You defer to the elected officials everywhere except here?
It seems you already have a very clear answer to that question in his post. If you have a point to make, why don’t you actually make it?
So you don’t think this is absolutely necessary legislation? Where do you draw the line? And if you’re opposed to the idea of ballot initiatives you should simply leave that part blank rather than vote “no”.
Looked up Prop 35 and looks like common sense:
What a pointless comment.
I mean, the proposition to abolish the death penalty “looks like common sense” to me. And yet you oppose that particular measure.
You realize, i assume, that the political process is necessary precisely because we don’t all agree about what constitutes “common sense” governance.
So it looks like the Water Bond did not make the cut. Ho hum. Would be nice to get infrastructure upgrades funded, but will also be nice to not be borrowing 11 billion at this time.
The FDA *does *have jurisdiction, but so does the state: Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, section 110380:
“The department may, when necessary, prescribe any packaging and labeling regulation for foods, drugs, devices, and cosmetics whether or not the regulation is in accordance with regulations adopted under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.”
It seems CA likes to assume direct responsibility for a lot of things, where other states just ride along with federal law when it seems sufficient. The National Organic Program for instance. Other states just work within it, but CA went ahead and established its own organic program (which mostly just duplicates the federal program) and took responsibility for enforcement.
I can’t make up my mind on the GMO food labeling. On one hand: 90% of people seem to want it disclosed. 50 other countries have seen fit to do so. More info is good. And limiting the abundance of GM crops seems like a good idea to me (more for the mono-crop and super-weed factors IMO, than for the sexier health concern fears that they more often try to sell the labeling idea with). On the other hand: It might be better achieved with a model more like the Organic Program: voluntary certification to claim “no GMOs in this product” (ie www.nongmoproject.org). If we label everything that “may contain” GMOs, the labels will be so abundant as to be almost useless.
I think you’ve convinced me to grudgingly vote No based on that argument.
Per post #17, since Three Strikes was implemented by voter initiative, it can only be amended the same way.
9,10,11. No. We’re surviving with cut hours for state employees and fewer expenditures. I’m in the air on the education tax however.
Doesn’t anyone else think that 9 is unconstitutional? Doesn’t the Federal government regulate interstate commerce? What about the freedom to travel?
kaylasdad99 said he was opposing it because it was a ballot measure rather than any opposition to the policies despite support other ballot measures.
Which makes your comment even less relevant.
If he were actually opposed to the policies themselves, at least your “common sense” comment might have been on point.
I believe it would be nice if elected officials had the power to impose a tax. It’s my understanding that in California, they don’t have that power, unless it’s ratified by a plebiscite.
If it’s that necessary, the legislative body has the power to enact it.
P.S. Why the FUCK would I desert the field by abstaining on ballot propositions? I’m trying to IMPEDE the process, not stand aside and pretend it has nothing to do with me.
Ignorance fought. The California Legislature REALLY cannot impose a tax?
Doing some checking, I appear to have overstated the case. The Legislature can’t do it unless they get 2/3 supermajority in both chambers. The initiative process calls for a simple majority of the voters.
It’s a legacy of 1978’s Proposition 13, and is possibly one of the worst outcomes of any electoral decision in the history of ever.
What it did was essentially put in place a ratchet effect, whereby the legislature can reduce or eliminate taxes with a simple majority, but needs a supermajority to impose or increase taxes. That supermajority is basically impossible to achieve, and at the same time members of the legislature (both Democrat and Republican) have, over the years, continued to pass spending measures, because the people of California (even, in many cases, those who whine about taxation and government spending) still want the government to spend money on a whole bunch of things that are important to them.
Aside from the difficulty of raising revenue, the legislature is also handcuffed, in some cases, when it comes to spending. Voters often pass ballot measures that dictate where money will be spent, and this means that the legislature has less and less discretion over how to spend, and less ability to move money around to fill holes or divert resources to needed areas.
I understand that some people say they don’t trust politicians, but in many cases i don’t think they’re any less trustworthy than the chuckleheads who vote in California elections. We elect them to govern, and then refuse to let them do it.
My position on ballot measures is thus:
Unless you absolutely WOW me with your argument, I will vote no. Because I cannot really understand the legalese of the measure, and I really do not trust you. Not that I trust the guys running counter-ads. Most of these things are very complex and possibly dangerous and should be left to the legilsature.
I will be voting to repeal the Death Penalty. Because I am opposed to the DP on principle and this:
Save us 184 Million per. Can anyone debunk this?
While i think that the whole ballot initiative thing has become overused, and i’ve argued in this very thread that more stuff should be left to the legislature, it is actually possible to come to a reasonable understanding of what each proposition will do by reading the summaries prepared by the Legislative Analyst.
These summaries are non-partisan, and in my experience they do a pretty damn good job of explaining what it is that the proposed measure will actually do, without the cheerleading of the proponents or the doom-and-gloom prophecies of the opponents.
I think ballot initiatives are like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. They are great if used judiciously, and done when the legislature refused to act in the face of overwhelming public sentiment. But like the filibuster, now every group with an ax to grind proposes a ballot initiative.
Hell, Florida has its anti-smoking provision in its constitution now. If you smoke in a prohibited place, you are just committing a petty civil infraction, but you, sir, are violating the Constitution! And they’ve boxed themselves in with a super-majority requirement.
In 2002, the anti-smoking law (which prohibited smoking in restaurants, but allowed it in bars, and further decreed that no political subdivision could pass stricter laws) was forward thinking for its time, but is outdated as most places are outlawing smoking in bars. If Florida ever wants to do that, they need a 60% approval vote of the whole population. No other place, that I’m aware of, would require such a showing to enhance an anti-smoking law.
I’m sorry <kaylasdad99 hangs head in shame>.
Hey, it was my first major statewide election! They talked all fancy to me! I got confused!
If it helps, I boycotted the movie Airplane! to atone for my error.
I’d like to mention something in the case of #8.
When I was very young, I was in the company of some real hippies. You know, the straight-up “frankenfoods” type. “GMO is evil!!!” You know the drill. If it weren’t for them, I’d support #8 wholesale.
But you know what? I don’t. I can’t. The fact is that GMO foods have virtually no negative impact, and all that it is is speeding up natural selection by artificial means. The protesters of GMO foods are among the most ignorant, misled anti-science idiots I have ever met, and the only effect this legislature could have is strengthening their cause against the same anti-progress morons that think that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
Then you might want to read this:
Looks like an unnecessary and potentially damaging law. Definite “No” vote.