Please do not vote for Judge Laura Matz if you are in LA. She's a total b!tch. LOL you'd think she'd be nicer to attorneys in an election year but noooooooooo.

I think the flaw is that simply having insurance continuously for a long period does not make you lower risk. There are plenty of people who have to have a break in their coverage for legitimate reasons, reasons that do not make them higher risk. They should not have to pay higher premiums for that.

I can understand an insurance company being able to offer a "loyal customer" discount. Yes, that would be a barrier to us to change companies - which is why companies offer loyal customer discounts.

Insurance companies don't offer discounts unless they have reason to believe they will subsequently save money in payouts. Period. If they want to keep people who have unbroken coverage history, it's because, on whole, that group of people costs them less. It doesn't matter WHY any individual might have had a gap. There is no financial gain to them if they keep a bunch of customers by charging them less than average, but pay out at an average rate.

Unless you would like to also ban ANY persistence of coverage discounts, or like Alex disagree with the mechanism of change, "it's not fair to some of the people who might not qualify for the discount" doesn't seem to hold much water. If that's your criteria, than ALL discounts should be banned because one can always find a case where someone who doesn't qualify for a discount is excluded because of reasons that "aren't fair".

The prop doesn't impose a penalty against those that don't have consistent coverage, nor does it demand a discount be applied if the insurance company doesn't want to. All it does is remove a restriction that doesn't seem to make much sense. Do you feel the same about good student discounts? Shouldn't those be banned because some people's low grades are due to circumstances that may have no baring on their driving ability/risk? Or are you okay with the reality that, on average, people with good grades pose a lower risk, regardless of the individual reasons people with bad grades have those bad grades.

I'm actually for Prop 14 - it means that candidates are going to need to lean more to the middle and allow us to help eliminate the "outliers". And probably opens us up to all sorts of dirty games, but what the hell, if it has even a chance of reducing the "two floaters in a bowl" elections... I'm willing to try.

Everything else is a No.

16 is an emphatic No.

So no surprises in the political office elections.

Prop 13: Overwhelming yes. Not a huge issue but well demonstrates the self-contradictory attitude of the citizens in wanting all the services and none of the taxes.

Prop 14: Convincing yes. I think it is a really stupid idea and we can kiss third party conversation goodbye in this state.

Prop 15: Solid no. Carried in the Bay Area but nowhere else.

Prop 16: No. Pretty solid urban rural split on this.

Prop 17: No. I'm guessing most people could give a detailed justification for why they voted no, but simply use their general distrust of insurance companies as a proxy. (Though I voted no as well.)

Open primaries were on the ballot when I first started voting and it was voted down.

I was upset after reading the election results...then realized I was looking at the OC results, not statewide.

Phew. Why the eff do I live here again??

We failed to register in time :(

I got to my polling place (The Boy's school) around 10. I was only the 21st person who had showed.

I'm not sure what the voter turn out was for Kern County, but it was expected to be in the 20-30% area.

That was the most uneducated I've ever been at voting time. Luckily I knew who I wanted to vote for for office and my standard vote on props is no.

I thought there was supposed to be a legalize pot prop on the ballot?