![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
And then I realize only a few people on my flist are in California
Everybody knows which presidential candidate they're going to vote for, but I'm finding that lots of people are not yet informed about the propositions on their ballot, which are more likely to directly affect their lives. This troubles me because tons of people are going to go to the polls to vote for the president, but then see the propositions and just vote whatever based on a potentially misleading sentence summary. So here's my tiny share of fighting ignorance.
First of all, everybody (in CA) should read up on the ballot measures. Or at least go to that link just to laugh at the failed proposition that Declares God Creator of Life. Then feel free to discuss below. I especially welcome you trying to change my mind because there are a few I'm not totally solid on (and probably a few you're not totally solid on ;)).
Hint: for those of you who don't want to read all that legal mumbo-jumbo (who does?) the Arguments and Rebuttals for each prop is relatively quick and easy information. I usually cast my vote against the side with the most sensationalist arguments :D
Prop 1A: Yes. And a hell yes. I want to be able to go home more easily! But seriously folks, high-speed electric trains cut pollution and traffic as well as provide tons of jobs and revenue. Yes, the bill doesn't contain enough funds to cover the whole project, but isn't it better to get this difficult-to-roll ball rolling, because when is it going to get another chance? 95% Certain
Prop 2: No. I'm all for benefiting animals, but not when it potentially comes at the expense of farmers, who may be driven out of state or out of business by the costs required to implement the regulations. And then we'd just be importing eggs from out of state farmers who don't have to treat their chickens "humanely" anyway. People should support organic or free-range eggs with their wallet so that farmers can have a financial incentive to do it. 60% Certain
Prop 3: No. This is one of those props with misleading, emotional language that pisses me off. (LOOK at how many CAPITAL LETTERS are in the FOR argument!) THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1 ...Except that there's no point in funding PRIVATE hospitals specifically for children when general hospitals are just as good, especially in locations like UCLA, UC Irvine, UC San Francisco, etc. which already have top-quality medical facilities. 100% Certain
Prop 4: No. Will only scare pregnant teens into hurting themselves by not seeking care or seeking the wrong kind. Stop putting it on the ballot you pro-life jerks. 100% Certain
Prop 5: Yes. It's great to reorganize our priorities about which criminals need to be harshly prosecuted (hint: it's not the nonviolent ones) and which need to be helped, and I'm not even a pothead. :P 80% Certain
Prop 6: No. Spends too much money we don't have. From the NO argument on 6: "Virtually every criminal justice study of gang problems and high crime communities calls for a coordinated balanced approach that includes community service workers, mental health, drug and alcohol services along with tough enforcement of the law." If those things were in place and doing what they should do then I would support throwing money at being tougher on crime. 70% Certain
Prop 7: No. Alternative energy sounds good but that's just a bit too strict, plus we already have some laws in place to reach x% renewable energy by 20xx. Does not encourage competition from smaller renewable energy companies. It's even opposed by environmental groups like the Green Party and Sierra Club. 80% Certain
Prop 8: NO NO NO NO SWEARWORDSEVERYWHERE NO. I WILL ARGUE THIS INTO THE GROUND WITH ANYONE WITH THE FIRE OF A THOUSAND SUNS GRARGHARGAR. OVER 9000% CERTAIN.
Prop 9: No. No need to inject emotional issues from the victim into the justice process. And often the victims don't need it either. 70% Certain
Prop 10: No. Again, alternative energy sounds good but this is just funding a certain company's interests. Also opposed by environmental groups. And natural gas cars, wtf. 80% Certain
Prop 11: Yes. Gerrymandering is a problem. I'm just not entirely sure if this is a good enough solution. 30% Certain
Prop 12: Yes, because apparently it pays for itself and costs taxpayers nothing. I'm vaguely skeptical about that claim but will believe it unless disproved. 40% Certain
P.S. While I'm at it, here is a lovely photo essay on Obama. ::wibble:: YesWeCan% Certain
First of all, everybody (in CA) should read up on the ballot measures. Or at least go to that link just to laugh at the failed proposition that Declares God Creator of Life. Then feel free to discuss below. I especially welcome you trying to change my mind because there are a few I'm not totally solid on (and probably a few you're not totally solid on ;)).
Hint: for those of you who don't want to read all that legal mumbo-jumbo (who does?) the Arguments and Rebuttals for each prop is relatively quick and easy information. I usually cast my vote against the side with the most sensationalist arguments :D
Prop 1A: Yes. And a hell yes. I want to be able to go home more easily! But seriously folks, high-speed electric trains cut pollution and traffic as well as provide tons of jobs and revenue. Yes, the bill doesn't contain enough funds to cover the whole project, but isn't it better to get this difficult-to-roll ball rolling, because when is it going to get another chance? 95% Certain
Prop 2: No. I'm all for benefiting animals, but not when it potentially comes at the expense of farmers, who may be driven out of state or out of business by the costs required to implement the regulations. And then we'd just be importing eggs from out of state farmers who don't have to treat their chickens "humanely" anyway. People should support organic or free-range eggs with their wallet so that farmers can have a financial incentive to do it. 60% Certain
Prop 3: No. This is one of those props with misleading, emotional language that pisses me off. (LOOK at how many CAPITAL LETTERS are in the FOR argument!) THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1 ...Except that there's no point in funding PRIVATE hospitals specifically for children when general hospitals are just as good, especially in locations like UCLA, UC Irvine, UC San Francisco, etc. which already have top-quality medical facilities. 100% Certain
Prop 4: No. Will only scare pregnant teens into hurting themselves by not seeking care or seeking the wrong kind. Stop putting it on the ballot you pro-life jerks. 100% Certain
Prop 5: Yes. It's great to reorganize our priorities about which criminals need to be harshly prosecuted (hint: it's not the nonviolent ones) and which need to be helped, and I'm not even a pothead. :P 80% Certain
Prop 6: No. Spends too much money we don't have. From the NO argument on 6: "Virtually every criminal justice study of gang problems and high crime communities calls for a coordinated balanced approach that includes community service workers, mental health, drug and alcohol services along with tough enforcement of the law." If those things were in place and doing what they should do then I would support throwing money at being tougher on crime. 70% Certain
Prop 7: No. Alternative energy sounds good but that's just a bit too strict, plus we already have some laws in place to reach x% renewable energy by 20xx. Does not encourage competition from smaller renewable energy companies. It's even opposed by environmental groups like the Green Party and Sierra Club. 80% Certain
Prop 8: NO NO NO NO SWEARWORDSEVERYWHERE NO. I WILL ARGUE THIS INTO THE GROUND WITH ANYONE WITH THE FIRE OF A THOUSAND SUNS GRARGHARGAR. OVER 9000% CERTAIN.
Prop 9: No. No need to inject emotional issues from the victim into the justice process. And often the victims don't need it either. 70% Certain
Prop 10: No. Again, alternative energy sounds good but this is just funding a certain company's interests. Also opposed by environmental groups. And natural gas cars, wtf. 80% Certain
Prop 11: Yes. Gerrymandering is a problem. I'm just not entirely sure if this is a good enough solution. 30% Certain
Prop 12: Yes, because apparently it pays for itself and costs taxpayers nothing. I'm vaguely skeptical about that claim but will believe it unless disproved. 40% Certain
P.S. While I'm at it, here is a lovely photo essay on Obama. ::wibble:: YesWeCan% Certain
no subject
no subject
no subject
Prop. 7 and 10 are definite nos: If nice-sounding green measures is opposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC, and Sierra Club, something is terribly and horribly wrong with them.
Prop. 6 makes /posession/ of meth a felony and would cause gang members as young as 14 to be tried as adults for any crimes. These are terrible ideas.
Prop. 8 DIE IN A FIRE EVERYONE VOTING FOR THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU I HATE YOU ALL
no subject
no subject
I voted No on Prop 1:
- How long is it going to take to build the tracks? 5 years? 10 years?
- How are they going to get the other half of the money? I mean, they don't have people standing by saying "I (the private corporation/federal money) will provide matching funds if you agree to pay for half of it." It's just to "lure" them to pay the other half.
- We already have $100 billion in bonds to pay off in the future. And I'm wary of bonds in general, since it takes money out of the budget that can go to education...
- I'd rather spend the money on local urban public transit.
- My dad (who is total railroad geek) says it'll realistically take $40 billion to get the thing done, and really not the thing to invest in right now in these economic times.
I voted No on Prop 11:
- it sounded like a political boondoggle
- Lots of Very Political people were arguing over it on the radio (people from both parties on each side), which made me think it's not as awesome as it sounds.
- apparently "most concise border" or whatever is Very Complicated in terms of Democratic vs. Republican-leaning districts?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
- Construction "could begin as early as 2011", and I've heard it quoted that completion is projected around 2030.
- There's a page in the pdf about funding, trust it or don't
- $950 million of the funding is going to improve local public transit.
- The analysis of the prop says about $45 billion total. But I would rather invest money into infrastructure improvement, creating jobs, and potentially bringing development into all that nowhere in the middle of California, than putting money into things that bring less return like say, children's hospitals.
- I repeat what I mentioned in the original entry, which is if not now, then when are we ever going to be able to do this train thing? I would like us to take a step into the future plzkthx, considering how hopeless public transportation (and pollution) is in LA area.
Prop 11:
I am uncomfortable with it because of hearing about how it would allow Republicans to get disproportionally more power since CA is demographically Democrat. But it doesn't sound worse than our current system, and California IS gerrymandered to all hell (http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/senplan/SENMAPS/SD_STATE_640.JPG). (Look at LA area.)
For that matter, I get the impression that these props deal with problems that are more severe in SoCal overall, which may account for some discrepancy between my opinions and Bay Area peoples. (I miss being a Silicon Valley girl...)
no subject
moar liek goony hivemind LIEbrals mirite? stairs protected manbabies.
Nice catch on Prop 6. I'm all for reducing gang violence and crime but this oversteps the line just a tad.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-10-23 09:13 pm (UTC)(link)http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Unsuccessful_lawsuit_over_ballot_title
no subject
Yes, I do like that .95 billion goes to local transit improvements. In fact, if that were a separate bond, I would have voted for that one. But I voted no on a bond that *might* result in a functional train track 20+years down the line.
Anyways, I voted "no" to both of those with reservation. So I guess if you vote yes, it cancels out my vote, and we return to an impasse?