T Nation

Today's Elections

[quote]doogie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh yeah - what about Prop 2 in Texas? Don’t know much about it other than it will (attempt: I haven’t read it so don’t know how carefully it’s worded) define marriage as between one man and one woman.

As soon as it was added to the ballot, it was going to pass. If there was an amendment to imprison homosexuals to “protect the children” here, it would pass.

The sooner conservatives differentiate themselves from Christians, the better for everyone. [/quote]

Hahahaha. Humorous.

And Barbos, I don’t agree with that San Francisco deal about handguns. That is a terrible measure that should never be put on the ballot anywhere.

Some interesting post-election analysis here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_051109.htm

Essentially NJ and VA duplicated the results of the 2001 elections.

[quote]barbos01 wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot, the city of San Francisco has voted to outlaw the sale, purchase and possession of handguns within the city limits. That is possession as in legally registered and kept in your home or business. Handguns are not allowed within the city limits period. Nobody is going to have a gun if it is illegal right? Thank God San Francisco is now safe and free of handguns.[/quote]

On this:

“current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_el_ge/san_francisco_measures;_ylt=AlWteLhkJec_Vt0DAs6Bz66s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I’d stay away from that area around that time. And rightly so.

[quote]LowfatMatt wrote:
barbos01 wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot, the city of San Francisco has voted to outlaw the sale, purchase and possession of handguns within the city limits. That is possession as in legally registered and kept in your home or business. Handguns are not allowed within the city limits period. Nobody is going to have a gun if it is illegal right? Thank God San Francisco is now safe and free of handguns.

On this:

“current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_el_ge/san_francisco_measures;_ylt=AlWteLhkJec_Vt0DAs6Bz66s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I’d stay away from that area around that time. And rightly so.[/quote]

Speaking as a left-of-Chomsky pacifist who’s never even HELD a real gun in his life…this is waaaaaaaaay over the line.

BB, can this possibly be legal?

I’ll reply my thoughts concerning the California election here. I’m surprised that the “no”'s won. However, I don’t think the governor lost entirely. There is still a core of voters who believe in some of his initiatives so this might be one reason he thinks his chances aren’t bad for re-election.

Boston,
Can you or someone tell me if percentages of yes and no reveal a current trend in a population and what is considered far apart in percentage points? For example: Is a 48% yes and 51% no for Public Employee Union Dues that far apart in popular views? Statistics are interesting to guess the makeup of a group of people and plus and minus percent errors are hard for me to deduce. thanks.

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Speaking as a left-of-Chomsky pacifist who’s never even HELD a real gun in his life…this is waaaaaaaaay over the line.

BB, can this possibly be legal?

[/quote]

No, but it will be enforced at the beginning, until someone can sue to stop it – unless of course a court agrees to enjoin its enforcement entirely on the grounds that it facially contradicts the 2nd Amendment.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this – I think there will definitely be challenges to the law as facially unconstitutional.

I wouldn’t expect much from the 9th Circuit, but this strikes me as something that could go all the way to the USSC (eventually – that takes some time – as in years).

[quote]gold’s wrote:

Boston,
Can you or someone tell me if percentages of yes and no reveal a current trend in a population and what is considered far apart in percentage points? For example: Is a 48% yes and 51% no for Public Employee Union Dues that far apart in popular views? Statistics are interesting to guess the makeup of a group of people and plus and minus percent errors are hard for me to deduce. thanks. [/quote]

There should be some breakdowns available based on exit polling data, although I don’t see any up yet. Those usually break voters down by age, race, income, education, etc. There were some really interesting stats available after the presidential race – I’m not certain if they’ll gather that info on the ballot initiatives though.

You may be able to divine certain things from demographic info from the various counties, but that’s a guesstimate based on a voter turnout representative of the population of the county (when in reality different groups vote at different rates – for example, seniors vote at a much higher percentage of their population than do 20-30 year olds).

[quote]harris447 wrote:
BB, can this possibly be legal?

[/quote]

This is similar, altho not exactly the same, as an initiative just passed here in Colorado (during our elections) regarding Marijuana possession — Initiative 100. It makes possessing less than one ounce of pot legal inside the city / county of Denver, however it is still illegal in the eyes of the state / federal laws.

I am admittedly not a political expert. Can some explain how this (and the gun law in SF) is possible / legal?

[quote]LowfatMatt wrote:
harris447 wrote:
BB, can this possibly be legal?

This is similar, altho not exactly the same, as an initiative just passed here in Colorado (during our elections) regarding Marijuana possession — Initiative 100. It makes possessing less than one ounce of pot legal inside the city / county of Denver, however it is still illegal in the eyes of the state / federal laws.

I am admittedly not a political expert. Can some explain how this (and the gun law in SF) is possible / legal?[/quote]

I think the pot thing is covered under the 10th amendment (though I am not a lawyer and do not even play one on TV), but I have a feeling the feds will break it up like they did in Cali.

When I lived in LA, there was a cannabis club right down the street from me. People with terminal AIDS and cancer, who had been told by their doctors to smoke pot, would go there.

Until, of course, the feds swept through and arrested everyone in sight. If that wasn’t pathetic enough, this was a month or two after 9/11. Like there was nothing else important to be doing.

About Proposition H (the Gun ban initiative in SF):

I realize that it might sound absurd for outsiders, and it might even be unconstitutional, but – please – if you haven’t lived in San Francisco for at least a couple of years, refrain from commenting on it. San Francisco is NOT Oakland, or any other US city with typical gang activity for that matter. It has very specific problems and very specific sensitivities, and this ban will / would definitely help – in San Francisco. It probably wouldn’t help anywhere else, including places like Oakland, but, again, we’re talking about a specific city with specific problems and specific needs.