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...
| Sysop: | Scott Duensing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 494356:59:07 |
| Calls: | 5 |
| Messages: | 20,605 |