I'm no fan of their system, however if you think about it, the increase in number of votes remaining to count reflects the number of mail-in ballots they've actually received, which is unknowable in advance.
If they published a number of votes based on ballots sent out in advance, they'd undoubtedly end up with a larger number of "uncounted" ballots due to ones not returned.
If you look at their mail-in ballot laws, it's set up in a way that would (theoretically) make it pretty difficult to infuse enough votes in advance of the election. Not saying it's impossible - just with so many eyes on the process, anomalies would pop up.
If you look at registration numbers by party, registered California Democrats outnumber registered Republicans almost 2:1
California Democrats use mail-in voting at a far higher rate than Republicans.
The numbers alone explain why Republicans do better on election day, and Democrats seem to always come from behind via mail.
The issue is with their allowing ballots to come in up to 7 days post election day, followed by their curing process.
The way to fix that is to require ballots to come in on election day itself. There'll still be a delay due to the curing process, but it'll at least be a week shorter.
Or: figure out how to get more registered Republicans in California.
@billo39206@ZeekArkham I don't think it was the original intent; the original assumption was for limited, need-based use.
All of that changed during the COVID lockdowns, where any reasonable person could see the potential problem.
It's a USA Hockey hat.
Yup: I'm an unapologetic Trump supporter. I feel he's the best President we've had in a long time.
I don't agree with everything he does, and I'm not a fan of his communication style. Policy decisions, however, are spot-on.
If that triggers you, touch grass.
When I hear people dump on our Founding Fathers, I always point out that these men were willing to risk everything for our independence, essentially signing their own death warrants.
I can't imagine the courage that took.
Without their courageous sacrifice, America as we know it wouldn't exist.
The richest man in America signed a document that could have gotten him hanged, and when someone sneered that he was safe because no one would know which Charles Carroll to come for, he picked up the pen and told the British exactly where to find him.
His name was Charles Carroll, and the colonies were crawling with men who shared it. His own father was Charles Carroll of Annapolis. So when the Declaration of Independence came to him for signing in 1776, a delegate made a cruel little joke. He said Carroll risked nothing by signing. There were so many Charles Carrolls that the King's men would never know which one to hang.
Carroll didn't argue. He leaned over the page and added three words to his signature: "of Carrollton." The name of his estate. His address. He was the only signer in the entire room who wrote down where he lived, and he did it on purpose, so that if the British wanted to come hang the traitor, they would know exactly which door to knock on.
That is who Charles Carroll of Carrollton was.
Here is what makes the moment even sharper. He was not a man with little to lose. He was the single wealthiest man in the thirteen colonies and the largest private landowner among them. While George Washington and John Hancock get talked about as rich men, it was Carroll who topped them all. When he signed, he was wagering the biggest personal fortune in America against a noose.
And he was the last man anyone would have expected to be there at all. Carroll was Catholic. In colonial Maryland, a colony founded as a Catholic refuge that had since turned on its own, Catholics could not vote. They could not hold public office. They could not worship in public. The most educated, wealthiest man in America was, in the eyes of the law, a second-class subject barred from the very government he was helping to create. He had spent seventeen years being educated by Jesuits in France and spoke five languages fluently, and back home he still could not legally cast a ballot.
So he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, putting his name on a revolution that he hoped would build a country with room for men like him. That was its own enormous bet, made by a man the existing system had already shut out.
Then he simply outlived everyone.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on the same astonishing day, July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the Declaration. When they were gone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton was the last living signer left on earth. For six more years he was the final human link to that room in Philadelphia, the last hand that had signed, a living relic of the founding that ordinary Americans traveled to see and shake.
He finally died in November 1832 at the age of ninety-five, fifty-six years after he wrote his address on a treason document and dared the empire to come find him.
The richest man in America. The only Catholic. The last one standing. He had more to lose than any of them, every legal reason to stay quiet, and he signed his full address anyway.
We remember the names we were handed in school. We forget the man who made sure his couldn't be mistaken for anyone else's.
Which Founding Father do you think history shortchanged the most?
@Plubius5@ZeekArkham I figure we'd be horrified to learn just how many campaigns take advantage of.... "creative" voting operations.
IMO, we only catch the truly inept or desperate ones.
There's simply too much power and influence at stake for "them" to risk leaving it up to the people.
Good read that goes into how these "protests" suddenly pop up and disappear.
TL:DR the framework itself is legal.
Just be aware that you're not seeing "local protestors"; you're seeing a color revolution in action.
Finally getting over the asthma - and here's the org chart of the Newark protests, as promised. A few are missing, particularly the Catholic NGOs. But this is the basic template for how mass protests are coordinated so quickly.
I looked him up and found that Tre Phelps is having a breakout season, and is a strong MLB prospect.
I don't know if this is an anomaly, or if this is normal behavior for him.
I'd be curious to see if this hurts him in the draft; I can't imagine his decision to act the fool helps him.
Like I said: act like you've been there before.
They tossed him for "taunting".
As a former athlete, I get the kid's emotions; coming through in the clutch is a rush you never forget.
Under the current rules, the ejection is technically warranted.
I don't like it at all.
I feel "taunting" rules, especially at the elite level, (I consider college and above to be "elite" for this purpose), unnecessary except for the most egregious actions, e.g. blatantly racist comments, spitting at another player, etc. (if you spit at me, expect to get a very violent response...)
At this level, you should be able to handle "taunting".
That said: as a young athlete, I was very good at track and, later, soccer. I won a lot of races and scored my share of big goals. my coaches and my father always preached the same thing: "act like you've been there before."
Back then, we didn't have taunting rules. That said: if I acted like this kid did, I guarantee my coaches would've been pissed, and my Dad would've read me the riot act for acting like an idiot.
๐จMISSING JUVENILE โ MILFORD, NH โ PLEASE SHARE
Jenna is 14 years old and was last seen yesterday afternoon in the Milford, NH area. She was reportedly picked up by someone driving a teal/blue sports car. She did not have permission to leave and is currently considered a runaway/missing juvenile.
She was last seen wearing a light blue T-shirt, grey shorts, black slides, and white socks.
Police have been notified and are actively looking for her. If anyone has seen Jenna, the vehicle, or has any information that may help, please contact Milford Police Department immediately. 603-249-0630
They must be happy that they don't have to spend time and money on a meaningless write-in campaign this time around.
It's pretty clear that the national Democrat party doesn't want New Hampshire Democrat voters getting in the way of deciding the candidates, (for President, at least.)
Good luck with that, I guess.
Yes, Democrats had big gains in those years, followed by mutual waxings and resulting flips in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2018, and 2020.
Both parties right now have little cash on hand; it's a pretty even split financially, although I would argue that, but for national $, the Democrats don't have the same local support.
As for election results, the margins are extremely slim. Democrats get the college kids' votes through their superior ground game; if Republicans succeed in getting out-of-state college students out of our local elections, (they should vote absentee in their own state), NH stays Red.