41–50 of 275 posts
The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked.
And I'm guessing the reason for that is that politics has gotten too nationalized, and the state-level opposition is too unwilling to distance itself from its national party to make itself competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like in many accounting controversies, the fundamental problem here is how to account for future expectations. If you’re owed a big sum of money but you know for sure payment is coming soon, your accounting statements should show you as much wealthier than the actual money you have on hand, because receiving a payment you already knew you’d get shouldn’t change how you measure your financial status. The commission sa…
> you know for sure payment is coming soon and there-in lies the catch - you cannot know for sure something that hasn't happened yet. There can not be accounting practises that count money that has yet to be received on hand.
The goal is transparency. Yes, if someone owes you money it’s an asset on your books. But there are a ton of rules around proof that you expect to be paid, when it must be paid by, when you need to write off all of it or some of it.
Call me cynical, but Stebbins likely faces a decade long legal battle which shell very likely end up settling to be done with it, the board members will get even better jobs in or out of government, and the $200 million will remain missing. Yknow, justice.
She uncovers incompetence and gets fired. The article makes no allegations that she stepped on Newsom's toes, but it sure seems like it. She deserves a medal, not to be fired. The article doesn't say who hired her in the first place, just: > Stebbins was hired as the agency’s executive director in February 2018 to bring fresh scrutiny to its finances and operations. Who hired her? Also: > “I find this outrageous!” Ba…
The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked.
> The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked. And I'm guessing the reason for that is that politics has gotten too nationalized, and the state-level opposition is too unwilling to distance itself from its national party to make itself competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> constituents having their votes diluted Wut? Literally every vote would be worth the same under proportional voting, that’s kind of the point isn’t it? Of course that means that people whose vote is currently outrageously relevant will have their vote dilluted.
"Diluted" means "spread out". AnthonyMouse's point is that voters would no longer vote for a particular representative. Their vote would be "spread out" across the whole party list. (dragonwriter disagrees https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25549671 , but I'm not sure what he/she is referring to)
Edit: that party got 50 seats total.
The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a European I ask myself why there’s no proportional voting system at all in the US. Because change in voting systems has well-studied partisan and ideological impacts, and many of the people who know enough to understand the way that our current voting system contributes to widely-recognized problems in governance also have studied the issue well enough to understand those impacts, and many of them, even while a…
That of course is why one of the two US political parties is staunchly against abolishing the electoral college.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolis...
The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked.
> The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked. And I'm guessing the reason for that is that politics has gotten too nationalized, and the state-level opposition is too unwilling to distance itself from its national party to make itself competitive.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/23/editorial-santa-clara...
Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25190668
The sad part is that CA remains a one party state and this will just get swept under the rug. The power is too unchecked.
It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That of course is why one of the two US political parties is staunchly against abolishing the electoral college.
Sadly, if not surprisingly, partisan support flipped in 2016, making this less ideological than tactical. https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolis...