|
#1
|
|||
|
Damn I almost won...
| ||
|
#2
|
|||
|
a 57-42 is barely a victory it just shows group ethics overruling individual choice and the numbers are skewed since most people who use pot have been criminalized thus ineligible to vote due to being convicted or currently serving time.
Even with the current statistic it shows a strong favoring for legalization, which should be seen as personal accountability. | ||
|
#3
|
|||
|
I love colbert report, and daily show.
| ||
|
#4
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Jorg Shaman
| |||
|
#5
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#6
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes - 3,297,590 No - 3,826,487 Even if one illogically assumes the entirety of the prison and parolee population combined (~260,000) were only there due to marijuana charges and would have otherwise voted yes for proposition 19, the results would still be a failed ballot as follows: Yes - ~3,557,590 No - 3,826,487 Meaning, regardless of who was in prison/on parole for whatever reason and falls under voter ineligibility due to felony conviction, Proposition 19 still would have failed. | |||
|
#7
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#8
|
||||
|
Quote:
"Automatically restored upon completion of sentence, probation and/or parole; felon must register to vote." The 'process' is basically completing your prison sentence and parole, then registering to vote. It appears that it is no more arduous a task for an ex-felon to vote than it is for a regular citizen. Any ex-felon who did not vote on Prop 19 is no more a cause of it failing than a regular citizen who was too lazy to register to vote. The process for CA ex-felons merely involves registering, unless I am missing something here. If I am please point it out, but as far as I can see Prop 19 was not doomed to fail based on felon ineligibility. | |||
|
#9
|
||||
|
Quote:
It was doomed to fail on the basis of group morality v. individual morality and was further hindered by apathy to the situation. The problem is, was the vote was a strict "yes" or "no" but if the percentage was used to calibrate the laws for the individual so the state gives it a "Do it or don't it's up to you" then both sides would be happy. But since the state best serves the interests of the state and not the individual who resides in it, legalizing marijuana would've pissed the Federal Government off so much funding would've been cut all down the list and California is one state that just cannot thrive without Federal programs. | |||
|
#10
|
|||
|
I can only hope this is on the ballot again in 2 years, considering that the number of people voting in 2012 will be double that of 2010
| ||
|
|
|