# California State Issues -- June 2010 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597 "2010-05-24T18:30:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/81 "2010-06-09T18:03:53Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Sigh. If I saw this stuff in a sitcom, it would be eyerollingly annoying. Real life is stranger than fiction. I guess you missed the memo. The “State of California” is actually the world’s biggest tv show. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/82 "2010-06-09T18:05:42Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The parties themselves think it will weaken them. Both the California Republican and Democratic Parties were against the proposition. > > I don’t think it will either weaken or strengthen the parties, but change how they operate. Getting an official party nomination will be different. Probably they will select one candidate for the primary. They will have to carefully balance satisfying the more extreme wing of the party versus the risk of being outcompeted from the center. > > Or possibly the party will not support anyone in the primary and instead nominate whichever of the two winners better suits them. In any case, candidates will have to consider the center of the political spectrum as well as the partisan zealots. > > I think this combined with the recently passed redistricting reform will definitely help our political system. The new redistricting will be done by a multi-partisan citizens committee who will be less eager to carve safe districts for incumbents. Can’t anyone put their name on the ballot under any party designation they wish? I don’t think the parties can keep anyone off the ballot except by trying to talk them out of it. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/83 "2010-06-09T18:28:08Z")
I don’t think so. The party can refuse to endorse anybody they want. I think it has to be that way, just to prevent political tom-foolery like paying some Nazi to run as a Democrat, just to embarass the opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/84 "2010-06-09T18:47:16Z")
That’s how the redistricting is supposed to work. Why it has to be so damn complicated is beyond me. The more complications, the more opportunity for shenanigans. Whatever system should be independent of judgment. Set out criteria, and let a computer model it out. Draw a freaking grid if you have to. None of this need 5 cheerleaders from this team and 5 cheerleaders from that one bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/85 "2010-06-09T19:38:35Z")
You’d still have to have someone set up the criteria and program the computer, and the parties may well disagree on which criteria should be used. So you’ll still need a bipartisan group at some stage. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/86 "2010-06-10T01:07:06Z")
I’m rather happy with the results. Four of the propositions went the way I wished and I was always iffy about Prop 16. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/87 "2010-06-10T03:27:52Z")
375,000 people voted for Orly Taitz. :eek: Is Ahnold not seeking reelection? ---
**Author:** ![RadioWave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/91b2a8/32.png) [@RadioWave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioWave)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/88 "2010-06-10T05:10:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is Ahnold not seeking reelection? Term limits. He won’t be back. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/89 "2010-06-10T14:55:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is Ahnold not seeking reelection? > [@RadioWave](#): > > Term limits. > > He won’t be back. Rumored at one point to perhaps have an interest in Feinstein’s US Senate seat if she retires. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/90 "2010-06-10T16:49:55Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Very nice to hear 16 and 17 failed. Though I doubt it will keep corporations from attempting to legislate their destiny through the referendum process in the future. I read some interesting things about 16 this morning. PG&E spent about $45 supporting it, opponents spent only $90,000. It did worse in PG&E’s service regions than in the state as a whole, and it did especially bad in the Central Valley where there seemed to be more cases of ripoff smart meters. Their stock also went down yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/91 "2010-06-10T17:03:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I read some interesting things about 16 this morning. PG&E spent about $45 supporting it, opponents spent only $90,000. It did worse in PG&E’s service regions than in the state as a whole, and it did especially bad in the Central Valley where there seemed to be more cases of ripoff smart meters. Their stock also went down yesterday. Yeah, but last I checked it was back up and more today. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/92 "2010-06-10T17:14:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I read some interesting things about 16 this morning. PG&E spent about $45 supporting it, opponents spent only $90,000. Was that supposed to be $45 _million_ that PG&E spent? ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/93 "2010-06-10T19:24:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Was that supposed to be $45 _million_ that PG&E spent? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/94 "2010-06-10T23:12:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Was that supposed to be $45 _million_ that PG&E spent? Well, when you are spending other people’s money, $45 million seems just like $45. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597/95 "2010-06-13T18:51:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, when you are spending other people’s money, $45 million seems just like $45. The question is, how many more smart meters will they need to install in the Central Valley to recoup it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-state-issues-june-2010/540597.md?page=4)