Would you vote for Calexit?

[Bootstoots]

Because there are way more of us than in all the other states that have mail-in ballots? Not to mention that the ballots are still counted so long as they are post-marked by the election. Also, the state is freaking huge and it takes time to get in all the ballots.

But shouldn't you have proportionally more precincts and election workers to make up for the larger population, or are precincts huge relative to those in other states? The amount of time it takes to mail stuff isn't an issue because, according to your secretary of state, ballots have to arrive within three days of the election; it's been way longer than that and returns are still dribbling in. Being postmarked by election day is necessary but not sufficient. Is there some cumbersome signature verification thing that doesn't exist elsewhere, or is every mail-in ballot going to a single office in each of CA's enormous counties, or something like that?

edit: saw this after I saw hobbs' post:

They put a lot more effort into provisional ballots than most other states and there seems to be fairly rigorous quality checks on the ballots themselves

I'm rather ignorant of how provisional ballots actually work in most states; what is California doing with them that other states aren't?

 

[Arwon]

My understanding is there is a much stronger benefit of the doubt towards the ballot being valid so a more rigorous check process before rejecting ballots. In some other states the onus is apparently on people to follow-up after election day and prove their own vote's validity.

 

[onejayhawk]

In many states, if there is not sufficient mail or provisional ballots to tip the election, they are never counted at all. Even if that is not policy, it is a practical reality. By design, California has an unusually high number of mail ballots, so counting is a necessity.

J

 

[Smellincoffee]

If California wants to secede, that is its choice. I hope they have better luck than the South did.

 

[Arwon]

In many states, if there is not sufficient mail or provisional ballots to tip the election, they are never counted at all. Even if that is not policy, it is a practical reality. By design, California has an unusually high number of mail ballots, so counting is a necessity.

J

I'm trying to get my head around a mindset that literally not counting votes is good policy. That's such a massive loss of data and information

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm trying to get my head around a mindset that literally not counting votes is good policy. That's such a massive loss of data and information

Policy is not the driving force. It costs money.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In many states, if there is not sufficient mail or provisional ballots to tip the election, they are never counted at all. Even if that is not policy, it is a practical reality. By design, California has an unusually high number of mail ballots, so counting is a necessity.

J

I call BS.

"If there is not sufficient or provisional ballots to tip the election"...pray tell Jay, which election might that be?

The presidential election? Great, in California there aren't four million ballots outstanding so stop counti...oh, wait. There was a congressional race on the ballot. State senate. State assembly. A dozen propositions, or more. City councilman and the mayor. County supervisor.

So, again, which is this magical election that can't be tipped that makes it okay to just not bother with the ballots?

Or was this, like so many of your "how it is" pronouncements, just something you thought sounded good at the time?

 

[tetley]

If manually counting ballots is so backward, then why is it the electronic ballots which are held suspect in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Sometimes being high-tech only means being exposed to high-tech fraud.

 

[onejayhawk]

Any system can fail.

Old saying: To err is human. To really F things up, use a computer.

J

 

[CavLancer]

I do my best, Jay. :b:

 

[tetley]

Typical pleading to a lesser charge. The counties using electronic balloting consistently favored Trump and had lower turnout--both when compared to neighboring counties and compared to historical results. "By accident". Doggone computers.

 

[SMcM]

I live in the UK, so went with 'I'm tired of polls darnit!' so as not to skew the result. Anyway, it'd be interesting to see this happen, even if far from ideal for American unity (though Americans always seem to be willing to take up the cause of nationalist movements on the British Isles). Considering that California would border not only the United States (sharing a small border with Mexico), and it has an economy larger than Russia, Mexico or Canada, it could definitely be able to get by as an independent country.

Something I was thinking (which I've just noticed others commenting here too) was this- Nevada, Oregon and Washington voted Hilary as well- hypothetically these could form a fairly large new country, with a northern border with Canada. This would be the 4th most populous nation in the Americas, and its economy would be the 3rd largest in the west (it would be bigger than the UK or France, with only the USA and Germany being ahead).

 

[SMcM]

Actually, forgetting California for a second, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, both significantly less American than California, would both be much more sensible candidates for independance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, forgetting California for a second, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, both significantly less American than California, would both be much more sensible candidates for independance.

Economically I don't think either would be viable.

 

[SMcM]

Economically I don't think either would be viable.

In the case of Puerto-Rico I definitely don't agree. And Hawaii wouldn't be the only small, remote island nation in the pacific. Hawaii was an independent nation before. Its also worth noting that there is a difference between what is viable and what is economically most ideal.

 

[Bootstoots]

My understanding is there is a much stronger benefit of the doubt towards the ballot being valid so a more rigorous check process before rejecting ballots. In some other states the onus is apparently on people to follow-up after election day and prove their own vote's validity.

That makes sense for provisional ballots: usually there is some sort of ID-related problem (even in places where restrictive voter ID laws are not in effect), so in general voters have to proactively show up within a short timespan to verify their identity and residence in the precinct, and a lot don't bother. If California is far more generous than the average state about the deadline, and if it proactively follows up with voters to get them to come back, then there could be more provisional votes that are counted than usual.

I still don't get why mail ballots take much longer to count for California than Oregon or Colorado, where the vote is entirely by mail, given that CA requires mail ballots to be received within three days of Election Day, not just postmarked by Election Day. Maybe it does have something to do with the enormous size of their counties, or if there are fewer election workers per capita for some reason.

 

[sophie]

In the case of Puerto-Rico I definitely don't agree. And Hawaii wouldn't be the only small, remote island nation in the pacific. Hawaii was an independent nation before. Its also worth noting that there is a difference between what is viable and what is economically most ideal.

But why would that be a superior position to the status quo? Right now they get relative independence, access to the strongest currency in the world, freedom of movement to a 3rd of a continent, and financial support from the strongest economy. Why would you throw that away for a weaker currency (either a new currency that doesn't have as much purchasing power and which relatively few want or the current one that they'll have a harder time getting access to), less economic stability/backing to maintain social and governmental functions, and at best marginally more sovereignty. It's Wales, basically. California is a compelling case specifically because the benefits of leaving represent actual, material benefits. Unlike virtually every other state in the union excepting maybe Texas. As a Californian I still do not think California should leave, because I don't think the benefits would actually outweigh the downsides to leaving the Union, but at least with this state there is an actual debate to be had for the question.

 

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, Hawaii and Puerto Rico absolutely could be sovereign nations, but they would be much poorer if they were. There's not any particular reason to expect Puerto Rico would be richer than the Dominican Republic, or Hawaii to be richer than the other Pacific island countries, without their inclusion within the world's largest economy.

 

[tetley]

All this evaluation of states' wellness as sovereign countries is based on their membership in the U.S. as it once was. That's an invalid comparison--their continued participation in the Union should be based on what IS, now, and what it is GOING to be. Just look at Hong Kong. Are they better off now that they are part of communist China? Better to be a small island nation than part of a thoroughly corrupt fascist regime.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Better to be a small island nation than part of a thoroughly corrupt fascist regime.

In the case of Hawaii and even Puerto Rico that thoroughly corrupt fascist regime is using economic imperialism to enhance the lifestyle of its citizens such that they get to consume ten times their fair share of the world's resources. While it may be "better" from an ethical point of view to turn away from that, that is not going to appeal to the more pragmatic individual that probably makes up the bulk of the population.