Voter Turnout

California Took Voters' Choices Away. Now One Lawmaker Wants to Make Voting Mandatory.

You have this Democrat or this other Democrat. What other options do you need?

|

When a state is almost completely dominated by one party, some people aren't very enthusiastic about voting. One California lawmaker thinks he has a solution to that: Make voting mandatory.

Last week, Assemblymember Marc Levine (D–San Rafael) introduced AB-2070, a bill that would require every person who registers to vote to "cast a ballot, marked or unmarked in whole or in part, at every election." The legislation says it will be up to the secretary of state to enforce this mandate, but it doesn't really say how.

To explain himself, Levine put out a statement filled with tiresome bromides about the importance of voting:

Democracy is not a spectator sport—it requires the active participation of all its citizens. California is a national leader on expanding voting rights to its citizens. Those rights come with a responsibility by registered voters to cast their ballot and make sure that their voice is heard by their government. This is not a time to be complacent at the ballot box. My AB 2070 will ensure that the voices of all California voters are heard loud and clear.

That's an odd argument, given that California has gone out of the way to limit voters' choices at the polls in November elections.

In 2012, the state implemented a "jungle primary" system. This means that in the primary (which always has a lower turnout than the fall election), all the candidates for statewide races and the state legislature are put in a big scrum for voters to choose from, regardless of political party. The top two vote-getters in each contest then face off in November, again regardless of the political party. These frequently lead to voters getting the choice of only two candidates from the same political party.

That's why Kamala Harris faced off against a fellow Democrat when she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016. It's why Sen. Dianne Feinstein didn't face a Republican, let alone any third-party candidates, when she won re-election in November 2018. Indeed, this is the system that helped Levine keep his seat in 2018: He defeated another Democrat, Dan Monte. No Republicans ran against Levine at all in 2018. Maybe they took a lesson from 2016's election, when a second Democrat crowded Republican Gregory Allen out of the race.

If democracy requires "active participation," it's a bit strange that California has implemented a system that pushes so many people away. When Harris won her Senate seat, nearly two million Californians who cast a ballot didn't even bother to vote in that race. When voters are given only two candidates from the same political party, greater numbers of them decide not to make a choice at all.

Levine doesn't actually care if people even vote on these ballots. He just wants to force people to mail them back in. They can be completely blank. Apparently, he doesn't actually care about "active participation" after all.

That's telling. Public narratives about an election's "success" often revolve around voter "participation" but tend to ignore digging in on whether people are actually voting in particular races. Sending in blank ballots may not be active participation, but it avoids embarrassments like 2014's record-low 42.2 percent turnout of registered voters. And that makes it easier for politicians like Levine to convince themselves that Sacramento's actions have the general public's stamp of approval.

Australia has mandatory voting, as do about 30 other countries. But you won't find Australians showing up to the polls to get handed a ballot where nearly all their choices are narrowed down to a single political party. Americans tend to take a very dim view toward countries that force citizens to vote but then don't give them any real choices. North Korea has mandatory voting too, after all.

If candidates can't convince voters even to mail back a sheet of paper, why should we allow them to pretend the public is willing to "participate" in their charade? Americans' right to refuse to vote needs to be preserved precisely because it speaks to the apathy and disenchantment of the electorate.

Voting disclosure: As a Californian I've voted in several races, but skipped several myself, often voting only on ballot initiatives. The last actual human being I cast a vote for was Gary Johnson for president in 2016.

Advertisement

NEXT: 6th Circuit: This Man Can Sue the Cop Who Arrested Him for Defending His Daughter Against a Feral Cat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In 2012, the state implemented a “jungle primary” system. This means that in the primary (which always has a lower turnout than the fall election), all the candidates for statewide races and the state legislature are put in a big scrum for voters to choose from, regardless of political party. The top two vote-getters in each contest then face off in November, again regardless of the political party.

    I’m not trying to be a dick here, but isn’t this the system that Reason has championed at times? Happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong.

    1. I have never read anything on Reason promoting this “top two” system of voting. Seeing how it guarantees no third party (and in some instances, no second party) candidates will ever make it on a state-wide ballot, and that it allows for no “write-in” candidates, I cannot imagine anyone remotely libertarian, or even a democracy-loving person, supporting it.

      1. A quick targeted google search indicates I’m wrong, that they’ve been pretty consistent criticizing the top-two system. There was an article from Welch pointing out that in one election it didn’t seem to hurt third party candidates, but that election looked like an outlier. Maybe it was ranked-choice voting that some of the writers thought was a good idea.

          1. Did you see that California makes ya reregister to Vote if your a Republican?
            I doubt many noticed that on their voter registration card sent out.

            Criminal

            1. The choice to have a closed Presidential primary is left to the parties themselves. The requirement to be registered Republican to vote in their primary comes from the CA GOP. The Dem primaries are open to “No party affiliation” and 3rd party voters, or other party ballots, including LP can be requested by NPA registered voters (although last time, the LP held their convention before the CA primary was held, so voting on that ballot was symbolic at best).

    2. I’m positive they have but you know never mind

      1. Link or it didn’t happen.

      2. And you are 100% wrong. Care to retract your claim or back it up in any way? Or content to be an intellectually dishonest craven?

    3. There have been articles in the past supporting ranked choice voting. I don’t know if the two are the same.

      1. Those are very different things.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

        Reason typically supports ranked choice as a way for 3rd parties to break the duopoly of not wanting to throw one’s vote away on a 3rd party for fear that the 2 major parties will win anyway. It seems like a legitimate idea, but I’m still not 100% sold on it.

        1. Nor am I. Voting should be actual enumeration, period. And nothing else.

      2. They are TOTALLY different

    4. Not if it hurts Republicans- look who’s backing this shitty rag.

      1. I see your bleach-drinking is progressing nicely.

      2. “Not if it hurts Republicans- look who’s backing this shitty rag.”

        Turned shitty just about the time you showed up.

    5. The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
      -Joseph Stalin

    6. No it is not! *Some* articles on Reason have argued for some form of ranked voting, but this is NOT ranked voting. The California system is denying parties the ability to run their own primaries. They can’t change the Federal elections, so there are still primaries for the presidential nominee, but everything else is a free for all.

      The result being that the party with the best political machine wins, as they can strongarm candidates into not running. In California the best political machine in the Democrats. The Republicans don’t have enough political power to stop challengers from diluting their strong candidate. Remember, parties dont’ get to pick their candidates, it’s the candidates who file to run who get to run. That’s why we have a primary system in the first place. But with a strong political machine it’s easier to stop challengers in the first place, and emasculate them if they do manage to file.

      And it virtually guarantees that no third party or independent candidate will ever be in a general election.

      p.s. This system was actually spearheaded by a Republican to the great consternation of the party.

      1. Exactly. Because the number of Democrats in California is so massive, the jungle primary effectively makes California a de facto one-party state, and suppresses turnout of Republican voters on the back end by ensuring they have no candidate that they’d actually support in the final contest. It works fine in states with smaller populations where the electorate isn’t nearly as one-sided, but in California, it’s basically gerrymandering at a statewide level.

        If California had an actual opposition-party election, I suspect the margin of victory Hillary had in 2016 wouldn’t be nearly as high.

        1. “If California had an actual opposition-party election, I suspect the margin of victory Hillary had in 2016 wouldn’t be nearly as high.”

          Or existed at all. Hillary’s popular vote margin came entirely from California. I’m sure many Republican voters stayed home, knowing that Hillary was a lock to win their states electoral votes, and not wanting to bother making a choice between two Democrats for Senator, Governor, and other statewide races.

        2. “suppresses turnout of Republican voters on the back end by ensuring they have no candidate that they’d actually support in the final contest”

          Which is one reason why there’s never been a “popular vote”. The rules for a popular vote are different than for, say, EC-based system. Once the deck is stacked and the rules are in place, you can’t fairly compare the voting results as if they had taken place under different rules.

          It’d be like trying to determine the score of a football game after it was over if field-goals outside of 40 yards were worth 5 points instead of 3. Sure, you can assign the points based on any FGs made, but you cannot know how the coaches may have strategized differently and maybe attempted more long FGs, they might hire extra-long-range kickers especially for the tries, defenses may actually *allow* short gains to get FGs into 3-point vs 5-point range. If the rules are different, the game is played differently.

    7. I’m a California resident and am a registered Libertarian. I just mailed in my ballot for the primary so that I could vote against the usual propositions for more taxes. On my ballot, I was only allowed to vote for Libertarian Presidential candidates. For the Congressional seats, I was able to vote for people in other parties. Our politicians in Sacramento are corrupt as well as incompetent. They are more concerned with the rights of illegal “migrants” than they are of tax paying citizens. I intend to move to another country in the near future.

  2. No, sorry, I do not understand this hate for the “top two” “jungle” primary. Under the old system, the Republican always lost in most districts, and sometimes the GOP wouldn’t even have a candidate. Under this new system, the GOP still doesn’t have a candidate.

    The only difference is whether a sacrificial Republican’s name appears on the ballot for everyone to laugh at. It makes no difference in the end.

    Consider a hypothetical close district, half Dems and half GOP. Those two will be the top two under either system.

    Consider a typical district with a high majority of either party (there are some rural districts with Republican majorities). The top two will probably be from the one party. The minority candidate will not appear. Before, he appeared as a pro forma joke.

    No difference.

    1. The “top two” laws doesn’t effect local elections, only state-wide ones.

      And while, when I lived in CA, I would certainly have been deluded to think that someone other than a dem would be elected to serve as the US Senator, it also eliminated my chance to show my displeasure at the “status quo” by voting for a third-party candidate, which is my usual pattern. So yeah, it does matter.

      1. You can always write in somebody. Or just not vote.

        1. Or just not vote.

          California’s working on that.

        2. You can always write in somebody.

          No, I don’t believe you can. If I’m only offered two candidates from the same party, I leave it blank.

        3. There is NO “write-in” voting in CA on State-wide elections.

        4. I did not know CA has no write-in in the general election. Oops!

          Well, other than feeling good, it still doesn’t change the fact that Democratic-rich California elects a lot of Democrats.

      2. The time for you to vote for the 3rd party candidate is in the primary.

    2. I actually voted in favor of the prop to enact the system we have, but at the time I thought the actual result could help 3rd party candidates get into 2-way races in the gerrymandered “safe” districts, and thereby get an improved chance of victory without having to split any opposition vote with another oppo candidate from a “viable” party; also, I thought this might give 3rd party opposition candidates a better chance since they’d likely be from parties that had some overlap in appeal with whatever party a given district had been made safe for.

      After a few cycles of having multiple races with only Dems on the ballot for a number of higher offices (I was actually surprised that the Governor race didn’t come down to Newsom vs Villaragosa), I can see that I was wrong in my assesment of what this system would result in here, although I kind of wonder if making primary participation “mandatory” might actually change that since it’ll potentially dilute the voting power of the wingnuts who currently dominate turnout for those polls.

      1. Thanks for fucking it up for the rest of us = …I can see that I was wrong in my assessment of what this system would result in here…

  3. As for mandatory voting, fuck if I care. I register and vote (no new laws, no new bond measures, no incumbents) out of habit, and because I used to write letters to reps and always mentioned I was a voter. I am under no delusions about it meaning anything, and I have stopped writing letters because the form responses always were unrelated to what I had written.

  4. In the 2016 election, five million (5,000,000) registered voters in CA did not vote. What? Throw them all in jail?

    1. Full employment in the prison industry! Livable wages for all! It’s a win-win!

    2. You just made Kamala feel all tingly inside.

      1. I really don’t want to hear about Kamala getting all tingly. You’re the reason I drink, please stop.

        1. Who’s the reason you inject heroin?

    3. No, but the fines will be delicious.

      The fines would be included in future revenue projections, then complained about when everyone votes and eliminates the revenue the fines had been taking in, so taxes will have to be increased.

  5. bill that would require every person who registers to vote

    I think I see a loophole.

    1. Solved with mandatory registration which they are talking about doing whenever you get your license renewed

      1. One can choose to “opt-out” of voter registration when handled through the CA DMV, as it is here in Oregon. (Not supporting the system, mind you, just clarifying.)

        1. I opted out of automatic registration when I renewed my not-real ID drivers license, they registered me anyway.

      2. They’ll get lots of blank or bungled ballots. And if they complain of an empty ballot, that’s proof they aren’t secret.

        1. They’ll get lots of blank or bungled ballots.

          ^ This.

        2. I would love to see the vote tally for the write-in of “go f*ck yourself”, esp if 4chan can make it a meme. GFY for the bigly win!

      3. Voting in this country is a fool’s errand. Last election I voted in was ’92. Then I began to wake up.

    2. Except once registered always registered. There’s no way to unregister short of moving out of state.

      Which, to be fair, a shit load of Californians are doing. Sorry Oregon.

      1. Well, luckily, NOT all the ex-Californians living in Oregon are bringing their screwed-up politics with them. I stand as an example.

        1. Oregon’s politics are screwed up enough on its own.

          In fact, I joke every dumb idea that comes down the pike is already a law in Oregon.

          Damn shame because it is a beautful place.

          1. Compared to CA, Oregon, on most issues, is well behind the “progressive” curve. But, the gap is narrowing.

      2. Sure there is. Just don’t vote, and they stop sending you stuff. Move, and don’t tell them your new address.

      3. I thought that failing to vote in two major elections got you unregistered in some districts.

        1. Only Republican districts. Removing someone’s name from the voter rolls (even if they haven’t voted in 20 years. Even if their family tells you they’re dead.) is racist voter suppression.

  6. The problem is NOT the “Jungle” primary. The problem is that one party, the “Repbulican” party will not allow undelcared voters to vote for their candidates, unlike the “Democartic” party that does. Thus if you are registered to vote, but have not state a party preference, you can choose to vote for no candidate, a democratic candidate, an independent candiate, but NOT a republican candidate.
    This is a decision made by the republican party, and until they fix this they can continue to not have a candidate on genearl election ballot.

    1. You’re talking about two different things.

    2. Republicans dont want registered Democrats voting for joke candidates for the GOP in that states.

      You’re acting like registered Democrats hate their party so much they want to vote for a Republican “to show the DNC bosses” but dont have the cognitive ability to fill out a Republican registration form a few months before the election?

    3. When the Democrat in California have an open and stated tactic of telling people to go vote in Republican primaries to bollux it up, of the course the Republicans are going to limit the primary to just Republicans!

      Primaries should be up to the party to conduct, and not the state. A few states do this, California does not and there’s an entire section in the fricking state constitution mandating how Republicans manage their party internally. I shit you not. California became a state in the proto-progressive era, and a lot of shit got baked into the constitution like government control of political parties.

    4. Allowing only people registered with a party to vote for in that party’s primary seems fine to me. After all, no one is being forced to be a member. It’s the open primaries that have me baffled. In MA, “unenrolled voters” (i.e. registered voters who are not a member of either party) can vote take a ballot for any party at primary time. So tell me, how does that allow a party to control what its focus will be? Rather, it winds up allowing for all sorts of games to be played.

      Make a choice and live with it.

  7. Should this bill be passed, I fully expect that, in the next session, someone will introduce a bill to have all of the mail-in ballots pre-checked with the approved choices (in the name of “helping” the poor proletariat who might not be able to handle the manual nature of this task). Then, in the session following, another bill to simple not mail the ballots but rather just count them as printed, thus avoiding the expense of postage………. The benefits of one-party rule.

    1. No, that step would prove ballots aren’t secret, and I think any judge would slap that down.

  8. Violates 1A and right to privacy (is this a place that privacy can apply outside of a uterus?).

    1. Blank ballots can easily be marked for the preferred candidate by the counters (no need to guess which party this would be in CA), which is probably exactly what they are hoping for. So if this comes to pass, make sure to at least write in a candidate, real or imaginary, because then your ballot can’t be reused.

    2. This is really all that should matter in the debate.

    3. If I’m forced to vote (I vote anyway) then I will mark every item. Just as I currently do: always against incumbents or anyone with political experience, and no against any positive measure and yes against every negative measure.

      If the politically unconcerned are forced to vote, I would guess a sizable percentage of them would do likewise. No against whoever’s in office and no on every measure.

      1. “Just as I currently do: always against incumbents or anyone with political experience, and no against any positive measure and yes against every negative measure.

        Pretty much how I vote, since voting for the L candidate pretty much guarantees against voting for an incumbent. And I always vote against the “for the children” issues because they never are “for the children”.

  9. I wouldn’t mind being forced to vote if they’re still using a paper ballot. Get my ballot, go into the little cubicle, close the curtain, take a dump on the floor, wipe my ass with the ballot, come out, shove my ballot in the box, tell the ladies “You’re out of toilet paper in stall 3 over there”, stroll on out the door. If they wanna do something about it, I’ll just tell them I’m old and easily confused and couldn’t tell the difference between a voting booth and a public toilet because they both smell the same to me.

    1. Look at the prude over here wanting a curtained stall to shit in. Everyone else is doing it out on the sidewalk.

    2. I would give you $100 in federal reserve notes if you ever did that.

  10. This makes a great deal of sense if seen as a package with an eventual “and abolish the electoral college” as an effort to get as many “team blue” votes as possible (considering how huge a spread there’d be if all Californians just saved time by going straight party voting—if that’s an option there, which I do not know).

  11. In order to save time and money, all new voter registrations will be assigned to the democrat party, and all votes will be cast by computer for the democrat with the longest name.

  12. California. Where your rights are so important that the state is going to FORCE you to exercise them.

    Except your 2nd Amendment rights. Those are icky. And sometimes your 1st, 4th, 5th ,6th, 14th…

    1. But so far, so good, pretty much on the 3rd.

  13. Eastern California would be better off just breaking off from San Angeles at this point. They could even blow up the Owens River aqueduct, claim it’s in the interest of “restoring the environment,” and tell Los Angeles to get bent when they cry to the feds about it.

    1. Plans to split the state have been going on for decades. Usually it’s norht versus south (with the big debate over who gets to abandon S.F.) but occasionally split west versus east, or a three way with everything east of I-5 getting unyoked from the wankers.

  14. Commifornia has to get that popular vote up with the Popular Vote Compact pipe dream.

    Cannot have 4.5 million LP voters giving Trump the national popular votes and Blue states like Taxifornia have to give Trump their EC votes.

  15. “Democracy is not a spectator sport—it requires the active participation of all its citizens.”

    OK, Levine — How about legislation requiring that the “winner” of any election garner at least half the number of registered voters?

    1. *at least half of all voting-age citizens.

  16. If you want every one to vote then there will have to be a punishment of great severity for those who choose not to vote. Likewise if you want gun crimes to go down then there will have a very sever penalty when someone uses a gun illegally. But I doubt that they will pass a voting penalty nor a gun crime use penalty either. That would violet the criminals’ right if they received sever penalty.

  17. I’ll be writing in March Fong Eu’s grandson, Phuc.

    1. You cannot do this here. I was drinking a soda and ended up spitting it over my screen. You need to provide a laughter trigger warning before these kinds of posts.

  18. Look at how the votes come in – about 20% of the vote for President does not show up for the vote for Senator. By law, the vote for national office has to include all qualifying parties, but voters are asked to choose between two Democrats for the Senate. So they don’t choose either.
    Unfortunately, there is no FU option on the state ballot.

  19. I am tired of waiting for California to secede; is there a non-military way to force them out of the union?

    1. Unfortunately no.

      Article IV, Section 4.
      The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

      1. So, when are we going to enforce that guarantee? California doesn’t have a republican form of government anymore, they have sham elections where you can’t vote for whoever you want to.

        Once they banned write in votes, the pre-printed ballot stopped being a mere convenience for the voters, and became a denial of the right to freely vote for your own choice of candidate.

  20. Oh, horse shit. California by changing the means of the election didn’t take any choices away. If voters don’t want to pay attention to the real election (the primary), that’s their choice. Besides, California made ballot access easier for candidates when they enacted this (by voter initiative — talk about voter choice, huh), very much lowering signature requirements.

  21. Well California may not offer choices at the polls and it has one of the worse school systems in the country and it has the worse road system anywhere in the U.S. – this all may be true, but at least we have some of the highest state taxes proving that we are civilized, but not too bright.

  22. What is amazing to see is that occasionally this absurd primary system does lock the Democrat out of the final ballot and that party yells about how unfair it is that their voters do not have a candidate.

    If you have to force the voters to participate in an election then that is evidence your elections are a farce.

  23. This move is all about the Electoral College.

    Democrats believe that higher turnout in California means a larger margin for the Democrats. In the near term, they hope to improve the “popular vote” score in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate in order to buttress their argument for abolishing the Electoral College. Then, once it’s abolished, they expect to have a head start on boosting turnout of Democrats in the new presidential popular vote.

  24. Wow, today an appliance tech working on my fridge told me this but I didn’t believe him. https://appliancerepairmodesto.com/ I had to read this for myself and so glad I did. Now time to pass on the news!

  25. There is apparently no shortage of dingbat politicians in California.

  26. I thought libertarians were against state recognition of ‘group rights.’ Why not let the two individuals with the most votes face off in the general? Why should the state sanction political party ‘group rights’?

    1. Groups are “associations of individuals” and the individuals making up the group have the rights. Individuals don’t relinquish their rights just because they choose to act together. Read Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) for more clarification.

      1. I’m well-aware bozo. But individuals don’t gain additional rights as group members, do they?

  27. Also, Republicans can run, they just don’t make top two because their ideas have completely failed in California’s marketplace of ideas. Tough shit, snowflakes.

    1. Also, Republicans can run, they just don’t make top two because their ideas have completely failed in California’s marketplace of ideas.

      Is an open-air insane asylum in the LA-SF corridor with a massive homeless problem, street-shitting on the level of New Delhi, deteriorating infrastructure, and horrible income inequality technically a marketplace?

      The areas outside that disease vector certainly are terrific.

      1. I live in Hollywood Hills and LA is 95% fucking amazing. Far better than the vast expanses of red state wastelands dotted by white nationalists, Wal-Mart parking lots, and gas stations with fast food franchises inside

  28. Frankly, California should just be broken up into like seven states.

  29. Reason sucks at math.

    The only way for two democrats to be in the state wide election is for the top republican to get less than 1/3 of the primary vote.

    In that scenario, don’t you want the general election to include both the crazy left democrat and someone not quite as crazy left?

    Or is it better to ensure that the crazy left Democrat wins against a sacrificial Republican?

    1. All Democrats are now crazy left, especially California Dems. This is a party that’s poised to nominate Bernie Sanders.

  30. In a republic, representatives speak for everyone, whether they voted for you or against, whether the people vote at all, even if ineligible to vote for any reason, the representative is the voice of Everyone. So…..based upon the most recent census, I would suggest a majority of the population represented is required to win office. Period. Our bureaucracy can run without elected officials until such time as a majority of the duly represented people care to elect someone.

  31. If voting made a difference they wouldn’t let us do it.

    If there is ever mandatory voting, I will dutifully go in to avoid penalty, and my write-in vote will be “F**k you”.

  32. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.=…. VIST THIS SITE >>Read MoRe

  33. I dont see a problem with any of the stuff this guy is whining about. Registering to vote is not mandated by this bill.

    The “jungle” primary is just fine.

    All they need to do now is add ranked choice.

  34. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> Detail of work

  35. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page…. Read more

  36. Mandatory voting and generally one party to vote for. This sounds like the “democracy” they had in the former Soviet Union.

  37. First, I don’t think it is right to make voting compulsory. As much as I want to increase voter participation, coercing participation is not the answer. Under the 9th amendment, we retain rights to ‘opt out’ of participation in voting. If the act of voting is speech, then you cannot compel speech (1st amendment).

    Second, CA is within their rights to put into place their jungle primary system. I am pretty sure SCOTUS ruled on that. States get to control their primaries, period. Personally, I think CA is misguided. Personally, I think this (jungle primary, compulsory voting) is a way that CA is trying to force a national popular vote to subvert the electoral college.

    I know it is completely wrong; nonetheless, the Constitution grants them the power to be completely wrong (in this instance), but legal.

  38. California can STFU about “democracy” until they lead by example and allocate their Electoral College votes proportionally. How fast will they pull out of the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if Trump wins the “popular vote”, which would have then required California to abandon the will of its citizens and hand all its EC votes to Trump.

    1. “How fast will they pull out of the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if Trump wins the “popular vote”, which would have then required California to abandon the will of its citizens and hand all its EC votes to Trump.”

      I’ve been saying this for years, and the response from the proponent is either a dumb look, or a terrified look. The ones with dumb looks you can’t help. The terrified ones have just had a rare moment of understanding that maybe, just maybe, the whole country doesn’t want to become one more progressive hellhole.

  39. Screw the parties, find me a mention of parties in the constitution
    I may not have implemented this system personally, but it is democracy pure and simple. When a party stops promoting ideas the constituents agree with, they will get voted out
    Less gerrymandering
    If it benefited the right, the right would champion it.

    Too few radical voters of all stripes select candidates

    The right only sees it as fewer choices because the actual majority have never agreed with them, and twisting electoral politics is the only way they maintain control

    1. Absolutely. Californians just don’t want to be led buy religious nuts and white trash assholes, and those are the only remaining people left in GOP

  40. A law designed to increase the number of write-in votes for Mickey Mouse.

  41. start earning money today from 2-3 hundreds dollar per hour by just simple on-line working by giving only one hour of your daily life . its very easy. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech) for more details here..… Read more  

  42. Kalifornia is a political dictatorship run by a gaggle of elite bobbleheads. The few that are sane are buried by a title wave of politically correct no-gooder Marxists who are mostly monied machiavellian monkeys.

  43. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online…. Click it here  

Please to post comments