Voting on the Propositions

[Morrigoon]

Well, it's a couple days before the election and I'm still riding the fence on a few of the props. So I'm curious to hear people's arguments for or against them.

[€uroMeinke]

Propositions are a waste of time and annoying - so I say don't vote on them

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Well, it's a couple days before the election and I'm still riding the fence on a few of the props. So I'm curious to hear people's arguments for or against them.

Yes on 6 and yes on 7, your mileage may vary.

[Alex]

I'd posted this on Facebook a while back.

The only one that really makes me stand out from my cohort is being in the No on 37 camp, not because I'm in favor of GMO foods but because I am opposed to the anti-GMO activists. I see a better common solution: reform of genetic patents dramatically reducing their value. Then nobody will make them and, if in fact they were vital to keeping the food supply growing with global population, we can watch poor people in other countries starve.

President
Alex says to vote for Barack Obama. Now, I do not feel that Obama has been a great president. Also, I am reasonably confident that if left to himself, Romney probably wouldn't be a horrible president, naturally drifting into moderate territory on most issues. That said, he wouldn't be left to himself and would have to approve and reject whatever Congress sends him. A congress that, if Romney is president, has a fair chance of being completely in Republican control. And that is a thought I find scary as I'm pretty sure they'll be just as bad as it feels like they would be. Lots of talk about jobs, economy, and shooting all the scary Mulsimists but then, just as happened at the state level, once they've got the control it will primarily be about guns, abortions, and shooting all the people one can possibly fear might be Muslimists.

Vice President
Cindy Sheehan of the Peace and Freedom party. My Tea Party friends have shown me the way on doing one's to reject those amendments to the Constution that one least likes. As such I have chosen to ignore the 12th Amendment. I feel no real support for Ms. Sheehan but feel it'll make my protest against that benighted amendment best known. Once 12 has fallen then we'll finally be able to move on to, in order, the 17th, 23rd, the 18th and 21st simultaneously, the 19th, and inserting the word "Christian" as the 10th word of the 1st.

U.S. Senator
Honestly, who gives a ****. I live in California. Reading my sample ballot was the first time I ever heard of the Republican running.

U.S. House of Representative
I'd say "honestly, who gives a ****" on this one too. Except the incumbent goes by the name Pete Stark but my sample ballot tells me his real first name if Fortney. That's awfully close to "fortnight" which recalls Lincoln's greatest speech (which also includes an archaic way of conveying time) and so I think it is our duty to vote for Mr. Fortney Peter Stark so that we can continue having our slaves be free and referred to as "Denny's Waitresses."

Proposition 30
Alex says to vote NO. Let's stop putting funding requirements in the frakking state constitution. It feels good, like a kitten purring on your tummy but is part fo the stupidity that got us into this stupidity in the first place.

Proposition 31
Alex says to vote NO. A) Let's stop putting funding requirements in teh frakking state constitution. It feels good, like a kitten purring on your tummy but is part of the stupidity that got us into this stupidity in the first place. B) It creates a perverse incentive for the party that controls the governorship to play chicken with the budget since if they crash and burn the governor gains the ability to do whatever he wants, so long as it is to slash spending. Why in the world would Republican negotiate on a budget in good faith? C) There are probably some good ideas but a state proposition is not the place for a mishmash of an omnibus bill; keep it focused and tight if you want a chance at my support.

Proposition 32
Alex says to vote NO. A) This is the third time in 15 years the people of California have been asked to vote on this issue. Repeatedly asking the same questions since you only need to win once is a big source of the problems I have with the proposition/referendum process. B) Coming at a time when recent US Supreme Court decisions have opened up new avenues for the money being banned here it seems to me that this would just move those donations out of the light and into the darkness.

Proposition 33
Alex says to vote NO. A) This is second time in two years the people of California have been asked to vote on this issue. Repeatedly asking the same questions since you only need to win once is a big source of the problems I have with this proposition/referendum process. B) There's a lot of picayune understanding of insurance regulation that is necessary to understand the real impacts of this proposition and I don't have that knowledge. So I go to secondary sources and they seem generally think it isn't a good idea. All that said, this proposition highlights another flaw in the California proposition/referendum process: namely that if a law is passed by proposition it can only be changed by proposition. This is an issue that should be settled by the legislature, not a general population ballot.

Proposition 34
Alex says to vote YES. This initiative would repeal the death penalty in California. While I, in theory have no problem with the idea that some crimes are so heinous that they justify ending the perpetrators life, in practical application the rightness of some executions do not outweigh the errors. Plus, for all intents and purposes we have already repealed the death penalty in California anyway and we might as well stop pretending.

Proposition 35
Alex says to vote NO. A) I don't, in general, approve of sex offender registries; B) I don't approve of the portion of this proposition that would require those on sex offender registries to share with the government their online account credentials; C) this is something that should be handled legislatively.

Proposition 36
Alex says to vote YES. Just based on topic I'd encourage a NO vote simply because this is something that should be handled legislatively. That said, because the 3 Strikes law in California was passed by proposition it has to be changed by proposition. And California's Three Strikes law is pretty stupid so I'm in favor of relaxing it and don't think this measure goes far enough but it's a start.

Proposition 37
Alex says to vote NO. This is the one for labeling genetically modified foods. I don't care if people don't want to eat them. I have huge policy issues with agribusiness, many related to genetic control of crops and seedstock. That said, there really isn't much science supporting that the food product itself poses any harm or risk and the goal of labeling is not really to make people aware so that they can make choices but to scare people into making the choice you want them to make. If the anti-GMO lobby had proven itself at least more honest than the mega-agri companies I might take a different stance but for now it seems to me there is a perfectly fine solution that doesn't require a government bureaucracy to create: Every food product on the market is free to label their foods as NOT containing any GMOs. I'll support a law, if one is necessary, making it illegal to use such a label falsely. Voila, all GMO foods (or food manufactured by someone who doesn't care) are labeled.

Proposition 38
Alex says to vote YES. This is a new tax and I was too bored to read the details. Since I voted against one above I'll vote for this one.

Proposition 39
Alex says to vote NO. This one almost got my vote. But once again creates a mandate on how money will be spent on specific programs. Further evidence that everybody loves an earmark when it is their earmark.

Proposition 40
Alex says to vote YES. A yes vote approves the new congressional district map in California. For the first time drawn up by an "independent" commission instead of by the state legislature itself. I supported that change so I support the result. It isn't an ideal map but it is better than we'd have seen from the legislators more focused on making incumbents safe than on consolidating party power for decades into the future like they should be (or simply drawing reasonable districts like we all wish they would).

BONUS BALLOT PICK:
Dublin City Council - Alex says to vote for Anita Carr because her name sounds like something a whiny teenager would say.

[RStar]

What gripes me about 37 are the ads.

1) Against: "Dog food needs to be labeled, but not steaks" Duh, cows aren't genetically altered the way plants are.

2) Against: "Don't vote for it because it will cost people $$$ at a time when they can least affor it" I don't think it will have much impact, as it only requires a statement added to the lable, and that will only be needed to be added years down the line so the packaging they have now can be used up, and they will likely need/want to update labels anyway.

3) For: "It is a simple lable change that won't cost them a dime, and we should know if our food is GMO" That's not true as well. They will need to do some work to find out if the ingredient sources have any GMO, and pay someone to re-do their artwork. Maintaining the paperwork for Organic and having seperate storage and processing equipment is why it's so expensive, and if the require that level it could cost a bit. Otherwise, it will cost them something but "won't cost them a dime" sounds like "It will cost them nothing". Yes, it may cost less than a dime for each item, but even one cent per item multiplied by millions of items add up.

And yet, I have no idea if genetically altering plants for human consumption is a bad thing. People and nature have been doing it for as long as we've been around. Cross pollination alters the genes as far as I understand it. Lab gene altering is just a lot faster and predictable.

And I agree with Alex, having to put that statement on the lable will force the manufacturers to change their purchasing of GMOs and kill the marked for those items, and any future work that may come up with plants that will benifit mankind. It's based on fear, will I get cancer from eating a GMO apple? I don't know, but if it sits next to one labled "GMO-Free" I'll pick up the GMO-Free as long as it's not too expensive.

Organic labeled have to be the same price, or cheeper for me to pick them up.

[Alex]

I don't think that having to put a "may contain products of genetic engineering" label on packaging will force manufacturers to change their purchasing of GMOs and kill the market for them.

I think the proposition would result in almost every processed food item having that label, regardless of whether it has GMO products in it or not and the result will be a label widely ignored by people. In other words, a situation similar to the Prop 65 signs you see all over the place. (And even worse because unlike Prop 65, Prop 37 has been specifically written to loosen restrictions of litigation farming, further incentivizing just adding the label out of caution except for the most motivated of "No GMO" marketers.

To the extent it changes the marketplace, I would predict:

1. It will be harder for non-GMO products to get into general retail outlets. The proposition allows civil lawsuits not just against producers who fail to label anything but certified non-GMO but against stores who sell products that did not carry a label they should have. These civil suits are waived from any requirement that the retailer be notified of violation prior to filing suit and allowing for them to resolve the issue. The person filing the suit also does not need to show any direct harm from mislabeled food. So why would your corner convenience store or mom-and-pop grocer be willing to take the risk of selling products not labeled at least with the "may contain" label unless they're willing to do a fair amount of due diligence. When a lawyer walks in and says "settle or we'll sue" the store owner may know they'd prevail in court but that is an expensive gamble. This type of lawsuit happens all the time under Prop 65 and it has more restrictions on it than Prop 37.

2. The only non-GMO products will be extreme niche for whom the label is worth the expense or very large companies for whom the expense of proving and maintaining record of compliance isn't that big of an issue. As with many regulations, once the dust settles they actually tend to benefit large corporations as they increase the barrier to entry.

3. Without evidence of actual direct harm caused by foods containing GMO (and even Michael Pollan admits there really isn't any such evidence) there'll be an initial uproar and then people will ignore the label, producing little long term change in consumer behavior.

[Morrigoon]

Food for thought

[RStar]

I don't totally ignore the prop 65 signs. I'm aware of the gasoline issue, so I don't worry when I see it there. But I saw a label on Basalmic Vinegar, and I didn't buy it.

However, I do think you may be right. That the general public may very well ignore it like the prop 65 signs, particularly if there are never any signs that GMOs are bad. So, let me ask you- do you think that it is worth voting no simply because it will just be a big deal with little/no good comming out of it. Seems like 37 might just be a big waste of time to me, with no reward for the effort.

[Alex]

Well, since I'm generally not in favor of the proposition system in California my default position is no anyway. But being a bill I don't think will accomplish anything does nothing to move me off that default.

I generally hear two arguments from supporters:

1. "I have a right to know if my food contains GMO." Fine, but that is not a right that is being infringed right now. All this label will do is put labels on everything that has not been certified as not containing GMO. Those that have been so certified will presumably wear labels saying "NO GMO!!!!!!" Nothing prevents them from doing that now, without government getting involved and the same level of information is available to you.

2. "If people know their food contains GMO they'll refuse to buy it and this will lead to political and marketplace changes of which I approve." This may be true, but if so it will be because of consumers reacting emotionally to something they don't understand (the vast majority of the populatin will not: a) understand what genetic engineering means, b) have any sense of whether the current scientific consensus says GMO foods are directly unhealthy, or c) if the current scientific consensus does indict a specific GM crop, which one(s)), not because we've given them information on which to make reasoned judgments. Using the law to try and scare a majority onto your side of a policy debate strikes me as a bad idea in general.

Personally, I have no direct issue with consuming GM products as I've seen no particularly strong evidence that they are or would be harmful to me. I have huge problems with the political and regulatory system that makes them a so potentially a profitable thing to develop. I wouldn't mind seeing GM products go away. I just don't think that this proposition would contribute to that happening and if it did I don't think it is a method that is appropriate.

And if it is shown that a specific GM crop (which this labeling law would tell you nothing of, treating all GM crops as a single entity to be bothered by) is harmful when consumed, a labeling law is not the appropriate response anyway.

It is labeling to achieve a political/policy goal. If we're going to support that there are all kinds of political/policy goals I'd like labeling to help me with. A small chart on every bag of potato chips breaking down the political donations of the company that made them going back 5 elections so I can boycott anybody who gave money to Prop 8. The country of origin for every ingredient and packaging component to make it easier to divest my household of imports from countries I disapprove of. The gender breakdown of corporate executives and board of directors so I can support companies that eliminate the glass ceiling.

One thing I don't get is that so many of my friends who apparently feel so strongly that every molecule in a bag of Cheetos but be identified for them, because while no research has really found a negative health impact from GM corn it might one day be found, would just as strongly oppose that we requiring testing and proper labeling of supplements because that would be an allopathic conspiracy against received cultural wisdom.

[RStar]

Very interesting, Alex! I do agree with you, and what bothers me most is the scare tactics, political manipulation, and negative advertising.