| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote: 5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle. Because they've never gotten even close to 5%, and this election is no different. It's wishful thinking to even consider it imo. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:31 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s). And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was. I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me. The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ ) | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: Because they've never gotten even close to 5%, and this election is no different. It's wishful thinking to even consider it imo. I would love it if the Libertarian Party and the Green Party managed 3% of the votes together. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote: Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b). So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction. 85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes. Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language. (b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote: Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language. The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes. It's okay man, I got this! | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote: (b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money. eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote: Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language. The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes. No it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it does. The language does not mean what you think it means, sorry! | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote: eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that. You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:42 Signet wrote: I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me. The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ ) unskewed polls is hogwash. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote: You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:42 Signet wrote: I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me. The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ ) Unskewed polls methodology is gibberish. They claim to want to report accurately and avoid skewing and weighting, then weight every single poll by completely arbitrary assumptions about the party makeup of the country. This is bad and they should feel bad. Edit: At least Rasmussen is reporting the results their polls actually show. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote: Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you. Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things. But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes. Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words. On November 01 2012 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: He doesn't have to, because the language doesn't mean what you keep saying it does. You can interpret it the way you want to but that is not what the Prop 32 backers have said. If anyone tried to prevent a voluntary deduction program, the very fact that the language does not specifically prohibit voluntary deductions and the backers have said that it doesn't means that voluntary deductions would be upheld in court. Get your panties untwisted. The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:52 Souma wrote: Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things. But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes. Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words. Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 01 2012 02:53 xDaunt wrote: Alright, I went and looked the union thing up because the issue was pissing me off. The rule is this: union membership cannot be compulsory. However, paying union dues, regardless of whether you are a member are not, can be compulsory in non-right to work states. EDIT: And it is the compulsory union dues that makes union membership seem compulsory. EDIT: So what is handled on a state by state, city by city, and district by district basis is the extent to which non-union members can be compelled to pay union dues. Not just union dues, your use of extent is somewhat misleading to someone who didn't read the supreme court findings. They can be forced to pay fees for things that benefit them, such as collective bargaining. The fees may not be applied to political/ideological use. Fight against non-union workers being forced to pay collective bargaining fees and other such things, but that has nothing to do with prop. 32. If you feel government should be able to tell voluntarily joined organizations what they can/can not do with their money, vote to support prop. 32. If you feel organizations which are voluntary to join shouldn't be told by the government how to spend their money, then don't support prop. 32. Apparently I'm more libertarian than jdseemoreglass. Who knew? Edit: I'm against non-union workers being forced to pay fees to unions for services rendered without permission. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
Well, yes  Because as has been explained before, self-reported party ID isn't a reliable sample-weighting variable. If it was, unskewed polls would be dead on accurate. They're just doing basic algebra to take the polls with D+8 or whatever, and converting it back to historical norms for reported party ID in presidential exit polls. Their math isn't remotely controversial. It's the assumption that's silly. I can see there being a mix of poll undersampling and self-reporting issues, the former of which could swing things maybe 1-2 points further in Romney's direction. Errors of that size aren't even unusual. Besides he's already nearly +1 in the RCP average... at this point it's become more of a question of whether the national polls or state polls are more accurate. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:53 jdseemoreglass wrote: Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly? Smart. You know that nonprofit organizations are allowed to withhold donor information so I don't know who 'exactly' (aside form Charles Munger) is donating to the cause. Doesn't take a genius to piece it all together though. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
