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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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!)
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?”
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?