TWO: I guess I'll have to look at the two open primary ballot measures in detail, but at the moment, having citizens choose an RCV structure seems preferable to leaving it up to the legislature to do it. Which in a way is kind of sad - it might seem reasonable to have our chosen representatives weighing pros and cons of putative details, but then we've had the experience over the last few years of the crazed things the majority has come up with ... in the meanwhile, there is going to be quite a competition for those paid petition circulators, since the reproductive freedom petition will be out there in force.
Tucson is lucky to have some washes bisecting the city giving the critters a right-of-way. Knocking down trees won't win any points for developers who are swine anyway. I'm guessing the homeless "encampment" was in Arroyo Chico. It was pretty elaborate when I lived there in the late '90s.
These groups should get together and choose one. It's hard enough to get 350000 valid signatures. Can't say I'm thrilled with leaving anything up to the legislature.
Agree that having two ballot initiatives could result in the failure of both. However, since a voter approved initiative cannot be tweaked by the state legislature, I support the ballot measure delegating to the legislature the authority to determine whether to have a top two or RCV primary. That is because I do not believe there is sufficient information at this point to make a permanent decision, one way or the other. Where RCV is in use, for example, material mistakes have been made, and it is not at all clear that it actually ends up reflecting the view of the majority of voters (check out the reporting on the Alaska races). This is not a partisan issue, btw - California, which is solidly blue at present, has a top two system such that, in many races, voters choose between two Democrats. We need to recognize that it would take another voter approved initiative to amend what gets put into law now.
I'm pretty sure there's some shrewd reasoning behind the options for the legislature -- this pushes RCV without giving opponents a way to say that they're mandating it.
FWIW, I'd be happy to have RCV but would rank approval voting ahead of it. ;-)
With reference to Rep. Ortiz’s tweet, no-one, of course, s/submit misleading factual information to the Arizona Supreme Court, but her extended thread illustrates why this is another issue where both sides are distorting the facts. Those who have studied this issue in depth, in large cities like Portland and San Francisco, have concluded that drug addiction is the primary driver behind current high rates of homelessness - and most of those using do not want to be housed because they cannot use drugs in a public housing scenario. https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/sam-quinones-drug-addiction-driving?r=1pv2jp&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
What this also tells us is this is a more complex issue than many advocates want to admit, including drug addiction rates are skyrocketing largely because of the cheap and plentiful fentanyl coming across our southern border (here is a fact: 40% of the fentanyl in the United States, comes through Arizona via illegal crossings of our border). Beyond drug addiction, misguided policies enacted at the behest of well-meaning Democrats a couple of decades ago now hamstring efforts to effectively address and treat those suffering from mental illness - often combined with drug addiction. Unless and until we are all willing to be honest about what is actually going on, it is going to be difficult to marshal bipartisan support for efforts to, first, address the needs of families who are able to work but have been displaced or are at risk of being displaced from housing solutions - and, second (and harder), deal with the massive problems of addiction and mental illness plaguing our country.
Been thinking a lot about how the Arizona Agenda can inform us reader’s. The thought occurs to me that your biggest service is to inform the electorate of the basic character of those running for office. For example, do they keep their word, are they open to hearing the opposition without demonizing them, can they hold a civilized conversation longer than a tweet, etc. Have they developed their own policy positions or are they parroting others work, without attribution. Have they flip flopped on issues without a lengthy and in-depth analysis, or do they just take the money. Can they admit they were wrong about and issue and actually say so in public. You get the idea. As I see our liberties leak away, the integrity of local politicians becomes ever more important. After all, the constitution gave state’s significant power, and we the states must exercise that power.
TWO: I guess I'll have to look at the two open primary ballot measures in detail, but at the moment, having citizens choose an RCV structure seems preferable to leaving it up to the legislature to do it. Which in a way is kind of sad - it might seem reasonable to have our chosen representatives weighing pros and cons of putative details, but then we've had the experience over the last few years of the crazed things the majority has come up with ... in the meanwhile, there is going to be quite a competition for those paid petition circulators, since the reproductive freedom petition will be out there in force.
TWO - Making the process more convoluted isn't the way to go. And having the Legislature deciding? That's a hard "no" for me.
(Hey, Hank - this confuses me, but maybe it's just too early in the morning!)
"Neighboring cities like Gilbert and Scottsdale have only four drive-throughs per 100,000 people and Scottsdale has three. "
Bad sentence there. Fixed. Gilbert has 4 Scottsdale has 3
Good deal!! Thanks, Hank!
Tucson is lucky to have some washes bisecting the city giving the critters a right-of-way. Knocking down trees won't win any points for developers who are swine anyway. I'm guessing the homeless "encampment" was in Arroyo Chico. It was pretty elaborate when I lived there in the late '90s.
These groups should get together and choose one. It's hard enough to get 350000 valid signatures. Can't say I'm thrilled with leaving anything up to the legislature.
Agree that having two ballot initiatives could result in the failure of both. However, since a voter approved initiative cannot be tweaked by the state legislature, I support the ballot measure delegating to the legislature the authority to determine whether to have a top two or RCV primary. That is because I do not believe there is sufficient information at this point to make a permanent decision, one way or the other. Where RCV is in use, for example, material mistakes have been made, and it is not at all clear that it actually ends up reflecting the view of the majority of voters (check out the reporting on the Alaska races). This is not a partisan issue, btw - California, which is solidly blue at present, has a top two system such that, in many races, voters choose between two Democrats. We need to recognize that it would take another voter approved initiative to amend what gets put into law now.
I'm pretty sure there's some shrewd reasoning behind the options for the legislature -- this pushes RCV without giving opponents a way to say that they're mandating it.
FWIW, I'd be happy to have RCV but would rank approval voting ahead of it. ;-)
With reference to Rep. Ortiz’s tweet, no-one, of course, s/submit misleading factual information to the Arizona Supreme Court, but her extended thread illustrates why this is another issue where both sides are distorting the facts. Those who have studied this issue in depth, in large cities like Portland and San Francisco, have concluded that drug addiction is the primary driver behind current high rates of homelessness - and most of those using do not want to be housed because they cannot use drugs in a public housing scenario. https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/sam-quinones-drug-addiction-driving?r=1pv2jp&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
What this also tells us is this is a more complex issue than many advocates want to admit, including drug addiction rates are skyrocketing largely because of the cheap and plentiful fentanyl coming across our southern border (here is a fact: 40% of the fentanyl in the United States, comes through Arizona via illegal crossings of our border). Beyond drug addiction, misguided policies enacted at the behest of well-meaning Democrats a couple of decades ago now hamstring efforts to effectively address and treat those suffering from mental illness - often combined with drug addiction. Unless and until we are all willing to be honest about what is actually going on, it is going to be difficult to marshal bipartisan support for efforts to, first, address the needs of families who are able to work but have been displaced or are at risk of being displaced from housing solutions - and, second (and harder), deal with the massive problems of addiction and mental illness plaguing our country.
Been thinking a lot about how the Arizona Agenda can inform us reader’s. The thought occurs to me that your biggest service is to inform the electorate of the basic character of those running for office. For example, do they keep their word, are they open to hearing the opposition without demonizing them, can they hold a civilized conversation longer than a tweet, etc. Have they developed their own policy positions or are they parroting others work, without attribution. Have they flip flopped on issues without a lengthy and in-depth analysis, or do they just take the money. Can they admit they were wrong about and issue and actually say so in public. You get the idea. As I see our liberties leak away, the integrity of local politicians becomes ever more important. After all, the constitution gave state’s significant power, and we the states must exercise that power.