Poll of the Day > Why do you only need 1.5 MILLION Signatures to RECALL in California???

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why do you only need 1.5 million signatures to recall a governor in california when that's less than half of the total number of republicans who voted in the last election??.

Not to mention over 13 million people voted in the 2018 election so why would it only take 1.5 million signatures to recall a governor and waste over 200 million for a vote??

https://i.imgur.com/FOoy8uj.jpg
---

Not sure

I guess a group of people thought 1.5 million was a fair number of signatures to gather before a recall could be taken seriously

I had originally thought you had to have voted for the person in question before you could sign anything

Will have to read up on it all some day

---

why should there be a such thing as a recall? either the vote was valid or it wasn't. if it was valid, then we're done. if it was not valid, then ok, redo, no recall vote required. (it shouldn't be an _opinion_ that the vote was invalid, in other words, right?)

---

Sahuagin posted...

why should there be a such thing as a recall?

Generally to allow some recourse for a population to get rid of somebody that they voted in, but turned out to be so terrible that waiting out the remainder of the term would be unacceptably bad.

That said, requiring fewer votes to start a recall election than voted against the governor in the previous election seems like it has a lot of potential to be abused. That's just asking for people that are butthurt about losing the election to immediately demand a new one until eventually they get an outcome they like.

---

...because 1.5m signatures is fucking massive.

JixHedgehog posted...

I guess a group of people thought 1.5 million was a fair number of signatures to gather before a recall could be taken seriously

It's probably based on a % of the population, not a static number.

mrduckbear posted...

when that's less than half of the total number of republicans who voted in the last election??.

...signatures are a lot harder to get than votes. People show out to vote, signatures you need to find people and the reject rate on signatures is far higher than votes. 1.5m valid signatures is really more like 2-3m signatures

---

Joke thread

---

Judgmenl posted...

Joke thread

"Why is it so easy to waste so much money?" seems relatively serious?

BlackScythe0 posted...

"Why is it so easy to waste so much money?" seems relatively serious?

Politics and controlling the masses.
It was not wasted.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

"Why is it so easy to waste so much money?" seems relatively serious?

Again, 1.5m valid signatures isn't easy no matter how hard you try to spin it. And man are you trying to spin it.

---

Judgmenl posted...

Politics and controlling the masses.
It was not wasted.

The masses overwhelmingly were against it. I don't follow.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The masses overwhelmingly were against it. I don't follow.

...nobody was countersigning a petition.

---

Zeus posted...

...nobody was countersigning a petition.

Results are out pal.

Zeus posted...

...because 1.5m signatures is fucking massive.

That's less than 5% of CA's population tho.
---

> Not to mention over 13 million people voted in the 2018 election so why would it only take 1.5 million signatures to recall a governor and waste over 200 million for a vote??

cuz 1.5 million sigs is over 10% of 13 million?

---

https://i.redd.it/5s2j5pzbcsn71.png

---

I mean, there are some clear facts here:
1) 1.5 million is a massive number that is large enough to discourage anyone not serious in recalling the gov.
2) In a system where the political parties are working in good faith it would be large enough.
3) The Republicans are not working in good faith. (Democrats some too, sure, but we must be honest) They are willing to spend an inordinate amount of time and money collecting signatures from their energized base to subvert democracy. There's no other way to say it.
4) With that, yes, the rules for recalls need modification. (Not that Reps appear to care much for rules anymore) A higher number probably makes the process unworkable, so they probably need something more like impeachment.

We absolutely need China or aliens to attack us soon (to pull us together) or we're going to destroy ourselves.

---

Waaaah why don't you guys cry about it

wpot posted...

We absolutely need China or aliens to attack us soon (to pull us together) or we're going to destroy ourselves.

Let's be honest, if China attacked, conservatives would join them.

---

papercup posted...

Let's be honest, if China attacked, conservatives would join them.

You mean the same people that call it the chinavirus? Doubt it

OhhhJa posted...

You mean the same people that call it the chinavirus? Doubt it

You vastly underestimate conservatives hatred of America and Americans if you think they wouldn't.

---

papercup posted...

You vastly underestimate conservatives hatred of America and Americans if you think they wouldn't.

Conservatives hate democrats. And even if they did support the Jan 6th riot, in my experience, conservatives REALLY hate China

If there's anything that pisses off conservatives more than democrats, it's foreigners

OhhhJa posted...

If there's anything that pisses off conservatives more than democrats, it's foreigners

arvs pretty sure everyone likes them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-SpHH7qDA

---

Such a corny band but man that guy could sing

OhhhJa posted...

If there's anything that pisses off conservatives more than democrats, it's foreigners

Especially commie foreigners

---

Gavin Newsom is the Chris Christie of the democrats. Dude attended a big fancy dinner party at a restaurant not following his own state guidelines on gatherings at the time. Rules for thee

OhhhJa posted...

Gavin Newsom is the Chris Christie of the democrats. Dude attended a big fancy dinner party at a restaurant not following his own state guidelines on gatherings at the time. Rules for thee

Republicans response to this was to try to force in a far-right radio chud as Governor.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Conservatives hate democrats. And even if they did support the Jan 6th riot, in my experience, conservatives REALLY hate China

They also hated Russia until a nearly overnight turn around with Trump. Conservatives hate Democrats and most of the constitution.

Phantom_Nook posted...

Republicans response to this was to try to force in a far-right radio chud as Governor.

Right, the degree of "whataboutism" is ridiculous right now.

You say our hero incited a riot attacking Congress trying to falsely overturn an election? Well, YOUR candidate's son tried to capitalize on his influence oversees...or pick the excuse of the day. It's incredible the stuff Reps try to get away with because "you did something bad too".

OhhhJa posted...

Waaaah why don't you guys cry about it

Our children will die over it, one way or another. Whatever the heck conservatives think is SO bad about society today is going to appear ridiculous following wherever this takes us. I mean, it's ridiculous now...but they clearly can't see it.

---

They're not even conservatives by this point; they're regressives. Conservatives, if anything, are the majority of Democrats in office, pretending to represent the so-called liberals, because the other party moved the damn goalpost that much, and the rest of the developed world looks on like we might a train wreck.

---

Entity13 posted...

They're not even conservatives by this point; they're regressives. Conservatives, if anything, are the majority of Democrats in office, pretending to represent the so-called liberals, because the other party moved the damn goalpost that much, and the rest of the developed world looks on like we might a train wreck.

Correct. Under ideal circumstances the Conservatives are the dead-centre since their goal is to maintain the status quo. To the Left is the Liberals followed by the Radicals. To the Right are the Traditionalists followed by the Reactionaries.

---

Entity13 posted...

They're not even conservatives by this point; they're regressives. Conservatives, if anything, are the majority of Democrats in office, pretending to represent the so-called liberals, because the other party moved the damn goalpost that much, and the rest of the developed world looks on like we might a train wreck.

The democrats have changed a LOT more in the last couple decades than the republicans. Republicans are just saying the same shit they have been since GWB. If anything, the party has moved, ever so slightly, more socially liberal

OhhhJa posted...

The democrats have changed a LOT more in the last couple decades than the republicans. Republicans are just saying the same shit they have been since GWB. If anything, the party has moved, ever so slightly, more socially liberal

https://media3.giphy.com/media/IDGNYvFLkJKLK/200.gif

---

I mean, the republican party actually has support for gay marriage now. The democrats were anti gay marriage even under first term Obama

When was the republican party not run largely by fundamentalists? They haven't changed their stances on pretty much anything except gay marriage

OhhhJa posted...

When was the republican party not run largely by fundamentalists?

Recently. The old Reps who were interested in governing got elected for years by paying lip services to the fringe crazies and stirring up their perceived grievances. But when in power they just what Republicans have always done: advocate for businesses. Now the crazies finally took over the party and, while the message is largely the same, they're actually acting on the craziness. The old big business Reps are now RINOs and their past playing with the fringe fire is taking the US down with them. So sure: the plank hasn't changed at all. :)

There is also the new value of "fuck the rules and the system and everyone other than my tribe". That one doesn't get written down, though. Just shouted.

Oh, and yeah, I know it's bait. I just have to enjoy this more than you do. :)

---

You must be young if you really think fundamentalist Christian principles weren't driving the republican party even decades ago. Call it bait if you want but you're the one acting like a condescending, immature troll in this topic

OhhhJa posted...

You must be young if you really think fundamentalist Christian principles weren't driving the republican party even decades ago. Call it bait if you want but you're the one acting like a condescending, immature troll in this topic

Just call it "Critical Religion Theory" :b

---

OhhhJa posted...

driving the republican party

They've been driving Republican ELECTION success for years, sure, and they have provided the true energy for the party for years. The deal from party elites was the same for a couple decades: "if you elect our big business platform we'll shout about your religious complaints (but not-so-secretly we just care about big business)". Not anymore.

OhhhJa posted...

you're the one acting like a condescending, immature troll in this topic

Ahhh...name calling. Always a good indicator of a person looking to have a fair argument.

---

wpot posted...

They've been driving Republican ELECTION success for years, sure, and they have provided the true energy for the party for years. The deal from party elites was the same for a couple decades: "if you elect our big business platform we'll shout about your religious complaints (but not-so-secretly we just care about big business)". Not anymore.

Ahhh...name calling. Always a good indicator of a person looking to have a fair argument.

Those are adjectives, not names. And that's the way you were acting so... if the shoe fits

wpot posted...

They've been driving Republican ELECTION success for years

And legislation. Don't forget that part

OhhhJa posted...

Those are adjectives, not names. And that's the way you were acting so... if the shoe fits

Another good indicator of a person looking to have a fair argument is sidetracking the discussion to technical arguments about the nature of name calling rather than responding to the meat of the other person's argument.

I suppose we'll just have to let others judge our behavior.

---

OhhhJa posted...

And legislation. Don't forget that part

Ah, you snuck in an argument just before I posted.

Very well...uh, no. Traditional Republicans have advanced bills designed to generate headlines and create energy...but nothing that will truly change the way anyone lives. Can you think of many religious bills that truly made much difference to society prior to the Trump era? Many (most?) of them weren't even intended to pass, they were just intended to fan the flames.

---

wpot posted...

Ah, you snuck in an argument just before I posted.

Very well...uh, no. Traditional Republicans have advanced bills designed to generate headlines and create energy...but nothing that will truly change the way anyone lives. Can you think of many religious bills that truly made much difference to society prior to the Trump era? Many (most?) of them weren't even intended to pass, they were just intended to fan the flames.

Where do you think the party's battle against climate change legislation comes from? It's driven by Christian fundamentalism. Let's not forget the decades long fight to have creationism taught in school or take evolution discussion out of the classroom.

I never thought I'd see someone so confident that republican party policy hasn't been influenced by Christian fundamentalism for as long as I've been alive, much less, from someone that's not a right winger

wpot posted...

Another good indicator of a person looking to have a fair argument is sidetracking the discussion to technical arguments about the nature of name calling rather than responding to the meat of the other person's argument.

I suppose we'll just have to let others judge our behavior.

Oh, you mean, like calling my argument bait. That was part of the discussion? At least try not being a hypocrite

OhhhJa posted...

Where do you think the party's battle against climate change legislation comes from?

Are you kidding? Oil and coal big business, maybe?

OhhhJa posted...

Let's not forget the decades long fight to have creationism taught in school or take evolution discussion out of the classroom.

That is one of the "red meat" topics that gets people worked up, yes, but do you really think the big business guys cared about that (or even believed in it)?

OhhhJa posted...

republican party policy hasn't been influenced by Christian fundamentalism

"Influenced", sure. It was the dog that they cynically kept on a leash so they could keep lowering taxes, to speak crudely. And now it's all been overtaken by the cult of "the freedom to do whatever I want", which doesn't turn off the majority of so-called Christian fundamentalists because they are far more Republicans than they are fundamentalists these days.

OhhhJa posted...

Oh, you mean, like calling my argument bait.

Oh, fair enough: I slipped. The problem we moderates have is that we're so unwilling to get into the gutter and yell with everyone else that we're going to get carried away by the screamers in the internet age. I'm trying to learn how to be more effective with that.

---

OhhhJa posted...

They haven't changed their stances on pretty much anything except gay marriage

so then they're stagnant, while everyone else is moving forward. so their position becomes more and more regressive over time.

---

When your argument is far less "This idea is bad, and here is why," and far more, "No, because we want to go back to this stance. No, we mean this one. No! We mean this one even further over here," you are regressing while the rest of the world seeks to improve the matters that are not working. Hence why I have deemed to call some folks Regressive.

---

wpot posted...

Are you kidding? Oil and coal big business, maybe?

Sure, that's a major part of it. Climate change denial has plenty of roots in the Christian conservative movement, though. And if you don't think a lot of these Republican reps are real Christians, I think you'd be wrong

wpot posted...

That is one of the "red meat" topics that gets people worked up, yes, but do you really think the big business guys cared about that (or even believed in it)?

This has directly impacted the education system in many places though. Don't forget the power of local level government in the Bible belt. Not everything is just federal level big business-driven lobbying. A lot of the problems this country faces comes from regulation at the local and state level

Sahuagin posted...

so then they're stagnant, while everyone else is moving forward. so their position becomes more and more regressive over time.

Ok but that's still my point. The party has not changed. The democrats have changed massively in the last couple decades

OhhhJa posted...

Climate change denial has plenty of roots in the Christian conservative movement, though.

There is no solid line between fundamentalists and Republicans anymore, NOT because the big business guys changed...but because the fundamentalists became much less fundamental outside of a few headline (red meat) issues. In this case, any climate change denial in Christian movements is coming from Republicans, not the Bible (although it is retroactively being misused)...I guarantee it.

OhhhJa posted...

And if you don't think a lot of these Republican reps are real Christians, I think you'd be wrong

I do think that. Most have been Christian and a few have actually been Christian moreso than business-focused, but the great majority (especially leadership) have always been big business first and Christian second....until recently. Absolutely.

OhhhJa posted...

This has directly impacted the education system in many places though.

The tragedy of our politics is that we focus on headline catching things this like this, or abortion, or defunding police and ignore the things that actually make a day-to-day difference to the majority of people. In this case, has it affected education? In a couple spots in the Bible belt, maybe, but the great majority of districts/teachers aren't going there. It's a minor issue blown way out of proportion.

OhhhJa posted...

The democrats have changed massively in the last couple decades

I would argue that no, the ENERGY is different (coming from BLM, etc) but that the underlying values have not changed. Different talking points and tactics, sure. The energy/rhetoric in both parties has been immensely impacted by the internet, and the change is almost a completely negative on both sides. However, I believe Democrats have stuck to their core values better.

---