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 $$ to advocate Y and Z.
Vote NO!!
Printable View
Chuck and Julie played a support ad for Y and Z by........Eric Holder. Pat Stryker (wealthy communist who wants to inhibit your ability to get wealthy too) also contributed $$ 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.
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
They will certainly gerrymander! You are right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtneer
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
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?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
What is post #22 referring to with the times in office? Is that not related to this issue?
This isn't better or worse, it is just different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtneer
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