CA Propositions: A dozen of trouble.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:45 am

So I wrote my thoughts on the propositions that are up for a vote in my state.

On 2: I have the same position. Since it has no effect upon actual safety, and only comfort, and has no meaning of how long cramped quarters can be used or what types I would be weakly against it. But it has no effect upon the 50% of meat and meat products which are imported to this state, I am strong no on this one. I fail to see how supporting this is a moral imperative, as supporters say. After it passes, more eggs will be imported, and the majority of them are 'morally unsound' in the eyes of this proposition. Only a minority of eggs produced in the state would violate this law.

I don't know who wrote 7, but it makes no sense. Requiring them to have minimums is great - legislating the prices is not. Legislating that the we'll pay the difference? Really not okay, since it can be used to fleece the taxpayer. I don't like it. If small power wasn't against it, I'd be weak yes, but since they are, I'm strong no.

They tried 10 in Arizona. Did you know that of the bottom most fuel-inefficient consumer vehicles, several are ones that would qualify? This bill makes taxpayers pay for new clunker SUVs to go on the roads. Strong no.

With 6 and 9, I'm in favor of better tools for law enforcement and protections for witnesses and victims of crime. Any crime. But these are convoluted laws which don't seem to have a specific point. Because of the end-run around the legislature, I say no on these are well; they can take their time and craft better laws.

I'm starting to be not in favor of bonds. They cost twice as much as general funding, and restrict the state's ability to respond to budgetary needs by eating up the budget in payments. However, infrastructure is one thing that needs to be paid for, so I'm voting Yes on 1A. Some bonds seem to be ways to end-run around the budget structure of the state. Who isn't for children's hospitals and safe streets? I'm voting no on 6 and 3 as well, because these are projects which have funds in the general budget, and already have unspent bonds still outstanding! It's just a way to guarantee some industrial boondoggles. They may be jobs, but I don't have to pay 2x an already inflated price when they can stand in line in the normal budget. Lastly, 12 gets a yes from me because it isn't paid for by the state, but by the loans it backs. That's a minor expense in an effort to make sure that vets settle back into our state.

Okay, long-winded, but now to 11. I support having redistricting being built around a good solid plan to make sure the districts have things in common. However, the commonality wording is weak at best. And at worst, this enshrines Republicans with a majority vote on the board, while in the true population of the state they are outnumbered by independents. It has no method for changing the make-up on the board, no manner of granting new political parties an equal footing at the table. I'm going with a weak no on this one.

I don't think I have to point out why I'm against limiting people's rights and invading their privacy is wrong, so totally no on 4 and 8

So for me, there's a yes on just 1A, 5, and 12. And a no for 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I guess it's by default, I will vote no on a proposition unless you convince me it's a good idea. Never was before, but it seems like good advice now.

-Crissa

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:06 am

Geez, crappy though most of them are, at least you folks get interesting things to vote on out there.

Hopefully the "activist judges" will re-inject some sanity in the forthcoming court cases about whether prop 8 invalidates pre-existing marriages or not.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:39 am

First I'd like to thank you Crissa, I never got any voting info in the mail and this greatly helped.

Second, It seems that prop 8 would invalidate existing gay marriages, but I'm looking at a summation, not the whole thing.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:42 am

Many people were scrubbed from the rolls inappropriately, even though they voted in the primary and had not moved...

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:45 am

I actually can't vote in the primary, as I'm DTS, but this link was very appreciated by both my girlfriend and I.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:46 am

Anyone in Calif who does not go and vote against prop 8 is a piece of shit. Yes I am including everyone who is too lazy to vote.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:50 am

I whole heartedly agree... I've been butting heads with the idiots who want to vote yes (but likely can't due to age, nationality or criminal record) the past two days....

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:Anyone in Calif who does not go and vote against prop 8 is a piece of shit. Yes I am including everyone who is too lazy to vote.

I must utterly and sincerely disagree with you Draco. I totally support the idea of one religion dictating social policy to a country and suppressing the rights of other religions to do things differently. I want to live in the christian version of Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban (it's ok to hate those others though, they're wrong by virtue of NOT being christian)! The constitution, principles laid out in the declaration of independence, and basic human dignity be damned!

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:05 am

Fvck, the early polls here blow. My state is better than that! Come on, 8 needs to die already!

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:10 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Geez, crappy though most of them are, at least you folks get interesting things to vote on out there.

All you have to do is move next door to Ohio if you want interesting ballot issues. Let's look at the two fun ones:

Issue 6: A proposal to authorize a casino near the infamous DHL hub that's moving out. Basically, this constitutional amendment was written by the casino developers and enshrines the micromanagement of gambling regulations into the state constitution. Nevertheless, it's expected to pass because Ohioans are desperate for jobs.

Issue 5: Now, this one is really fun. At least everybody agrees that Issue 6 is about legalizing gambling (albeit only at one site). The opposition to Issue 5 has been mind-bogglingly Orwellian/Rovian, though. Basically, Issue 5 is a referendum on some payday lending regulations passed by the Ohio legislature capping the annual interest rates on such transactions at 28%. However, the payday lenders have been plastering the airwaves with commercials claiming that a Yes vote (confirming the regulations) allows the state to set up a database of all Ohioans' financial transactions. I'm not sure how this one will do, since the corporate opposition to it has deep pockets.