[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Neutron voting guide.

by: neutron

Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:25:38 AM PST


I figured this might be a nice thing to share, since a lot of people don't know some of the downticket races and props so much... again these are my views, and not that of Calitics.

Hi everybody, so I filled out my absentee ballot and already sent it in, it's the only way to fly in Oakland since our know nothing Elections Supervisor bought a bunch of Sequoia systems fraud machines despite popular outcry... anyway here's how I voted:

Partisan Offices - statewide
----
Governor - Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor - John Garamendi
Secretary of State - Debra Bowen
State Controller - John Chiang
State Treasurer - Bill Lockyer
Attorney General - Jerry Brown
Insurance Commisioner - Cruz Bustamente (with waffling)
United States Senate - (blank) or Diane Feinstein (see below)
United States Representative - Barbara Lee
State Assembley - Sandre Swanson
Judges - re-elect
Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A-NO!
Propositions 1B-1E Yes.
Proposition 83 - NO!!
Proposition 84 - Yes
Proposition 85 - FUCK NO!!!
Proposition 86 - Yes
Proposition 87 - HELL YES!
Proposition 88 - No
Proposition 89 - YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
Proposition 90 - NO!
---
City of Oakland
---
Measure M - yes
Measure N - YES!
Measure O - YES YES YES!

The "why's" are below the cut.

neutron :: Neutron voting guide.
Partisan Offices - statewide
Governor -
Phil Angelides

It's an easy decision really, Arnold has been playing the part of a moderate ever since he got his ass handed to him in the last "special election". Phil Angelides, has the brains, the know how, and the plan to lead this great state, and it's the rare case where the establishment backed candidate is actually the best one of the bunch. It breaks my heart that his idiot campaign manager is such a fool and might blow it.

Let's be clear, no Democrat or Independent should vote for Arnold... Period.

oh and Pete Camejo used to be cool, but is kind of a dick now.
I voted for him over Gray Davis, and would gladly do so again, but the Democratic Nominee is a Pragmatic progressive, what the hell is Pete doing in this race anyway?

I really hope Phil can pull it off, but rather then just hope, i'm going to canvass and call for him this weekend.

Lt. Governor -
John Garamendi

Tom McClintock is an asshole. One of the biggest assholes in CA.
Garadmendi is kind of "eh." but has his moments. I'm not his biggest supporter like some folks, but he's good... I like Phil a hell of a lot better personally. He's big on stem cell research... so am I, 'nuff said.

Secretary of State -
Debra Bowen

uh... Verified Voting activist/superstar vs. Arnold's Diebold loving appointee?
no fracking contest. I am totally all about Debra Bowen, and you should be too.

State Controller -
John Chiang

He's a good dude.

State Treasurer -
Bill Lockyer

I could make a statement about the statewide office "revolving door", but i'll save that for my buddy Cruz.
Lockyer has done a decent enough job as AG, why not let him handle the money?
Sure.

Attorney General -
Jerry Brown

I had my issues with him as mayor of my city, and it bugs me that he's so adamant on the very Draconian Death Penalty, but Poochigian is far worse and has way more of a douchebaggy name. ha ha! I guess Jerry's plan is to hold every office in the state before he dies...

Insurance Commisioner -
Cruz Bustamente

I literally felt dirty in the recall after I voted "NO" (esp. since Gray Davis was an ass and I wanted him gone, just not that way), and then voted for Bustamente, even though I really wanted to vote for Arianna. I have rarely felt "dirty" after voting except for when I voted for that useless waste of flesh. The ONLY thing I can think of that he did that I liked was the lawsuit against Enron after the rolling blackmail... which was admittedly heroic and kind of awesome. Otherwise... he's a jackass! And... it seems like you see the same 6 or 7 names every cycle as they all play this game of musical chairs changing positions. Totally lame. Ugh, a tactical vote at best... but at least i get to vote FOR Phil and Debra this cycle.

United States Senate -
Oh DiFi! DiFi, DiFi, DiFi... you bum me out, i'm glad this will be your last Senate term, as you are a constant source of elitism and frustration. I hate that you are so beholden to big business, you're most "reliable" when it comes time for the one liberal boilerplate issue I am most mushy on... gun control. I hate that you embolden torturers, and need to have crushing amounts of public outrage before opposing real a-holes like John Roberts confirmation. There are a few things you are ok on, but overall, the only reason to vote for you is because Democrats need to take control of the Senate to keep checks and balances and such around. I may vote for you, I may not... I wrote myself in for the primary, because quite frankly, I could do a hell of a lot better job. If I do vote for you, it's because Dick Mountjoy, while a wonderful pr0nstar name would be a absolutely horrid Senator, not because you are worth a damn at all.

United States Representative-
Barbara Lee

One of my top 10 politicians ever, and my representative, if half of the congresspeople out there had even a quarter of her integrity and guts we'd be a lot better off.

State Assembley-
Sandre Swanson

Seems like a good dude, smart progressive type, and Babs likes him. Besides what am I going to do, vote "Peace and Freedom"? It's Oakland baby!

Judges
re-elect all... got caught with my pants down on this one, but since I don't have any beefs rightn ow, i'll just be ready next time.

Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A
NO!

I already have to do the legislatures job a couple times a year because so many props like this have the budget locked down.
fuggit. Transportation funding is vital, but mandatory amounts are dumb, and i'm sick of it, and having to research these stupid things.

NO!

Propositions 1B-1E
Yes.

I'm still pissed that this somehow has turned into "Arnold's issue" when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it just in time for election season. But whaever... infrastructure is important.

Now again, don't we elect a fracking legislature for this crapola???
STOP BOTHERING ME!!!

Proposition 83
NO!!

A Blatant sop to get out the religious types that are always concerned about "focusing on the family" as well as authoritarian a-holes. Look, I think sex offenders are horrible too, but this is Draconian! GPS monitoring for life?
That's a slippery damn slope. All of the empty posturing that goes over sex offenders sickens me almost as much as the offending itself. Ok, not really... but still... come now. The standards are fine now.

Proposition 84
Yes

Bond measure make me curl up my lip like Billy Idol, because the mantra seems to be "borrow, borrow, borrow", but this is about water safety and flood control. Every week in rainy times when I drive to Roseville and I see the Delta swelling, I get images of the levees and New Orleans.

no thanks.
It's a begrudging yes, but a yes, nonetheless.

Proposition 85
FUCK NO!!!

Yet again another winger "base turner outter", a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy". Right, because it's far too easy to have this horrible operation performed now right? I am for personal freedom, and that includes a woman's right to have dominion of her own body, including minors.
I cannot emphasize FUCK NO, enough.

Proposition 86
Yes
(with some waffling)
Sorry smokers! Try to see beyond the pocketbook on this one.
I'm all for everybodies personal freedom to fuck up their lungs and give themselves cancer, but we still don't have real education about the drug that is tobacco and we need that.

a few concerns have been raised by some friends of mine on this... mainly that it goes to private hospitals and adds stuff into the constitution, which bums me out... but still, i'm a soft yes.

Proposition 87
HELL YES!

Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Reduce air pollution?
Wait, why would anybody be against this again?
Oh yeah... the oil companies.
Screw them!

Proposition 88
No

It sounds good on first read, property tax to pay for more funding for schools right?
It creates a bad amount of bureaucracy, and who decides what are "academically successful" schools anyway?
lame!
no.

Proposition 89
YES YES YES! HELL YES!!

This is the public financing of elections, if you are going to vote for only two things this year... well... then you are being silly, but the key is to vote for Phil Angelides and this. Because god damn... I mean GOD DAMN... this will fix soooo many of our problems. Not the least of which is that you need to be an eccentric billionaire to win a statewide race in this damn Nationstate of ours called CA.

Proposition 90
NO!

Uh... dude? Why are NY Libertiarians writing propositions for California?
Eminant domain is BS, but so is this:
From speakout:


This measure has so much to dislike that it brings together in opposition one of the most unusual alliances imaginable. Joining virtually every environmental group in the state in opposition are taxpayers rights groups, the California Chamber of Commerce, consumer groups, scientists and public health agencies and even the California Farm Bureau.

That a-hole Tom McClintock likes it too, so that should be reason enough to vote no. A good rule of thumb is if the left and right both agree on something, there's probably something significant happening.

Pretty much everybody agrees this one is BS.
NO!

---

City of Oakland

Measure M
yes

Whatever. Some BS about the polce and fire retirement board... just reading about it made my attention wander, there's no argument against, no penalty. If it wasn't about peoples retirement I wouldn't have voted either way at all.

Measure N
YES!

Kick ass new library at Henry J. Kaiser center?!
HELL YEAH!

edit: and also more funding for critical library infrastructure and other things my librarian friends can tell you more about.

Measure O
YES YES YES!

If you are against this Measure you are truly against Democracy... come on... ranked choice voting! Who loses? We'd be looking at city council member Aimee Allison if this already went through!
besides less elections = better in my book.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

thanks neutron (0.00 / 0)
for an entertaining voter guide. Bowen is a total rock star. I'm going to be so psyched if when she wins. I was totally laughing with your comments about Cruz. Couldn't describe my feelings better myself. 

Dude, Cruz... (0.00 / 0)
Man... it's sad because it's not even fun to beat up on him.
He's just kind of hapless.

Enough with the musical chairs damn it!
Let's get some contested primaries.

Debra Bowen is a rising star... for sure.
She is totally great.

-C.

I live in Oakland and I like talking about politics. Who'd have thunk I'd be writing here?!


[ Parent ]
your comment about the judges (0.00 / 0)
reminded me of a critical judge race we have in San Diego. I was this close to just passing up the judges part of the ballot. But I guilted myself into giving it a google. The Rod Shelton - Larry Kincaid race is very important!!

Check out my diary and contact everyone you know in San Diego county. Kincaid is an "activist" in the worst way.


Hey neutron! Vote No on McGuiness (0.00 / 0)
Since you are in Alameda county, you can vote NO on Justice William McGuiness, who wrote the bad same sex marriage decision.

I think?

[ Parent ]
I like John G. (0.00 / 0)
One of my neighbors credits Garamendi with saving his life, b/c of his crackdown on insurers who were finding ways to drop coverage for patients who actually got sick.

Re: Cruz -- couldn't we have had one of the three good LtGov candidates run for IC instead?  Argh!

RM 'Auros' Harman
Delegate, A.D. 21, CA Dem State Central Committee
Treasurer, CADem Business and Professional Caucus
Board Member, Peninsula Democratic Coalition and Peninsula Young Dems


Dude, IRV sucks. (0.00 / 0)
Example:

Say you have 100 voters in town.  Thus far, 98 of them have voted, and the ballots look like this:

35 ABC
32 BAC
31 CBA

If we tally now, C gets eliminated first, 31 votes transfer to B, and B wins.

This seems fair enough -- if you look closely, you'll see that if B was running against either A or C alone, he'd get about two-thirds of the votes -- 32+31 against A, and 35+32 against C.

But wait, there were two voters left!  Turns out, they both vote CBA:

35 ABC
32 BAC
33 CBA

Oops!  Now B gets eliminated first, 32 votes go to C, and C wins.  Even though B still beats either candidate alone, with a 2/3 landslide.  Even worse, the two voters who changed the outcome, preferred the outcome they would've gotten if they hadn't voted!  Their votes punished them.

IRV has all kinds of wacky properties like this.  It's possible to win every precinct and lose the election.  It's possible for your vote to hurt you.  It's possible for a candidate to have the most first choice votes, and win by a ~2/3 margin against any other single contender, and still not win the election.

Go read up on Condorcet systems, or Approval Voting (which is cheap, simple, and has excellent properties in terms of fairness and effectiveness).

I actually talked about this with Debra Bowen a week or so ago...  She is, indeed, a rock-star, and technically competent enough that I think the five-minute spiel made a serious impression.  I'm hoping she'll look seriously at eliminating disqualification for overvoting (i.e. Approval Voting).

RM 'Auros' Harman
Delegate, A.D. 21, CA Dem State Central Committee
Treasurer, CADem Business and Professional Caucus
Board Member, Peninsula Democratic Coalition and Peninsula Young Dems


We're largely on the same page (0.00 / 0)
though I'm waffling on 87 and 88.

I also really have to disagree on 86, and it's not just because I'm a smoker (though I'll admit it plays a role). I think IF it were all going to education and free smoking cessation programs -- I'd be willing to consider it, though I'd still think the tax is too high. It's not doing those things, primarily, and seriously seems to be designed just to make it more expensive to smoke apparently in order to encourage smokers to quit. IMO, taxes should be used for necessary funding, not primarily to control people's behaviors.

I think another side to it that you have to bear in mind is that sales taxes, pretty much by nature, are hugely regressive (by percentage of income, higher for the poor) -- and though it's anecdotal, it also rings true to me that it's already primarily the lower/working class that smokes. So another consideration is that what this really does is place the highest burden of the tax on the lower income folks, while providing them few resources to actually quit. If they (we, I should say) really do quit in droves, then everything that is supposedly being funded by those taxes is going to be in a state of crisis; if we don't quit in droves, then the poor have just taken another hit in the wallet.

Health care, health education, so forth -- these should really be everybody's responsibility, not just a single group that is primarily on the lower end of the economic scale.

And as a total side issue but one that is important to me, cigarettes and beer are pretty much the goods that keep the smaller corner stores alive to provide the goods with smaller markup (milk, eggs, bread). Having a little store around the corner is, in Sacramento, one of the vital things that many of us downtown value, and my local guys (and many others I've talked to here) fear they would have to close if this tax passes.

Ack. Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a long diatribe. I just view 86 as a pretty bad idea on a lot of levels, even though it's maybe not as absolutely vitally important as, say, 85.


Indeed I waffled on 86 too (0.00 / 0)
Ultimately, I voted Yes, but it was a really tough call.  Thing is that smokers are generally lower income, so this is a regressive tax.  That's rather unfortunate.

I think?

[ Parent ]
That's the deal breaker for me (0.00 / 0)
even as a smoker, I'm not opposed to taxes that help provide education, cessation programs, or help alleviate some of the health care costs of smoking. I already pay a fair amount of tax on the things -- a very high percentage, as sales taxes go.

But at about a pack a day, which is roughly average, this would be around $80 a month in taxation. Now, for many people, that's the difference between making rent and not making rent -- that's more than I pay for gas and electricity combined, and it's nearly a third of my rent right now. While you can say, "well, they should quit then", that to me is an oversimplified idea, one that ignores the amazing power of addiction -- not to mention that it chafes more than a little that the reasonably wealthy aren't going to have to give up their cigars, while the waiter earning jack shit is going to have a hard time ponying up the money for a cigarette at break time.

80 bucks a month, primarily charged to the poor, is just too much for me, regardless of any assumed social benefit (and I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of using price to control use of addictive substances anyway).


[ Parent ]
NO on all bonds! (0.00 / 0)
That's 1B-1E and 84. Big fat NO on those.

Some good may be achieved by the project funded by them, but the funding will hurt us too much. Digging the state deeper into debt will incumber the budgeting process for the next 30 years. What project is worth doing now so urgently that it's worth paying double for? The interest paid on these bonds is a subsidy to the investment industry, money stolen directly from us and paid to them. If these things were really worth doing they'd be worth raising taxs for. The advocates for the bonds may say that they don't raise taxes, but they do in an indirect way sometime in the future. These bond issues are unfunded mandates imposed on the already cumbersome state budget. Something else will have to get squeezed for these things to happen.

There's on possible justification for a Bond issue. The benefit of having the project now is so great that it effectively pays for the debt incurred. None of these bond issues meet that. There's one bond issue, scheduled for a future election (looks like Nov 2008 now) for a new high speed rail link spanning the state from north to south. That's the kind of thing a bond should be for. The bond issues on this ballot should be budgeted as regular maintenance and ongoing improvements.

Repeal Prop 13 on commercial property, fund the state properly, fund these projects properly. But all of these bond issues are a bad deal. No on 1B,1C,1D,1E and 84.

Santa Barbara Progressives


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox