I can't do that. But I can tell you why I voted no on it. It's too damn complicated to be a proposition. Maybe it's good. Maybe it's bad. But it's so damn long and complicated that I shouldn't be voting on it. So I said no.
24 is definitely an edge case. We were very close to choosing no. What tipped it into "yes" for us is that no big companies are spending big to get this passed or to fight it. For 22, Uber is spending big in favor, and for 23, the kidney dialysis companies are spending big to fight it, so the proposition is clearly in their interest or opposed to their interest. If Google and Apple were spending big to defeat this, we would know that it would hurt them. If they were spending big to pass it, we know that it would help them. They're not spending at all. So either it doesn't affect them (unlikely), or it's a compromise - some things in there will help them and others are not so good. My feeling is that the legislature can't keep up with the technology so waiting for them to pass laws (heavily influenced by lobbyists since none of the legislature are experts in this field) is going to always be behind the curve. One of the things this proposition does is establish a regulatory agency to adjust rules as necessary - it sounds like the opposite of efficiency to add a regulatory agency to smooth out the process of implementing rules, but it's easier to work with a regulatory agency than to work directly with the legislature. Other industries have regulatory agencies which make rules for them so the legislature doesn't have to get involved all the time - the CPUC handles utilities, imagine if the state legislature had to pass a law to make PG&E inspect their lines and such. I get that the CPUC is not a shining example of government in action, but it's better than no CPUC and just letting utilities do as they will. So the end result is a new internet privacy agency that can act if new technology comes along that exposes private information and needs to be addressed. With that said, there's lots of reasons to vote no on 24. Here's a few that we considered. 1. It's too ********ing complicated, thanks @Knave for expressing that one. It is a good general rule that if the proposition is too ********ing complicated, it's better to vote no - better the system you know than the unknown or unexplainable system you get if the proposition passes. 2. Maybe the guy who's pushing this has some hidden agenda or is otherwise untrustworthy. The guy behind this is a San Francisco real estate bro - not a tech bro, but a guy who made a shit ton of money in real estate, developing malls or something. He worked to get the current California internet privacy law passed two years ago, and he has contributed millions of his own money to get this one passed. What he isn't, is someone who stands to profit if this passes. It's unclear if there is a motive other than altruism - he sees internet privacy as a problem which he very much wants to solve to the point where he's spending a lot of money to solve it. 3. A number of well regarded organizations have come out against this proposition, namely the ACLU and the EFF. Another reason which didn't apply to us is that if you're a libertarian who thinks all regulation is bad, you don't vote for this proposition. So with all that said, we voted yes because we like the idea of a regulatory agency to help solve future internet privacy issues. We won't be heartbroken if this doesn't pass, and I'm pretty sure it won't pass. But that was our thinking.
This is the main reason I'm thinking to vote against it. We do need better privacy laws, and as you said the legislature is not much help. But I'm not going to vote in favor of something that I can't clearly understand.
Disagree on 22 and 24. Sent my vote in last Saturday. Makes it easy to recycle all the crap that I'm getting in the mail.
14 - Yes 15 - Tentative Yes (I fear you're going to see a lot of problems in the first few years of this. That is potentially a HUGE tax hike in the Bay and LA for a lot of businesses) 16 - Yes 17 - Yes 18 - Yes 19 - ABSO********INGLUTELY YES 20 - No. We need rehabilitation, not more people in jail 21 - No. This sidesteps the issue. Rent is set by the market. We're seeing rental prices dip a little here in the bay. You want to solve the housing crisis, then encourage more homes and complexes to be built. In general, I'm against government having direct control of prices. That's way too easy to succumb to corruption that can't be jailed. 22 - Yes, because not only are Uber/Lyft drivers the very essence of independent contractors, I hope it helps drive either a repeal or major reform of AB5 23 - First of all, why do I keep having to vote on Dialysis centers? 2nd of all, why would you require an MD to be on site?? I get treated directly by a PA at times when I go, and from my understanding you don't need to be an MD to administer Dialysis. This just seems in general to be a rather needless regulation that could impact a lot of centers in smaller towns that just don't have that many doctors available. 24 - No because why are you creating a brand new agency to do this? Can't you just pass a law with those specific provisions? Why use a machine gun to kill an ant? What other kind of power would the agency have in the future? 25 - Yes
The problem is this isn't really the case. The era of landlords owning a building is going away - now corporations own large blocks of rental units. And they have reasons to keep rents high even if they have empty units. Every aspect of real estate in cities is screwed up right now. I don't think this proposition fully or properly deals with it, but the solution isn't going to come from the free hand of the market.
Make a plan.Don't wait.#Vote early. https://t.co/CQ5fc7nB0G pic.twitter.com/cmKykA6Qj7— SFGiants (@SFGiants) October 20, 2020
I'm voting No on all propositions barring 14,15,17 and 19. I'm glad to see others think 24 is too complicated to understand! I spent way too many hours this past weekend trying to deduce what the heck it actually would do. On the four I'm voting "yes" on, I particularly feel strongly on 19. I know way too many people here in San Francisco who would love to move to a smaller house out of the city but who, thanks to prop 13, would face a daunting increase in property taxes if they did so. I just don't see how it makes sense to have housing in an employment center occupied by, often, a retired couple whose kids have grown and left and who would love to move but for the tax increase they would incur. Yes, there are a limited number of counties they could move to currently and avoid this, but I think it's only 6 in the whole of California. This is one of many distortions created by prop. 13 (a horrible solution to what was a genuinely serious problem, imo) and props 15 and 19 chip away at a small part of them.
I got both my lost (and thus cancelled) ballot and my new ballot a few days ago. Got really disorganized at my desk and almost filled in and sent the void one, but I just checked, and it seems like it was the right one after all. But I did nonetheless screw up Prop 22 . I was pretty heavily in the "No" camp for that one, but marked "Yes". Maybe that's one of those ones that has decent arguments on both sides? 23 is one that I thought I'd have a strong opinion on (I had a friend who had an organ transplant. Not kidney---lungs---but I do find organ issues fascinating and important), but I think it's written a little less than straightforwardly. Sarah Hyland, from Modern Family, expressed strong views on an Instagram story of hers, but it expired quickly and I forget what her stance was. Regardless, mistake included, I think I was "Yes" all the way down the line. Info on my local community college district was pretty hard to come by, imho. Too bad. Education votes could be really interesting to follow. Lots of family friends are in education.
Latest results for the ballot measures (From AP): California Proposition 14. Medical Research Bonds 51.5% Yes · 28% reporting 48.5% No California Proposition 15. Change Commercial Property Tax 50.7% No · 27% reporting 49.3% Yes California Proposition 16. End Diversity Ban 53.8% No · 27% reporting 45.7% Yes California Proposition 17. Restore Former Felon Vote 60.8% Yes · 27% reporting 39.2% No California Proposition 18. Allow Age 17 Primary Voters 53.1% No · 27% reporting 46.9% Yes California Proposition 19. Change Property Tax Rules 51.3% Yes · 27% reporting 48.7% No California Proposition 20. Stricter Parole, Sentencing 62.4% No · 27% reporting 37.6% Yes California Proposition 21. Local Government Rent Control 57.1% No · 27% reporting 42.9% Yes California Proposition 22. App-Based Drivers as Contractors, Not Employees 57.2% Yes · 27% reporting 42.8% No California Proposition 23. Dialysis Clinic Standards 62.6% No · 27% reporting 37.4 % Yes California Proposition 24. Expand Consumer Privacy 57.2% Yes · 27% reporting 42.8% No California Proposition 25. Approve Replacing Cash Bail Upholds legislation replacing cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials. 54.1% No. 27 reporting 45.9% Yes
It looks like the challenge to Prop 13 will narrowly fail. Meanwhile, the Uber/doordash et all initiative won easily, so contractors will remain contractors. The rent control initiative lost by a landslide, the only county where it ended up ahead was San Francisco, and barely. The confusing privacy initiative also passed easily. More felons will be able to vote, but the affirmative action initiative failed. California doesn't always live up to its stereotypes.
So recall election by next November? According to National review (right wing mag) they already have 1 million signatures, they need 500K more. https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-gov-gavin-newsom-draws-1-million-signatures/
I was happy with governor's Newson's early efforts in dealing with the pandemic - March, April - but since then he's been a big disappointment. Still, Californians primarily have ourselves to blame for our behavior, and for the proliferation of the virus. It's not the governor's fault that so many Californians can't handle the restrictions that have been imposed - even though he has himself been a hypocrite in not doing what he's been urging us to do. As far as the vaccine effort, it's been pretty much a failure so far, but to be fair, California is a huge and inefficient bureaucracy and rolling out a new vaccine would be a difficult challenge regardless of who is in charge, so I don't think having a different governor would have made much of a difference. I would probably not vote for Newsom if he runs for reelection, if there is a reasonable alternative, but I don't think recalling him right now is the answer, we don't need more upheaval. Who knows, maybe the threat of the recall will wake him up and he'll start showing leadership again. I do think he is vulnerable to a recall election, especially if the hard core Bernie supporters form an unholy alliance with the right wingers. The question is whether the leftists in general will follow the lead of the hard core Berniers. But also, we'll have to see to what extent the moderates will blame Newsom for the disaster we are going through and if they might decide to punish him by voting to recall him.
I know everyone looks forward to the inevitable bump of this thread, so you can see what wacky bullshit we Californians are up to. However, there are no propositions on the June 2022 primary ballot. Often there are some propositions on the primary ballot (March in Presidential election years, June otherwise) and then some others on the November ballot, but for this election, there are none. There are a few lined up for the November ballot - nothing too outrageous, something about sports gambling and something about plastic bags. It looks like there's another kidney dialysis proposition trying to get enough signatures, so we got that to look forward to, because God knows that California voters haven't studied the issue of dialysis clinics thoroughly enough yet. More on that when the propositions are finalized for the November ballot.
This is a boring election. Nothing great at the local level, either. I did notice that here in San Jose local candidates are bringing up issues like crime and homelessness in ways that might be considered to be "less left wing" than usual. (For example, I got a flier with pictures of homeless people and garbage crowding local parks, and then a picture of a clean park, with the implication that the candidate endorsed in the flyer will be the one to clean them up.) The interesting one to me is the attempt to recall Boudin in San Francisco, which so far according to polls is expected to succeed. And that is also an example of "less left wing" than usual, especially considering we are talking about San Francisco.
I've seen some similar ads from one of the candidates for my district of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The other candidates are sending out the type of ads you'd expect - here's the candidate with their family, and here they are meeting a highly diverse set of local residents - but one of them is sending out pictures of homeless encampments and high gas prices. The other interesting local race for me is for the state assembly, district 21. Two of the candidates are advertising heavily - I see ads for one of them on Youtube - and one of them has sent out a bunch of attack ads on the other one, calling her a former Facebook exec who is going to side with Big Tech, or something. They even set up a web site to try to tie her to Trump with some pretty specious logic - for example, she auditioned for The Apprentice in 2004 or 2005 or something. (https://haleandtrump.com/) I have thoughts on this topic, but I don't live in San Francisco so I don't have a vote in that race. My concern is that the police are basically not doing their jobs in order to get Boudin canned. There are reports that the police are refusing to arrest bad guys, telling people, well, the DA will just let them go, so why should we arrest them - but you know who's definitely not going to get punished? The guy you're not arresting - the DA can't do anything if you don't arrest someone. If you do arrest them and then the DA doesn't prosecute and the criminal goes on to do more crime, that's on the DA, but if you don't even arrest them and they go on to do more crime, that's on the police. I have little doubt that Boudin will get recalled, but I don't think it will help the quality-of-life crime issues in SF. And the concern is, how do you get the police to change? You can't vote out or recall the cops.
That reminds me of Buenos Aires. The city police used to inform in advance to their contacts among criminal organizations when they would go on strike, so that crime would increase and people would support them.
Good news! California has propositions on the November ballot. Bad news - the links to the voter information guide with the arguments for and against aren't active yet. There's a PDF version of the guide but who wants to download and read through that? Besides me, of course. I will post the links when they come up - the CA Secretary of State web site says it will be in a couple of weeks - but since there's a number (*) of people here who look forward to the semiannual bump of this thread, I wanted to give a heads up on what we're voting on this year. (*) zero is a number. Look it up. Proposition 1: put the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution. Abortions for all! Miniature American flags for others! If you haven't been keeping up on current events, I'm not sure what you're doing here in the "Politics and Current Events" forum, but there's been some news about abortion rights lately. There's not a lot of controversy about this in California, but the state legislature felt like they should put it on the ballot so California voters can feel like they're doing something. Unrelated, I'm not sure why they got to give this proposition number 1 when the other propositions are following the sequence from previous elections, I guess it's that important. Propositions 26 and 27 are both related to sports gambling. I'm already seeing TV commercials about these competing propositions. Background - betting on sports remotely is not currently legal in California. You can go to Vegas (or Reno, I guess, if you hate yourself). You can go to a local horse track and bet on the ponies. But you can't go to your nearest Indian casino and bet on the Rams or the Lakers or whatever. Sports betting is a fairly big business - if you watch them Brits playing soccer on Saturday mornings, a bunch of the teams are sponsored by betting companies, and starting in 2018, it became possible in some states to bet on sports. Online sports betting is even newer, and it's regulated on a state-by-state basis, but California has consistently said NO there will be no sports betting in this state, please go to Nevada. So now there's two separate propositions to allow sports betting. One of them is sponsored by certain tribes that have big gambling organizations already in the state. The other is sponsored mostly by the out-of-state sports betting companies that want to get in on some of that sweet, sweet California money. I have not yet done my homework to see which is which, and if there's any reason to support one over the other or what happens if both pass, etc. Proposition 28: requires California schools to include art and music instruction. Basically, will allocate more money to the schools. It doesn't talk about where the money comes from, but, let's be honest, this is California, money just kind of shows up here. Nobody has submitted an argument against this, because who hates art and music in schools? And since it doesn't raise taxes, the Howard Jarvis "Get Off My Lawn" foundation hasn't argued against it. I think there's valid questions about what happens if the state budget doesn't keep rolling in cash, but come on, it's California, this is going to pass. Proposition 29: oh my ********ing god are you ********ing kidding me it's another dialysis proposition. Who the hell is signing the petitions to get these things on the ballot? If you go back in time on this thread, you'll see that we, the California voters, have been asked repeatedly to make our opinions known about what looks to me like a dispute between an industry and its labor. Guys, get a ********ing room and stop bothering us with this shit. Whatever option retains the status quo is what I'll vote for, and I wish for fiery death upon those who keep bringing this to the voters in proposition form. Proposition 30: raises taxes on income over $2 million to provide funding for EVs, charging stations and wildfire mitigation. I'm in - they had me at "raises taxes". Seriously, if our income is ever over $2 million, I will be glad if some of that money goes to more EV chargers. "But those rich people might leave California!" Then they don't get to live in California any more. Still waiting for Elon Musk to get the ******** out. In looking at the arguments, it looks like Lyft (the rideshare company) is sponsoring this thing - the state has passed laws saying that rideshare companies have to get to 90% EV at some point, so they are hoping that this measure will help increase EV adoption, and I'm like, you say that like it's a bad thing. Go EVs! Proposition 31: approve or reject a law passed by the legislature about flavored tobacco products. Um, guys, that's why we have a legislature, so we don't have to worry about ticky tack stuff like this. What's next, we have to become experts in how dialysis clinics work? Looks like Big Vape thought they could take their case to the people and get us to overturn what the legislature passed two years ago. Whatever the option is to rubber stamp what the legislature did is what I'll vote for. That's this year's batch of propositions. Pointing and laughing begins... now!
I'm definitely behind 1, 28, and 29. The two tribal ones, I need to research and soul search on those. Seems like there's tribes supporting both of those (and thus, maybe, not the other one). 31 I have only skimmed. No clue which side I'm on. ETA: The last two dialysis bills I remember were very confusingly worded to me. This one isn't. Happy to support this one. Can't even remember what I voted on the other ones. I also need to get cracking on who is running for what. Especially the (to me) obscure stuff, like school board, court seats....did we already do Board of Equalization? ETAA: FWIW, this is the site I read to familiarize myself with the props. Pretty good, and short, read, IMHO.
30 is looking pretty good to me, though there are plusses and minuses to this new technology. Kind of concerned about efficient land usage, but overall, I'm glad we're researching all this. And I'm usually in favor of anything that funds emergency services. 26 and 27 aren't perfect to me, but I like 27 a bit better, because it provides access to those who might not have the capacity to drive out to a casino or horse track. I'm a bit concerned about what precisely they want to do about the homeless issue. Throwing money at something without a general plan often worries me. I want to know more. But, OTOH, 26 gives the government spending discretion. What are its plans?