Vote Yes or No???

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

Irrelevant. Millions won't use these tactics in an election where even thousands can swing the election.

movielover said:

---

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

Irrelevant. Millions won't use these tactics in an election where even thousands can swing the election.

---

Can you elaborate with more detail? I don't understand your reply.

This explains movie man's comment:




"In California, the holes in vote-by-mail envelopes serve two primary purposes: assisting voters with visual impairments and ensuring election integrity during ballot processing.

Accessibility for voters with visual impairments

Many envelopes have holes placed next to the signature line on the outside of the envelope. This design feature is a tactile guide, allowing a voter with low or no vision to feel the holes and know exactly where to sign without assistance.

Integrity in ballot processing
A hole is also typically placed on the body of the envelope to help election officials confirm that a returned ballot has been completely removed from the envelope.

After the signature on the envelope is verified, election workers can check the hole to make sure the envelope is empty before discarding it.

This visual inspection helps prevent ballots from being accidentally left inside their envelopes and ensures every returned ballot is counted.

Addressing voter concerns
Some voters have expressed concern that these holes could compromise ballot secrecy by revealing how they voted. However, election officials and fact-checkers explain that this is not an issue.

Secure folding: California ballots are designed so that the marks are not visible when properly folded and inserted into the envelope. For ballots with text on only one side, voters can fold it so the blank side faces outward.

Random alignment: The likelihood of a specific ballot mark aligning with a hole in the envelope is low and, in many cases, would not reveal a voter's entire choice.

Voter privacy: Election officials are not permitted to inspect or tamper with ballots. The signature verification process is separate from the vote-counting process, so votes remain private."
AI Overview

*I was concerned when I sealed my ballot that part of a QR code was supposed to be lined up with the hole because only the part of my ballot that has no printing on it was visible through the hole. At the time I did not bother to research it.

I'm pretty sure that in any picture where the ballot marking shows through the hole that the ballot was manipulated into a paper butterfly by some fraudster so that it aligned.

bearister said:

---

This explains movie man's comment:




"In California, the holes in vote-by-mail envelopes serve two primary purposes: assisting voters with visual impairments and ensuring election integrity during ballot processing.
Accessibility for voters with visual impairments

Many envelopes have holes placed next to the signature line on the outside of the envelope. This design feature is a tactile guide, allowing a voter with low or no vision to feel the holes and know exactly where to sign without assistance.

Integrity in ballot processing
A hole is also typically placed on the body of the envelope to help election officials confirm that a returned ballot has been completely removed from the envelope.

After the signature on the envelope is verified, election workers can check the hole to make sure the envelope is empty before discarding it.

This visual inspection helps prevent ballots from being accidentally left inside their envelopes and ensures every returned ballot is counted.

Addressing voter concerns
Some voters have expressed concern that these holes could compromise ballot secrecy by revealing how they voted. However, election officials and fact-checkers explain that this is not an issue.

Secure folding: California ballots are designed so that the marks are not visible when properly folded and inserted into the envelope. For ballots with text on only one side, voters can fold it so the blank side faces outward.

Random alignment: The likelihood of a specific ballot mark aligning with a hole in the envelope is low and, in many cases, would not reveal a voter's entire choice.

Voter privacy: Election officials are not permitted to inspect or tamper with ballots. The signature verification process is separate from the vote-counting process, so votes remain private."
AI Overview

*I was concerned when I sealed my ballot than part of a QR code was supposed to be lined up with the hole because only the part of my ballot that has no printing on it. I'm pretty sure that in any picture where the ballot marking shows through the hole that the ballot was manipulated onto a paper butterfly.

---

Can a bot really go down the rabbit hole?

Over 50% of social traffic happens to be bots. Of course this is mostly on places like FB and Xwitter, but sure it happens here too.

Hey, a bot can do ya!

You all are bots.

oski003 said:

---

You all are bots.

---

"I'm a bot. I'm a bot. I'm a bot,,,,,"

oski003 said:

---

Vote Yes or No???

---

One of the most obvious No votes in history.

But California is full of stupid people who kept re-electing Dianne Feinstein's corpse to the Senate, voted for Kamala and Lyin' Adam Schiff in the senate, voted for Gavin for governor, and voted for Prop 22 to make workers for rideshare companies poorer with no benefits, so I'm sure they'll continue their unblemished record of stupidity and pass this.

Aunburdened said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Vote Yes or No???

---

One of the most obvious No votes in history.

But California is full of stupid people who kept re-electing Dianne Feinstein's corpse to the Senate, voted for Kamala and Lyin' Adam Schiff in the senate, voted for Gavin for governor, and voted for Prop 22 to make workers for rideshare companies poorer with no benefits, so I'm sure they'll continue their unblemished record of stupidity and pass this.

---

Why is it an obvious No vote?

oski003 said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Vote Yes or No???

---

One of the most obvious No votes in history.

But California is full of stupid people who kept re-electing Dianne Feinstein's corpse to the Senate, voted for Kamala and Lyin' Adam Schiff in the senate, voted for Gavin for governor, and voted for Prop 22 to make workers for rideshare companies poorer with no benefits, so I'm sure they'll continue their unblemished record of stupidity and pass this.

---

Why is it an obvious No vote?

---

Besides the fact that almost all California ballot propositions should be voted down since the process is consistently abused to get bad one-sided laws passed, this article explains it nicely.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/09/california-voters-reject-prop-50-redistricting/

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

GOP playing catchup.

We need a new census.

sycasey said:

---

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

---

This is why when any Democrat talks about how we need to defend democracy, any independent minded individual should walk right up to that person and laugh right in their face. If other states want to change how their federal representatives get elected, that's the business of that state. Hopefully their citizens will ultimately rebel against their state governments just as they have by passing ballot initiatives supporting abortion rights and gay marriage and a myriad of other things their state governments obstructed. Hopefully they will form independent redistricting commissions like California's to replace partisan gerrymandering in their own states.

But sycasey's statement is just a reflection of the rot that has existed in the Democratic Party since Trump's election. Trump won the election fair and square despite all of the obstacles put in his way, but since his election broke the gentlemen's agreement between the two parties that only people that "played ball" with the establishment would be the two options restricted to the American voter, they are quite willing to destroy democracy in the name of "saving it" to prevent Trump or anyone like Trump from breaking away from the establishment again. Thus we get shams like Russiagate, the Jan 6 Commission, and the ridiculous lawfare lawsuits in partisan Dem states.

You see the same thing happening in the New York mayor's election. The Democratic Party has worked five times harder on trying to prevent the people's choice from winning the election than they have on anything else since 2016. Just like they did when Bernie was threatening to win the nomination in 2020. Just like they do every election season when they sue the Green Party in every state to keep them from siphoning votes that they feel they "own" away from their party.

If you support democracy, don't vote for Democrats because they hate democracy.

In most democracies, voters choose politicians. In the US politicians choose their voters.

Prop 50 is a race to the bottom. Don't vote.

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

---

This is why when any Democrat talks about how we need to defend democracy, any independent minded individual should walk right up to that person and laugh right in their face. If other states want to change how their federal representatives get elected, that's the business of that state. Hopefully their citizens will ultimately rebel against their state governments just as they have by passing ballot initiatives supporting abortion rights and gay marriage and a myriad of other things their state governments obstructed. Hopefully they will form independent redistricting commissions like California's to replace partisan gerrymandering in their own states.

---

In most of those states the only way to pass anti-gerrymandering laws would be through the state legislature . . . which is gerrymandered to hell.

Realistically the only way to make this stick is to pass something at the national level, but Republicans have zero incentive to do this as long as they only benefit and never see any downsides.

movielover said:

---

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

---

COMPLETE BS.

You obviously don't live in California.
Otherwise, you'd know how f-ing absurd your claim is.

I dropped off my ballot last week at our local library.
Placing my ballot in the envelope did not reveal any VOTE let alone a "No" vote no matter which side of the folded ballot you placed into the envelope.

Like most of your posts, this one is also RUBBISH.

Once democrats regain everything they can pass laws restoring no gerrymandering nationwide.
If they have the balls to do so.

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

The Daokta territory literally was split in two because Republicans at the time wanted more Senators. Really.

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

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There should be an East and West Dakota too

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

History huh ?

concordtom said:

---

Once democrats regain everything they can pass laws restoring no gerrymandering nationwide.
If they have the balls to do so.

---

They apparently right now are cucks to Soros Jr., Globalists, Marxists, and WEF.

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

There should either be smaller districts or multiple members per district, allocated based on percentage of vote. Then we'd have a more representative Congress.

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

And yet you think that somehow the red state governments will give that power back on their own.

Or is it only bad when Democrats do it?

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

The Dakota territory literally was split in two because Republicans at the time wanted more Senators. Really.

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

---

And this is why fools who use wikipedia for research are as stupid as the ones who use AI to do their thinking for them.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dakota-split-states-senators/

Quote:

---

Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors.

One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:

https://media.snopes.com/2021/04/Copy-of-Rating-Overlay-Vertical-4.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region.

But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota.

And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington.

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

Apparently Dems have been trying a clawback since 2010.

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

Definitely voting yes.
But as I said, there needs to be laws passed to end the BS.

Dems need to take leadership in this regard. Sadly, they probably won't be able to. Or simply won't. Power corrupts.

Anarchistbear said:

---

There should be an East and West Dakota too

---

Lol

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

Make districts be round or squares. That's it. Divide lines by mountains or valleys or some such.

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

So then how do you justify what Texas is doing?
Or how most districts already look?

This got messed up a long time ago, and the Supreme Court sanctioned it.

So, lawmakers need to pass new laws about it.

You're right. Hard to go back. But we've got to try. Would be a great platform for a presidential candidate to take up, frankly!

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

There should either be smaller districts or multiple members per district, allocated based on percentage of vote. Then we'd have a more representative Congress.

---

You want 1500 congressmen?