*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.

True, but a very low turnout in a close election would probably spell serious trouble for him

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

That's pretty much what this was.

Was it? Interesting; have you got a link to the proposal?

In the long run, that's the sort of restriction that ends up making the labour movement as a whole stronger (it did here) but makes certain parts a lot weaker.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions.

In the short-term, yes. Absolutely. In the long term... no. Quite the reverse.
The main result would be the unions becoming more respectable (union membership is comically low everywhere in the U.S, bar New York) and everything (more members and all that) flows from there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? "Special Interest Group" is little more than a mild term of abuse for political opponents these days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More respectable?

I think that should be fairly obvious. The allegations that certain unions are little more than fundraisers for the Democratic party would obviously not work anymore. And so on.
More respectable=more members=more money=more political clout and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not the issue here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought unions were supposed to represent their members. If something that Governer Sczh Arnie proposes works against the interest of their members, then of course the unions should oppose it. If not... why should they blow their money on something that doesn't effect them or their members?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wtf?

[qupte]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?[/quote]

Excuse me? I think that restrictions on donations by all groups is needed. And I don't think that the proposal would weaken the labour movement in the long run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... what? Shall I run through my arguement again, because you don't seem to have taken the trouble to read it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not that there are many of those in California (% terms anyway). Have a wild guess why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the future of the labour movement have to do with corperate fundraising?
 
[/quote]
Ot course they represent their members,[/quote]

Really? What have California unions done for Californian trade unionists recently?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're babbling now

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you actually been reading my posts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Union density in California is either 16% or 17% (I forget which). That's pathetic (union densities in all U.S states with about four exceptions are pathetic).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the organisation you're in?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And? That's hardly child molestation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Don't. Dodge. The. Question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So nothing then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see why you think they are

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And? 16% is pathetic no matter where you are.

Once upon a time America used to have decent union densities. It doesn't anymore. Have you got any idea why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One does not equal tuther

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

And? Union density in all U.S states (with a few exceptions where it's merely poor) is pathetic.
I have a nicer map, btw:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh. And what exactly is you're job?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You sir, need to stop drinking

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is there some unwritten law that requires there to be an insanely close election every U.S electoral year?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Margin is now 579

Who to?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most likely