YES on 13
This seems like something we shouldn't have to vote on. But it was supported by a unanimous vote of the legislature, no one bothered to write a "NO" argument, and it looks like just a technical fix. Too bad previous constitutional amendments mean that we have to vote on this.
Leaning NO on 14
I can see the point of a reform that might make it more likely that we get legislators who work well together. I'm not bothered by the perceived threats to the parties, major or minor, nor do I think we should worry about people "hiding" their party affiliation. But I don't think this -- how we elect our legislators -- is California's problem. Our problem is the 2/3 requirement for the budget, our too-long state constitution that's been amended too many times to insert too many requirements that hamstring our ability to make sensible decisions. This is yet another constitutional amendment. I'm open to advice, but I'm leaning NO.
YES on 15
Tax lobbyists to pay for fairer elections and reduce the influence of money in politics. What could be better? See CalPIRG's analysis. Oh, and BTW -- this is a statute, not an amendment. That's a good thing, 'cuz it means it can be fixed more easily if there turn out to be flaws in it.
NO on 16
Definitely NO to a proposition to a constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote before a city can do local green power. And definitely NO to a PG&E campaign to maintain its monopoly on power. Check out a video by some friends, or CalPIRG's analysis.
NO on 17
This is too detailed and too complicated a measure for us to have to vote on. I can't tell -- would it hurt military families or help them? Would it help seniors or hurt them? If this is a serious problem, this should go through the legislative process and get the kinks worked out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Jeff, I agree with 13, 15, 16 + 17.
I'm leaning towards yes on 14. Just look at the Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Jerry Brown contest for governor. I believe this huge waste of $$$ on really poor advertising would be reduced by this.
You're right, the 2/3rds vote is probably the state's single biggest problem...but look how John Burton & Jerry Brown handled Lakeoff's proposition.
Thanks!
Karen Kunze
I'm leaning no on Proposition 14. I do like the idea of getting to vote for whomever I wish in each race on the ballot. I'm a little concerned because it reduces the number of choices in the general election to two choices with no write-ins.
That problem could be ameliorated if people's habits could be changed so that they actually voted in the primary - that's not so likely though.
I also don't care so much that you wouldn't have candidates from different parties showing up on the General election ballot except for one thing. The way that parties are recognized in California is determined by the votes that they receive on the General Election ballot. I don't know what advantages there are to be an officially recognized party in California, but I would be very concerned if we reduce the choice of parties down to two.
As usual, thanks for the analysis and advice, Jeff!
I am still leaning yes on 15, but I am less confident about that after listening to Forum on KQED this morning. The contrarian who was on the show argued that the proposition allows for the use of the state's general funds to be used for campaigns -- even for the legislature to vote for the use of general fund money for their own campaigns! I am concerned about placing another drain on our general funds (in other words, drawing even more money away from schools, roads, etc.), and about pitting a legislator's own self-interest in re-election against these needs. Does anyone else have any insight/thoughts on this issue?
I am leaning Yes on 14. The NY Times article from today keeps on saying that in fact, no one knows what this will lead to. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/politics/27prop14.html) Prognosticators may all be viewing this from their own unreliable filters and predicting a particular future. My own pov is that this may lead to more elections of moderate Republicans, which may help the budget impasses. I don't like that this is a constitutional amendment, though.
Did any one else see the article that said that if Proposition 14 passes, the Republicans have already decided to have caucuses prior to the primary in order to choose their preferred candidate? Here's a link: http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/CA-Reps--Come-up-With-Prop-14-Backup-Plan/7377599
Alex
I was leaning yes on 14, but am now going to vote no. I like the potential it has for reducing the trend towards extreme partisanship, but am swayed to no because:
* I don't like the thought of never (or rarely) seeing third party candidates on the ballot.
* It would likely increase the cost of campaigns and thus increase big money's power in the selecting our elected representatives.
Here's a good piece on prop 14 by Peter Schrag:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7713
Post a Comment