Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

Alex · 06-07-2010, 01:57 PM

It was easy. Clean slate of "No" on all props and I didn't vote for any of the offices since I don't know who any of the people are and don't care to learn.

Prop 13
I'm all in favor of making it easier to trigger property tax reassessments, not harder.

Prop 14
A) If we're going to have political parties then they should be able to determine how they want to pick their nominees. If we don't want parties then declare the elections to be non-partisan and implement an instant run-off mechanism and just hold one election.

B) This is a perfect set up for whichever major party is best able to maintain party discipline to win offices without winning the most support. It's a set up for what happened in Hawaii where two Democrats, either of whom could beat the Republican handily both refused to drop out and let the Republican walk in. Now, with this there's a second vote so that helps but if one party is unable to keep six people from running in the primary you could easily get a choice of two people from the minority party in the final election. So what will be the end result? Primary primaries by the parties to try and make sure only one candidate for the party is in the primary, pushing the process even farther away from when voters actually care.

C) There are way better ways to do this through various instant run-off mechanisms.

D) Yes, most of the time it will probably help make sure that the final two candidates are more moderate but at the cost of eliminating the extremes from the debate. Sure, third parties and fringe candidates will get their chance in the primary (most of the time, see point E) -- when nobody is paying any attention.

E) Eventually this could even eliminate some third party candidates from even being able to run in the primaries. There are two ways for parties to officially get on the ballot: a) maintain a certain percentage of total party registrations, or b) get a certain percentage of the November vote. The Libertarian Party, for example (though it is not the only one) does not meet the first test but always meets the second. Since a Libertarian candidate is unlikely to ever even make it to the November ballot by taking the top two spots, they then would be disqualified from participation in the next primary.

F) You can't even register a protest vote. Write-in candidates votes will not be allowed on the November ballot. So either you vote for one of the two people on there or you vote for nobody.

G) For good or ill (mostly ill) interest in top ticket races drives participation farther down the ballot. When one party dominates the top of a ballot it will have an undue impact on other ballot items due to suppressing the vote by a significant portion of the population (if Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner were the final two then many more liberal people would see no reason to vote at all in that office and then you have to hope that they show up anyway to vote for Proposition X).

Prop 15
Not particularly in favor of public funding of elections. Don't think it is particularly effective even when in place, and while I know it an unpopular opinion I don't particularly support licensing lobbyists so am not inclined to support increasing the licensing fee to pay for things.

Prop 16
Stupid law in my view, example of what's awful about the proposition process.

Prop 17
Can't decide if I thin it is a good idea or not. I find the arguments impenetrable with Mercury winning on the surface. That said, I don't see any reason why this is something that should be done through the proposition process rather than legislatively.

ETA: And I voted three weeks ago. So if any of my reasoning is shown to be faulty let that be an example of why I don't support asynchronous voting. But I do it anyway if the rule is there. I'm a hypocrite.

06-07-2010, 01:57 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	It was easy. Clean slate of "No" on all props and I didn't vote for any of the offices since I don't know who any of the people are and don't care to learn. Prop 13 I'm all in favor of making it easier to trigger property tax reassessments, not harder. Prop 14 A) If we're going to have political parties then they should be able to determine how they want to pick their nominees. If we don't want parties then declare the elections to be non-partisan and implement an instant run-off mechanism and just hold one election. B) This is a perfect set up for whichever major party is best able to maintain party discipline to win offices without winning the most support. It's a set up for what happened in Hawaii where two Democrats, either of whom could beat the Republican handily both refused to drop out and let the Republican walk in. Now, with this there's a second vote so that helps but if one party is unable to keep six people from running in the primary you could easily get a choice of two people from the minority party in the final election. So what will be the end result? Primary primaries by the parties to try and make sure only one candidate for the party is in the primary, pushing the process even farther away from when voters actually care. C) There are way better ways to do this through various instant run-off mechanisms. D) Yes, most of the time it will probably help make sure that the final two candidates are more moderate but at the cost of eliminating the extremes from the debate. Sure, third parties and fringe candidates will get their chance in the primary (most of the time, see point E) -- when nobody is paying any attention. E) Eventually this could even eliminate some third party candidates from even being able to run in the primaries. There are two ways for parties to officially get on the ballot: a) maintain a certain percentage of total party registrations, or b) get a certain percentage of the November vote. The Libertarian Party, for example (though it is not the only one) does not meet the first test but always meets the second. Since a Libertarian candidate is unlikely to ever even make it to the November ballot by taking the top two spots, they then would be disqualified from participation in the next primary. F) You can't even register a protest vote. Write-in candidates votes will not be allowed on the November ballot. So either you vote for one of the two people on there or you vote for nobody. G) For good or ill (mostly ill) interest in top ticket races drives participation farther down the ballot. When one party dominates the top of a ballot it will have an undue impact on other ballot items due to suppressing the vote by a significant portion of the population (if Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner were the final two then many more liberal people would see no reason to vote at all in that office and then you have to hope that they show up anyway to vote for Proposition X). Prop 15 Not particularly in favor of public funding of elections. Don't think it is particularly effective even when in place, and while I know it an unpopular opinion I don't particularly support licensing lobbyists so am not inclined to support increasing the licensing fee to pay for things. Prop 16 Stupid law in my view, example of what's awful about the proposition process. Prop 17 Can't decide if I thin it is a good idea or not. I find the arguments impenetrable with Mercury winning on the surface. That said, I don't see any reason why this is something that should be done through the proposition process rather than legislatively. ETA: And I voted three weeks ago. So if any of my reasoning is shown to be faulty let that be an example of why I don't support asynchronous voting. But I do it anyway if the rule is there. I'm a hypocrite.
	Submit to Quotes