I hope you reported them to Facebook. Were they banned? Could they have been Russian trolls? The posts that you described are very troubling and divisive. I would hate for such misinformation to be spread and hurts Prop 6.
I did indeed, and oddly now that I go back deep into my history, the group that had the most of such comments is now shut down. Yay! I dont know if the owner of the group did so, or FB itself.
I dont think Russian trolls care about CA Props, but who knows?
I edited a few posts above that quoted the OP to add ellipsis indicating where text was removed.
[/moderating]
Ironically enough, I’d vote “YES” on that one.
It would probably pass, too, because the hipsters would vote “YES” on it.
One might argue that hipsters don’t vote. But in this case, they would be voting ironically…
Some kind of proposition system is a good idea to avoid having the legislature stray too far from popular desires, but the CA one is fairly crazy in that it requires only a simple majority to pass and there isn’t a higher bar to amend the state Constitution.
Having propositions require 55% or 60% to pass, and maybe 66% to amend the Constitution would be a saner system.
If you agree with me, be part of the 5-10% who votes no on everything to make the process work as it should.
I agree with you, and I just voted my absentee ballot: No on every Proposition.
Disclaimer: I always allow myself one “Yes” on a Proposition that I feel strongly about, or that has particular meaning for me. But this year, there wasn’t a single one worth a “Yes” vote.
Prop 10. Gets rid of the damn Costa hawkins landlord protection bill. Allows local governments to pass rent control laws. Does not pass any rent control by itself.
Landlords are spending millions and pushing lies hard to defeat it.
It won’t and more or less can’t affect homeowners, despite what they say.
I am still not sure on 12 & 7, 10 is Yes, the rest are No.
I am just about ready to fill out and turn in my mail-in ballot. Last chance to persuade me on any mistakes.
Warning: I am not an automatic NO on new debt. California has continually funded worthy (and unworthy) projects and its debt as a percent of GDP is pretty stable (nice to have a major country’s GDP to count on. Just another of the “California problems” the red states don’t have to deal with). I try to judge the merits. A country can be judged on how it treats it poorest and weakest citizens.
My current leanings (some stronger than others):
1- Yes
2- Yes
3- No (there are limits, and there isn’t a good track record of water funding going towards solving the state’s problems rather than helping special interests)
4- Yes
5- No
6- No
7- Yes
8- No (this is a tough one. Generally, when one side outspends the other 5:1 and that side is also just 2 companies, I know which way to go. But this appears to be the wrong way set something right, so, reluctantly, it has to be No)
10- Yes
11- No
12- Yes
One thing that made my job a little easier was the endorsements from political parties. One party is the Party of Evil, the other is not. If I’m 50/50 or just plain don’t care, this is a great tiebreaker. Thanks Trump!
Pleonast, thank you so much for putting this together.
I’m glad Prop. 9 (about splitting the state in three) was removed.
Otherwise I would be shouting “Hell no!” at a paper ballot.
Thanks for putting this together, Pleonast!
My answer was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do occasionally vote yes on a prop. But it’s a high barrier.
My (more complicated) process: If a proposition is modifying something that was already passed by proposition, then the legislature can’t fix it and I might as well consider it on its merits. If the proposition covers something that the legislature is structurally unable to handle well (like redistricting), then I might vote for it. If the proposition is placed on the ballot by the legislature and is something like raising taxes (which due to earlier propositions has to be approved by proposition), then I’ll generally vote yes for it, since a yes vote is basically a “let the legislature do its job” vote).
This cycle, I’m voting no on everything but 12, and I might vote no on 12, too. It gets consideration because of point 1: modifying something that was already passed by proposition.
Not a Californian . . .
This confuses me - it seems like bonds *are *funding something? They provide hopefully stable funding for multi-year projects, reducing the odds that the next legislative session will decide to cancel the dam halfway done.
Grew up in MN - and it was either dark on the walk to school or the walk home (although some of the walk home was due to after school activities).
This is the second mention of TV schedules, and I’m not following. How does nationwide DST affect the start times of events? The start time isn’t based on DST as far as I can tell. Unless the proposition is that CA would go to year around DST while the rest of the country stays as it is now?
Nationwide DST doesn’t affect schedules. It’s only when one or two eastern states - say, Florida - does.
First, either you need a separate feed for Florida, or all of its shows air an hour later than usual; how many people are going to want to watch, say, How to Get Away With Murder from 11 PM to Midnight?
Second, live shows can’t get around this problem. Want to watch Monday Night RAW? You’re staying up past midnight. The Oscars? Best Picture gets announced around 12:15 AM now. The World Series? First pitch is at 9:30 PM - and imagine if a Florida team is hosting a game. If enough states in the Eastern and Central time zones have year-round DST so that they can schedule things for the states where the clock is ahead, then the problem isn’t as bad; the states where the clocks are behind can always run on the Mountain time zone feed, which is currently one hour behind Central.
I am a little confused by the DST proposition. It looks like it’s going to both match California to the national standard, and put California on permanent DST, even though that’s not the national standard.
It’s to put us on permanent DST but it’s really more of a poll. If it passes, the state still needs Congressional approval.
I think the argument would be that issuing bonds for big projects encourages imprudent legislatures who get the good PR of announcing large expensive infrastructure projects without specific funding to pay for them, then let the future deal with the unpopularity of raising taxes to, you know, pay the interest on those bonds.
Reducing the odds that legislatures will cancel a project that’s halfway done is a double-edged sword. It also means we keep pouring good money after bad once the extent of the boondogglery becomes clear.
I am also confused by the DST proposition. Confusing means I vote no! If it’s a good idea, someone can take the next 2 years to figure out how to phrase it less confusingly. 
Here’s my understanding of the DST issue:
If the proposal passes, it would repeal the 1949 State adoption of DST paving the way to get rid of it, adopt it year round or keep it the same. Any change would require 2/3 (or 3/4?) of the state legislature to approve. The author of the bill, Chu, wants year round DST. But states can only opt in or opt out of DST (see AZ, HI and IN), they can’t adopt it year round. The only way to adopt it year round is to essentially change the time zone you’re in - that is what requires US Congress approval. CA would have to ‘move’ to the Mountain Time Zone (with NV to the east in the Pacific TZ!) and then ~not~ do DST in the summer to get year round DST.
Forgot to add - I’m voting for it on the off chance it winds up eliminating DST. I think the odds of getting year round DST (which would be awful) are slim.
Is there a reason the legislature can’t already do those things? Was the 1949 adoption of it passed by initiative?
Yes. Prop 12