Under Oregon’s vote-by-mail system, I received my ballot in the mail a few days ago, and I have until November 4th to turn it in. I’m filling it out now, since I’m told that early voting means fewer robocalls (and one less likely Dem voter for Jeff Merkley’s volunteers to have to contact). I’ll update this post as I fill out my ballot.
First item: United States President
There are six candidates listed, but the only ones I’m considering voting for are Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, and Barack Obama. The reasons to vote for McKinney: I like her policy positions better than Obama’s, I like voting for the Greens when I can, and Oregon’s a safe state for Obama.
The reason to vote for Obama: It’s not just about the delegates. The more overwhelming Obama’s victory is, the more convincingly the 2008 election can be painted as a repudiation of the childish, irresponsible, ignorant and war-loving policies of George Bush and the Republican party.
Hmmn. When I started typing, I intended to vote for McKinney, but I think I just talked myself into voting Obama.
Second item: US Senator
There’s no Green Party option here, and even if there were, I wouldn’t vote for ’em — this race is too close, and the possibility of getting Gordon Smith knocked out of the senate too sweet. Plus, Merkley seems pretty good as Democrats go.
Third Item: Representative in Congress: 3rd District.
Democrat Earl Blumenauer is a good, liberal representative, but the Republicans have no more chance of winning his seat than I do. Plus — as Michael Meo of the Pacific Green Party argues — the Democratic Party has been more accomplice to Bush than opposition, especially when it comes to the Iraq war. So, even though it’s a little unfair to Blumenauer, I’m voting for Meo and against the Democratic Party.
Much more below the fold….
4. Oregon Secretary of State
I’m strongly tempted to vote for Seth Woolley, the Green Party candidate, because the Democrats have abused the SOS office to unfairly keep Greens off the ballot, and because Woolley’s poorly-designed web page is a list of everything I believe should be done to fix election procedures in Oregon.
And I think I will. Democrat Kate Brown (who will probably win) is a party loyalist, and this position needs someone who isn’t beholden to either major party. The best argument for her is that she’ll jury-rig elections to help the Democrats, and I’m against all jury-rigging. So is Seth Woolley.
5. State Treasurer
This race is “between Ben Westlund – a Democrat who used to be a Republican; and Allen Alley – a Republican who worked for a Democratic Governor.” The only third party candidate is Michael Marsh from the Constitution Party, and that’s even worse.
Alley has been running based on his past business experience and acumen, but his record as a CEO is dismal. I’d rather vote for Westlund, who might yet prove to be a failure, than vote for Alley, who already is one.
6. Attorney General
Democrat John Kroger has this one in the bag — there isn’t even a Republican on the ballot. (Kroger won the Republican nomination as a write-in candidate, but in Oregon, one candidate can’t be listed on two party lines.)
I’m voting for Walter (Walt) Brown, the Green Party nominee, a law professor with a strong background in consumer law, and a former state legislator who is best known as the 2004 presidential candidate of the Socialist Party. Brown isn’t running much of a race — he doesn’t even have a web site up — but his policy positions are substantial and well-thought out. (Judging from his answers on this website).
J Ashlee Albies, of the Working Families Party, also has good politics, but she doesn’t seem to have thought through the job nearly as well, nor is her resume as impressive.
State Representative, 48th District
Mike Schaufler, D, is running unopposed. I’m writing in “Pogo Possum.”
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries
Brad Avakian, the incumbent, isn’t inspiring, but Pavel Goverman (who uses CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS!) seems like a bit of a crank, and I can’t find out anything about Mark Welyczko. Plus, Avakian is the only one who seems, you know, qualified for the job. Avakian it is.
Bunch of unopposed judges.
Next comes five unopposed judicial elections in a row; I will write in alliterative superhero secret identities for each of the five. ((Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Guy Gardner, Billy Batson, Kate Kate. I’m sure there are more female superheroes with alliterative secret identity names, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment.))
County Sherrif
I don’t really love either candidate. Still, the department needs major reform, not just competent administration, and Sergeant Muhammad Ra’oof seems the more likely reformer.
Commissioner, district 3
Another toss-up. I’m voting for Judy Shiprack, who — despite one major past goof, a real estate deal gone sour — at least seems able to work with people. In contrast, stories of how he’s impossible to work with seem to follow Mike Delman around like hungry puppies, which doesn’t seem like an advantage for a commissioner.
East Multnomah Soil and Water District, Director at large #1
John Sweeney is a flat-tax advocate, which means, imo, that he’s a fool. Rick Till is a sincere environmentalist, but I dislike his emphasis on local food production, which is a foodie obsession that won’t actually do much to help the environment. Clair Klock seems to have nothing but generalities to say.
Given those choices, I’m voting for Rick Till.
East Multnomah Soil and Water District, Director at large #2
I’m having a hard time finding any good information out about either Ron McCarty or Peter Finley Fry. From what little I’ve seen so far — a newspaper endorsement, and this 2007 newspaper article — I’m leaning towards Fry, but I’m going to hold off until I can ask my housemates Charles, who like me tries to research the obscure races, if he found anything useful.
Update: Based on what Jake wrote in comments, I’m voting for Finley Fry.
Two more soil and water positions, both unopposed. Umn. Oh, Susan Storm. And, uh… Zatanna Zatara.
City Commissioner, Position #1
Two good candidates; Diana Fritz, a boring liberal technocrat who has been grinding away in public service for years, known for her command of city government minutia and her devotion to facts, versus Charles Lewis, a young upstart who runs a cool nonprofit bringing music to poor kids, and won my heart with a stunt when he used campaign funds to fill potholes. I think boring, detail-oriented liberals belong in government, but then again, I liked Lewis’ answers a bit better in this interview about homelessness (particularly his answer about a homeless protest). But then again, the City Commission has been waaaay too male-dominated in the past; between two good candidates, the toss-up goes to diversity. I’m voting for Fritz.
On to the ballot measures!
Measure 54: Yes. Equalizes voting access to school board elections. No one is opposed to this measure.
Measure 55: Yes. Technocratic clean-up of redistricting.
Measure 56: Yes. Reduces “double majority” requirement for tax measures. Yes! Voters who don’t bother to vote shouldn’t be counted the same as those of us who do bother.
Measure 57: Yes. This tough-on-crime law is something I’d normally oppose; but if this doesn’t pass with more votes than Measure 61, then the even more draconian and irresponsible Measure 61 becomes law. At least 57 is slightly less of a budget-buster and includes treatment options for drug addicts.
Measure 58: No. This Bill Sizemore measure mandates “that school districts limit foreign-language instruction for non-English-speaking students to one or two years, depending on their age.” Because if a kid takes more than one or two years to learn English, then screw ’em!
Measure 59: No. Another Sizemore anti-tax atrocity. Quoting Willamette Week: “If the measure passes, it would cost the state $1.2 billion annually when fully implemented. Considering the state’s annual budget is about $7.5 billion, that cost amounts to about a 15 percent across-the-board cut from education, public safety and other basic services that pays for a tax cut that analysts say would benefit only the top 25 percent of earners—in other words, Sizemore wants to gut services to cut taxes for the rich.”
Measure 60: No. Another Sizemore measure, this one calling for merit pay for teachers — but it doesn’t say how “merit” will be defined at all, and it forbids basing any portion of pay, however small, on seniority. Experience isn’t completely meaningless, and shouldn’t be completely discounted; and “merit” is meaningless if it’s not defined at all.
Measure 61: No. Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent first-time criminals. Overly punitive, takes away judicial discretion, and would cost a billion dollars in prison building.
Man, is this taking a long time.
Measure 62: No. Takes lottery money away from the schools and gives it to the police — and to make it worse, it does it with a Constitutional amendment, which is exactly where detailed budget tinkering doesn’t belong.
Measure 63: No. More Sizemore. Get-out-of-permits-free law for homeowners who are making improvements of $35,000 or less to their homes. This one would be hell on renters, especially, as landlords would be free to ignore code requirements for minor electricity and plumbing repairs. I’d favor something to make the process simpler for smallish improvements, but this goes too far.
Measure 64: No. This is an anti-public-employee-union measure, severely limiting the ability of those unions to lobby and work on political campaigns. Meanwhile, private sector unions, and corporations, would not face similar restrictions. It’s a covert way of trying to cripple Democratic party support, not a fair way of reforming across the board.
Measure 65: No. This claims to create “open primaries,” but both Seth Woolley of the Green Party and Richard Winger of Ballot Access News — the latter especially a source I’d trust — say that its actual effect would be to lock third parties out of elections even more than they already are.
Okay, that’s all the state-level measures; now the local measures.
Measure 26-90: Yes. Raises property taxes for a bond to “protect animal health and safety” at the Oregon Zoo; a big chunk of this would go to giving the zoo elephants a larger area to range in.
I don’t know. I think the least cruel thing to do is for the Zoo to stop having elephants at all; elephants don’t belong in zoos. If we commit millions of dollars to a better zoo habitat, that increases the commitment to having elephants at the Oregon Zoo (which arguably does not have a great record), when what we should be doing is joining the nationwide movement of zoos to cease the cruel practice of elephant keeping (pdf link).
I’ll hold off on voting and hope that Brad makes an argument in the comments that persuades me one way or the other.
On the other hand, what if the zoo doesn’t quit keeping elephants? If we must keep elephants in a zoo, we should make them as comfortable as possible. Those who want the zoo to stop keeping elephants, should probably try to put a measure on the ballot in a future election. If they do, I’ll vote for it. Like I’m voting “yes” for this one.
Measure 26-95: Yes. This is a bond measure, raising property taxes to improve and expand Portland Community College. Which needs to expand, because enrollment has shot up. Community college good.
Measure 26-94: Yes. Renews funding for the Children’s Investment Fund. As the Mercury says, “Does funding after-school mentoring and child abuse intervention work sound like it’s worth $5 a month to you?”
Don’t vote for McCarty. I remember him as an odious candidate since about 1998. Oh, look, here’s an endorsement for his opponent that mentions his record as, “hopeless,” from 1998.
http://wweek.com/html/leadj102198.html
Other than that, you’ve voted exactly as I have, and for nearly identical reasons, for offices that we have in common. I’ll be interested to see what you have down the rest of the ballot.
You have so many things to vote on! In Australia, we just have two Federal votes, two State votes and one local council vote, and they’re not all at the same time.
More alliterative women: Jessica Jones, Susan Storm, Heather Hudson (but it probably wasn’t as hard for the writers to remember their names as there was only one woman per book…)
After lots of internal debating, I decided on Fritz for the City Council position.
Measure 54: Yes, although I considered voting no because it really doesn’t matter.
55: No, because this also really doesn’t matter.
56: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Well, only twice, in reality.
57: No. Nononononononononononono. I don’t care if it’s better than 61. Both of them suck. Are we really that worried about property crimes? I say this as a multiple victim of property crimes. It’s a nuisance, but hardly a danger. Both of those measures get a “NO” from me. It’s a sucker vote. If everybody who votes no on 61 votes yes on 57, we get a slightly less crappy measure. However, if we vote down both 61 and 57 we don’t get any crappy pseudo-anti-crime measure.
Boooooooooo! No on 57 & 61!
58 & 59 both get voted down in the Squid household. As does any other measure from Sizemore. If Sizemore ever produces a ballot measure that would actually do good for the state, I’ll eat something.
60, 61, 62. No, no and no.
63: For thingssake, no. Look, I could re-wire, re-plumb and wire my house for networking for less than $35k. I’d really, really prefer that plumbing and wiring be required to get a permit and pass inspection.
64: No. A right wing attempt to prohibit unions from being able to spend on political issues. Because unions are so very powerful in Oregon. They ate my puppy.
65: Another, “for thingssake, no!” measure. Eliminates the possibility of any 3rd party or independent of being on the general election ballot. Makes general elections all but meaningless. I saw it work it’s suck in Washington, I’d prefer not to see it do the same in Oregon.
Local measures were easy, easy & tough.
Community College & aid to children were no-brainers for a yes.
The zoo, though. Fuck that was tough. On one hand, the zoo needs to improve their exhibits – particularly for large mammals. OTOH, I stopped volunteering there because the culture there is one of fear of the animals. Not respect for combined with fear that a non-keeper could get hurt or killed. No, a fear of their animals. Also, they’ve been busted at least once (I seem to recall a second time) for horribly abusing the elephants. Also, their increase of area for the elephants isn’t enough to make a difference. In the end, I voted no because the Oregon Zoo made me, a lifelong lover of zoos, start to see the validity in the zoo abolition movement. That is to say, it’s a terrible zoo and I’d rather see it shut down than continue on it’s current course.
I’ll hold off on voting and hope that Brad makes an argument in the comments that persuades me one way or the other.
Ha! We timed that one well.
Continuing on the zoo measure…
I’m seriously considering sending the $5 per month (or whatever the number is) to The Elephant Sanctuary. The work they’ve done is incredible and deserving of support.
Lost that comment, so who knows? There could be a duplicate.
Continuing on the zoo measure…
I’m seriously thinking of sending the money ($5/mo?) to The Elephant Sanctuary who do admirable work.
The extra 6 acres available to half the herd won’t make a difference to their health and comfort. To make them as comfortable as possible, we should first change the way their keepers interact with them. Preferably by getting new keepers with a better method of training and caring for elephants. Those aren’t hard to find.
Yes, but that’s not something I have an option of voting for. What I do have is the choice of spending $25 million to try and improve conditions for elephants, or not. (Plus the other $100 million or so the measure spends on zoo improvements).
I agree that there would be many better options, including closing the zoo altogether; but none of them are options that I actually get a chance to vote for.
That said, thanks for all your comments, Jake (and for the heads-up on McCarty).
Other than the zoo measure, our reasoning and votes do appear almost identical.
Measure 57, I can see your point. But polls seem to show that Measure 61 is going to pass handily. If Measure 61 fails but 57 passes, I admit I’ll be kicking myself.
Lilacsigil, when I first moved to Oregon, I was amazed at how many things there were to vote for!
Also, good ones on the alliterative superhero names. I did remember Sue Storm (eventually), but how did I forget Jennifer Jones?
I’ve got the same dilemma on Obama vs McKinney — AZ is safely in the GOP column (I’m tired of hearing how McCain is unpopular among Republicans here — they hate him for being *too liberal,* so they’re hardly going to vote for Obama, or risk an Obama win by going third party, instead). I’m less persuaded by the “overwhelming popular vote” issue, though (I think the repudiation narrative will be much more driven by the EC), so I’m still on the fence. It may come down to whether I want to be able to gloat to my sister, who has given me lots of grief about Gore and Kerry’s losses (who I voted for since I was in swingin’ Pennsylvania back then).
President – Obama. This has to be a hell yeah vote to keep the Republicans from stealing it. Now to tell people I know in NC, MO, and OH to vote for him, and convince my dad (in PA) that whenever he votes for Republicans, they screw up royal.
McKinney’s a nut; Nader is best on the outside agitating for change, as Howard Zinn recently said.
Senator – Gordon must go. Merkley.
3rd District – Blumenauer. He gets no support from higher-ups, especially that milquetoast Pelosi.
Sec of State – Brown.
Attorney General – Ashlee Albies. 1 – I know her personally; 2. She ran as a favor to Barbara Dudley to get a ballot line for the Working Families Party in the hope of bringing fusion voting to Oregon.
I don’t think I voted for treasurer.
State Senate – No vote. Margaret Carter shocked me by voting against banning payday loans.
State House – Chip Shields.
Sweeney and Ron McCarty are nutty perennial candidates, worse than even Nader.
Ballot Measures:
54-57, Yes. 57 is a compromise measure; the only reason I voted for it was to defeat 61 if both passed.
NO on any Sizemore or Mannix measure (which is all of the rest of the crap except for 65.
65 – Tough decision. I really couldn’t predict the outcome of this method – it could shut out 3rd parties, or it could automatically give them an in for a district where no D or R runs, like the 43rd or 45th in NE Portland – it might give a Green (or a Libertarian in eastern Oregon) a shot at a house seat.
But the uncertainty made me vote NO.
Amp,
I can understand a vote either way on the zoo measure. As I wrote, it was a really tough decision for me. The Squid household actually split on it. And given that the other half of the Squid household always asks for my advice, you can see how tough a decision it was for me. In the end, it was the equivalent of not voting. It was only later that I tilted slightly more towards the “no” vote.
Holy cow! With that many items, are you sure you didn’t get the California ballot instead?
I saw a couple things I wanted to comment on. The Ezra Klein piece tickled a pet peeve of mine. Sure, it’s easier for Californians to eat delicious local food year-round than it is for Idahoans — but that doesn’t make advocating eating local bad, or bourgeoise. It means that if you can eat local, or bike to work, or turn off the A/C, then you should try to do so. If you can’t, then don’t. If Pollan encourages folks to eat local, and you can’t, then it doesn’t mean that he’s bourgeoise, it means that he’s not talking to you.
In any case, eating locally isn’t just about reducing transportation costs. It also makes it easier to demand food that pollutes less when it is produced — a locally-grown steak is much more likely to have been produced in a field than on a feedlot, for example. Also, it tends to support small family farmers and helps build communities.
As far as “elephants don’t belong in zoos” goes: if we don’t put elephants in zoos, then where should we put them? The population of elephants in the wild is limited by the available habitat: if we turn an elephant loose, or fail to capture one for a zoo, then that’s just one more elephant that has to be killed to keep them from destroying their remaining habitat.
I’m not a big fan of keeping wild animals in cages either, and I agree that a bad zoo should either be improved or closed. But zoos do provide an important function that actually helps the remaining animals in the wild: they educate the public, and get them interested in conservation. If people never see an elephant (or a condor, or a snake) up close, and if people never learn about how cool they are, then when it comes time to vote on whether to spend money to preserve their habitat and keep them around, they won’t.
Not that I feel strongly about either of these issues or anything.
… if we don’t put elephants in zoos, then where should we put them?
I had a comment that was eaten twice, but I would answer your question with the Elephant Sanctuary.
http://www.elephants.com/contents.htm
As they point out, we don’t add anything to the population of elephants. Our captive breeding programs are woeful and we never release the few captive bred elephants into the wild. We merely add to the depletion of the species.
… that’s just one more elephant that has to be killed to keep them from destroying their remaining habitat.
We don’t kill elephants to keep them from destroying their habitat. Elephants don’t, as a rule, destroy their habitat. They are, in fact, an integral part of the cycle of their habitat. W/o elephants, other species fail in that former habitat. It becomes a different habitat. We kill elephants to keep them out of our habitat or for profit, mostly.
That was definitely the toughest decision for me in any election that I can remember.
On this, as on so many other issues, I’m open to being educated if I’m wrong.
Jake,
The sanctuary is a wonderful alternative, provided they have enough land and funding to accept any and all excess elephants. I suspect that they don’t. And it doesn’t sound like they have much in the way of facilities for viewing and education (certainly not as much as all of America’s zoos have), which I think is absolutely necessary if we are to continue to support and fund conservation efforts.
I couldn’t find a reference to any culling programs that are currently ongoing, but I do remember hearing a story about a year back about several elephants which were brought to the US instead of being culled in a preserve in central Africa.
In any case, here’s a story on South Africa’s plans to resume culling, which also describes their reasons for doing so (overpopulation):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6404587.stm
I don’t buy your assertion that elephants do not destroy their habitat. Any animal will, as a rule, destroy its habitat…given a large enough concentration of animals in the area. This is true even if the animal is an integral part of the lifecycle in that area. Everything I’ve read indicates that elephants are extremely destructive, to the point where they will knock over trees. If you have sources that say differently, I would like to look at them.
Well, my comment got eaten too. A brief summary:
Suffice to say that I think an elephant sanctuary is a great solution, as long as it has funding to accept all excess elephants and provides for the education I believe is necessary to ensure a future for conservation.
And I think you’re wrong that “We don’t kill elephants to keep them from destroying their habitat. Elephants don’t, as a rule, destroy their habitat.” You can google “elephant culls” to learn more, if you like.
I just stumbled upon this blog for the first time ever while doing some research for the election.
Am I the only person who thinks 61 is a good measure? It pertains to identity theft. Those people can rot in hell for all I care. Imo they should be jailed for a long, long time.
It’s worth noting that the official MoveOn position is to vote yes on the first 4 measures (54-57) and no after that.
I am going to try a tactical vote this year for Obama even though I am a lifelong Nader voter and supporter.
Does anyone know what this means exactly “Rick has received the endorsement of current District Directors Chris Runyard, Laura Masterson, Dianna Pope, and Bob Sallinger. Rick has also received the endorsement of former interim Director, and current candidate, Clair Klock.” I found it here http://thevoterguide4.oregonlive.com/race-detail.do?id=161870757&sfr According to this information Rick Till is endorsed by Clair Klock despite the fact that they’re both running for the same job? Did Clair decide to stop campaigning or something? Odd.
I voted mostly how the author of this blog entry did.
I am unsure about Peter Finley Fry. While he may be intelligent and has a phD he seems beholden to private interests. I’m still thinking about it.
I want to add that Merkley is a disappointment who voted to praise Bush’s “courage” for going to Iraq (please) and Steve Novick was a great candidate whom I voted for in the primary. However, the prospect of seeing Gordon Smith go down is pretty exciting and thus I am voting for Jeff.
The author doesn’t live in the 49th district as I do but damn do I want John Nelsen to shut up and disappear already. Nick Kahl is the obvious choice on this one.
I think I’m good for now.
Ampersand, thanks for this electo-blog. I too care about “minor” candidates, and voting absentee makes getting good info tough. As far as the elephant issue goes, I agree there are real problems with keeping species like elephants and polar bears in traditional zoos. However, this isn’t a theoretical discussion–there are actual animals (hippos are worst off at the Oregon Zoo right now) whose lives we can vote to improve and who are not going to be sent elsewhere. My issue is whether we should save the bond money–knowing that’s an inhumane choice–in order to spend it on making a more humane environment for humans and wildlife (or to make the zoo put up a bond issue with more direct funding for larger enclosures). But my problem is with people complaining about how inhumane zoos are and “therefore” refusing to fund making them more humane. This is an arguement to close down zoos by making sure the animals there suffer as much as possible. Like a lot of animal rights activism, it advocates making individual animals suffer in support of human ideals. Whatever our choice in this particular case, until the issue on the table is whether to close a zoo or transfer an animal to a place with better conditions, we should own up to the fact that voting against care improvements because we’re “uncomfortable with zoos” is advocating making animals suffer for human goals. We each have to decide if we think that’s worth it.
Aaron, thanks for the comment. I agree with you, which is why I ultimately voted for measure 26-90. But I don’t feel good about it. And I wish that a more comprehensive solution had been available to vote for.
But Measure 57 does the same thing, in a more balanced and reasonable way. And identity thieves aren’t the only people targeted by measure 61.
Even thinking about identity thieves — I think there’s a big difference between an 18 year old kid who makes a one-time usage of a dropped credit card he found, and someone doing an organized identity theft business that ruins many people’s lives. They’re both crimes, but in a just system, a judge is able to use her discretion to show some mercy on the former case (if the kid shows honest regret) while throwing the book at the latter case. Measure 57 takes that discretion away, and makes the system less just.
Plus, in a time of economic meltdown, building more prisons just isn’t a great use of our money.
You think that’s a lot? Well, it’s a lot of referenda. But as far as offices go, I’ve got:
President and VP
Senator (Durbin (D) vs Sauerberg (R) + a Green and a Libertarian, I’m going Sauerberg but he’ll lose)
Congressman (Lipinski + a Republican and a Green, I’m going w/Lipinski)
State Senator – Dem incumbent
State Rep – Dem incumbent, and the House Majority Leader to boot
Water Reclamation Commissioner (Vote for 3 of 9, Dem, Rep and Green)
State’s Attorney
Circuit Court Clerk
Recorder of Deeds
Supreme Court Judge
2 Appellate Court Judges (all of whom are Democrats and have no opposition)
10 Circuit Court Judges (all of whom are Democrats and have no opposition)
2 Appellate Court Retention votes (if they don’t get 60% they’re off the bench) (all Dems who are wired into the County power structure in one way or another)
69 Circuit Court Retention votes (if they don’t get 60% they’re off the bench) (all Dems who are wired into the County power structure in one way or another)
and two referenda.
Greens all over the ballot, but they never win anything or get any significant totals.
One referendum is advisory. But the other is to call a Constitutional Convention, which I’m voting for because we need to be able to recall officials, we need to fix school funding and property taxes and we need to do something about grossly underfunded public pensions. All the public officials are against it because they think everything is fine with the Constitution and problems can be fixed through the legislative process. Which they never in fact DO, so that’s reason #1 to vote for it. They also hint darkly at the danger of radical nutjobs getting extreme measures put in there, but any such thing would still need 50%+ of the electorate to approve them.
That’s 98 separate places to punch the ballot. Seriously. And if you don’t, when you put it in the polling machine it says “You didn’t vote for everything, are you sure you want to cast this” and you have to figure out “Is that just because I don’t give a shit who’s on the Water Reclamation Board or did I really miss someone?”
Bet that it’s a sweep for the Democrats for every single office in my district. If I can have one Republican and it’s not either McCain or Sauerberg, give me the State’s Attorney – maybe he’ll throw a whole bunch of politicians in jail.
And there’s people not on THIS ballot that I’ll vote for in ANOTHER election next year, like library board members, school board, county board, governor (the incumbent is odds-on to be in jail by then), etc., etc.
Actually, just from what you have said here, I think you have the wrong idea about this. I live in Texas, specifically in a school district with a large portion of ESL students. I also went to a high school with a HUGE ESL program. What savvy teachers and community activists noticed was that when kids could stay in ESL indefinitely, they almost never became fluent or even functional in the new language. The longer kids stayed in ESL, the smaller their chances of learning their new language and being able to function in the larger society. Long-term ESL creates a permanent underclass of people who cannot climb out of poverty. If I was in Oregon, I would vote for that measure.
Pingback: CA Prop 8 Passed, CO Amend 48 Failed « Feminist Scribbler’s
Pingback: Small Biskit, Big Apple » Blog-Archive » election2. cry, baby, cry.