Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 275 posts

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#51

Post by jimbob45 »

hnruss wrote: post #49
Justin_K wrote: post #18

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 power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.

???

I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#52

Post by dxdm »

Simulacra wrote: post #3

The title needs some work. It sounds like the person who was fired for exposing $200M, has herself gone missing. Perhaps it could say. Edit: Thank you for changing it from the original "California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed $200M missing" to ""California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M" Not sure why that earns me downvotes.

Thank you for mentioning the original title.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#53

Post by 29athrowaway »

Justin_K wrote: post #18

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.

In a one-party system (e.g.: China), you can only vote for candidates from one party. CA is not a one-party system.

If you constantly criticize the state and their elected officials, or do something unpopular like pissing off 38% of the state population (Hispanics/Latinos), do not expect your party to achieve anything significant in this state.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#54

Post by dgoldstein0 »

logicchains wrote: post #26
legulere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European I ask myself why there’s no proportional voting system at all in the US. The states should be independent enough to introduce one for themselves, and there are also referendums.

Funnily enough, California's system did used to be slightly less one-sided, but an amendment introduced that was claimed would make it less one-sided actually ended up making it more.

care to share details?

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#55

Post by twblalock »

claudeganon wrote: post #35
Justin_K wrote: post #18

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.

I don’t think Republican opposition is the answer, as they’re demonstrably just as corrupt and self-serving. But California could certainly benefit from some primary challenges from the left. LA is seeing this happen with the election of Nithya Raman and George Gascón (who were vehemently opposed by mainstream Democrats). Interested to see how they might shift the terrain.

Democrats getting defeated in primaries from the left only results in Democrats being replaced by other Democrats. We would still have one party in charge of the state, with a veto-proof majority in the legislature.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#56

Post by hnruss »

jimbob45 wrote: post #51
hnruss wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.

??? I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.

I agree that more money probably means more backroom deals. This seems simple to me: One party wants to regulate, the other de-regulate. Which of those platforms attracts the most money?

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#57

Post by dgoldstein0 »

ardy42 wrote: post #41
Justin_K wrote: post #18

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.

From what I've seen in California elections, as a California voter for the last 7 years:

- Republicans running for Congress (Senate and House of Reps) tend to be aligned with the national party platform, and therefore sound super out of touch to me. For this reason, I doubt we'll see a Republican Senator from California anytime soon. - Republicans running for state positions tend to be more moderate, and sound a lot more palatable as a result. Doubly so for the less political positions like state auditor and treasurer, which are not about making policy as much as just making sure we use the state's resources appropriately. At least, for the candidates I see on my ballot in San Francisco.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#58

Post by sumedh »

hnruss wrote: post #49
Justin_K wrote: post #18

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 power is checked by the voters, and every election Californians keep electing Democrats. It’s only sad to Republicans, and only because it’s not their party in power.

> and every election Californians keep electing Democrats.

So some democrat can make it his core issue to stop corruption and the people can vote for him/her.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#59

Post by dgoldstein0 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #34
legulere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European I ask myself why there’s no proportional voting system at all in the US. The states should be independent enough to introduce one for themselves, and there are also referendums.

> 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…

California does have some less-common voting systems in play - on my San Francisco ballots, the two interesting things I've seen:

- IRV is commonly used for local positions - Other positions seem to use a system where all the political parties have the same primary, and then only the top two candidates are on the ballot for the general election. Wikipedia describes it well:

> Under California's non-partisan blanket primary law, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In the California system, the top two finishers—regardless of party—advance to the general election in November, even if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary election. Washington and Louisiana have similar "jungle primary" style processes for U.S. Senate elections, as does Mississippi for U.S. Senate special elections.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_elec...

Every senate election I can recall in California has been Democrat v Democrat by the general election.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#60

Post by 29athrowaway »

hnruss wrote: post #56
jimbob45 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.

I agree that more money probably means more backroom deals. This seems simple to me: One party wants to regulate, the other de-regulate. Which of those platforms attracts the most money?

Deregulate the environment and you will be drinking polluted water, and breathing polluted air. Your food will be likely exposed to pollution too.

Deregulate labor and you'll have exploited workers working 100 hours per week, being constantly harassed by their employers, people being discriminated at the workplace, as well as people exposed to poor safety conditions where they can get injured or killed.

Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund.

Deregulate restaurants and now noone is liable if you end up with food poisoining or die from allergies due to poor hygiene and bad practices.

And the list goes on and on. Regulations are not bad. Excessive regulations are bad. The opposite excess, no regulations, is equally bad.

Post reply on HN