From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Gorton and Denton is a constitutency in Manchester, England that had a by-election - what Americans call a "special election" - this week to
replace a member of parliament who had stepped down due to health
issues. It had elected Labour representatives in every national election
since 1931. (That's 95 years for those who don't like doing arithmetic.) That's not even particularly unusual in the UK where there are a lot of "hereditary voters", people who have voted the same as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green
Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a
close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it
wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members
how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain
demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking
about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial
South Asian community.

A group of poll-watchers called Democracy Now has reported that the
proportion of family voting at this election was far in excess of what
they'd seen at previous elections and by-elections. Family voting is
actually illegal under British law but no one seems to be stopping it.
Voters are supposed to vote by themselves and to vote their own
conscience but the man of the house simply directs the wives and adult children how to vote and has them take pictures of their ballots on
their phones to show that they've voted as he wished. (I've heard
commentators suspect that mail-in voting accomplishes the same effect:
the man of the house simply completes all the mail-in ballots as he
wants them to go.)

Leo Kearse has more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWFiuRrOaEA [9 minutes]

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting
for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound individuals. (In Canada, special election workers go to the housebound
in their homes so that they can vote.) Everyone else needs to vote in
person. They need to insist that only one person can cast a vote at a
time and that they do so in privacy so the man of the house can't see
who they voted for. THEY NEED TO TAKE THE VOTER'S PHONE AWAY WHILE THEY
ARE VOTING! Then, the women and adult children will have the freedom to
vote how they actually want to vote. They may still vote as they've been
told but at least they'll have the CHANCE to vote differently, even if
they have to lie to the man of the house.
--
Rhino

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Feb 28, 2026 at 9:05:26 AM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green Party won this one.

Remember when the Green Party was about environmentalism? Now it's just straight communism from that crowd.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members
how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking
about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial South Asian community.

LOL! Just say it: they're all Muzzies. It was hilarious watching the British news trying to tiptoe around describing the demographics of this
constituency.

A group of poll-watchers called Democracy Now has reported that the proportion of family voting at this election was far in excess of what they'd seen at previous elections and by-elections. Family voting is actually illegal under British law but no one seems to be stopping it.

The poll watchers are telling the media that they were informed by government officials to ignore the law when it came to "certain demographics" out of "cultural sensitivity".

It's the grooming gangs all over again. Government officials looking the other way while Muslims get away with crime because no one wants to be called
racist.

Two-tier policing has already been well-established. Now the UK has two-tier voting as well.

Voters are supposed to vote by themselves and to vote their own
conscience but the man of the house simply directs the wives and adult children how to vote and has them take pictures of their ballots on
their phones to show that they've voted as he wished.

They should ban phones from polling places, not just in the UK, but here as well.

(I've heard commentators suspect that mail-in voting accomplishes the same effect:
the man of the house simply completes all the mail-in ballots as he wants them to go.)

When the Democrats were pushing permanent vote-by-mail here after Wuhan Flu, this concern was raised and completely ignored, even by the feminist grievance groups. Everyone knows the Hierarchy of Oppression on the Left and the feminists knew it was more important for Democrats to win elections forever.
If some women have to be disenfranchised in the process, they're willing to live with that.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Gorton and Denton is a constitutency in Manchester, England that had a >by-election - what Americans call a "special election" - this week to >replace a member of parliament who had stepped down due to health
issues. It had elected Labour representatives in every national election >since 1931. (That's 95 years for those who don't like doing arithmetic.) >That's not even particularly unusual in the UK where there are a lot of >"hereditary voters", people who have voted the same as their parents, >grandparents, and great-grandparents.

How was this not family voting? Those dinner table discussions in How
Green Was My Valley (1941) were not free and open political debate.
Fiction, of course, but probably representative. Yes, I know it was
Wales and not Manchester.

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green >Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a
close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it
wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members
how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain >demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking
about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial >South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is
ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family
arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

A group of poll-watchers called Democracy Now has reported that the >proportion of family voting at this election was far in excess of what >they'd seen at previous elections and by-elections. Family voting is >actually illegal under British law but no one seems to be stopping it. >Voters are supposed to vote by themselves and to vote their own
conscience but the man of the house simply directs the wives and adult >children how to vote and has them take pictures of their ballots on
their phones to show that they've voted as he wished. (I've heard >commentators suspect that mail-in voting accomplishes the same effect:
the man of the house simply completes all the mail-in ballots as he
wants them to go.)

If a poll watcher witnessed it, then he must object and not sit on his
hands. I've been a poll watcher too. I've witnessed election judges
acting in a partisan manner. I've made objection.

This democracy thing is mostly about getting the basics right. If you
see something, say something. I'm sure I've heard that before.

It's illegal to thwart the secret ballot.

Leo Kearse has more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWFiuRrOaEA [9 minutes]

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting
for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound >individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

There is nothing society can do about intimidation within a household,
but clearly voting at a polling site doesn't enforce secret ballots if
election judges refuse to enforce rules of conduct.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-02-28 6:21 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Gorton and Denton is a constitutency in Manchester, England that had a
by-election - what Americans call a "special election" - this week to
replace a member of parliament who had stepped down due to health
issues. It had elected Labour representatives in every national election
since 1931. (That's 95 years for those who don't like doing arithmetic.)
That's not even particularly unusual in the UK where there are a lot of
"hereditary voters", people who have voted the same as their parents,
grandparents, and great-grandparents.

How was this not family voting? Those dinner table discussions in How
Green Was My Valley (1941) were not free and open political debate.
Fiction, of course, but probably representative. Yes, I know it was
Wales and not Manchester.

It's been a long time since I saw that film and I don't remember the
scene you mean. Of course people talk politics around the dinner table
and of course some people are very vocal and opinionated. I don't doubt
that some individuals basically dictate to their voting-age family
members who to vote for. Some of those family members probably obey
orders. That's not what I'm talking about though. That is inevitable and
I don't see a realistic way to stop it. It doesn't particularly matter
though as long as everyone is free to vote SECRETLY so that no one else
sees who they voted for. If everyone gets told to vote for Person X and
there is a secret ballot, they can vote for anyone they like and
*pretend* they followed orders.

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green
Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a
close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it
wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members
how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain
demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking
about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial
South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is
ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family
arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

I think I was unclear. Apparently, the direction about who to vote for
was happening AT THE POLLING STATION. I'm sure you'll agree that this
should not happen.

A group of poll-watchers called Democracy Now has reported that the
proportion of family voting at this election was far in excess of what
they'd seen at previous elections and by-elections. Family voting is
actually illegal under British law but no one seems to be stopping it.
Voters are supposed to vote by themselves and to vote their own
conscience but the man of the house simply directs the wives and adult
children how to vote and has them take pictures of their ballots on
their phones to show that they've voted as he wished. (I've heard
commentators suspect that mail-in voting accomplishes the same effect:
the man of the house simply completes all the mail-in ballots as he
wants them to go.)

If a poll watcher witnessed it, then he must object and not sit on his
hands. I've been a poll watcher too. I've witnessed election judges
acting in a partisan manner. I've made objection.

This democracy thing is mostly about getting the basics right. If you
see something, say something. I'm sure I've heard that before.

It's illegal to thwart the secret ballot.

That's a big part of the problem: poll workers did NOTHING about it when
they witnessed this behaviour. They also ignored illegal activity like a Muslim holding a Palestinian and a Pakistani flag right outside the
doors of the polling station.

Leo Kearse has more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWFiuRrOaEA [9 minutes]

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting
for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound
individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

I get that it is convenient to vote by mail - at least I imagine it is;
I've never tried it - but why is walking to a polling station such a big
deal? I usually find that they're very close by and I know you walk your
dog regularly so you're obviously fit enough to go out to vote. Polls
are open for long stretches and there are advance polls if you're not
going to be home on election day.

There is nothing society can do about intimidation within a household,
but clearly voting at a polling site doesn't enforce secret ballots if election judges refuse to enforce rules of conduct.

I agree that nothing society can do about political intimidation within
a house but they CAN do something about open family voting at the
polling station - if they want to. There are legal sanctions although
I'm not sure if they stop at fines or include jail time. BTR has
information that the poll workers were told to IGNORE the behaviour in
and around the polling station!! I'm sure it's not a coincidence that
the behaviour they're ignoring usually benefits the party in power, Labour.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 6:21 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green >>>Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a >>>close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it >>>wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens >>>considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members >>>how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain >>>demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking >>>about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial >>>South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is
ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't >>witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family >>arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

I think I was unclear. Apparently, the direction about who to vote for
was happening AT THE POLLING STATION. I'm sure you'll agree that this
should not happen.

You were not unclear. This is criminal activity with witnesses. The
election judges are there to ensure free and fair elections and are not
doing their jobs.

. . .

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting >>>for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound >>>individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

I get that it is convenient to vote by mail - at least I imagine it is;
I've never tried it - but why is walking to a polling station such a big >deal?

American ballots have an absurd number of races on them and it takes
time to look everything up. With judicial retention, there can be over a hundred in a very large county. Also, when I work an election, what do
you expect me to do?

I usually find that they're very close by and I know you walk your
dog regularly so you're obviously fit enough to go out to vote. Polls
are open for long stretches and there are advance polls if you're not
going to be home on election day.

The issue isn't walking nor waiting.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-02-28 9:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 6:21 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green >>>> Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a
close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it
wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members >>>> how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain
demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking >>>> about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial >>>> South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is
ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't
witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family
arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

I think I was unclear. Apparently, the direction about who to vote for
was happening AT THE POLLING STATION. I'm sure you'll agree that this
should not happen.

You were not unclear. This is criminal activity with witnesses. The
election judges are there to ensure free and fair elections and are not
doing their jobs.

. . .

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting >>>> for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound
individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

I get that it is convenient to vote by mail - at least I imagine it is;
I've never tried it - but why is walking to a polling station such a big
deal?

American ballots have an absurd number of races on them and it takes
time to look everything up. With judicial retention, there can be over a hundred in a very large county. Also, when I work an election, what do
you expect me to do?

Are you at your assigned station all day? I'm assuming it's not the
station where you yourself vote but is it far away from home? What do
other election workers do? Wouldn't it make sense to have election
workers vote where they are working? I'm not sure how complicated that
would be though.

What is it you need to look up? Our elections are a good bit simpler,
never anywhere near 100 offices to fill. The only elections with more
than one office are municipal where you vote for mayor, councillor(s),
school board trustees, plus regional chairman and councillors. But
that's nowhere near 100. I just memorize who I want in the races I care
about but I could put them on a scrap of paper just to be sure I don't
forget.

I'm not trying to be critical of how you or your governments do things
so apologies if it sounds like I am; I'm just curious. Mail-in voting
seems to work for you so who am I to take it away from you. I'm just
concerned that it creates opportunities for serious electoral fraud.

I usually find that they're very close by and I know you walk your
dog regularly so you're obviously fit enough to go out to vote. Polls
are open for long stretches and there are advance polls if you're not
going to be home on election day.

The issue isn't walking nor waiting.

. . .

--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 9:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 6:21 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green >>>>>Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a >>>>>close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it >>>>>wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens >>>>>considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling >>>>>station together and one family member directs the other family members >>>>>how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain >>>>>demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large >>>>>families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking >>>>>about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial >>>>>South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is >>>>ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't >>>>witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family >>>>arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

I think I was unclear. Apparently, the direction about who to vote for >>>was happening AT THE POLLING STATION. I'm sure you'll agree that this >>>should not happen.

You were not unclear. This is criminal activity with witnesses. The >>election judges are there to ensure free and fair elections and are not >>doing their jobs.

. . .

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting >>>>>for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound >>>>>individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

I get that it is convenient to vote by mail - at least I imagine it is; >>>I've never tried it - but why is walking to a polling station such a big >>>deal?

American ballots have an absurd number of races on them and it takes
time to look everything up. With judicial retention, there can be over a >>hundred in a very large county. Also, when I work an election, what do
you expect me to do?

Are you at your assigned station all day? I'm assuming it's not the
station where you yourself vote but is it far away from home? What do
other election workers do? Wouldn't it make sense to have election
workers vote where they are working? I'm not sure how complicated that
would be though.

Why are you questioning me? Serving as an election judge is typically a
15 hour day. Plus set up the evening before. Plus two or four hours of
class. If there is a free moment, I am going to take care of personal
business and certainly don't have the time to vote. We work where we are assigned. I never worked the polling place serving my own precinct. The
vast majority of precinct do not have a full complement of election
judges.

What is it you need to look up? Our elections are a good bit simpler,
never anywhere near 100 offices to fill. The only elections with more
than one office are municipal where you vote for mayor, councillor(s), >school board trustees, plus regional chairman and councillors. But
that's nowhere near 100. I just memorize who I want in the races I care >about but I could put them on a scrap of paper just to be sure I don't >forget.

In my state, we have both judicial elections and judicial retention. We
rely upon bar association ratings. Now, we didn't have many races in the primary so it didn't take very long to vote. In the general election,
that's when you get the bedsheet ballot for judicial retention, whick is
a nonpartisan question.

Even though I keep up with politics and government, there are candidates
I've never heard of so I look for news stories and editorials.

While Texas has more counties than any other state (I think we are
number 2), my state has more special districts than any other state.
Plus most of the state still has township government. This has to do
with the 1870 constitution, no longer in effect, which had strict caps
on bonded indebtedness, so to issue new special purpose bonds, another
unit of government had to be created, typically by referendum.

I'm not trying to be critical of how you or your governments do things
so apologies if it sounds like I am; I'm just curious. Mail-in voting
seems to work for you so who am I to take it away from you. I'm just >concerned that it creates opportunities for serious electoral fraud.

Any time human activity deliberately disrespect the law, there is fraud.
You started a thread to discuss witnessed fraud that was allowed to take
place over a widespread area that's readily thwarted. Since I've
personally done this work, I am disgusted by people who allow fraud to
occur while observing it even though they have authority to prevent it.

Let's not worry about mail-in voting then, ok? My state does it the
smart way, application first then ballot, and not the stupid way
California does it, unsolicited ballots by mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-03-01 2:22 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 9:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-28 6:21 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

This by-election put an end to that winning streak for Labour. The Green >>>>>> Party won this one. Labour was reduced to THIRD place and not even a >>>>>> close third. The second place party was Reform, a new party, but it >>>>>> wasn't a particularly close second.

It's beginning to look like "family voting" helped the Greens
considerably. Family voting is when a family comes to the polling
station together and one family member directs the other family members >>>>>> how to vote. The family voting seems to be a feature of a certain
demographic, a demographic that practices polygamy and has large
families where the man is the dominant figure. And no, I'm not talking >>>>>> about Mormons: this is Manchester, a very large city with a substantial >>>>>> South Asian community.

There's nothing to be done about it. All an election judge can do is >>>>> ensure that a voter has privacy whilst voting and that the judge isn't >>>>> witnessing influence or intimidation. What happened before the family >>>>> arrived at the polling site is not under government control.

I think I was unclear. Apparently, the direction about who to vote for >>>> was happening AT THE POLLING STATION. I'm sure you'll agree that this
should not happen.

You were not unclear. This is criminal activity with witnesses. The
election judges are there to ensure free and fair elections and are not
doing their jobs.

. . .

This is really getting out of hand. The law needs to ban mail-in voting >>>>>> for anyone but serving military members overseas and maybe housebound >>>>>> individuals.

You would be screwing with my preferred method of voting.

I get that it is convenient to vote by mail - at least I imagine it is; >>>> I've never tried it - but why is walking to a polling station such a big >>>> deal?

American ballots have an absurd number of races on them and it takes
time to look everything up. With judicial retention, there can be over a >>> hundred in a very large county. Also, when I work an election, what do
you expect me to do?

Are you at your assigned station all day? I'm assuming it's not the
station where you yourself vote but is it far away from home? What do
other election workers do? Wouldn't it make sense to have election
workers vote where they are working? I'm not sure how complicated that
would be though.

Why are you questioning me?

Sorry about that! I had my "what would I do in that situation" hat on
and it seemed that slipping away to vote wouldn't be that tough. But I
also realized I had no idea what being an election judge involved so I
was curious about that.

Serving as an election judge is typically a
15 hour day. Plus set up the evening before. Plus two or four hours of
class. If there is a free moment, I am going to take care of personal business and certainly don't have the time to vote. We work where we are assigned. I never worked the polling place serving my own precinct. The
vast majority of precinct do not have a full complement of election
judges.

Thanks for filling me in. It's more involved - and time-consuming - than
I expected. I can see why mail-in votes are more convenient for you.

What is it you need to look up? Our elections are a good bit simpler,
never anywhere near 100 offices to fill. The only elections with more
than one office are municipal where you vote for mayor, councillor(s),
school board trustees, plus regional chairman and councillors. But
that's nowhere near 100. I just memorize who I want in the races I care
about but I could put them on a scrap of paper just to be sure I don't
forget.

In my state, we have both judicial elections and judicial retention. We
rely upon bar association ratings. Now, we didn't have many races in the primary so it didn't take very long to vote. In the general election,
that's when you get the bedsheet ballot for judicial retention, whick is
a nonpartisan question.

What's "judicial retention"? It *sounds* like it is a chance to say
"dump this judge, keep that one" but I've never heard of such a thing.
Do you really have a mechanism where a sufficient number of voters can
force the dismissal of an unsatisfactory judge?

Even though I keep up with politics and government, there are candidates
I've never heard of so I look for news stories and editorials.

Do they publish lists of candidates for each office in advance of the
election in your area? They certainly do that here and I use that
information to research the contenders so that I know who to vote for in
the days before the election. Not that there is much to research: the candidates typically write a one or two paragraph blurb full of
motherhood and apple pie - or support for ever more bike paths - that is
so self-serving it's useless. I suppose it would be possible to do my
own deep dives into them but we know the internet is full of lies so how
do I tell what is accurate?

While Texas has more counties than any other state (I think we are
number 2), my state has more special districts than any other state.
Plus most of the state still has township government. This has to do
with the 1870 constitution, no longer in effect, which had strict caps
on bonded indebtedness, so to issue new special purpose bonds, another
unit of government had to be created, typically by referendum.

I'm not trying to be critical of how you or your governments do things
so apologies if it sounds like I am; I'm just curious. Mail-in voting
seems to work for you so who am I to take it away from you. I'm just
concerned that it creates opportunities for serious electoral fraud.

Any time human activity deliberately disrespect the law, there is fraud.
You started a thread to discuss witnessed fraud that was allowed to take place over a widespread area that's readily thwarted. Since I've
personally done this work, I am disgusted by people who allow fraud to
occur while observing it even though they have authority to prevent it.

Let's not worry about mail-in voting then, ok? My state does it the
smart way, application first then ballot, and not the stupid way
California does it, unsolicited ballots by mail.

I don't think the people who decide those things in your area are going
to be swayed by anything I said in Usenet ;-)
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-03-01 2:22 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

In my state, we have both judicial elections and judicial retention. We >>rely upon bar association ratings. Now, we didn't have many races in the >>primary so it didn't take very long to vote. In the general election, >>that's when you get the bedsheet ballot for judicial retention, whick is
a nonpartisan question.

What's "judicial retention"? It *sounds* like it is a chance to say
"dump this judge, keep that one" but I've never heard of such a thing.
Do you really have a mechanism where a sufficient number of voters can
force the dismissal of an unsatisfactory judge?

That is correct.

For the first full term, a judge runs for a vacancy; the former judge is literally named. On rare occassion, a new judgeship is created in law.
This is a partisan election. The candidate must circulate nominating
petitions; this is in the constitution. There is no provision for a
party nomination if the nominee withdraws before the general election or
if there were no one nominated in that party's primary.

In other states with elected judges, it may be a nonpartisan office
although the candidate's party affiliation is known.

Judges are not elected for subsequent terms. Retention is a nonpartisan question at the general election. A supermajority is required, but I
forget how large it is. Again, you might go by bar association ratings.

There are states with appointed judges with retention ballots.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-03-01 3:07 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-03-01 2:22 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

In my state, we have both judicial elections and judicial retention. We
rely upon bar association ratings. Now, we didn't have many races in the >>> primary so it didn't take very long to vote. In the general election,
that's when you get the bedsheet ballot for judicial retention, whick is >>> a nonpartisan question.

What's "judicial retention"? It *sounds* like it is a chance to say
"dump this judge, keep that one" but I've never heard of such a thing.
Do you really have a mechanism where a sufficient number of voters can
force the dismissal of an unsatisfactory judge?

That is correct.

For the first full term, a judge runs for a vacancy; the former judge is literally named. On rare occassion, a new judgeship is created in law.
This is a partisan election. The candidate must circulate nominating petitions; this is in the constitution. There is no provision for a
party nomination if the nominee withdraws before the general election or
if there were no one nominated in that party's primary.

In other states with elected judges, it may be a nonpartisan office
although the candidate's party affiliation is known.

Judges are not elected for subsequent terms. Retention is a nonpartisan question at the general election. A supermajority is required, but I
forget how large it is. Again, you might go by bar association ratings.

There are states with appointed judges with retention ballots.

My big concern with this retention idea is how is anyone supposed to
form an opinion of the merit of a judge if they've never been in their
court? Surely very few people go to court in a given election cycle. It
seems like the only way ordinary people can assess a judge is via
rumours: "everyone knows Judge Smith is way too soft" or "everyone knows
Judge Jones is a Nazi". That seems like a poor way to assess the fitness
of a judge.

I remember when I had a pretty high position in my co-op and by the end
of my second term in the job, I was getting a lot of praise and several comments to the effect that I'd done much better than they'd expected. I
don't know how they'd formed their expectations - or what changed their
minds - but the two were clearly quite different, with the latter being markedly better.

It seems like it would be really easy for a judge to get a reputation as
a bozo - or a titan - on the basis of very little information despite
him actually being the opposite. Surely there are better ways to get rid
of bad judges.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-03-01 3:07 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-03-01 2:22 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

In my state, we have both judicial elections and judicial retention. We >>>>rely upon bar association ratings. Now, we didn't have many races in the >>>>primary so it didn't take very long to vote. In the general election, >>>>that's when you get the bedsheet ballot for judicial retention, whick is >>>>a nonpartisan question.

What's "judicial retention"? It *sounds* like it is a chance to say
"dump this judge, keep that one" but I've never heard of such a thing.
Do you really have a mechanism where a sufficient number of voters can >>>force the dismissal of an unsatisfactory judge?

That is correct.

For the first full term, a judge runs for a vacancy; the former judge is >>literally named. On rare occassion, a new judgeship is created in law.
This is a partisan election. The candidate must circulate nominating >>petitions; this is in the constitution. There is no provision for a
party nomination if the nominee withdraws before the general election or
if there were no one nominated in that party's primary.

In other states with elected judges, it may be a nonpartisan office >>although the candidate's party affiliation is known.

Judges are not elected for subsequent terms. Retention is a nonpartisan >>question at the general election. A supermajority is required, but I
forget how large it is. Again, you might go by bar association ratings.

There are states with appointed judges with retention ballots.

My big concern with this retention idea is how is anyone supposed to
form an opinion of the merit of a judge if they've never been in their >court? Surely very few people go to court in a given election cycle. It >seems like the only way ordinary people can assess a judge is via
rumours: "everyone knows Judge Smith is way too soft" or "everyone knows >Judge Jones is a Nazi". That seems like a poor way to assess the fitness
of a judge.

That's why there are bar association ratings.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2