Californians, what are you voting for?

[megalope]

I didn't want to stick this in the Politics thread because it's California-specific, but I was hoping some of you local smartypantses would have something valuable to add to discussions on these initiatives. It's kind of hard getting a "let's talk about voting!" club together in person ... maybe it's easier on the internet?

Reference: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/, http://www.google.com

Prop 1A: High speed rail bonds

Prop 2: Standards for confining farm animals

Prop 3: Children's hospital bond act

Prop 4: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy

Prop 5: Nonviolent drug offenses; sentencing, parole and rehabilitation

Prop 6: Police and law enforcement funding

Prop 7: Renewable energy generation

Prop 8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry

Prop 9: Criminal justice system; victims' rights; parole

Prop 10: Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy

Prop 11: Redistricting

Prop 12: Veterans' bond act of 2008

[ErikNielsen]

Isn't talking about voting... kind of impolite?

[megalope]

I don't think it's impolite if you're having a discussion about issues. I'm not trying to get the voting histories of all AST members here.

[TomHicks]

I'm voting yes on Proposition D, which would set up a $10 billion fund to make it less fucking hot outside.

[Americas Team]

No on Prop 8 and prop 4.

[terror firma]

to get even more local, what do the LA folks think of measure R? i haven't really heard many arguments for or against this yet.

[dpardue]

I did a quick scan of the booklet, and came up with a helpful mnemonic by organizing the props in groups of 4:

YES YES, NO NO
YES NO, YES NO
NO YES, NO YES

Unfortunately I'm so taken with the ease of that mnemonic that I might actually be voting the wrong way on one or two of them. I'm loathe to change my vote because now I'll have to re-memorize the damn thing.

[megalope]

to get even more local, what do the LA folks think of measure R? i haven't really heard many arguments for or against this yet.

Yes! I was wondering about this too. Gloria Molina and Mike Antonovich oppose, asserting that it simply throws money at MTA and doesn't even guarantee more transit service (since they're operating at a deficit). Supposedly, the measure also doesn't support the westside extension corridor (Purple Line extension to Fairfax). That said, at the end of their argument they're basically like, "Wait for a thoughtful, planned-out measure that addresses the needs of all the communities in Los Angeles" (paraphrase). People who are currently taking transportation don't want to wait! We already wait up to 1.5 hours per bus. Sigh.

[TomHicks]

to get even more local, what do the LA folks think of measure R? i haven't really heard many arguments for or against this yet.

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce supports R, which is mainly notable because the chamber tends to be against tax increases of any sort.

We ran an outside editorial here at the Business Journal about not voting for the $10 billion bond for the high-speed rail line. Basically it argues that there are no guarantees that the remaining expense -- supporters say the whole project will cost $45 billion -- will be covered. They hope to get one-third of the expense from the federal government and $20 billion from the private sector. But the editorial, which was written before this week's economic turmoil, says this isn't the best time economically speaking to launch a large public works project.

And then there's this (from the same editorial):

Danish professor Bent Flyvbjerg conducted a worldwide study of 258 rail, bridge and road projects. He found that 90 percent of projects came in over budget, and the vast majority of these suffered drastic cost overruns. Another analysis showed that ridership of the average transit system is less than half that of original projections. Flyvbjerg’s conclusion: The difference is due to political pressures to exaggerate the numbers to gain project approval.
Then there is the question of what effect the high-speed rail system would have on existing transportation systems. The fact is for longer trips between Northern and Southern California, air travel would be quicker and often cheaper (even assuming the CHSRA’s optimistic ticket price assumptions, which are largely affected by the aforementioned ridership projections). For shorter trips, automobile travel is quicker, cheaper and offers greater mobility since you can go wherever you need to go, rather than having to take a taxi or a bus to and from the few rail stations. In other words, the high-speed rail system will not get Californians to abandon their cars in large numbers or make any significant reduction in highway and airport congestion.

But I'll be Goddamned if I start taking advice from a Flyvbjerg, or let one marry my sister.

[mary]

No on Prop 8 and prop 4.

Ditto.

[yumitree]

i'm voting for proposition f this bullshit.

[Meen Bellpeppers]

i'm voting for proposition f this bullshit.

Stop it, you're embarrassing me!

[waxpop]

I usually try to figure out who/what organizations are for or against each one and then see which side seems less evil. I will almost always vote opposite of Citizens for Lower Taxes-type organizations, because I love taxes.

Using Ballotpedia as an aide, I've made most of my decisions.

Prop 1A: High speed rail bonds YES.
Prop 2: Standards for confining farm animals YES. It makes my blood boil that this even has to be on a ballot and is not, you know, COMMON SENSE AND ALREADY THE LAW.
Prop 3: Children's hospital bond act YES. I'm a sucker for sick babies.
Prop 4: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy NO.
Prop 5: Nonviolent drug offenses; sentencing, parole and rehabilitation YES.
Prop 6: Police and law enforcement funding NO.
Prop 7: Renewable energy generation NO.
Prop 8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry NO.
Prop 9: Criminal justice system; victims' rights; parole NO. Ballotpedia has turned me into a no.
Prop 10: Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy NO, Me no trust T. Boone Pickens.
Prop 11: Redistricting UHHHH. FOR: League of Women Voters, ACLU. AGAINST: Barbara Boxer, California Democratic Party, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, SF Chronicle. Someone please tell me what to do.
Prop 12: Veterans' bond act of 2008 UHHHH, YES?

I think of myself as super-left-wing. Am I making any mistakes here, other, smarter super-left-wingers?

[megalope]

I think of myself as super-left-wing. Am I making any mistakes here, other, smarter super-left-wingers?

Yay! I totally agree with most of what you said. Here are mine:

Prop 1A: High speed rail bonds
Voting: Yes. While opponents are calling this a "political boondoggle," they're doing so while sending emails from their Blackberrys in the backseat of Towncars being driven by people who are paid to do so. California needs high speed rail, an alternative to clogged freeways and lungs.

Prop 2: Standards for confining farm animals
Voting: Yes. I first heard about this initiative on NPR. Those opposed try to convince voters that it's "unsafe"--baseless hysteria over BIRD FLU, all caps--and will negatively impact "family farmers." I'm sure the good old Californian "family farmer" is 1. not funding this campaign, and 2. not the primary offender in animal cruelty.

Prop 3: Children's hospital bond act
Voting: Unsure. Am I a jerk if I vote no on this proposition? I guess, since I don't have any children, my inclination is to choose the high speed rail proposition over this one (if I had to choose). Do I vote to "saddle" my future children with debt, or do I just hope I have either kids with really good genes/an extremely lucrative career?

Prop 4: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy
Voting: No. This is the third time this has been on the ballot in four years. Sorry, Christians, you lost. Deal with it. (If you're not already on board, I found this argument particularly compelling.)

Prop 5: Nonviolent drug offenses; sentencing, parole and rehabilitation
Voting: Yes. Here's where Libertarians can toast their success. If all the pot smokers can remember to leave the house and vote (ha! I'm using an unfair stereotype of drug users! Most of them are white collar, working adults!) then this initiative will pass. Let's hear Bunny Colvin out.

Prop 6: Police and law enforcement funding
Voting: No. Putting more racist policemen on the street--if that even happens at all with this initiative, which does not guarantee it!--is not the solution to crime. A "coordinated balanced approach that includes community service workers, mental health, drug and alcohol services" (Ulrich and Macallair, 2008) would be far more efficient and sustainable long term. I'm not throwing my money away on more young white guys who want to carry a gun at their job.

Prop 7: Renewable energy generation
Voting: Unsure. Even when people agree that there's an energy crisis, and that renewable energy sources are needed, they disagree about what will work. Will this? I have no idea. It's opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. Wha? This one makes my brain hurt and shut down.

Prop 8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry
Voting: No. No discussion.

Prop 9: Criminal justice system; victims' rights; parole
Voting: No. As deeply as I feel for victims--and I watch a lot of Law and Order:SVU and Forensic Files, just ask my annoyed boyfriend--this does seem like an unneccessary expenditure. The arguments in favor of the initiative are compelling, but also anecdotal.

Prop 10: Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy
Voting: Unsure. Ack! Yet another energy one. Can somebody break it down for me?! Greenlaw?

Prop 11: Redistricting
Voting: Unsure. This one is the worst. Blah blah, this side is all politicians. Blah, that side is all politicians. This truly seems like a case where no matter what your vote, or what the decision, there will be absolutely no change in the process and whoever has the most money will win anyways. Sigh.

Prop 11: Redistricting UHHHH. FOR: League of Women Voters, ACLU. AGAINST: Barbara Boxer, California Democratic Party, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, SF Chronicle. Someone please tell me what to do.

Yeah, I totally hear you on that one. WTF.

Prop 12: Veterans' bond act of 2008
Voting: Yes. If only so that my good friend Bryan Hiestand, Airman, will let me live with him rent-free someday.

[yumitree]

Stop it, you're embarrassing me!

i know. i'm the palin of our ticket.

[Valorie]

Instead of giving money to the Children's Hospitals, why not just give that money to ALL hospitals?

Yes on 2, no on 4, yes on 5, no on 8. Still researching the rest.

I'm conflicted about the high speed rails one.

[waxpop]

Instead of giving money to the Children's Hospitals, why not just give that money to ALL hospitals?

Babies are more important than grown-ups?

[punkdc]

Sad I changed states. Some of these issues are very important, i.e. Prop 8, because there are people out picketing and signing up voters just to pass it.

[TomHicks]

Here's the L.A. Times vote yes on Proposition 11 editorial:

California needs redistricting reform
Prop. 11 isn't perfect, but it would take some of the politics out of drawing legislative districts.
September 12, 2008


Willie Brown made it clear. Speaking in Denver two weeks ago, the former Assembly speaker told California Democrats gathered for the party's national convention that they were duty-bound to keep their most important power -- drawing legislative district lines. Defeating Proposition 11, Brown said, was almost as crucial as making sure Barack Obama was elected president, because whoever draws the lines decides who gets elected.

Brown could hardly have made the case in favor of Proposition 11 better if he'd tried. California gives political parties, rather than voters, enormous and unwarranted power over who gets elected to office now, two years down the road and another two to four years beyond that. That power comes in the form of "decennial redistricting," two snooze-inducing words that stand for the ultimate king-making clout, currently vested in the Legislature and, by extension, the parties. State Democratic Party leaders use it to retain their margin in Sacramento, and both they and their Republican counterparts use it to plot the courses and careers of individual candidates. Raise enough money for us, they tell would-be politicians, and we'll draw an Assembly district for you now and perhaps a Senate district that you can slide into when your term expires. Cross us, and we'll draw a district that will never elect you.


Voters are supposed to choose their representatives, but in California, political parties select their voters. That kind of power is destructive and inherently anti-democratic. It must end, and Proposition 11 will help end it.

Deceptive arguments

Political campaigns don't lend themselves to nuance, so any criticism of a ballot measure like this one tends to be offered as proof positive that the language is flawed and that passage would be disastrous. Arguments in support often suggest that the measure will cure every structural problem ailing the state.


Let's be clear: Proposition 11 will not, by itself, sweep the state clean of hyper-partisanship. A Public Policy Institute of California report issued this week reported little evidence that redistricting reform, in subjecting incumbents to serious election challenges, would make lawmakers more moderate.

But the question for voters is not whether this measure would do everything its supporters want, or whether it is the best possible redistricting reform. The question is whether Proposition 11 would give California a system better than the status quo. It would.

It would create a 14-member legislative redistricting commission made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four others. They would use 2010 Census data and information offered at public hearings to draw maps that create 80 Assembly, 40 Senate and five Board of Equalization districts. They would take effect in time for the 2012 state elections.

The commissioners would be chosen using a complex selection process, the result of months of negotiations meant to assure as evenhanded a panel as possible. Regrettably, there is still too much participation by the political parties, but it's a great improvement over the present parties-only system. No longer would Democrats and Republicans be able, with a handshake on a golf course, to trade "safe" districts. Political districts would no longer be part of the bargaining process over campaign fundraising or bill language.

Supporters of some plans that didn't make it on the ballot or were rejected in Sacramento are opposing Proposition 11 because they believe it accomplishes less than their proposals would. For example, congressional district lines would be drawn the old-fashioned way, by the parties, in part because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to permit any change that would divest Democrats of their hard-won majority. That omission has led some Republicans to oppose the measure, but that's a foolish move. Rejecting the initiative because it's a small real step instead of a giant imaginary leap makes no sense, especially when it's based on the specious hope that the Legislature will overcome its revulsion for redistricting reform and pass some perfect plan in the next session.

By the same token, it would be foolish for Democrats to oppose the measure out of a belief that it would cost their party its majority in Sacramento. It won't. For every district it puts in play that currently elects Democrats, it is just as likely to put in play a district that currently elects Republicans. It would simply ensure that legislative Democrats (and Republicans) would heed voters and not just party bosses.

Some advocates for Latino, Asian and African American voters have weighed in against Proposition 11, arguing that there is no guarantee that their interests would be represented on the commission or that they wouldn't lose ground in the Legislature. What they are really saying is that they have figured out how to make the corrupt party duopoly work for them. But they need not be afraid of a fair system.

The Times generally frowns on ballot measures that strip lawmakers of their authority (and duty), but in the case of redistricting, the Legislature has shown repeatedly its unwillingness or to loosen its grip on this power, which is a clear conflict of interest. This reform is one voters need to make.

[Valorie]

Babies are more important than grown-ups?

Babies can be treated at all hospitals. They're not confined to only children's hospitals.