I received my California ballot guide. As usual, there are a slew of wacky propositions for voters to decide on. Many of these proposals are very complicated and I personally have neither the time nor the expertise to evaluate them. We should really have a system where instead of forcing people to spend time considering each crazy idea individually, we elect some sort of representatives to worry about this stuff for us. Oh wait, we do have such a system: it's called the "legislature". So why the hell am I expected to do all this work myself!?
Generally, I have a strong a priori bias against any proposition made by petitioners. If it is actually a good idea, then let the legislature approve it. Giving it directly to the people seems like a great way to provoke an uninformed decision. On the other hand, some propositions are actually proposed by the legislature. I assume there is some sort of legal requirement that anything involving selling bonds be put on the ballot. In these cases, I will generally defer to the legislature's judgment and vote yes.
Read more for the complete list...
|
Prop |
Proposed by |
Vote |
Reason |
|
1 |
Legislature |
Yes |
It sounds like a reasonable idea and the legislature already approved it. |
|
2 |
Petitioners |
No |
I do not believe that the authors of this proposition understand the potential consequences. |
|
3 |
Petitioners |
No |
Suspiciously invokes children as a reason for spending a bunch of money. If this is actually a good idea we shouldn't need petitioners to propose it. |
|
4 |
Petitioners |
No |
The arguments in favor are emotionally-based and, frankly, silly. Parental notification of abortions will not reduce teen pregnancies and will certainly not deter sexual predators. |
|
5 |
Petitioners |
? |
Our prisons are massively overcrowded with nonviolent drug offenders that should be in treatment instead. Despite my bias against petition-driven propositions, this seems like a no-brainer. It also seems like the kind of thing that the legislature has trouble doing on its own because it would be politically unpopular, even if a good idea. Which means the proposition probably won't pass either. :/ Update: This draws me back towards thinking that petitioner-proposed measures are likely to cause more harm than good, even when they seem like no-brainers. And unfortunately, if the law turns out not to work well, the legislature won't be able to do much about it, since voter-approved propositions override them. I'm not sure how to vote on this. |
|
6 |
Petitioners |
No |
Let the legislature deal with details of crime fighting. |
|
7 |
Petitioners |
No |
This is the wrong way to encourage renewable energy. Please just tax carbon and let the market work it out. |
|
8 |
Bigots |
NO! |
This proposition is deeply offensive and directly contradicts the most fundamental of American values. Discrimination and bigotry have no place in any constitution, state or national. The idea that a group of people would attempt to amend the constitution to limit the rights and happiness of another, completely separate group of people for no tangible benefit to anyone anywhere simply makes me sick. |
|
9 |
Petitioners |
No |
Again, let the legislature deal with criminal justice details. |
|
10 |
Petitioners |
No |
Carbon tax or cap, plz. No centrally-planned markets, kthx. |
|
11 |
Petitioners |
No |
Gerrymandering sucks, but I don't see why this particular convoluted scheme would be likely to improve anything. It worries me that the scheme explicitly states that the commission to draw district boundaries should have a particular number of Democrats and Republicans. What about third parties? I think we should just develop a computer program that chooses sensible districts based on population density and city and county boarders. Really, just randomly choosing districts which are contiguous and roughly equal in population would be better than what we have now. |
|
12 |
Legislature |
? |
Why do veterans need help buying homes? If we feel veterans are under-compensated, why don't we just raise their pay? That would be a lot more economically efficient. This feels like a very warm-fuzzy proposal that doesn't actually make a lot of logical sense. Also, shouldn't this sort of thing be a national issue? On the other hand, this passed the legislature unanimously and apparently there was only one guy in all of California that felt like submitting an argument against. So, apparently I'm missing something here. I think I'll skip this vote. |
Oh, and some local ballot measures. As far as I can tell these are both requests for money from the local government, not petitioner proposals.
|
Measure |
Vote |
Reason |
|
A |
Yes |
The hospital needs to be earthquake-proofed or it will have to be shut down. Shall we spend money to save the hospital? Um, yes, that sounds like a good idea to me. No one even submitted an argument against. |
|
B |
Yes |
YAY BART!!!! BRING BART TO SANTA CLARA!!!! I don't care if it's over-budget! Tax me more! Can we extend it to Mountain View, too? I'll vote for even more tax increases if you do that. |