LOS ANGELES, CA: In the 2018 midterm general election California voters had the choice for US Senate on the general election ballot between liberal Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein or even more liberal Democrat opponent Kevin De Leon. There were no Republicans on the US Senate General Election ballot in 2018.
Two years earlier, in 2016, liberal Democrat Kamala Harris was elected US Senator by defeating Liberal Democrat opponent Loretta Sanchez in the general election. Again, There were no Republican candidates on the general election ballot for Senator in 2016.
2016 General Election: Only Democrats on most US Senate and House ballots
Hillary Clinton won California in the Presidential election that year by 3.2 million votes. It was fairly clear that she was going to win the state. But her margins were significantly increased by the fact that in the crucial down-ballot race for US Senate there were two Democrats on the General Election ballot. Repeating that there were no Republicans.
In numerous House districts, including my own in Sherman Oaks, there was a choice of two liberal Democrats for Congress. Two incumbent Democrats who were running in the same district. There was no Republican on the general election ballot for my House district.
So in huge portions of California, if you were a Republican, there was no Republican on the ballot for Senate or the US House. No one to vote for. No representation for a whole segment of the population. Simply put, voter suppression.
In 2016 or 2018. This is the general election. When most voters usually vote. In a state that Hillary Clinton was probably going to win the regardless of the down-ballot races.
So why would a Republican even turn out to vote? That appears to be the idea.
Hillary’s margins in California came from voter suppression
Or consider independent voters confronted with only a one party choice on a general election ballot. In California, in 2016 and 2018, large numbers of voters were completely disenfranchised by-elections that had candidates from only one party on the ballot.
This is why Hillary Clinton won California by such a wide margin that year. There was no reason for Republicans or independents to even go to the polls. All outcomes had been predetermined. Sorta like in Moscow.
So while Hillary continues to point out that she won the popular vote, she did it largely with her 3.2 million vote margin in California. Which was largely aided and abetted by an unconstitutional election process that allows 2 members of the same party to be on the General Election ballot.
Again, this is effective and total voter suppression. And it makes it impossible to change the political climate-destroying the state
The ridiculous “Jungle Primary”: Thanks Arnold
The reason is the “Jungle Primary.” RINO Republican celebrity Governor and half-Kennedy Arnold Schwarzenegger’s referendum. A “jungle primary” means that in the primary election all candidates from every party are on one ballot. The two candidates that receive the most votes, regardless of party, make it to the general election ballot.
In theory, this was supposed to make politics less partisan. In practice, it has disenfranchised huge blocs of the state by making it impossible for an actual choice to appear on the General Election ballot. Arnold apparently didn’t think the concept through very well. The referendum passed with his backing.
It took effect just in time for the 2016 elections.
The problem is two-fold. Low voter turn-out for primaries that results in no voter choice for conservatives in November.
Primary elections have low voter turnout
To begin with, no one votes in the primary elections. They were largely designed so the major parties could pick their nominees. Turnout is not only low. It can be minuscule. Even in contested races, primary turnout is always dwarfed by turn out in General elections.
In theory, General Election voters should have the widest choice possible. Or at least a choice between two different parties. Two opposing philosophies. When most voters are paying attention. Not so. So much for Democracy.
So a much smaller part of the electorate was picking candidates that in most cases eliminated voter choice between parties in the general election. This led to the second major problem.
Voters are left with two general election candidates from the same party in numerous districts. Including mine.
Having two Democrats on the General Election ballot is not Democracy
The jungle primary effectively disenfranchised large swaths of the voting public. Not just Republicans, but independents as well. In some districts two Republicans were on the US House ballot, disenfranchising Democrats and Independents in those districts.
In general, it worked overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats.
In all cases, it distorted the general election and suppressed voter turnout. The effect is to render general elections in California little better than exercises in one-party rule. You can choose between the Democrat and the Democrat. The liberal Democrat or the even more liberal Democrat.
Harris and Feinstein: Choosing between the Democrat and the Democrat
That is why we have Kamala Harris. She never faced any effective opposition to get elected. She faced a weak fellow liberal Democrat, Loretta Sanchez, who ran a terrible campaign. It was like handing Harris the job without her having to actually face any legitimate challenge to her ascension.
Republicans had little reason to vote at all. And the suffering people of California were the losers.
What chance did California have to cast judgment on Diane Feinstein when the choice was between her and an even more radical Democrat. It makes a mockery of Democracy. It depresses voter turnout. In California, it affects Republicans and independents disproportionately. Overwhelmingly. Rendering their votes useless.
Effectively dismembering our democracy in the State of California. Turning it into a one-party monocracy with a sham of an election. Rendering any meaningful choice of the electorate useless.
Additionally, because Liberals have a lock on the down-ballots by knowingly suppressing conservative voter turnout, they have no reason to address the issues plaguing San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The People’s Republic of California: A one-party state without contested general elections
The effective result of the jungle primary is like a one-party Communist state. They actually have more literal choices on the ballot in Moscow. Or Ukraine.
It creates an unconstitutional playing field tilted against the voting public.
And it needs to be challenged in court and overturned. It is amazing that it wasn’t challenged immediately. Now that its effects are clear, it should be a bipartisan issue of fairness and decency. The only other State that uses this ridiculous system is Louisiana. Where is the ACLU and the RNC? Where are the people who are supposed to be concerned with voting rights?
Regardless, Democrats don’t care because they are benefiting enormously. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Sure she did. Because in the most counties of the most populous state there were only Democrats on the General Election ballot.
That is de facto voter disenfranchisement. It is blatant voter suppression.
It would seem to be unconstitutional on the face of it.
Yet that is the state of politics in the Golden State. A one-party oligarchy made even more so by the foolish whim of RINO half-Kennedy Schwarzenegger. Of course, the people of California, and electoral legitimacy are the victims.
Ballot Harvesting: An emerging evil
Then there is voter harvesting. In California, thanks to a recent change in the Democrat State legislature, harvesting of absentee votes is done by vote collectors who bring them en masse to the elections office. It sounds fair enough. Every vote should be counted, right. Except in practice, it works like this.
Union officers collect the ballots of all their members and bring them en masse to the voting office. Controls are sketchy, and there is no assurance that union member whose ballots are harvested actually voted their own ballots.
The effect on Republicans in Orange County in 2018 was devastating.
Historically, up until 2016, Orange County was politically conservative. A 2005 academic study lists three Orange County cities among America’s 25 most conservative. (Wikipedia) However, the county’s changing demographics have resulted in a shift in political alignments.
Hillary Clinton became the first Democrat since 1936 to carry Orange County in a presidential election. During the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic Party gained control of every Congressional seat in the county.
Why? In the last midterms 4 Republican Districts in Orange County and San Diego County California, the most Republican region of the state, elected Democrat Congressman for the first time because of vote harvesting.
SEIU union members, public employee unions and teachers unions harvested ballots on an industrial scale and flipped those House seats from Red to Blue.
Ballot Harvesting: Legal in California, illegal in North Carolina
This same ballot harvesting procedure that is legal in California, is illegal in North Carolina. In North Carolina, a Republican campaign that engaged in the practice saw the election nullified as a result of the vote harvesting. (How Ballot-Harvesting Became The New Way To Steal An Election)
There would seem to be a discrepancy nationwide. Either vote harvesting should be legal, or it shouldn’t. But its abuse in Orange County seems to be significantly clear. Its widespread use allows the individual responsibility to cast your own ballot to be supplanted by a vote-rigging scheme of questionable ethics.
It is yet another challenge to Republican voters in an increasingly stacked electoral procedure.
Voter ID, Registration irregularities, and voter fraud
Then there is the elephant in the room. Illegal and questionable voter registration. Lax standards. Lack of use of voter ID. Motor voter registration at DMV offices when residents, whether US citizens or not, receive drivers licenses.
In San Diego and Los Angeles County, voter turnout in some precincts exceeded the number of eligible registered voters. I’m not really sure how that is possible, except to say there seem to be a number of people appearing to vote who may not be eligible. Or were voting when they shouldn’t. Who may have died and voted anyway. Or who may not be US citizens?
And there is no Voter ID. Never mind that you need an ID to go to the bank. The airport. To check in to a hotel. To rent a car. In almost every fundamental aspect of daily life. Yet somehow the unquestionable reliability of voter ID is an affront to human dignity. A threat to democracy.
But having two Democrats on the general election ballot. That is just fine. Perhaps it doesn’t matter since we should just accept that there will only be Democrats on the general election ballot anyway.
For the foreseeable future. Until the end of time. Questioning the democracy of our Republic.
Hillary’s popular vote in the People’s Republic
So when Hillary Clinton prattles on about how she won the popular vote remind her about the Peoples Republic of California. Where the only reason she won by 3.2 million votes was that only Democrats are on the ballot in much of the state. A state Democrats won in 2018 by abusing the ballot harvesting provisions ruled illegal elsewhere.
Where issues of voter ID, voter frauds and registration irregularities make ballot security and integrity questions inevitable.
In order for elections to be fair, there should be candidates from at least two parties on the General Election ballot in every race.
In 2016 in California I had the choice of two Democrats for US Senate, and two Democrats for the US House. In 2018 it was the same. That is voter suppression not Democracy. That is a one-party state. A joke of an election. A sham of a democratic process.
No Democrat can ever talk to me about safeguarding our Democracy as long as they effectively endorse a one-party state in the Golden State. In the Peoples Republic of California its par for the course. Don’t even bother voting if you are a Republican.
There’s literally no one to vote for. Which means Democrats do not need to act on behalf of the citizens of California. And their actions only benefit the wealthy.
Its as if there is more democracy in Russia than there is in California. That is a very sad state of affairs.