Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:17 am**

Let the recriminations commence:

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/20 ... s/2796373/

The Colorado state senate president who faced a backlash after casting votes for gun control has conceded in a race to recall him from office, and the Associated Press says a second state lawmaker who cast the same votes has lost her recall vote.

With one of two counties completely tallied, 50.96% of voters cast ballots to remove state Sen. John Morse, a Democrat, from office and 49.04% cast ballots to keep him, according to the Colorado Secretary of State.

"We as the Democratic Party will continue to fight," the Denver Post quoted Morse as saying. "The highest rank in democracy is citizen, not senate president, so soon, along with many of you, I will hold that rank and there's nothing citizens can't accomplish when they put their minds to accomplishing it."

Republican Bernie Herpin won 100% of the ballots cast for a successor to fill Morse's seat.

Morse is one of two state lawmakers who faced potential recall after voting to require universal background checks for gun purchases and ban large-capacity ammunition magazines.

The Associated Press also called a recall for state Sen. Angela Giron, another Democrat who cast the same vote as Morse regarding firearms.

Republican George Rivera won 100% of the votes cast to replace the legislator.

Giron represents the Pueblo area while Morse's constituents are from the Colorado Springs region.The heated race pitted gun-control supporters against advocates for gun ownership, and attracted heavy hitters such as the National Rifle Association and former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords, severely injured in a 2011 gun massacre in Tucson.

The race attracted millions of dollars in support from either side. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who helps lead a mayor's group against gun violence, contributed $350,000 into the election, while the National Rifle Association expected to spend $500,000 on mailings, phone banks and TV ads.

Kurt Bardella, a communications consultant for the recall, said in an e-mailed statement, "The people of Colorado have made history tonight sending a loud and clear message that will reverberate through out the county and alter the terrain of the gun-control debate."

Earlier, Morse appeared to be taking a cautious stand in comments he made to the Denver Post.

"Our turnout is well below what we expected," Morse said. "Certainly, low turnout is worse for me than high turnout."

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:39 pm**

For a liberal leaning state, this is significant news. People are damn serious about their gun rights.

The local park where I bike had two people stabbed yesterday. This is on the "good" end of town. Today I open-carried my 9mm while biking. Right on my hip. I don't usually do this, and felt a little awkward, but after a few minutes, I took heart in the truth of, "an unexercised freedom is a freedom in danger of being lost."

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:53 pm**

The thing I take from this is just a further sadness about people as a whole.
The closeness of the vote shows it's a tight issue...among a minority. It shows most people don't give a fuck...cuz last I saw, most of the folk who COULD have voted didn't vote at all.

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:33 pm**

Cry me a river. These Senators voted to end debate and refused to hear their constituents out. That is why they are now on the street.

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:58 pm**

Mongnihilo wrote:Cry me a river. These Senators voted to end debate and refused to hear their constituents out. That is why they are now on the street.

"Votes have consequences."

Posted: **Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:15 pm**

Vraith wrote:It shows most people don't give a fuck...cuz last I saw, most of the folk who COULD have voted didn't vote at all.

Most of our fellow citizens fall into this category.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:48 am**

Cail wrote:"Votes have consequences."

That's why I don't vote.

--A

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:30 pm**

Avatar wrote:
Cail wrote:"Votes have consequences."
That's why I don't vote.

And that's why I don't take your opinion seriously.

If you can't be bothered to vote, you have no business talking politics.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:53 pm**

I agree Cail. Those that cant be bothered to get off their duffs and go vote have no business complaining about their representatives or the state of their district/county/state/nation etc etc.

It reminds me of when the kids were..well kids, and they played sports. All too often the most vocal parents were the ones that couldn't be bothered to help coach or show up to fund raisers, but loved to yell from the sidelines about what you or the kids were doing wrong.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:41 pm**

SoulBiter wrote: It reminds me of when the kids were..well kids, and they played sports. All too often the most vocal parents were the ones that couldn't be bothered to help coach or show up to fund raisers, but loved to yell from the sidelines about what you or the kids were doing wrong.

Heh, yea...that's true and funny [in a bleak ironic way].
More than once when I was teaching and coaching swimming I had parents who never showed up for teacher/parent meetings rant in the stands then come to complain about the kid being benched after meets. If they'd come to a meeting, they'd have known the kid had bad grades, or wasn't doing assignments, or had behavior issues. Or a combination of those...and school policy in black and white was to bench them.

More on topic, a couple interesting things on this:
Apparently a judges ruling on a law prohibited the use of mail-in voting on this. But not because of mail-in itself. Because another part of the law dealing with deadlines for getting on a ballot was unconstitutional.

And I just saw an estimate that, if true, just reinforces my sadness. This supposedly massively important ideological battle drew a voter turnout of 15%...that's revolting.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:01 pm**

I think most elections have a registered voter turnout of 25% - 35%, except for local elections where turnouts might be higher.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:57 am**

Cail wrote:
Avatar wrote:
Cail wrote:"Votes have consequences."
That's why I don't vote.
And that's why I don't take your opinion seriously.

If you can't be bothered to vote, you have no business talking politics.

Opinions shouldn't be taken too seriously. But by those standards, we have no business discussing abortion either because we're not women. Or sports because we're not athletes. Hell, or books because we're not authors.

Besides, whether I participate or not, politics still affects my life. I have every bit as much business talking about it as you do. And since we both have about the same amount of effect on geo-politics, I don't really see any difference.

SoulBiter wrote:I agree Cail. Those that cant be bothered to get off their duffs and go vote have no business complaining about their representatives or the state of their district/county/state/nation etc etc.

Who's complaining?

Anyway, withholding a vote is as political a statement as casting one.

And finally of course, as I've pointed out many times, I think you are all mistaken about who has the right to complain.

By voting, you implicitly agree to accept the outcome of the vote. Voters have no business complaining, because by participating, you give your consent to the consequences, win or lose. You have declared that you accept the system and that you will abide by the outcome.

To me that seems utterly logical.

You've been told the rules, and you've agreed to play the game. That means you don't get to complain about losing. Well, not if you're a sportsman anyway.

--A

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:57 am**

Avatar wrote:Opinions shouldn't be taken too seriously. But by those standards, we have no business discussing abortion either because we're not women. Or sports because we're not athletes. Hell, or books because we're not authors.

Besides, whether I participate or not, politics still affects my life. I have every bit as much business talking about it as you do. And since we both have about the same amount of effect on geo-politics, I don't really see any difference.

I have to say, that's a fair point - pragmatically at least.

Avatar wrote:Anyway, withholding a vote is as political a statement as casting one.

And finally of course, as I've pointed out many times, I think you are all mistaken about who has the right to complain.

By voting, you implicitly agree to accept the outcome of the vote. Voters have no business complaining, because by participating, you give your consent to the consequences, win or lose. You have declared that you accept the system and that you will abide by the outcome.

To me that seems utterly logical.

You've been told the rules, and you've agreed to play the game. That means you don't get to complain about losing. Well, not if you're a sportsman anyway.

Hmm. I still say that going into the election booth and spoiling your ballot paper is a far better political statement. It doesn't tacitly imply you accept either the process or the outcome and crucially, it can't be mistaken for abstention or apathy. A spoiled vote gets counted and recorded.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:24 pm**

Avatar wrote:
Cail wrote:
Avatar wrote: That's why I don't vote.
And that's why I don't take your opinion seriously.

If you can't be bothered to vote, you have no business talking politics.
Opinions shouldn't be taken too seriously. But by those standards, we have no business discussing abortion either because we're not women. Or sports because we're not athletes. Hell, or books because we're not authors.

Besides, whether I participate or not, politics still affects my life. I have every bit as much business talking about it as you do. And since we both have about the same amount of effect on geo-politics, I don't really see any difference.

SoulBiter wrote:I agree Cail. Those that cant be bothered to get off their duffs and go vote have no business complaining about their representatives or the state of their district/county/state/nation etc etc.
Who's complaining?

Anyway, withholding a vote is as political a statement as casting one.

And finally of course, as I've pointed out many times, I think you are all mistaken about who has the right to complain.

By voting, you implicitly agree to accept the outcome of the vote. Voters have no business complaining, because by participating, you give your consent to the consequences, win or lose. You have declared that you accept the system and that you will abide by the outcome.

To me that seems utterly logical.

You've been told the rules, and you've agreed to play the game. That means you don't get to complain about losing. Well, not if you're a sportsman anyway.

--A

complain all you want, just remember, you got the government you voted for.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:17 am**

TheFallen wrote:A spoiled vote gets counted and recorded.

In SA, a spoilt vote nullifies the ballot. It doesn't "count" although it is recorded. The assumption is that the person made a mistake.

Rawedge Rim wrote:...complain all you want, just remember, you got the government you voted for.

Like I said...who's complaining? Anyway, the point is that no government is going to be one I voted for. But whether your guy wins or not, you're bound by the rules you agreed to.

--A

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:47 am**

Avatar wrote:
TheFallen wrote:A spoiled vote gets counted and recorded.
In SA, a spoilt vote nullifies the ballot. It doesn't "count" although it is recorded. The assumption is that the person made a mistake.

To clarify, this is seemingly exactly the same as the U.K. Yes, the vote doesn't "count" - how could it? - but it is counted and as such permanently logged in official records.

Okay it's probable that a usual percentage of spoiled ballot papers would be considered as being down to voter error, but say if even one or two percent of voters deliberately spoiled their ballot papers, then that would definitely be noticed. Especially if they were all spoiled in the same way - easy enough to arrange in today's Internet age... maybe a large "I'm not gonna take it any more!" scrawled across hundreds of ballots would do the trick.

Which reminds me. Just over 10 years ago, a UK-wide census was due to be taken and one of the questions to be asked was "What religion are you?" A multiple choice was offered, including "Other - please state". This caused some annoyance, because it was (quite rightly) considered as none of the State's business. This, plus the fact that a very widespread rumour arose that any mentioned belief set would have to be recognised as an official religion if it got 40,000 mentions, led to tens of thousands of people putting down "Jedi Knight" as their religious persuasion. I'm next to certain that this also occurred elsewhere in the world, and as such is a noticeable and effective protest against State intrusiveness.

[START ADDED EDIT]
Did a little research into the Jedi Census Phenomenon. Here's the league table data so far:-

Croatia ... 2012 ... 303 people... 0.007% of population
Serbia ... 2012 ... 640 people ... 0.009% of population
Canada ... 2001 ... 21,000 people ... 0.060% of population
Czech Republic ... 2011 ... 15,000 people ... 0.143% of population
UK (Scotland) ... 2001 ... 14,052 people ... 0.278% of population
Australia ... 2001 ... 70,000 people ... 0.309% of population
UK (England & Wales) ... 2001 ... 390,127 people ... 0.750% of population
New Zealand ... 2001 ... 53,000 people ... 1.196% of population

...so you're apparently most likely to find a Jedi Knight in New Zealand. Those crazy kiwis, huh?

In England and Wales 390,127 people (almost 0.8%) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms, surpassing Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and making it the fourth largest reported religion in the country.

In Scotland, 14,052 people stated that Jedi was their current religion (14,014 "Jedi", 24 "Jedi Order" and 14 "Sith") and 2,733 stated that it was their religion of upbringing (2,682 "Jedi", 36 "Jedi Order" and 15 "The Dark Side") in the 2001 census.
[END ADDED EDIT]

Which brings me back on point. If you don't vote, you're (again quite rightly) going to be considered "apathetic/not bothered/sheep-like" by the powers that be. If however enough disaffected voters dramatically spoil their ballot paper in a fashion that could not be viewed as accidental, they've at least got a chance of being noticed and thus making a point.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:04 pm**

TheFallen wrote:Yes, the vote doesn't "count" - how could it? - but it is counted and as such permanently logged in official records.

I had to look it up to check my memory, but yep:
The state of Nevada includes "None of these Candidates" as an option on ballots.
The person who gets the most votes still gets elected...but at least it's official, clear, and counted...no chance for folk to mistake/spin it to mean anything other than what it is: a protest against all of them.
Every so often little movements spring up to try and get it implemented other places. Not very successful, though.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:47 pm**

If you really want to shake things up, then change election results so that the guy who wins second place wins the election. This way, candidates will campaign aggressively but not too aggressively and they won't try to clearly win.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:48 am**

TheFallen wrote:...if even one or two percent of voters deliberately spoiled their ballot papers, then that would definitely be noticed.

We get 1-2% of spoiled votes. Unfortunately that is considered voter error...we have a relatively large proportion of un- or poorly-educated voters, see. The concept of deliberately spoiled votes has never even been considered (politically) as far as I know.

As for how they could count...they could dilute the received vote by getting empty seats in parliament...

--A

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:55 am**

Avatar wrote:
TheFallen wrote:...if even one or two percent of voters deliberately spoiled their ballot papers, then that would definitely be noticed.
We get 1-2% of spoiled votes. Unfortunately that is considered voter error...we have a relatively large proportion of un- or poorly-educated voters, see. The concept of deliberately spoiled votes has never even been considered (politically) as far as I know.

Really? It has in several other countries as an extremely valid form of active (rather than passive) protest at an election. Av, perhaps this is something you could spearhead in SA?

Avatar wrote:As for how they could count...they could dilute the received vote by getting empty seats in parliament...

I guess so... but allowing spoiled ballot papers to "elect" an empty seat - presumably via some form of proportional representation or something - would do nothing to hinder a governing party's majority, because those empty seats obviously can't make a parliamentary vote. The difficulties of democracy, I suppose.

In terms of having an efficient form of democracy, the UK author Terry Pratchett may well have been onto something. His character Lord Vetinari - the ruling patrician of the city state of Ankh Morpork in the Discworld series - is a firm believer in a "one man, one vote" system... because he's the one man and it's his one vote.

Kevin's Watch

The NRA Suppressing research into Gun Violence