California State Issues -- June 2010

[Pleonast]

For us Californians, we have two until the primary election*. Per typical here, there's some statewide issues that are being voted on. While I've made an initial decision about how I'm going to vote, I could change my mind. I'm hoping we can have a reasonable discussion about these issues.

The issues as explained by the Cal Secretary of State. Here are the Republican voter guide and the Democratic home page (the Dems don't seem to have a description of their reasons). In summary...


Prop 13: Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value.
Republicans YES, Democrats YES.

Prop 14: Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate's or voter's political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Republicans NO, Democrats NO.

Prop 15: Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions.
Republicans NO, Democrats YES.

Prop 16: Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.
Republicans YES, Democrats NO.

Prop 17: Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.
Republicans YES, Democrats NO.


Here is how I'm thinking of voting...

Prop 13: probable YES. This encourages owners to refit buildings. Well worth the "loss" of revenue.

Prop 14: definite YES. The parties are against it because they want the state to continue to subsidize their primary elections. It's better for the voters if the two candidates with the most general support gone on to the general election. The parties may want to choose their candidates another way, but candidates not affiliated with the two major parties will have an easier time now. That's a good thing in my view

Prop 15: maybe YES. Public financing is a better way to combat the influence of private political funding than censorship.

Prop 16: probable NO. I don't like the two-thirds requirement. Supermajorities do not make processes more democratic. They should be reserved for basic constitutional issues, not the typical policy questions.

Prop 17: maybe NO. It seems like this proposition would discourage uninsured drivers from getting insurance, since they will face greater rates because they have not been insured. This seems like it will set in stone the current division of people into insured and not.


*While I don't want to discuss the partisan primaries, I simply must note that I'll have the dubious honor of voting against Orly Taitz for Secretary of State.

[Bone]

No on all except 14. Open primaries will combat fixed districts and hopefully less extreme views on either end of the spectrum will win the day.

We agree on the others except 13 and 15. For 13 - Owners can retrofit or not. They dont need to be subsidized by me to do it. For 15 - I dont want to subsidize politician's election campaigns. If they want it, they can pay for it. My stance is money = speech.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by Bone

For 15 - I dont want to subsidize politician's election campaigns. If they want it, they can pay for it. My stance is money = speech.

If the public funding came primarily from taxpayers in general, I'd lean more against it, but this proposition sets up the funding to be from lobbyist fees. I don't mind so much that those who can afford to hire professionals to speak for them have to also provide for those with less monied support.

[Bone]

From the CA site:

Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers.

Voluntary contributions = okay. Fees = not okay. I'm against subsidizing election campaigns whether that comes from taxpayers in general or targeted groups that we're not supposed to like. Taxes and fees should be avoided generally - regardless who they come from.

[Chronos]

I find it interesting that two issues the major parties agree on have both found their way onto the ballot, including one both are opposed to. What group or groups are supporting 14? Even in a referendum-heavy state like California, I expect that it still takes a significant organizing infrastructure to run the petitions or whatever to get something on the ballot.

[Pleonast]

Here is the pro-Prop 14's list of supporters. With a quick skim, it looks like mostly business and police, with Arnold and the AARP as the big names. I expect it was the business groups that organized the effort. The LA Times is in favor of it and reports 60% support in a poll.

I just noticed the LA Times editorial positions on the props: 13 yes, 14 yes, 15 yes, 16 no, 17 no. Exactly like me.

[Bone]

The first time redistricting reform was put on the ballot by Arnold, virtually every major newspaper supported it, and had large polling support. By the time it got to the ballot, it was defeated. Due at least in part to Arnold's other ballot measures that were less popular and grouped together and pushed for to be voted in a block. Both parties in CA have a vested interest in fixed districts where no incumbent loses.

Two solutions to break the rigged elections are redistricting and open primaries. Both parties are against these as they threaten the power structure of the corrupt legislature. Our ballot initiative system is a joke - it persists because the legislature is worse.

[silenus]

Yes, Yes, No, No, No

The strongest yes is on Prop. 14. Anything to break up the joke that is the State legislature.

[Twoflower]

13- No. Stop adding patches to our totally screwed up tax system - fix the whole thing, already.

14 - Yes. Anything that might get the legislature back to looking out for our common good, instead of their partisan advantage.

15 - probably no. I'm generally in favor of trying to reduce the influence of money in politics, but why secty of state??

16 & 17 - Hell no. Both are corporate-sponsored attempts to rip us off.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Twoflower

16 & 17 - Hell no. Both are corporate-sponsored attempts to rip us off.

Huh? How is 16 a corporate-sponsored attempt to rip us off?

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Huh? How is 16 a corporate-sponsored attempt to rip us off?

It is funded entirely by PG&E, the electric and gas utility company, and is designed entirely for the benefit of that one company. They don't want cities to be able to take over electricity distribution.

[Snnipe 70E]

No on 14.

If I read it right it will have some bad side effects.
No write in canidates in November. There was a Dem congressman that his party would not help in running for re election. He ran as an independant write in canidate in November and won the election.

You can forget about third parties getting on the November ballet. And this year I will probably vote third party.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by suranyi

It is funded entirely by PG&E, the electric and gas utility company, and is designed entirely for the benefit of that one company. They don't want cities to be able to take over electricity distribution.

Well, be that as it may, I'm all for making it harder for California officials to raise taxes. If it be such an imperative, they should be able to convince people to vote for it.

[kaylasdad99]

13? NO. If this needs doing, the legislature has the power to do it.

14. NO. California had an open primary several years ago, and it was ultimately struck down by SCOTUS. I don't think we need to go through the expense of litigating the issue again this year.

15? NO. Probably. There never should be a ban on public financing, but it should be the responsibility of the legislature to get rid of this one. Unless the current ban has a provision that forbids removal except by public refrendum. Anybody know?

Supermajority requirements are a very dicey proposition, and should never be imposed on a future electorate by a simple majority. NO on 16.

Californians are famous for being suckered into voting for things that have unforeseen deleterious effects. If there's really something wrong with current insurance law about discounts, the legislature can fix it. NO on 17.

[Twoflower]

16 has nothing at all to do with taxes. All it does is create a supermajority hurdle to create or expand a publicly owned utility. Public utilities already require a majority vote to be created/expanded.

As a resident of a public utility district where our rates are lower than PG&E's rates in surrounding areas, I assure you the only real beneficiary of Prop 16 is PG&E, not ratepayers or taxpayers.

[Tom Tildrum]

If you're setting up an open primary to pick the top two candidates for the November ballot, why not go one step further and declare the top vote-getter in the primary the winner of the election? Why do you still need the November ballot?

[Twoflower]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

13? NO. If this needs doing, the legislature has the power to do it.

Actually, because this is a patch to the famous predecessor proposition of the same number, the legislature doesn't have the power to fix it themselves.

I'm still a "no" since I'm opposed to patches, instead of fixing the whole mess.

Also, if you think about it, this proposition actually exacerbates one of the great inequities of CA's property tax system -- commercial properties don't get re-assessed nearly as often as residential ones, which has resulted in an ever-increasing share of the tax burden shifting from commercial owners to residential owners. How many private homeowners are worried that their homes will be reassessed if they do a seismic retrofit on their house?

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by suranyi

It is funded entirely by PG&E, the electric and gas utility company, and is designed entirely for the benefit of that one company. They don't want cities to be able to take over electricity distribution.

I came in the point this out. Prop 16 is supported by the large energy providers (and funded by PG&E) to preserve their local monopolies on energy distribution. Vote against it.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Well, be that as it may, I'm all for making it harder for California officials to raise taxes. If it be such an imperative, they should be able to convince people to vote for it.

.

Then you don't understand the Proposition. Electric systems are not paid for with taxes they are for with rates. PG&E calls it the "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act" which is about as truthful as idf they had called "THe Kittens Are cute act". The whole proposition is a straight out lie by PG&E, who have beeen the SOLE funder of this proposition to the tune of $46 million, meanwhile they are asking fro rate increases that total billions of dollars. Not to mention it is poorly written, such that the Califronia Association of Realtors recommended No because it would require ANY new customers to be voted into a ublic power company service, even existing companies. Opposition is no where near that funding because no one has the kind of cash PG&E can throw around. Thhe two other major utilites in California - SCE, and SDG&E - have n ot endorsed this proposition. The Los Angeles Country Republicans went against their state party and recommended a no vote. Practically every major paper in the state recommends voting no. It is a straight up attempt to cement PG&Es monopoly status in the Constitution and they are using straight out lies to make their case. City council after City council have voted unanimously against this. County Boards across the state recommend no, rate payer gourps recommend No, local Chamber of Commerce across the state have gone against the State Chamber of Commerce and recommended No.

Check out this list or those recommending No:
http://noprop16.org/endorsements/

Compare that to this far from impressive group of those recommending Yes:
http://www.taxpayersrighttovote.com/coalition

[Stuffy]

Originally Posted by Bone

No on all except 14. Open primaries will combat fixed districts and hopefully less extreme views on either end of the spectrum will win the day.

I would expect the exact opposite to occur. I keep seeing pie in the sky pronoucements that this would occur but I'm not buying it. Primaries always have lower turnouts, skew older and more partisan.

On to the rest of the OP, no an all.

13. Commerical building owners can pay for it themselves.

14. See above.

15. I haven't developed an opinion yet.

16. The protect PG&E act? No thanks.

17. We've been ripping you off. Can you make it legal? No thanks.

[Nametag]

Prop 13: Definitely NO. Earthquake retrofits are already exempt for 15 years; long enough. And I am vehemently, viscerally opposed to ANY expansion, extension, or legitimization of the original "taxpayer revolt" clusterfuck.

Prop 14: Definitely NO. This only gives power to the party with more discipline and less dynamism: to wit, the Republicans. I'm a Democrat -- screw 'em. Should my party grow so moribund, I wouldn't complain about the resulting shift in power. Third parties do not and never will have a prayer, and I'm not cutting my throat to pretend that they do.

Prop 15: Definitely NO. Public financing is a joke. Nobody facing a candidate with deep pockets can afford to sign on. I can't believe this crap is showing up on the same ballot as Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.

Prop 16: Definitely NO. Supermajority requirements are almost always idiotic, and there's no overwhelming reason why forming a local utility district should suddenly be such a huge deal. Also, screw PG&E.

Prop 17: Definitely NO. It's unbelievable that Mercury's whining actually got onto the ballot. Some people will sign anything.

Honestly, it's the California initiative/referendum process that has cemented my opposition to populism. People are idiots.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

.

Then you don't understand the Proposition. Electric systems are not paid for with taxes they are for with rates. PG&E calls it the "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act" which is about as truthful as idf they had called "THe Kittens Are cute act". The whole proposition is a straight out lie by PG&E, who have beeen the SOLE funder of this proposition to the tune of $46 million, meanwhile they are asking fro rate increases that total billions of dollars. Not to mention it is poorly written, such that the Califronia Association of Realtors recommended No because it would require ANY new customers to be voted into a ublic power company service, even existing companies. Opposition is no where near that funding because no one has the kind of cash PG&E can throw around. Thhe two other major utilites in California - SCE, and SDG&E - have n ot endorsed this proposition. The Los Angeles Country Republicans went against their state party and recommended a no vote. Practically every major paper in the state recommends voting no. It is a straight up attempt to cement PG&Es monopoly status in the Constitution and they are using straight out lies to make their case. City council after City council have voted unanimously against this. County Boards across the state recommend no, rate payer gourps recommend No, local Chamber of Commerce across the state have gone against the State Chamber of Commerce and recommended No.

Check out this list or those recommending No:
http://noprop16.org/endorsements/

Compare that to this far from impressive group of those recommending Yes:
http://www.taxpayersrighttovote.com/coalition

Thanks for this post. You're right, I wasn't understanding it near well enough. I'll have to read those cites before I vote.

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Stuffy

I would expect the exact opposite to occur. I keep seeing pie in the sky pronoucements that this would occur but I'm not buying it. Primaries always have lower turnouts, skew older and more partisan.

Here's my thoughts on the current primary system and why an open primary will help:

Assume that CA legislative districts are fixed in that party control of that district is virtually assured. I think this is a fair assumption in CA however hopefully redistricting reform that passed previously will address this. If a party has control over a district, say it's going to vote Republican no matter what, the winner in the primary is going to both win in the general, and will generally be the person who is more extreme. Moderate views tend to lose in primaries. Because of this, currently only the extreme view makes it on the ballot in the general election. The district is fixed which leads to more extremist viewpoints getting elected.

An open primary would change that. By putting the highest two vote getters on the general, moderates will have a chance to be represented.

Originally Posted by Snnipe 70E

No write in canidates in November. There was a Dem congressman that his party would not help in running for re election. He ran as an independant write in canidate in November and won the election.

You can forget about third parties getting on the November ballet. And this year I will probably vote third party.

Yes there will be no write ins, but look at the example you give. Because the party wanted to endorse a specific viewpoint, that person was frozen out. In an open primary, that person who went on to win and presumably was the majority selection, they would have been on the ballot because they would have been a top vote getter in the open primary. You point to a problem of the current system that prop 14 would fix and say that the problem is a good one? That doesn't make sense to me.

A third party candidate would have a higher chance of getting elected under an open primary system. No party affiliation would be necessary in the open primary. The top two vote getters are placed on the general ballot and go from there.

[Stuffy]

Hey Bone I'd like to keep this discussion over here while attracting more posters, as this thread is Cali-centric and maybe limiting.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, the public can defeat big-money industries on a public referendum. A few years back, there was a referendum here in Montana to allow mining companies to use an ore-processing process involving cyanide. It was, naturally, very heavily supported by the mining companies, with glossy pamphlets talking about how it would allow safe use of these processes (neglecting to mention that the existing law didn't allow it at all), and proudly proclaiming that a "yes" vote on this proposition was a vote for a clean environment, suitable for hiking, fishing, and hunting. The opposition worked on a shoestring budget, mostly without even basics like bumper stickers. Come election day, the proposition was shot down by a 2 to 1 margin.

Well, be that as it may, I'm all for making it harder for California officials to raise taxes.

Isn't this a large part of why California's in such the mess it is, because public referenda made it too hard to raise taxes to support the services the people wanted?

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Isn't this a large part of why California's in such the mess it is, because public referenda made it too hard to raise taxes to support the services the people wanted?

I think it would be more accurate to say that California's problem is that its voters and legislature spend more money than they have. If there exists a constraint on raising taxes, that shouldn't be ignored when crafting spending programs.

[Icarus]

I'm voting no on all. My guiding principal is to vote no on all, unless an initiative is designed to "put out a fire" metaphorically speaking. Only then would I consider a yes vote.

I fundamentally object to the initiative process -

1. The legislators should do the the job I'm paying them to do. In the case that they do not consider an issue important enough to change the law, or the minority side is not able to change the law to their view, I trust the process that delivered the result. (And to anyone reading who is tempted to jump in with "They're all corrupt! They're all idiots" Yeah? You don't like it? Then you run for office!)

2. All initiatives are the very definition of special interest pet issues. Anyone with a pot of money can hire the folks to stand out front of grocery stores and harvest signatures. Et voila - an initiative shows up on the ballot! If I had the cash I would put one on the ballot which reads "Are you voting no?"

[Bone]

I'm generally in agreement with you to vote no, however open primaries and redistricting are designed to put out a fire, so to speak. The districts are fixed so they never change parties. If you have no chance of losing, you no longer answer to your constituents. Waiting for legislators to fix what they created for the sole purpose to keep themselves in power is not productive. The system is broken and the current and future legislators are happy to keep it that way. Only through the initiative process will that get changed.

This type of reform is exactly the purpose of the initiative process. We are at a point where the system is broken such that the will of the people can be safely ignored.

[YogSosoth]

Prop 13: YES. Retrofitting is good
Prop 14: YES. Either both primaries be open or both closed, but right now we don't have that.
Prop 15: Undecided
Prop 16: NO. Hell no. People are too greedy to ever vote for, what the ad campaign is calling it, "more control by the government". To me, "government" is not a bad word. They need to do some things quickly and efficiently and bogging it down with mindless people voting yes or no on everything is not helping. It's ironic that those who cry most about government being inefficient like to champion more bureaucracy tying their hands. The public should not have a say in what businesses the government chooses to run, unless it's something abhorrent like slavery or clearly illegal. I want the government to be able to dip their hands in whatever they think they need
Prop 17: NO, for the reasons you said

[HookerChemical]

Originally Posted by Icarus

I'm voting no on all. My guiding principal is to vote no on all, unless an initiative is designed to "put out a fire" metaphorically speaking. Only then would I consider a yes vote.

I fundamentally object to the initiative process -

1. The legislators should do the the job I'm paying them to do. In the case that they do not consider an issue important enough to change the law, or the minority side is not able to change the law to their view, I trust the process that delivered the result. (And to anyone reading who is tempted to jump in with "They're all corrupt! They're all idiots" Yeah? You don't like it? Then you run for office!)

2. All initiatives are the very definition of special interest pet issues. Anyone with a pot of money can hire the folks to stand out front of grocery stores and harvest signatures. Et voila - an initiative shows up on the ballot! If I had the cash I would put one on the ballot which reads "Are you voting no?"

This is my general mindset, too, except where propositions that directly reduce the power of the parties and state legislature are concerned like redistricting and open primaries. I voted yes on the redistricting. I'm leaning yes on the open primaries, but I'd rather have a better solution like instant runoff.

[Voyager]

13: Yes

14: Yes.

15: No. Good idea if it would eliminate the mad sheep ads, but what will happen is that one candidate with money will go over the limits. Since we can't limit campaign expenditures, why bother.

16, 17: No and hell no. I'm not sure where the money PG&E is spending for this is coming from, but if any of it is coming from my electric payments, I hope there is a class action suit to get ti back. I'd also love to see the PG&E board take live wires in both hands, so the issue could be illuminated.

[Sxyzzx]

Originally Posted by Icarus

1. The legislators should do the the job I'm paying them to do. In the case that they do not consider an issue important enough to change the law, or the minority side is not able to change the law to their view, I trust the process that delivered the result.

The legislators are the folks who put three of the measures on the ballot (13, 14, and 15). They can't amend the constitution without a public vote.


Prop 13 - NO. The first Prop 13 doesn't need buttressing.

Prop 14 - Leaning against this. The jungle primary seems like it leads to more tactical voting, like crossing over to vote for the weaker candidate of the other party. And if, say, the Reps have 2 candidates while the Dems have 3, you could end up with 2 Reps in the general election, even in a strongly Dem district. We need a fix, I'm just not sure this is it.

Prop 15 - The bit about taxing lobbyists to pay for the SoS elections sounds like a win-win, no? But to me this is a submarine measure, with the more important part being the repeal of the constitutional bar on public financing. With that out of the way, they can vote themselves all the money they want, out of general funds, without further public votes. NO

Prop 16 - NO. Should be called the "Taxpayers Right to Vote (But a No Vote Counts Double) Act".

Prop 17 - I'm generally in favor of loosening regulations on markets. But this does seem like it would provide a disincentive for the uninsured to get insured. NO

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Prop 13: Yes
Prop 14: Yes
Prop 15: No
Prop 16: Yes
Prop 17: No

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Also for the ballot (Republican)

Governor-Meg WHITMAN
Lieutenant Governor-Sam AANESTAD
Secretary of State-Orly TAITZ
Controller-Tony STRICKLAND
Treasurer-Mimi WALTERS
Attorney General-Steve COOLEY
Insurance Commissioner-Brian FITZGERALD
Member, State Board of Equalization 3rd District-Michelle STEEL
United States Senator-Tom CAMPBALL
United States Representative 47th District-Van TRAN
State Senator 34th District-Luccille KRING
Member of the State Assembly, 67th District-Jim SILVA
Member, County Central Committeee 67th Assembly District-Scott BAUGH, Kristine ALONZO, Cathy GREEN, Devin DWYER, Valerie C. DICKINSON, Mike MCGILL
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 2-Scott STEINER
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 13-Nick DOURBETAS
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 16-Andy MANSSOURIAN
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 50-Lon HURWITZ
Superintendent of Public Instruction-Alexia L. DELIGIANNI
County Superintendent of Schools-William M. HABERMEHL
County Supervisor-Harry SIDHU
Assessor-Webster J. GUILLORY
Auditor-Controller-David E. SUNDSTORM
County Clerk-Recorder-Tom DALY
District Attorney-Tony RACKAUCKAS
Public Administrator-John S. WILLIAMS
Sheriff-Coroner-Craig HUNTER
Treasurer-Tax Collector-Keith RODENHUIS

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by Sxyzzx

Prop 14 - Leaning against this. The jungle primary seems like it leads to more tactical voting, like crossing over to vote for the weaker candidate of the other party. And if, say, the Reps have 2 candidates while the Dems have 3, you could end up with 2 Reps in the general election, even in a strongly Dem district. We need a fix, I'm just not sure this is it.

I don't think that situation will ever happen because the two parties will not run more than one candidate each. They'll pre-select their candidate through some a convention or caucuses. I think the typical ballot will have 1 R, 1 D, and some number of would-be spoilers. No politician who wants to stay in their party's good graces will run against the official party nominee.

[Stuffy]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Also for the ballot (Republican)


Secretary of State-Orly TAITZ

Really, Dude?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Stuffy

Really, Dude?

+1. He can't vote, though.

[Chronos]

Curtis, you've shown yourself to have some sense in the past. Do you just not know who Orly Taitz is and would vote for her on party lines, or is there actually something she says you agree with?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Curtis, you've shown yourself to have some sense in the past. Do you just not know who Orly Taitz is and would vote for her on party lines, or is there actually something she says you agree with?

Oh crap. I looked at the ballot and she sounded more qualified than her rival. Didn't know who she was.

[Really Not All That Bright]

She probably is more qualified than her rival - she's a dentist, lawyer and real estate agent. Lex Luthor was also more qualified than Superman...

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Bone

I think it would be more accurate to say that California's problem is that its voters and legislature spend more money than they have.

Yes. I don't think spending as a percentage of total state income has changed much in 20 years. It's the deficits that are the problem. But don't blame the legislature: Don't you think they'd be delighted to raise taxes if that's what their constituents wanted?

California is enormously wealthy. Its crisis should cause citizens to question fiscal policies but I think the average voter reasons: "Cut my taxes! Duh ... it's a no-brainer."

Originally Posted by Bone

We are at a point where the system is broken such that the will of the people can be safely ignored.

No. The system might work much better if the "will of the people" could be ignored. Review the above explanation for the fiscal crisis.

[Bone]

septimus - I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that the general population mostly want their taxes lowered and ignore the fiscal crisis? And that listening to that is part of the problem the state has?

If that is what you are saying, I agree that the sentiment contributes to the problem, but only just so. Taxes in CA have gone up either via income or other taxes and I see no end in sight. When I said 'the will of the people' I mainly was talking in the context of elections and who is voted into office with respect to fixed districts and prop 14.

[Marley23]

At the OP's request, I moved this to the new forum from Great Debates.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Bone

septimus - I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that the general population mostly want their taxes lowered and ignore the fiscal crisis? And that listening to that is part of the problem the state has?

If that is what you are saying, I agree that the sentiment contributes to the problem, but only just so. Taxes in CA have gone up either via income or other taxes and I see no end in sight. When I said 'the will of the people' I mainly was talking in the context of elections and who is voted into office with respect to fixed districts and prop 14.

I responded to your message as talking points, rather than in opposition. And I'm speaking to the systemic problems that led to the present crisis, rather than proposing any immediate fix.

I realize California is now in severe recession with no easy solution. That's why you don't build up public debt during periods of prosperity. You save in good times in order to have somthing left over for a "rainy day." That's common sense for an ordinary family, common sense for the Federal government, and common sense for the State of California. (J.M. Keynes even developed this common sense analytically 75 years ago, though you'd hardly know it now, the 'Net being overrun with right-wing idiots claiming to have economics degrees.)

But discretion was thrown to the winds during the Epoch of Foolish Greed. And when one contrasts the enormous wealth generated by California and its huge number of multi-millionaires with the condition of its public-financed institutions, surely we can agree that something went dreadfully wrong.

I have no specific solution to offer now except to hope we finally learn from our mistakes. I was saying "don't blame the legislature" ... they just do what voters want. (And don't blame the voters: they vote the way right-wing media tells them to vote, though that's an oversimplification to dispute in another thread in another forum.)

[jsc1953]

Re: open primaries....just on general principles, the idea seems unfair and absurd. I'm not a member of the Peace & Freedom party, so why should I get to have a vote on who the P&F wants to run for office? Now extrapolate that logic to Reps & Dems.

But back to the real world: I don't see how this helps the "logjam in Sacramento". The real fix to that problem is to get rid of the supermajority requirement for a budget.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Re: open primaries....just on general principles, the idea seems unfair and absurd. I'm not a member of the Peace & Freedom party, so why should I get to have a vote on who the P&F wants to run for office? Now extrapolate that logic to Reps & Dems.

The Prop-14 system lets the parties choose whoever they want to run. The primary is simply choosing which two candidates get to run in the general election. The state will no longer subsidize primary elections for the parties.

But back to the real world: I don't see how this helps the "logjam in Sacramento". The real fix to that problem is to get rid of the supermajority requirement for a budget.

The thinking is that the current batch of legislators have no incentive to compromise on the budget. Any Republican who votes for any tax increase will lose in his party's next primary. Any Democrat who votes for any spending decrease will lose in his party's next primary. The proposed primary system is supposed to bring in more moderate voters who will give moderate candidates a chance to win.

Getting rid of the supermajority requirement would still be helpful, though.

[Bone]

I believe the supermajority is only a requirement for raising taxes, not passing a budget. A budget that is balanced on cuts rather than tax increases could pass with a simple majority.

The deficits have two components, too much going out and not enough coming in. I think any honest assessment has to examine both of those things. I think the focus on the supermajority requirement to raise taxes exists because it seems like a minority in the legislature is able to derail the budget process. The idea that we can cut spending to 2003/4? levels (less than 10 years ago) and have a balanced budget makes the deficit seem ludicrous.

But yes, getting more moderates in office may incentivise compromise. Hopefully. If not, we're just as screwed as before.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

On 14, I don't like it because it further entrenches a 2-party system by allowing only two names onto the November ballot. I could be in favor of it if it put 5 names, or everyone who gets at least 5%, or something, but this is poor. It also continues the trend of suggested initiatives to change voting systems that appear to have been thought up by someone who's never even bothered to read through the Wikipedia page on voting systems.

Everything else I'm voting "no" on based on similar reasoning to Icarus'. If it's not really obviously a good idea, it's not worth the potential unintended consequences and further idiocy of the California public.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Everything else I'm voting "no" on based on similar reasoning to Icarus'. If it's not really obviously a good idea, it's not worth the potential unintended consequences and further idiocy of the California public.

The California referendum system is the textbook on the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Dahnlor]

I remember the energy crisis of 2000-2001 when prices skyrocketed and there were rolling blackouts. I live in Los Angeles, plugged into the city-run DWP, unaffected by rolling blackouts and prices were much more stable. (obligatory YouTube link)

As a city-run operation, wouldn't it be financially backed by the city rather than the state? Does the L.A. DWP actually receive state funding, or is this just the state sticking its nose into city business?

Anyway, I'm all for No on prop 16


D