buddhaha: As I said, this is a game that can be played both ways. Unless I can get some good reporting from someone who covers the courts regularly, I fear any vote I make on these judges will be a mistake.

buddhaha: I did not delve into the judicial retention subject for several reasons. 1) In the past we would receive a printed pamphlet outlining information about each judge, including evaluations by lawyers, clients, and others. This year we did not receive this, so I was at a loss to even begin the research. 2) Because we received mailed pamphlets about all the other items on the ballot, I assumed all was covered. Thus, I didn’t even know the judicial retention choices were going to be on the ballot until I got my sample ballot last week. I then decided I just did not have the time to go into it, and would likely abstain entirely on this part of the ballot.

Personally, the retention vote has always struck me as a dishonest game. Just because a judge got bad evaluations does not mean that judge is bad. It could be that the judge was actually honest, would not play the game, and was thus ganged up on by the rest of the legal establishment.

Or not. Without being in a position to observe all the judges in operation, or have the educated recommendations of someone who has (and whom I trust), these votes are really nothing more than a guess. So not voting hardly makes a difference.

If however you or someone can provide a good slate of endorsements or rejections, from a reliable source, I would be glad to review it and post it here.

To have security in a vote by mail scheme, each ballot has to be linked to a voter, so that an audit consists of taking the ballot back to the voter and asking, “Is this how you voted?” This destroys ballot secrecy.
If you have ballot secrecy and vote by mail, there is no chain of custody trail to audit, and no way to determine if any given ballot was voted by any given person. IOW, invalid ballots can easily enter the system which is the definition of ballot stuffing. CO, WA, and OR are more likely than not to have elections decided by cheating.
I bailed out of OR last year, and moved to high elevation AZ. Robert, I’m going to take your recommendations, but I noticed that you had nothing to say about Judicial retention issues. Unusually, there appeares to be some controversy over Montgomery. The ALCU has an issue with him. 20 years ago, this might have been something I’d care about, but today, that may be a plus. I haven’t been here long enough to know , so I’ll ask your opinion. Yea or nay?

Part of the Problem #917
(October 11, 2022)
https://youtu.be/aTPqPv9IopE
1:02:40

Tulsi Gabbard overtakes Mike Pence as the third favorite candidate to win Republican 2024 presidential nomination – less than 48 hours after she quit the Democrats

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11312153/Gabbard-OVERTAKES-Pence-favorite-win-2024-GOP-nomination.html

She has set herself apart from the run of the mill now very desperate, flunky Democrat machine candidates.

Its going to be glorious.

What does the Constitution force over time?

For all political players to reveal themselves to the public so they can choose. Talk about brilliant!

https://blackboxvoting.org/ballot-images/

Note the date of the article.

To my knowledge, this process remains valid in most jurisdictions. However, during the fallout from the 2020 election many election offices required substantial amounts of money to receive the data, and delayed release for ridiculous periods of time.

https://www.projectveritasaction.com/news/seen-but-not-heard-i-dont-want-to-talk-politics-to-anyone-who-i-dont-know/

I just received my 2022 “NYC Voters Guide”.

Four Ballot Proposals in NYC To Be Voted On November – THE CITY

There are 4 Ballot Proposals in the 2022 NYC election, 3 of which are an automatic “NO” for me. And number 4 will be an automatic no for me because it too is a “feel good” perversion.

PS: I will not be voting for ANY candidate with a *D* next to their name because most all political candidates with that designation live if fear of the “Woke”, “Progressive”, radical Left and they are owned by them, from the governor on down.

* Ballot Proposal #1: Clean water, Clean air, And Green jobs environmental bond act of 2022.

This would authorize the state to create a bond in the amount of $4.2 BILLION dollars.

And right away when I see the term “Green Jobs” and Billions of dollar$ to be paid by the taxpayer to finance it all, I am a big *NO* on that one! It is a lie. Ultimately proposals like this are just one more radical, “Woke”, “Progressive”, Leftist opportunity to redistribute money from the taxpayer into the coffers of the Democrat party machine and their cronies. How do you finance the Democrat party machine over the long term? Create a cash flow model from the taxpayer directly to them by law.

* Ballot Prospal #2: Add a statement of values to guide government. (Noe: The entity government is bereft of either values or morality. It does not and cannot exist, this is a feel-good perverted fraud)

This proposal would introduce wording into the preamble of the New York City Charter that would promote “Justice” and “Equity”. All radical, “Woke”, “Progressive”, Leftist terminology that promotes subjective legally codified racism and hatred in the city government. I am a big *NO* on that one.

*Ballot Proposal #3: Establish a racial “Equity” office, plan, and commission.

This is one more radical, “Woke”, “Progressive”, Leftist opportunity for the Democrat controlled city council to subjectively based on race and “Equity” to use perceived racism and hatred to promote racism and hatred through law. Once again, I am a big *NO* on that one.

You like insane “No bail no jail” policy that has made our city sooo dangerous? I did not think so.

It is all up to you to reject the insanity we all see before us. You are a Democrat in NYC? You kneejerk vote Democrat? Not this year.

https://apis.mail.aol.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-_95qz8vtNQnj2guvJpSi615JXjYizy9bcZuM2MCqJDk8zBIwKj0CmLH_qmCDE5NsTJVJXmOu9vG5vVhaOWavzw/messages/@.id==AJf5ZUg87RgnY0bw9gtl-ONyYtE/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appid=AolMailNorrin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=2

Oldav8r: Feel free to pass my recommendations to as many as possible.

“…how do you audit at the level you advocate, without adding identification features to the ballot that compromise ballot secrecy …”

Ballot secrecy? Anyone who sees who I voted for doesn’t need to know who I am. They only need to change my vote.

I’m willing to identify in exchange for the ability to contest my changed vote. Once in the legal syst6em I’d have to identify anyway.

“…let the Powers That Be know whom they should focus their “concern” at…”

I don’t do much social media for that reason.

In a court of law, in front of a jury, or the Supreme Court, I can argue that government has no right to know for whom I voted.

A strong legal argument intended to mitigate vote changing from the shadows..

I see we have been reapportioned (gerrymandered?) into to same Congressional district.

I had the opportunity to observe Juan Ciscomani during the Republican primary debate. He handled himself well and was well versed in AZ and national issues. He was head and shoulders above the other four candidates and at one point calmly and decisively parried what appeared to me to be a coordinated effort between two of the candidates to put him in a “gotcha” situation. When I mentioned to him during the break what I had seen, he played it down. Admirable.

“…concerns of local voters…”

I no longer have confidence that the ‘election system’ cares what I think.”

Without the ability to audit individual votes to determine if they are not altered, I have no reason to believe that my cast vote hasn’t been changed before the count.

I’m concerned.

Prove me wrong.

I’ll save you the effort. You can’t.

Until I can audit the unchanged nature of my personal vote, I can’t trust any of you.

“Concerns” you know.

Actually embrace actual audits, help get them enacted, or you’re all just spectators.

Joe: The Constitution is very clear on who is responsible for setting the rules of elections. This job belongs to the state legislatures, not Congress. Even if Congress passed such a law, it is likely unconstitutional.

Moreover, the last thing we should want is for Congress to get involved. It is much better that these decisions are left to the states, who are closer to the issue and more likely to be influenced by the concerns of local voters.

I hope this is just a first step for her.
I like her style.