Not exactly from California, but I agree with you on most of these. I would probably vote yes on prop 7 and 10, but I would need to study them further.

I voted yes on 5 and 11, and no on all others. My knee-jerk reaction with 11 was no because I'd rather have elected officials rather than an appointed committee making decisions in general, but once I gave it more thought I reasoned that it was a worthwhile sacrifice to put an end to the absurd gerrymandering that is rampant in the state.

Maybe if Prop 3 weren't $980 million
Prop 7 seems somewhat reasonable, hard to tell if it's too demanding on utility companies.
Prop 12 another biggie, $900 million to loan to veterans for farms and homes. Veterans are expected to pay it back, but government could get stuck with the bill.
Prop 10, looks to be about $5 billion, again a noble cause but there's got to be a better way of supporting energy Alt/renewable fuels than giving people money to buy things. It just creates an artificial demand that'll dry up as soon as the money goes.
Prop 6 comes with a bunch of new gang-related laws, which weren't given in on the site I read.
1A... I like trains, but it's probably a boondoggle

My state didn't have any initiatives on the ballot, just one local.

Jeez, we have so many props and initiatives in CA. I had all the above props, obviously, and initiatives A through K or something like that. Voted no on all the initiatives, I think.

Yep, good to see people discussing this mess of initiatives. All my relatives live in Cali so I'm relatively up to date on this junk.

BTW, what ever happened to people not voting on shit they didn't have an opinion about or weren't terribly informed about? I've talked to people who say 'oh I just voted no on everything', uuh, you don't get extra patriot points for answering them all... you can skip 'em.

they should teach how to vote on PBS or something...

California, leading the nation in being just behind Jersey.

>> ^bamdrew:
Yep, good to see people discussing this mess of initiatives. All my relatives live in Cali so I'm relatively up to date on this junk.
BTW, what ever happened to people not voting on shit they didn't have an opinion about or weren't terribly informed about? I've talked to people who say 'oh I just voted no on everything', uuh, you don't get extra patriot points for answering them all... you can skip 'em.
they should teach how to vote on PBS or something...


I hope this isn't referring to me, because I sat down for about four hours one afternoon poring over every last proposal and initiative.

I agree with you on the redistricting. If they're going to take it out of the hands of the legislature, it needs to be completely transparent what's going on. The system they're proposing seems overly complicated and looks like it could get deadlocked very easily.

I also agree with you to no on 2. Even in the event this law was Federal I imagine all you'd see is the meat companies moving down to Mexico and using the same practices they do now. End result: higher meat prices for consumers with zero benefits to the animals and a kick in the nuts to the already ailing domestic economy to boot.

And of course no on 8. Pretty much only the religious fundies are going to vote yes on that one.

We got a mailer from the cops in CA showing which prop they endorse. Here's the list:

1A> Yes "Fight gas prices & airport hassles"
2> Yes "Protect health/safety of our food"
3> No "Prevent hospitals taxpayer rip-off"
4> Yes "Stop child predators"
5> No "Shortens parole of drug felons"
6> Yes "Safe neighborhoods act"
7> No "Another costly energy scheme"
8> Yes "Restore traditional marriage"
9> Yes "Protect crime victims: no new taxes"
10> Yes "Energy independence. Clean air."
11> No "Phony political power grab"


I think it's funny to see the police having such an interest in voter policy. Aren't they here to enforce laws, not aid in decisions of laws? I suppose they too deserve a voice, but because they represent the people I find it disheartening that they so blatantly have taken a side on prop 8 and added "restore traditional marriage". And, no, prop 6 is not the "safe neighborhood act"... It's for police and law enforcement funding.

>> ^SDGundamX: And of course no on 8. Pretty much only the religious fundies are going to vote yes on that one.


Oh, how I wish that were true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Nate Silver of http://www.fivethirtyeight.com gives it a 45% chance of passing.

Some assholes called me about prop 8, I don't even live in Arizona. Arizona has the same thing about proposition 8.

I told them to fuck off.

I wish we had referenda to vote on here in Chicago -- As it is, the only votes I get to cast on the state and local levels are whether to support the corrupt politician, the politician I don't agree with, or the politician I know nothing about (Democratic, Republican, and Green, respectively).

Okay, that's not technically true. We do have two referenda -- The Constitutional Convention referendum (I'm voting 'no') and the Rod Blagojevich Sucks referendum (to create a recall process; I'm voting 'yes').

I'm somewhat jealous, you had some real issues on the California ballot.

FWIW, the progressive California sample ballot is here.

They said:

1A> Yes "High Speed Rail"
2> Yes "Humane Farms"
3> Yes "Children's Hospitals"
4> No "Threatens teen safety & choice"
5> Yes "Rehab & Treatment"
6> No "Prison expansion"
7> No "Protect small solar producers and encourage solar energy production"*
8> No "Eliminates marriage rights"
9> No "More prison spending"
10> No "T. Boone bailout"
11> No "Biased redistricting"
12> Yes "Veterans home loans"

* Courage campaign actually gave no decision, but most of the other progressive/environmental groups said it was flawed and needed to be voted down.

blankfist, it seems you're almost a progressive. We just need to get you to love trains, children, farm animals, and veterans as much as you love drug addicts.

>> ^blankfist:
We got a mailer from the cops in CA showing which prop they endorse. Here's the list:
1A> Yes "Fight gas prices & airport hassles"
2> Yes "Protect health/safety of our food"
3> No "Prevent hospitals taxpayer rip-off"
4> Yes "Stop child predators"
5> No "Shortens parole of drug felons"
6> Yes "Safe neighborhoods act"
7> No "Another costly energy scheme"
8> Yes "Restore traditional marriage"
9> Yes "Protect crime victims: no new taxes"
10> Yes "Energy independence. Clean air."
11> No "Phony political power grab"

I think it's funny to see the police having such an interest in voter policy. Aren't they here to enforce laws, not aid in decisions of laws? I suppose they too deserve a voice, but because they represent the people I find it disheartening that they so blatantly have taken a side on prop 8 and added "restore traditional marriage". And, no, prop 6 is not the "safe neighborhood act"... It's for police and law enforcement funding.


OK cops, let's see. . . .

1A - disagree
2 - disagree
3 - agree
4 - disagree
5 - disagree
6 - disagree
7 - agree
8 - disagree
9 - disagree
10 - disagree
11 - disagree

Hmm . . .

I would like to know how "Yes" on 4 will stop child predators?

I'm going to go through my book tonight. I'll let you know what I think about each of these issues.

For 1 I'm a "No". If this is something that'll "benefit" taxpayers, then there is a market for it and a private venture would be interested. This seems like a good way to hide my money.

More to follow...YAY DEMOCRACY!!!

ps...I got the largest book on propositions that I've ever had. Anybody else?

On Prop 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals, read this article. Apparently the "modern" systems of housing are already compliant for the FDA and changing could alter how safe our food is and make it more dangerous for the production animals...now back to work

^Thanks for the article, RS. I'm pretty sure prop 2 will get passed, however, because most Californians vote with their heart.

>> ^NetRunner:
blankfist, it seems you're almost a progressive. We just need to get you to love trains, children, farm animals, and veterans as much as you love drug addicts.


Haha, I just read that. You act as if I'm some hardboiled neocon. I am progressive, just not left wing. I care very deeply about civil liberties and equality. I don't believe the government should punish anyone for substance abuse, therefore prop 5 makes sense. I am against foolishly spending money. I get taxed heavily in California and especially so because I have my own LLC for the film. The harder I work, the more I pay.

The props for trains and children hospitals are a waste of money. And, get that picture of the sickly bald child out of your head, NetRunner. Lil' Timmy is still going to get his treatment, I promise you. I do think I will vote yes on prop 12.

^ Actually, I was more trying to insinuate you were a pedophile, goatfucker, locomotophile (train fucker), and vet groupie. Tongue in cheek, of course.

I think you're a leftie as far as what issues you care about solving, you just believe this conservative nonsense that there's something innately wrong with government trying to solve problems.

To be a neocon would be to think that the biggest problems with America are terrorism, illegal immigration, the corporate and capital gains tax rate, and bans on drilling for oil (in that order).

To be a progressive the biggest problems are the job market, wages, our belligerent foreign policy, violation of civil & human rights, healthcare, environment, education, and social security.

I think your list of "problems to solve" is a lot closer to the progressive list, even if you don't like the fixes the progressives are proposing.

Paeodophile goatfuckers have sex with kids.

First, gorillaman, I got that, and it was clever. You're still a tall freak.

Secondly, NetRunner, I think you are negligently miscategorizing neocons as conservatives. Spendthrift wars and nation-building is not conservative, it's innately liberal (Neoconservative). We've been over this before, but apparently it was all for not. I'm liberal on civil liberties and personal freedoms but conservative on fiscal policy. I guess that makes me Libertarian.

Now, get out of my wallet, you bums. I ain't paying for you, your sick children or your stupid goatfucking trains.

I think Blankfist may be a little more leftist than he thinks, but then again, I think that's true about most of the country. He's just a fiscal conservative, which I don't consider a bad thing - on the contrary, fiscal conservatives keep liberal thought in check with a firm slap of the checkbook. There needs to be balance, don't get me wrong.

As far as cops supporting Prop 8, I'm not terribly surprised, as I find cops tend to vote as social conservatives. Most cops I know are registered Republicans. I'm a little saddened by their support of the prop.

I think Prop 1A is a good thing to vote yes on, because our public transportation infrastructure here in America is a goddamn joke. I've spent a little time in Europe, and I was amazed at the public transit options they have available. I got off the airplane in Schipol Airport, and went downstairs to catch the train to Haarlam - it was extremely easy to get to where we wanted. My girlfriend has spent some time in Japan and Australia, and learned how to navigate the bus and rail systems they offer quite easily. The bay area has one of the better public transit systems in the US, but even it is lacking compared to what I saw in towns a fraction SF's size in The Netherlands and Germany. The plan would be even better if Sacramento was included in list of major cities hit, but for Sharks fans living in SF and Fresno, this might help them catch a few Hockey games, which would be a neat, albeit somewhat indirect, economic stimulus.

Prop 2 I'm up in the air about. I'd like to think that here in California we have access to the best quality food in the world as it is.

Prop 3 would be nice, but the CA budget is strained pretty far as is. I'd love for the state to be able to afford it.

Prop 4 is something my girlfriend and I have disagreements about. She'd likely vote for it, but I'd of the mind that Doctor/Patient confidentiality needs to be implicitly extended to minors.

Prop 5 is a step in the right direction for drug law reform. Jail is no place for non-violent drug offenders.

Prop 6, the cops are lying outright about this being anything about "safe neighborhoods." A strong "No" from me.

Prop 7 I think I'm going to vote No on as well.

I think I've made my position on 8 pretty clear.

Prop 9 looks pretty bad and unnecessary. Prop 10 looks even worse. Both will be getting "No"s from me.

Prop 11, I'm not so sure about. I'm curious as to why the League of Women Voters are endorsing it (I know they're supposedly Non-partisan, but tend to be socially progressive), but nearly every other progressive organization opposes it. I'd have to review this one a little more, but I'm inclined to vote No.

Prop 12, I'd rather give veterans better educations than better loan rates. Our GI bill as it exists now is a joke, and is in dire need of updating. I think this is the whole "Teach a man to fish" issue, but the prop just wants to give out fish instead of fishing lessons. For every dollar we spent on the WWII-era GI bill, seven dollars came back in taxes from veterans who used their free-ride scholarships to become better educated, then used their educations to get better jobs (increased salaries meant increased incomes to tax, and the ones who started their own companies opened up more taxable revenue streams), which paid for bigger homes (more property tax). We desperately need something comparable for our veterans today. I can't say that giving better home loans to veterans isn't a good thing, I think it is, but I think providing them with a better education after they've served their country would be even better. I'll have to wait and weigh out what I'm gonna do with this one later.

^The GI Bill was great for me. I paid in $1200 and got back over $12,000.