still trying to figure out my stupid california proposition votes

[arkuat]

Please advise:

My default strategy with California propositions (and I won't bore you with any further discussion of Alameda County or Oakland propositions) is to vote no.

On Proposition 8, my default strategy is eminently confirmed.

Now I'm going to discuss my puzzlements about which props I'm tempted to vote yes on, because that is the smaller set. Please do set me straight if you see that I'm stumbling into some sort of error.

These are my (tentative) yes props:

1A: will commit the state of California to building high-speed rail transit between the northern and the southern cities. Perhaps not phrased as well as an act of legislation ought to be, but I'm tempted to vote yes for it anyway.

5: Provides therapy and treatment to non-violent drug offenders instead of prison time. Given California's budget problems produced in part by prison overcrowding and inadequate prison health care (being rather harshly and expensively redressed by California courts right now), I'm inclined to vote for this. The opposition assures me that I'm voting for a get-out-of-jail-free card for the wickedest sort of meth dealer, but I'm thinking about more effective ways to steer California kids away from overuse and abuse of cannabis. Plus that fucking monstrous prison bill we pay out of every paycheck in this state and how to reduce it.

11: You had to be here. But if you've been watching poor Arnold struggling with the California budget this year, if you've been watching him closely, then you know that he was right in trying to reform California redistricting in his first package of proposition reforms. That one went down in flames (largely because the other propositions he was proposing back then were so bad), but Prop 11 meets with the approval of the League of Women Voters, and when the League of Women Voters and Arnold "My opponents are all girly-men" Schwarzenegger agree on something, I think it's time to reform California redistricting, and allow voters to choose their legislators instead of having legislators choose their electorate, the way it has been done recently in California to our disappointment and our dismay.

As for the rest of the non-local propositions on the California state ballot, if our legislators can't deal with these things without involving the electorate, then they aren't earning their legislative paychecks. Vote no, no, no, on all the rest. And especially vote no on prop 8: prop 8 is designed to undermine established Californian society, is un-American, unethical, and just plain nasty.

Comments

[brooksmoses]

To quote what I posted about 5 in another LJ:

I was initially tempted to say yes on Prop. 5 as well, because I agree pretty strongly with its goals, but the San Jose Mercury's editorial on it has pretty much convinced me otherwise on that vote -- it's a case of good ideals and the wrong instrument to achieve them. One of the fundamental problems with propositions like this is that they become a far more immutable law than legislative law. And this one puts in a lot of very rigid rules about how judges are to do sentencing, taking away a lot of judicial discretion there. Their point, which I think is pretty significant, is that we don't really know exactly what works best for crime prevention in this sort of case -- we have a general idea, but the specifics are not always certain and will obviously change from person to person -- and thus setting the sentencing process in the rigid carved-in-marble sort of unchangability that this proposition (and, really, any proposition) will do is a bad idea. Given that I tend fairly strongly towards the idea that selecting good judges and giving them discretion works far better than trying to handle an infinite number of possibilities with a finite rigid set of rules, just as a fundamental philosophical principle, that argument struck me as pretty convincing.

Aside from the two you mention, I'm also expecting to vote yes on prop. 2 -- I haven't really seen any credible arguments against it; the ones in the voter guide are claiming that it will do things that it quite plainly won't do if one reads the actual language it's adding. Since you don't list it, I'm curious if you know something I don't. (Edit: Oh, I see; you're arguing against that on the "the legislators should take care of it" basis. That makes sense -- I don't know how much I agree with it, but it makes sense.)

Anyway, yeah, 11 seems pretty clearly a yes vote for me. I'm a bit undecided on 1A but leaning in favor -- I think the argument that it's a boondoggle of sorts and the rail system it's proposing is likely to go way over budget and never get completed is probably accurate, but I think that nonetheless it's worth making the effort and getting however far we get. The question of "can we afford it?" is the one that I'm less clear on, and I don't really know enough to answer that with complete certainty.

(Edit: Oh, I forgot 12 -- the home loans to veterans program. IIUC, that's one that the legislators aren't authorized to deal with without involving the electorate, so I think that argument doesn't apply with there. I'm likely to vote yes on that as well; everything I've heard indicates that it's an established successful useful program that's not a net financial outgo for the state, and likely to continue not being so.)

[arkuat]

I've been tempted by Prop 2 as well, but I'm pretty impatient with the 21st c. results of Hiram Johnson's early 20th-c. "reforms", and I really do think this is one of the things that we pay the legislators we elect to figure out.

Prop 5 does trouble me because I know that it is a detailed rewriting of a lot of statute legislation rather than a constitutional amendment. But hey, if this state won't give up Hiram Johnson's way of doing things, then I'll go ahead and vote for Prop 5.

As for 12, I'm a pacifist, and I can think of all sorts of people who did good things other than going to war at the command of their state who aren't getting any help like this on the California ballot. I will retract my "no, no, on everything else" for this one, because this looks like a relatively harmless proposition, but nevertheless, I will vote against it myself.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Well, kevin_standlee, who pays more attention to rail in California than anybody else I know, thinks it's about the best there's any hope of getting, despite the flaws; if I'm remembering his posts correctly. Rail is often a good idea, and while oil prices have gone back down some, and I think the recent peak was excessive, I don't see any long-term decline in oil prices.

[arkuat]

Thanks for the link. As with prop 5, I'm still planning to hold my nose and vote for prop 1A.

[markgritter.livejournal.com]

You might want to check out jpmassar who has hosted a discussion of all the CA propositions.

Prop 12 discussion, with links to all previous: http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/82204.html

[arkuat]

Thanks for the additional info. I've looked more closely at 12 (and also at 2), but the closest I'm getting is undecided on both of them, and if I'm undecided on a California prop, that means I will vote no.