View Full Version : Support for Refenda Y an Z
https://mailchi.mp/cologop/vote-yes-on-y-and-z-an-open-letter-from-conservative-leaders?e=521c4b8309
I had previously thought I was going to vote NO on this, I may have to change my mind.
As conservatives, Republicans, and freedom-loving Coloradans from across the great state of Colorado, we urge you to join us in changing this system that empowers a single judge once and for all.
It is no secret that the communists shop for judges who will do their bidding, drawing legislative and congressional maps in Colorado in just one example. +
The commissions would be balanced, with four Republicans, four Democrats and four Unaffiliated voters subject to a rigorous application process, vetting, and random selection.
Passage of any map would require a supermajority vote (eight of 12), including the affirmative vote of at least two Unaffiliated commissioners.
Maps would be drawn by nonpartisan, Legislative Council staff instead of political partisans.
Map-drawers would be required to comply with fair and neutral criteria, including avoiding splitting counties, cities, and communities of interest; maximizing compactness; and, where possible without violating the other criteria, drawing competitive districts that either party can win. This is critical ? it ensures that rural communities cannot be sliced and diced to dilute their voting strength or to reduce their ability to choose their own representation.
The commission and its staff would be subject to transparency, including public hearings, open meetings and open records laws, and a stipulation that no map can be adopted until 72 hours after it has been introduced or amended, whichever occurs later, without unanimous consent of the commission.
Gerrymandering would be banned once and for all.
I got the mailout. I need to read it. My concern is causing R to flip to D by a simple boundary re-draw. If they can split opposing forces such that they can rout the republicans, I fear they'd do it.
Zundfolge
10-18-2018, 10:37
I'm leaning toward them because I think they'll be slightly better than the partisan political system we have now (and Dems are clearly going to be fully in control of it for the next census). That said I don't think this is a panacea and really the best solution is to have a computer draw the lines using an algorithm designed to make the districts the closest to a circle or square as possible.
asystejs
10-18-2018, 13:10
How about getting rid of districts completely ?
Everyone picks 2 senators from the list of choices
Everyone picks <n> representatives from the list of choices
beast556
10-18-2018, 13:23
How about getting rid of districts completely ?
Everyone picks 2 senators from the list of choices
Everyone picks <n> representatives from the list of choices
This is how it should be.
How about getting rid of districts completely ?
Everyone picks 2 senators from the list of choices
Everyone picks <n> representatives from the list of choices
It's a good idea but after the 17th Amendment, this would duplicate the popular election of Senators.
The idea of the House was direct citizen representation which is why the districting is local. The Senate was supposed to be equalized state representation.
Had the Senate remained state representation, this idea would make complete sense to me. I'd have to think about what that means in terms of the battle lines being drawn in Colorado; rural vs Denver/Boulder. But it's not a bad idea.
It's only because we have bastardized the Constitution that we are led down a path of bad and worse options.
Chuck and Julie were talking about this today. They had the (R) leader from Adams county commenting on it, they advocated a NO vote partially based on my original decision to vote NO.
The communists will just stack the commission with their fellow travelers. Anyone who thinks the "Independents" that will be on this panel are going to be unbaised is probably smoking dope, "Independents" are usually leftists who just don't register as (D).
The way I see it is, if an issue looks like it will actually be good for conservatives then somewhere, somehow, a Democrat is rubbing his hands together with a smirk.
Do we expect Republicans to always follow party lines? I don't. The Dems sure will. The Indies will follow D lines a lot.
I just don't trust this to not blow up in our faces.
Circuits
10-18-2018, 22:28
This is how it should be.
So a simple majority wins every time? That's not a government, that's a mob.
Grant H.
10-18-2018, 22:54
So a simple majority wins every time? That's not a government, that's a mob.
I don't think Beast is lobbying for Mob Rule, but that is certainly what the left wants.
The electoral college, and districts, make a big difference!
----------------------------------------------
As an aside....
What happened to the reply with the list of donors for these amendments? Why'd that get pulled?
Aloha_Shooter
10-19-2018, 08:15
I am still a no on these. The Republican Party in Colorado has let Republican voters down for years so I'm not exactly bolstered by the fact that 4 of the named commissioners will be R. Given how easy Dems made it to change affiliations, they can easily slip sleepers in and the headline in the Denver Post and TV news will be "indepedent commission said to" ...
Hold politicians and political parties directly accountable, don't let them pretend to put things on so-called "independent" commissions.
Zundfolge
10-19-2018, 08:43
I am still a no on these. The Republican Party in Colorado has let Republican voters down for years so I'm not exactly bolstered by the fact that 4 of the named commissioners will be R. Given how easy Dems made it to change affiliations, they can easily slip sleepers in and the headline in the Denver Post and TV news will be "indepedent commission said to" ...
There needs to be a time requirement for membership in a party. In order to be considered a "Republican" on the commission, you should have been registered as a Republican for a least two election cycles. OR the parties get to pick their commissioners at their conventions. Of course this still means Democrats can futz with the "Independents".
I've really agonized over this one, but then I went and looked at the endorsers on the campaign's web site https://fairmapscolorado.com/endorsers/ and I remind myself that Democrats are evil and Republicans are stupid ... too many D's (especially WAY LEFT D's) like this therefore it must be evil.
If D's hated it, I'd vote for it.
It's got huge bipartisan support so I expect it'll pass, but not with my help.
DavieD55
10-19-2018, 11:30
Amendment Y & Z (brought by ?Fair Maps Colorado? and Kent Thiry)
Major Donors: FOR -
Action Now Initiative TX DEMOCRAT Owners (John and Laura Arnold) - $605,000
Michael Bloomberg NY DEMOCRAT - $500,000
Kent Thiry CO ?UAF? LEANS LEFT - $400,000
Pat Stryker CO DEMOCRAT - $400,000
Donald Sussman FL DEMOCRAT - $200,000
Adam Abram NC LEANS LEFT - $100,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND, DC, - $68,000 (also gave to $1,415,000 Stop PayDay Loans)
Vote NO
You shouldn't trust any of these people. 98 out of 100 of them are corrupt or total stooges. All the communists are all for it...the league of women voters = fabian socialists. yeah, vote NO on this!
Amendment Y & Z (brought by ?Fair Maps Colorado? and Kent Thiry)
Major Donors: FOR -
Action Now Initiative TX DEMOCRAT Owners (John and Laura Arnold) - $605,000
Michael Bloomberg NY DEMOCRAT - $500,000
Kent Thiry CO ?UAF? LEANS LEFT - $400,000
Pat Stryker CO DEMOCRAT - $400,000
Donald Sussman FL DEMOCRAT - $200,000
Adam Abram NC LEANS LEFT - $100,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND, DC, - $68,000 (also gave to $1,415,000 Stop PayDay Loans)
Vote NO
You shouldn't trust any of these people. 98 out of 100 of them are corrupt or total stooges. All the communists are all for it...the league of women voters = fabian socialists. yeah, vote NO on this!
Guess my gut was right, then.
DenverGP
10-19-2018, 12:30
If it's got a penny of Bloomberg money in it, it's a NO.
Amendment Y & Z (brought by ?Fair Maps Colorado? and Kent Thiry)
Major Donors: FOR -
Action Now Initiative TX DEMOCRAT Owners (John and Laura Arnold) - $605,000
Michael Bloomberg NY DEMOCRAT - $500,000
Kent Thiry CO ?UAF? LEANS LEFT - $400,000
Pat Stryker CO DEMOCRAT - $400,000
Donald Sussman FL DEMOCRAT - $200,000
Adam Abram NC LEANS LEFT - $100,000
SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND, DC, - $68,000 (also gave to $1,415,000 Stop PayDay Loans)
Vote NO
You shouldn't trust any of these people. 98 out of 100 of them are corrupt or total stooges. All the communists are all for it...the league of women voters = fabian socialists. yeah, vote NO on this!
I voted prior to reading this but THANK YOU for finding and posting it.
That said I don't think this is a panacea and really the best solution is to have a computer draw the lines using an algorithm designed to make the districts the closest to a circle or square as possible.
Who gets to write the algorithm?
DavieD55
10-20-2018, 13:03
It's pretty interesting how there are so many people from out of state who are taking an interest in Colorado politics and putting down some serious funding to transform our state into something unrecognizable.
It's pretty interesting how there are so many people from out of state who are taking an interest in Colorado politics and putting down some serious funding to transform our state into something unrecognizable.
Yup. Same as it always was. Look up Pat Stryker's bio and the timing of her activism in the state.
You should also see where FakeMexican Beto's millions have come from! And ~40% of TX (according to "polling") are stupid enough to pull the lever for him.
Chuck and Julie played a support ad for Y and Z by........Eric Holder. Pat Stryker (wealthy communist who wants to inhibit your ability to get wealthy too) also contributed $$ to advocate Y and Z.
Vote NO!!
How is this worse than a Democrat House, Senate, and Governor controlling districting in 2021? That's the most likely scenario. Does anyone really think they won't gerrymander?
To even apply, you have to be registered same party for a minimum of 5 years and vote in 2 general elections. The fact that there are 2 lotteries for 6 of the 12 (first to weed it down to 300 D, 300 R and 450 U candidates; then that 1050 is weeded down to 50/50/50 list from which lottery picks 2/2/2 with no existing district having more than 2), to get on the commissions make stacking the deck even harder. The remaining 6 are picked from a list of 10 D and 10 R candidates by a panel of judges.
I get the knee-jerk reaction to anything touched by Bloomberg. But Yes seems better than the alternative of Dems just controlling it entirely.
thedave1164
10-22-2018, 16:04
Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, Tim Gill and Rutt Bridges spent MILLIONS to make CO blue, they are not going to spend money to make it fair
How is this worse than a Democrat House, Senate, and Governor controlling districting in 2021? That's the most likely scenario. Does anyone really think they won't gerrymander?
[snip]
They will certainly gerrymander! You are right!
Imagine a "Trump" scenario in CO. This is what they are protecting against. Given the flatline trajectory, Dims control the state. But they can't win every election every time.
If it snaps back to GOP control, however briefly, the commission would still control districting.
As we've discussed, you can safely assume those "independent" members will be hard core Libs as well.
What this also signals is that CO is up for grabs at some level. They don't need to do this kind of stuff in CA and NY and spend money promoting it.
As we've discussed, you can safely assume those "independent" members will be hard core Libs as well.
Isn't part of that assumption what got Trump elected? I have yet to form an opinion on this issue, but you hear that "independents are just [insert other side]" from both sides I feel like.
As others have said, it seems like a good idea in theory, but extremely leery with those that are supporting it.
55% majority to pass with last years ammendment?
Zundfolge
10-22-2018, 20:27
Isn't part of that assumption what got Trump elected? I have yet to form an opinion on this issue, but you hear that "independents are just [insert other side]" from both sides I feel like.
As others have said, it seems like a good idea in theory, but extremely leery with those that are supporting it.
No, you're misinterpreting what people mean by the "independent" members being libs. Its not that "independents are just [insert other side]" its that one can go online and change their party affiliation in a matter of minutes so there's a good chance that the "independent" (and maybe even the Republican) members of the commission will be former Democrats. Because the commission will be picked by a bunch of retired judges hand picked by the chief justice of the CO Supreme Court (who is a leftist).
What is post #22 referring to with the times in office? Is that not related to this issue?
How is this worse than a Democrat House, Senate, and Governor controlling districting in 2021? That's the most likely scenario. Does anyone really think they won't gerrymander?
To even apply, you have to be registered same party for a minimum of 5 years and vote in 2 general elections. The fact that there are 2 lotteries for 6 of the 12 (first to weed it down to 300 D, 300 R and 450 U candidates; then that 1050 is weeded down to 50/50/50 list from which lottery picks 2/2/2 with no existing district having more than 2), to get on the commissions make stacking the deck even harder. The remaining 6 are picked from a list of 10 D and 10 R candidates by a panel of judges.
I get the knee-jerk reaction to anything touched by Bloomberg. But Yes seems better than the alternative of Dems just controlling it entirely.
This isn't better or worse, it is just different.
What it absolutely does do is add to the bureaucracy, instead of 1 person making a decision, we'll have 12 people making the same decision. Those 12 people will expect to be paid so now the budget is increased and our taxes will go up to fund it.
None of the sponsors would fund and back this if there wasn't money in their pocket on the back end.
We have a representative government. The representatives are trying to offload their responsibilities to yet another layer of bureaucracy that is further out of touch with the people.
When it comes to government, less is better.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Isn't part of that assumption what got Trump elected? I have yet to form an opinion on this issue, but you hear that "independents are just [insert other side]" from both sides I feel like.
As others have said, it seems like a good idea in theory, but extremely leery with those that are supporting it.
I don't think "independent" means what it used to mean just a few years ago. I think there are "independents" in Colorado who are actually to the left of the Democrat party.
As a reminder, here is some info I found on the "independent" member of the CO Human Rights Commission which bungled the Masterpiece Cakes issue...
https://imgur.com/D1dqUD9.jpg
https://imgur.com/7liQRcg.jpg
I have no problem with fence-sitters being represented, historically, they are 1/3rd of registered voters in CO. And I have no problem with a fence-sitter going against my personal beliefs. I would have a problem with Dims controlling the state and strategically appointing Libs in those independent spots and pretending this is a balanced commission.
Elected representatives are in the public eye and information like the above has to pass a sniff test, although imperfect, is better than people hiding their agenda and representing themselves as fair or middle-of-the-road.
A person would really have to work hard to get further left than the (D) is today.
A person would really have to work hard to get further left than the (D) is today.
Depends on the (D) IMHO but it's not an objective assessment of someone's beliefs, simply how they register.
I have a hard time believe Jessie Pocock has voted for anything other than Ds as a gay and gender activist, meanwhile...
https://imgur.com/OtSctEw.jpg
Depends on the (D) IMHO but it's not an objective assessment of someone's beliefs, simply how they register.
I have a hard time believe Jessie Pocock has voted for anything other than Ds as a gay and gender activist, meanwhile...
I disagree but that would be an entirely new thread where we could hash it out.
I agree with your assessment of Jessie Pocock.
Grant H.
10-23-2018, 12:45
Especially after the stupidity of passing 107 and 108 in 2016, the idea of being "unaffilatied" means nothing.
So that makes Y/Z bad, because there will be 4 (D), 4 (R), and 4 wildly liberal (U) on the boards to reassign the districts.
Bad news...
But, I fully expect CO to pass this, all the tax hikes (sorry, debt increases... [Kick3]), 112, and elect nearly all (D)/Libtard(U) candidates.
Here's to foolishly hoping that I am surprised at the outcome on Nov 7th.
[snip]
But, I fully expect CO to pass this, all the tax hikes (sorry, debt increases... [Kick3]), 112, and elect nearly all (D)/Libtard(U) candidates.
Here's to foolishly hoping that I am surprised at the outcome on Nov 7th.
Those tax hikes will force people to pay for their virtue signaling. Not sure that is going to happen given how much it costs to live here, but we'll see. There have been non-stop FB wars over 5A&B in DougCo. Amendment 73 is worse! That will kill small biz and hurt a lot of middle class households ($150K is middle class now).
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make sure you all vote no matter how you think things are going. Ignore the polls.
I don't think "independent" means what it used to mean just a few years ago. I think there are "independents" in Colorado who are actually to the left of the Democrat party.
As a reminder, here is some info I found on the "independent" member of the CO Human Rights Commission which bungled the Masterpiece Cakes issue...
We all remember my rant that created your last signature. I believe part of that is that the D tent is so wide and encompassing, that any person who wants to feel different and have a cause, and then usually just become a pain in the ass to normal society ends up under the biggest tent. Seems that being "Independent" is at a risk, in the very near future, of creating the largest tent we've seen yet and the meaning will change yet again.
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_Y,_Independent_Commission_for_C ongressional_Redistricting_Amendment_(2018)
Douglas Bruce, head of the 13 Issues committee, wrote, "Y and Z offer a stacked commission of 12 members — four Dem, four GOP, and four unaffiliated. It flatly bans civic involvement by minor party members. Y and Z schemers leave selection of “neutral” commissioners to retired state judges. Instead of random drawings of applicants, judges will pick whom they like. Democrat governors have named judges 36 of the last 44 years. The pool of judges for this task is highly liberal and totally unaccountable. To solidify political power, Y and Z inject another term — “communities of interest.” That slogan lets improper considerations of race, ethnicity, and other factors override neutral principles. What party uses identity politics? Ask Hillary. Commission members are stooges because legislative staff draws the maps. Staff, called non-partisan because not elected, is chosen by partisan legislators. Politicians still decide who decides."
Aloha_Shooter
10-23-2018, 22:00
How is this worse than a Democrat House, Senate, and Governor controlling districting in 2021? That's the most likely scenario. Does anyone really think they won't gerrymander?
When they do that under the current construct, it's transparent. Under Y & Z, they'll point to the supposed "independent" commission and shrug.
Honey Badger282.8
10-24-2018, 08:43
Especially after the stupidity of passing 107 and 108 in 2016, the idea of being "unaffilatied" means nothing.
So that makes Y/Z bad, because there will be 4 (D), 4 (R), and 4 wildly liberal (U) on the boards to reassign the districts.
Bad news...
But, I fully expect CO to pass this, all the tax hikes (sorry, debt increases... [Kick3]), 112, and elect nearly all (D)/Libtard(U) candidates.
Here's to foolishly hoping that I am surprised at the outcome on Nov 7th.
Agreed. Y & Z sounds good - and I agree with the intent - but after 107 and 108 made party affiliation meaningless, this proposed commission is unlikely to be better than the Dems in office.
Grant H.
10-24-2018, 09:14
Anecdotal information to follow:
I took the boat down for winterization yesterday (from Louisville at my brothers where it gets stored to Tommys off of Ward rd), and the number of political signs was very high.
Most common ones that I saw were:
Yes on 73
Yes on Y & Z
Yes on 112
No on 74 (which I agree with - different thread or conversation though)
And surprisingly
Stapleton Signs
As Skip posted, even if you are like me and think this is going to go very badly for us conservatives, get out and VOTE! It's important that we don't just sit idly by. Midterms are historically low voter performance for the dims, so if we get out and do our duty, we might have a chance.
We all remember my rant that created your last signature. I believe part of that is that the D tent is so wide and encompassing, that any person who wants to feel different and have a cause, and then usually just become a pain in the ass to normal society ends up under the biggest tent. Seems that being "Independent" is at a risk, in the very near future, of creating the largest tent we've seen yet and the meaning will change yet again.
Yes, and I think the classic CO independent still exists. That is what provides cover for the above scenario.
The problem independents have always have, is that they have no unifying party/voice to set the record straight on ideology. I know a lot of them are Libertarians which gives them a platform even though their candidates seldom win elections. But Libertarianism is hardly all encompassing of all independents, like you said.
I go back to what I said a couple of pages ago... If redistricting is done by representative, then we have at least had a chance to weigh in on the people making the call. A "Pocock" gets a wink from the gov and appointed independent but she would never pass the sniff test with voters having those opinions. If the voters want her, fine.
I think I voted no on pretty much everything. No new taxes. Taking industrial hemp out of the Constitution made sense to me because it should have never been in there anyway.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.