depending on each party's rules.

If you are registered to a non-qualified party or selected "decline to state" or "no party preference" when you registered, when you went to vote you were asked which party ballot you wanted for president, except Republican. The state Republican party decided to not allow non-republican "decline to state" voters to vote in their presidential primary. The Dems and everyone else did (as I recall). The only difference between party ballots and the non-partisan ballot you could have requested is the party ballot allows you to vote on that party's presidential nomination.

All other races, US Senate, US Congress, State Senate, State Assembly, Governor, Etc. are open primary contests. All candidates from all parties are on all ballots and you can voter for any one of them you wish regardless of your party or theirs.

NotEnufGarage
08-09-2012, 12:25 PM
Anybody paying attention can see gridlock in the statehouse is the best thing that could ever happen.

Anyone voting third party is voting Democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IVC
08-09-2012, 12:26 PM
The difficulty with the Libertarian philosophy is that a very minor individual act can have significant complications when everyone else is doing it. Take smog, for example.

You are describing anarchy.

Much like civil rights, what we do as individuals is limited when it starts interfering with others. No libertarian would go along with the smog example.

IVC
08-09-2012, 12:29 PM
Anyone voting third party is voting Democrat.

Which is not bad if the "third party" is a better Democrat in the top two primary system. The conservative vote might become a balancing act between two liberal candidates who split the D base.

goodlookin1
08-09-2012, 12:49 PM
Quite the contrary, I believe in an active effort to rid of many laws currently in the books. They are worthless, ineffective and impossible to enforce.

- Tak

I think we should also have a legislature that only is there to vote for which bills will be taken out of the books! We all know the legislature never deletes law once in the books.....even if it's thrown out in court. We need:

1) Part-time legislators
2) Creation of an "Elimination Legislature"
3) Rename the existing legislature to "Establishment Legislature"
4) For the next 10 years, make it so every new law created by the Establishment Legislature must be met with 2 laws stricken by the Elimination Legislature.
5) After the 10 years, if enough has been deleted, change it so the ratio is now 1 eliminated for every 1 created.

Rules are that the Elim Leg cannot eliminate a new law passed by the Est Leg within 3 years of it's passing (exception in the case where courts striking down the law). The Est Leg cannot make a new law that is the same or similiar to a previously eliminated law unless the two legislatures come together in a once a year meeting and agree upon it with a 2/3 majority vote.

Would probably be a disaster knowing CA's inability to get anything of substance done. But an interesting concept, nonetheless.

Rock6.3
08-09-2012, 1:02 PM
The challenge that I see is we may term limit the elected official, but his staff gets hired by the successor thus the minions are running the government behind the scene and those minions are not subject to term limits.

TakCWAL
08-09-2012, 1:19 PM
Would probably be a disaster knowing CA's inability to get anything of substance done. But an interesting concept, nonetheless.

Our politicians pay too much lip service. We are now heavily in debt, we have an uncontrollable immigration problem, high unemployment and a fracturing infrastructure. Instead of addressing these immediate problems, they are actually prepared to dish out another millions in a potential defensive lawsuit of their legislation.

Seriously?

I wish I could place CA politicians' behavior in a positive light, but I just can't. Something tells me that they are draining off every last bit of our resources to further their careers whether or not their legislation passes.

It doesn't make me very happy.

- Tak

mmayer707
08-09-2012, 1:50 PM
In California we have been screwed by both democrats and republicans. the same thing can be said about presidents. For me it is not about the party but about the person. A good percentage of California gun laws were signed by republicans.

I am registered as an independent and refuse to pick one of the other parties, both sides have pissed me off.

Yup, independent here as well.

Peaceful John
08-09-2012, 1:51 PM
I think that this should be B/C?

Nice.

Fixed.

Thanks, Wherryj. That was a good catch.

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 2:19 PM
yeah i know, i am in no way, shape, or form political. wtf is the point in voting then?

In CA, there is never any point to voting.

The only thing that matters is $$$$

If you have a lot of money to spend, you can buy a lobbyist to bribe congress.

Or you can donate it to an organization like the CGF (or SAF, or NRA) which will fight in the courts for you.

Or you can donate time/effort to grass roots campaigns... but be SURE they one you are helping has a record of being effective, or you're wasting your time.

Finally, you can start a career in politics. Get a job as a staffer (like Keigwin). You'd be surprised how much power staffers have.

IVC
08-09-2012, 6:01 PM
In CA, there is never any point to voting.

Only at the national level for president and senators. At the local level, as well as for the national house representatives it might be important based on where you live. The local Cook Political Voting Index is a good indication of futility: if it's out of whack either way, you won't make a difference. If it's close, you might.

hornswaggled
08-09-2012, 6:03 PM
Libertarian

NotEnufGarage
08-09-2012, 6:08 PM
In CA, there is never any point to voting.

Wroong. Many districts have changed this year, so there could be some tight races.

Vote!

Vote!



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

NotEnufGarage
08-09-2012, 6:22 PM
Libertarian

And there are how many libertarians in the CA Assembly and Senate? ZERO!

Guys, you cant keep wasting your votes and expect things to change.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

wjc
08-09-2012, 7:30 PM
Registered Republican, even though I'm a Libertarian, just in case those sneaky ******* try to pull something.

Root66
08-10-2012, 11:56 AM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b311/root66/Vote.jpg

Coded-Dude
08-10-2012, 12:00 PM
Libertarian...the largest and fastest growing third party around! :thumbsup:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/Libertarian_Party.svg/200px-Libertarian_Party.svg.png