The people may end up getting the same results, but they have to do it the hard way, through their representatives.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones weighs in on some: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/california-propositions
That's identical to my list, except 1) Drum takes the principled stand on 21, which I freely admit I'm not, and 2) Drum is being a weenie about 19.
I am thinking of boycotting the propositions on principle, leaving all that part blank. But then I'd be wasting my vote.
If you're opposed in principle to the proposition process, then you should actually vote no on all of them.
Yeah, that's true. But I'm having second thoughts. Looking at some of the propositions, I am getting the urge to be pragmatic rather than make a point on principle.
Leaving aside the issue of my opposition to the the proposition process itself, this is what I'm thinking: Undecided. I think legalizing marijuana is a good idea, but I am not sure if doing it at the state level is the right way of doing it. The feds already stated that they will ignore this law, and I think there are going to be problems. If pot is to be legalized, I think it should be a national policy. So, while part of me is rooting for this to pass, I'm leaning towards voting no. Yes. I don't think it's a good idea for legislators to draw their own districts. So, I'm all for trying an alternative way of doing it. No. I like parks and wildlife, but I don't like fees, and I don't think it's a good idea for the people to increase fees by plebiscite. Undecided. I'm a bit confused about this one. I prefer that the money that the local authorities take from me stays with the local authorities, rather than go to Sacramento. But some people are saying that voting yes will lead to eminent domain abuse. I need somebody to explain to me the repercussions. How will it lead to eminent domain abuse? No. I don't think A.B. 32 is a good idea, I think it overreaches. And furthermore, I don't like the California legislature's ideas in general. But in spite of all that, I think it's a very dangerous idea and detrimental to our representative system and its institutions to use referendums in order to overturn the laws that the legislature passes. No. This to me is a no-brainer. Using referendums in this manner is what makes them dangerous tools, and I don't agree with the idea anyway. Undecided. Ok, this is where principle and pragmatism collide. On the one hand, I believe that the idea of requiring 2/3 majority for anything is bad, because it makes it very difficult for the legislature to make the important decisions it needs to make. On the other hand, looking at the majority's ideas and anticipating that Jerry Brown will likely be the next governor, I am afraid that if this proposition passes there's going to be an assault on our wallets. Right now, given the economic pinch we are in, I think it's something we want to avoid. Frankly, I know I'm thinking narrowly and short term only, but I do want to see some sort of check against Brown and the legislature's majority when it comes to taxes. So, I fear I'll end up voting no and hating myself for it. Undecided. (See 25 above) No. (See 20 above).
ASF -- I'll let others argue with you about 26, but you clearly know that voting your fears on 25 is the wrong choice. If you intend to live and continue to do business in this state over the long term then you need a functional government in Sacramento. You will never have that as long as a supermajority is required on one of government's most basic functions: making a budget. You already know this, which is why you say you'll hate yourself for voting your fears. So don't vote your fears and make the responsible choice.
I was afraid somebody would say that. I don't really have an answer to that, because I don't like the supermajority requirement either. And obviously it has not worked out well. My fear is that the legislature will take a Yes vote as a mandate to go back on the spending cuts and to try to balance the budget primarily by raising taxes, which I think it's a bad policy, particularly while the economy is still stagnant. I wouldn't be so concerned about it if I didn't think that Jerry Brown is likely to become governor and to go along with the legislature on this. With Arnold or Meg Whitman as Governor, at least the legislature would most likely have to negotiate and hopefully come up with a reasonable compromise. If I thought Whitman was likely to win, I wouldn't hesitate to vote Yes on this. Ultimately it comes down to whether we trust the system, and the checks and balances that it has built in. Maybe that's my problem, that looking at the political reality of California today, I'm not trusting that the system will work properly and reasonably when it comes to fiscal policy. So, as bad as things are now, I'm still afraid of the short term consequences of removing the supermajority requirement. The long term solution of course is to elect people who have common sense and a willingness to negotiate and compromise. Maybe redistricting reform will help, in terms of getting our representatives to listen to us more, or else in getting us to elect more moderate and open minded representatives from both parties. But I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, I'm still undecided on that one.
Bump. I just got my voter's guide in the mail, for the June 5 primary election. There will be two propositions on the ballot, so it's time to update this thread! Proposition 28 will modify the current term limits law for the California legislature. The California legislature consists of two houses -- the state senate with 40 seats, and the state assembly with 80 seats. The current law is that one person can be elected to a maximum of three two-year terms in the assembly, and two four-year terms in the senate, for a total of 14 years in office. The limit of two terms in each house leads to this silly musical chairs game when people who are being termed out of the assembly try to jump to the senate and vice versa -- I'm pretty sure that my state senator already spent his six years in the assembly, but who really cares? Anyways, the proposition will update the law so that a person can spend a maximum of 12 years in the legislature, but they can spend it all in one or the other house. This is probably a job preservation bill for assembly members, because right now they're being termed out after six years, and only half of them can move up to the senate. I think term limits are pretty silly -- the current law hasn't prevented any career politicians from being career politicians, it just makes them play musical chairs more often. So I am leaning towards voting yes on this one. Proposition 29 is a new $1 per pack tax on cigarettes, to fund cancer research. Pretty straightforward. But the best part is the candidates for US Senate -- Dianne Feinstein is up for re-election. Since California passed the "Top Two" primary system, the primary is open -- everyone gets to vote for anyone in any party. And guess who is listed as the first candidate in the voter's guide. You'll never guess. Yes, Orly Taitz, the Queen Bee of the Birthers, is running for Senate! Her candidate statement is just as awesome as you would expect -- a shout out to "Reagan Golden era" (her exact words, down to the missing article), and the last half of it is all about how Obama is not a US Citizen. There's a few moonbats (two Democrats, one Peace & Freedom) running on a "tax the rich" platform, and several Republicans running on various stages of the typical Republican platform. A couple of the Republicans look reasonable (for Republicans), touting their business credentials; a couple of the Republicans don't provide a lot of detail (one of them has "Will stand boldly for Christ" as their statement), and a couple of the Republicans have full wingnut crazy statements -- Orly, of course, and a guy who wants to make sure that the UN's Agenda 21 is defunded. I'm not sure who Feinstein's main competition is going to be. I'm tempted to vote for one of the moonbats, but can I really pass up the chance to vote for Orly? The Senate race is the highlight for me. Check out the candidate statements at the CA SOS site (link to PDF).
I finally got around to looking at Props 28 and 29. They are pretty straightforward. The most dignified thing to do is to abstain from voting on propositions entirely. But that's an argument for another day. (And truth be told, I'm voting on them -- but I'm not proud of that. I am, however, abstaining from voting in all of the primaries, thereby preserving at least a small shred of dignity. Indeed, I became a decline to state voter in part because I didn't want to vote in these primaries! Long story ...) Assuming you do want to vote on these propositions ... Prop 28: If you oppose term limits, then you should vote yes on Prop 28. Yes, you're still voting for a form of term limits, but these limits are better than the old limits. There was a recent op-ed in the Washington Post that spelled out the problem with term limits very clearly. It was about Congress, but it applies to the state legislature as well: Prop 28 isn't ideal. No term limits would be best. But Prop 28 encourages the sort of long term thinking and investment in institutional order that they talk about in the bold sentence above. And those are things the state legislature badly needs. Prop 29: Want to tax cigarettes to promote cancer research? If yes, then you should vote yes on Prop 29.
I want to tax cigarettes to help the general fund. The state needs money. The state doesn't need to be researching something that plenty of other organizations are researching. And cigarette use keeps going down and is especially low in the West, so it's neither a pressing issue nor one that California needs to take a particular interest in. This is just something that sounds good but wasn't well thought out.
It's a proposition! Of course it's badly thought out. As I said, the only truly dignified thing to do with propositions is to abstain from voting on them -- unless it's a proposition to ban propositions. It'd be perfectly dignified to vote in favor of that! But I really loathe tobacco smoke. That's the decider for me.
This is my exactly my view on 29 and why I will be voting no on it. Cancer research is not a state govt function. If it was going to a fund to help with fighting wildfires or education or your suggestion - the state's general fund, then I might think differently. Not to mention it will likely result in money being transferred out of the state, since I'm sure not all cancer research is performed in California.
I've never been a fan of Feinstein as a senator. I'm voting for David Alex Levitt, tech geek and card carrying member of the ACLU. I think he has a good chance of being the second of two choices in November.
Have you seen the list of candidates? Orly frickin' Taits is the only person on that list other than Feinstein that anyone's ever heard of... WTF is wrong with CA?
True enough. A local politician said tobacco taxes are ideal because most people are nonsmokers, nonsmokers don't give a damn about smokers, and you can't get sued for picking on smokers.
Alright I'll lay off on the black people. Tax fatties. They can stop being fatties, and they make all us pay more in insurance premia, just as smokers do. So that's only fair. Tax ice cream. Tax fast food. Tax cupcakes. Tax potato chips. Tax it all. What the bleep is a Cautionary Example?
When people eat food they don't make smoke all over the place. And smoking is way more dangerous. I don't see why you think they are similar. And I don't see why you are so offended by this when it is extremely likely that California will vote it down. You should be happy. Your opinion of voters should be strengthened. Isn't it something like the opposite of a guiding light?