Calling a race is not something that the Sec State does. The Secretary of State reports the official results. "Calling" a race is what an outside observer does when they think that they can project the results. Anybody can call a race, and all the political observers I'm aware of have called this one
( ... )
I'm not denying reality, I'm looking at how things are working out. I found something promising and posted it on my journal. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. If it has chance of helping a cause, then I helped a cause.
I'm not the type to think that a fight is over just because something passed.
Edit: and as it stands, apparently No On 8 conceded today. So, this battle's over and I'll edit my LJ post. Regardless, I still stand by what I said.
Yes, what we are calling for absolutely "smacks of corruption." I argue that something that "smacks of corruption" is not only permissable in this situation, but may be a neccesity for the following 2 reasons: 1. As supported by many enlightenment era documents including the US declaration of independence, it is the role of the government to secure our rights and government can be aboshid or altered to create one that will better do this. Further more it is undemocratic, and unconstituional, for the rights of a group of people to be restricted by a majority vote. 2. This link argues that the change prop 8 is trying to make is corrupt: http://www.thelowbar.com/2008/11/prop-8-may-still-fail.html
Further still, reality has nothing to do with it. This is politics, not the weather. A win CAN still happen.
My primary hope in regards to Prop 8 right now is that it will be (properly) ruled a 'revision' of the Constitution rather than an amendment. Revisions must occur through the legislature, and require a super-majority, while amendments can be done as ballot initiative and require only a simple majority. As a practical matter of good governance, I'm not sure it should only require a simple majority vote for a majority group to strip constitutional rights from a minority group.
Look, Arisabkin doesn't have to apologise. Whatever comments and their motives he has posted, from what I have seen, they don't bother me. Yes I am upset, but I really don't want to fight over it. Personally I am fine with the conversation so far. No one need apologise to anyone.
I have to agree that this doesn't seem like the best chance. I'm hoping someone will see the light and understand that when something is ruled a "constitutional right" anything proposing to change said right is a revision.
Comments 27
Reply
I'm not the type to think that a fight is over just because something passed.
Edit: and as it stands, apparently No On 8 conceded today. So, this battle's over and I'll edit my LJ post. Regardless, I still stand by what I said.
Reply
Reply
I argue that something that "smacks of corruption" is not only permissable in this situation, but may be a neccesity for the following 2 reasons:
1. As supported by many enlightenment era documents including the US declaration of independence, it is the role of the government to secure our rights and government can be aboshid or altered to create one that will better do this. Further more it is undemocratic, and unconstituional, for the rights of a group of people to be restricted by a majority vote.
2. This link argues that the change prop 8 is trying to make is corrupt:
http://www.thelowbar.com/2008/11/prop-8-may-still-fail.html
Further still, reality has nothing to do with it. This is politics, not the weather. A win CAN still happen.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Whatever comments and their motives he has posted, from what I have seen, they don't bother me.
Yes I am upset, but I really don't want to fight over it.
Personally I am fine with the conversation so far.
No one need apologise to anyone.
Reply
I think you deserve an apology from half the population of California, personally.
I am sorry.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment