The Continuing California Proposition Thread

Discussion in 'Elections' started by Smurfquake, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    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.
     
    argentine soccer fan repped this.
  2. Smurfquake

    Smurfquake Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    San Carlos, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
     
    argentine soccer fan repped this.
  3. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    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.
     
    espola repped this.
  4. QuakeAttack

    QuakeAttack Member+

    Apr 10, 2002
    California - Bay Area
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
     
    argentine soccer fan repped this.
  5. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    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
     
    argentine soccer fan repped this.
  6. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    It's the new agency that's bugging me. That seems unnecessary.
     
  7. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    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.
     
    crazypete13 repped this.
  8. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    Itchycoo Park
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Guam
  9. M

    M Member+

    Feb 18, 2000
    Via Ventisette
    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.
     
    crazypete13 repped this.
  10. Mr. Bandwagon

    Mr. Bandwagon Member

    Terremotos
    May 24, 2001
    the Barbary Coast
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This year I didn't read a single campaign mailer.

    I don't think I missed anything.
     
    xtomx and crazypete13 repped this.
  11. Nacional Tijuana

    Nacional Tijuana BigSoccer Supporter

    May 6, 2003
    San Diego, Calif.
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
     
  12. Yoshou

    Yoshou Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I believe you are what is known as a shy Prop 22 supporter. ;)
     
  13. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    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
     
    Nacional Tijuana repped this.
  14. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    I've forgotten how I've voted on many of those.
     
  15. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    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.
     
  16. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  17. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #492 argentine soccer fan, Jan 12, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021

    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.
     

Share This Page