Support for Refenda Y an Z

[Skip]

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...




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.

[roberth]

A person would really have to work hard to get further left than the (D) is today.

[Skip]

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...

[roberth]

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.]

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... ), 112, and elect nearly all (D)/Libtard(U) candidates.

Here's to foolishly hoping that I am surprised at the outcome on Nov 7th.

[Skip]

[snip]

But, I fully expect CO to pass this, all the tax hikes (sorry, debt increases... ), 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.

[Irving]

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.

[davsel]

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Ame...endment_(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]

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]

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... ), 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.