I really wanted to write posts on props 2 and 5 before election day, but since the polls open in… oh, about eight hours, that’s not going to happen. So! Here’s how I (along with PJA, Arbeter Ring, and other liberal types) think Californians should vote:
1a: Yes
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: No
5: Yes
6: No
7: No
8: No
9: No
10: No
11: ?
12: Yes
While you’re marking those down on your sample ballot, why not head over to Rise’s website and pledge to vote for immigrant rights? (Via Brownfemipower.) Rise has a fast going on at La Placita Olvera in Los Angeles, and I was able to stop by and take some pictures over the weekend, which I’ll try to post tomorrow morning (not likely) or Wednesday (more likely).
(Cross-posted on Modern Mitzvot)
Re: Prop 11 It’s my understanding that even the supporters of this amendment to the constitution (which I immediately oppose in principal)agree that the people who currently draw up this map aren’t elected.
As for the partisan thing, so they draw a district with a higher percentage of [party name] I like that. I want [party name] to be represented by [same party name] that’s what a republic is all about. The guidelines in the proposition are vague, that’s why I’m voting no on it.
Edit: I was quite close on two and five as well, but after wading through way too much legalese and other research have come to agree with you at yes on both.
I was close on 2 but tentatively leaning towards. On 11, I’ll probably vote against.
What’s the opposition to 2 that made it close?
Also, my family (we discuss our votes together, and can dissent from each other of course, but usually don’t), agree with all your votes.
We went “no” on 11. My father’s reasoning was that the districts as currently drawn favor democrats — and he’d be happy to change them, but not until the districts are going to be drawn fairly everywhere. “We’ll do it when Texas does it,” was his logic, and also that it should be national.
I was leaning towards 1a too, but the Green Party of Alameda County has a rather disappointing analysis of it. They point out that the $40 billion of Federal funds that the bill promises aren’t actually available, and that the firm authorized to do the work is the same one that screwed up Boston’s Big Dig. I may still vote for it, on the theory that it will be easier to fix a flawed proposal than to start all over, but I’m a lot less enthusiastic than I was yesterday.
Prop 3 is a giveaway to private, for-profit hospitals and their rich owners. Sure, we all want kids to be healthy, but there’s no guarantee that the funds would be spent on actually doing that. We can’t afford more welfare for the super-rich right now; I hope it fails.
I would really like it if somebody could convince me that 5 won’t let burglers and imbezzlers and the like who happen to smoke a joint now and then avoid prison. That’s what the anti- camp is saying, and the pro- side isn’t offering much of a rebuttal.
The fact that 2 is sponsored out of state, for starters. I’m always leery of out of state money in local propositions. And I’m worried that it sounds better than it is.
I’m leaning in its direction but I generally am tougher on yes positions on propositions, tougher on amendments vs propositions (which I don’t think this is) and if I’m not very sure, figure the bill will come back again.
4, 6, 8, 9, 1A were easier positions to come up with than 2.
As for 11, the wording bothers me and the districts are current drawn up to favor the incumbents who reside in those districts and to make it easier for their respective parties to keep those seats which is awful but again, this is much more stringent than most propositions and some of the language is vague.
I’m still thinking on 5. I’m not as worried about 9 because it’s so blatantly in violation of the Constitution that it will wind up going through the courts probably beginning the day it’s passed. Many of the prosecutors don’t like it because they feel it usurps their power (which is increasing in this state thanks to propositions that passed).
On 11 I’m sort of leaning to the “for” side. It sort of helps the Republicans out of the underdog slot, which is unfortunate, but I think it’s worth it in order to light a fire under the all-too-comfortable incumbents and make them answerable to voters.
Does anybody know of a source that recommends which judges to vote for? It’s almost impossible to find out information about them, and the fiasco that happened recently in Orange County (where an accomplished jurist with a “foreign” name was defeated by a Palin-type with an “American” name, is just embarrassing.) I’d really rather that not happen again.
Mandolin: I was driven originally by the fear of driving out businesses and the confusing state of where the money came from.
I had to talk to some people with farming experience before going to a firm yes.
Edit to Bjart: The thing that made me break no on 3 was when I found that there’s still $400m in bonds available for childrens hospitals that have yet to be used through 2012. Combined with the uncertain state of national healthcare in the near future I can wait until 2010 to approve those.
Edit again: if you have any corrections, or arguments, please post them I’ll check this thread again before I go vote. About a week ago I sent out an email blast asking people to convince me if they didn’t agree with my choices. That’s how I got to yes on 2 and no on 10. Not to mention I got more than a couple to switch to no on 8.
No line, two minutes to vote on the three and one paragraph long ballot. I haven’t decided if I’m going to any election parties. There’s about three I got emails for but I think one’s the Repubs.
On the bright side, no “you’ll burn in hell for advocating the slaughter of babies and sinners to marry” emails courtesy of our local politics forum this morning.
This incident is going to be reviewed by the Riverside County District Attorney’s office.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
Thanks for drawing my attention to Prop 11. Would I love to see something like that in Illinois! The re-election rate for incumbents is just ridiculous, and a lot of it is the State legislators drawing up “safe” districts for themselves and their friends in the Federal House. Leading to such districts as this.
Radfem, how big was your ballot? I had literally 98 different places to cast a vote (96 candidates and two referenda, one binding and one not). It was both sides of two large (both wider and longer than an 8.5 x 11 inch) sheets of paper.
Here in Illinois we elect judges, and in addition a sitting Circuit Court judge must win 60% of votes cast to retain their seat. That takes up about 70% of the ballot.
It was three and a quarter pages but the pages are like almost 2 feet by 1 1/2 feet and it’s inside this huge folder. After you vote, you have to take it out of the folder and then put the ballots in the box. Even before our disastrous foray into electronic voting as the first large county to adopt it, we used smaller paper ballots marked with a felt pen which were pretty good. But they were pushed to go back to paper when the Secretary of State decertified electronic voting machines (for good reasons, but not much notice).
Now it’s these larger ones with ballpoint connect the two arrows with only one thin small line (and a whole box of ways to mark the ballot which you’re not supposed to do).
I wouldn’t mind seeing the older paper ones come back.
Yup, that’s what we had – link the arrow together.
We had punch cards for years and they worked just fine as far as I know. But Florida 2000 scared people off, I guess.
There was enough time in line this time for conversations to be struck up. People were debating whether to use the electronic voting machines or the paper ballots – we have both at all polling places. I commented a little loudly “I’ve been in computer networking and security for years and I’m using a paper ballot!” Paper is much more popular, and amazingly people consistently found it faster.
Good Lord. I said “electronic voting machine” because I actually used a mechanical voting machine a couple of times back in the ’70’s in Massachusetts.