Which propositions were initiated by the legislature?
I just went to the California Voter on-line guide and got this info:
Proposition 1A started as Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 and was put on the ballot for voter approval.
Proposition 59 started as Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 and was put on the ballot for voter approval.
Proposition 60 started as a portion of Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 and was put on the ballot for voter approval.
Proposition 60A started as a portion of Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 and was put on the ballot for voter approval.That’s as far as I looked; the first four for four were put on there by the Senate.
Could it be that constitutional amendments are required to be voted on by the public? I know that is the case in many states,
PS: Hey, I didn’t know there was an “indent” code. Thanks!! 
I guess you are correct that if something is going to amend the constitution it has to go before the voters. Some of these issues do not seem to call for a constitutional amendmend, however, such as #60A, what to do with proceeds from sale of surplus state property.
If this proposition were designed to protect the major parties, why would both parties be opposing it so strongly? The politicians are terrified of this initiative because it would put their jobs at risk. As it is, most elections in California aren’t remotely competitive. Most districts either have a significant Republican majority or a significant Democratic majority. They’ve been drawn this way so it’s easier for the incumbents to win.
Generally, what happens is that the primary elections are won by the most conservative Republican and the most liberal Democrat. Then the general election is won by whichever party has been assigned the majority of voters in the district. This proposition would change that. When one party is sufficiently far ahead that the top two candidates would often both belong to that party, all voters will be faced with the choice between those two candidates in the general election.
Say there’s a typical district which is 60% Rep and 40% Dem. Few Democrats will put serious resources behind a run for Congress or for the state legislature in that district because they know they aren’t going to win. As a result, the Republican primary would normally be significantly more competitive and more Republicans will be motivated to vote. If, for instance, the vote goes 40%/30% for the two top Republicans, 25% for the top Democrat, and 5% for others, the top two vote-getters would both be Republican. Under the current system, the top Republican and the Democrat would face off in the general election together with a handful of minor-party and independent candidates. Almost all Democrats will vote for their candidate, almost all Republicans will vote for their candidate, and a handful of people will vote for the others and have their votes ignored by the establishment. Merely as a result of demographics, the Republican will be virtually guaranteed a win. Incumbents like this system because they rarely face serious competition.
Prop 62 would change this. In the above situation the election would genuinely be up for grabs. Democrats and independents would be forced to choose between the two Republican candidates. In order to win, they will both need to attempt to appeal to the whole electorate rather than only to their base. The winner will belong to the same party as before, but this will force candidates to take more moderate positions popular with the whole electorate rather than positions designed to motivate their core supporters.
This is likely to help third-party candidates rather than hurting them. It’s a lot easier for a minor-party candidate to come in second in a primary for a lightly-contested seat than it is to win an election, and being one of two choices on a general election ballot would force people to pay attention to him or her. Democrats will usually prefer to vote for an independent or a third-party candidate before voting for a Republican and vice-versa, so such a candidate would have a serious shot at victory. Under the current system, voters always have the feel-good option of voting for the candidate of a party they support, but much of the time these votes don’t have much chance of affecting anything. Prop 62 would push real choice above the illusion of choice.
On a totally different subject, I was extremely irritated by how often the arguments for bond initiatives in the voter information guide trumpeted the fact that they would NOT RAISE TAXES!!! Sure, they don’t want to raise taxes. They just want to borrow money to spend on something or other. Of course, the state will eventually need to pay off about twice the amount borrowed. Do they think the money spent on these projects will materialize out of thin air? They seem to think that voters will believe so, and I suspect that’s true; this kind of argument wouldn’t be used unless it had worked in the past.
I don’t like that idea at all. The parties are often diametrically opposed on certain issues. I belong to a party because I happen to believe in the principles that party stands for. I don’t want them getting watered down in favor of some namby-pampy centrist candidate who panders to everyone.
How so? Democrats and republicans will tend to vote their party, whether in the primaries or in the election. The only thing that’s going to happen is that 3rd party candidates won’t get on the ballot at all.
I voted NO on 68 because I didn’t like the idea of non-tribal facilities expanding their gambling operations. What’s the gung-ho demand for this?
I voted NO on 70 because anything with a 99-year lock-in strikes me as carrying the potentialfor a big mistake.
I really don’t see this happening at all. The only way I see this happening is if there are a whole bunch of people running for the office for one of the parties and they split the vote up. The big parties in general will be able to convince many of the lesser candidates to drop out if it looks like that may happen.