PDA

View Full Version : Vote


Bruce
11-07-2005, 8:36 PM
Vote YES on 77 and however your conscience tells you on the rest, but YES on77!:D

Doctor Suarez
11-07-2005, 9:18 PM
77 is also the major prop that excites me, but I have my worries.

I've heard tell that 77 could in fact create more Democratic seats in the legislature, but that they would be occupied by more moderate Democrats.

However, wouldn't a "moderate" California Democrat still vote for "commonsense" gun safety laws like bullet serialization, microstamping, and little gun pixies that sit on the barrel and lecture you about the evils of self defense?

Of course, I'm from LA, so maybe my perspective is skewed. I don't really know rural California Democrats. However, I know a number of them voted against SB 357 and AB 352.

If 77 would reduce the amount of crazy anti-gun bills put up for vote, then I would definitely back it. The other props are peanuts compared to this.

50 Shooter
11-07-2005, 9:20 PM
Voting yes on 77, no on everything else!

Doctor Suarez
11-07-2005, 9:25 PM
I'm close to you on that one.

As sleazy as the anti-76 ads are, it's just too dictatorial in principle.

75 interests me, since I do believe those unions are overpowered, but I honestly don't think it's going to make a bit of difference.

74, the teacher thing, again seems marginal. I don't think bad teachers are the problem. I think bad administrators, and too many administrators, are the problem, along with ineducable students.

The abortion thing couldn't interest me less, and the medical ones give me a headache, and I'm an Ivy League graduate!

Placebo
11-07-2005, 11:53 PM
Vote YES on 77 and however your conscience tells you on the rest, but YES on77!:D

Let's put prop. 77 under the microscope:

It's proponents are touting the line that prop. 77 will take the power of drawing district boundaries out of the hands of those that benefit most from it -the elected state legislature (paraphrasing their words). However, the reality is much different from what is being offered.

Section 1. (b) of the proposal would change article XXI of the California Constitution to read as follows:

"Within 20 days following the effective date of this section, the Legislature shall appoint pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)***, a panel of Special Masters to a adopt a plan of redistricting adjusting the boundary lines of the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts for the use in the next set of statewide primary and general elections and until the next adjustment of boundary lines is required pursuant to subdivisions (a) or (1)."

---

***"(2) (C) From the pool of retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline for appointment of the panel of Special Masters, three retired judges, who are not registered members of the same political party as that of the legislator making the nomination. No retired judge may be nominated by more than one legislator."


Regardless of the obvious need to redraw California's district boundaries, a need which I don't deny, prop. 77 is not the right way to accomplish that goal.

In fact, if anything, it'll make what's bad even worse by allowing the legislature to hand pick an even tighter knit group of appointed (not elected) decision makers to draw up our districts to be put to vote. Most definitely though, it does not take the power to redistrict out of the hands of an incumbent-held legislature.

Further, don't be fooled by the weak checks and balances attempted by the authors to insure that the pool of selected Special Masters be of no more than a two-thirds partisan majority. This alone is not a safety net, especially considering the blurred distinctions between the so-called two majority political parties which is even more amplified in California.

This one (prop. 77) is short-sighted and it's promises don't live up to it's potential for disaster.
Ask yourself this: How are you going to "fire" those middlemen, Special Masters once the California Constitution is amended?

Not good. Vote no across the board (73-80).

ETA:
It's probably too late at this point, but I encourage everyone to thoroughlyread and understand the actual text of every initiative being posed.

PanzerAce
11-07-2005, 11:57 PM
I don't really know rural California Democrats.

hmm, dont remember where, but I once saw a map of presidential voting by counties, and I dont think you really have to worry about rural Dems, the 'blue' counties were all along the coast.

Turbinator
11-08-2005, 8:44 AM
ETA:
It's probably too late at this point, but I encourage everyone to thoroughlyread and understand the actual text of every initiative being posed.

Wish I read this sooner - I ended up voting yes for Prop 77. We should engage in more political analysis on this board when it's election time, to ensure that we are all voting the "right" way for our rights.

Turby

MrTuffPaws
11-08-2005, 9:03 AM
For me, no on everything save for 77. What is funny, is that I have not seen one Rebulican come out and support it. If no one likes it, it has to be good ;)

CaliTheKid
11-08-2005, 9:54 AM
The California Rifle and Pistol Association supports 77 and when it comes to gun realted issues I vote with their recomendation which is why I voted YES on 77.

CaliTheKid
11-08-2005, 11:30 AM
For me, no on everything save for 77. What is funny, is that I have not seen one Rebulican come out and support it. If no one likes it, it has to be good ;)

The reason it is not supported by either political party is that it strikes at the only thing that surpasses party loyalty for polititions which is getting re-elected. I mean-- in August, Conservative Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin Placer County and 100% NRA rating, joined forces with liberal Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood and 0% NRA Rating, to persuade the Federal Election Commission to allow them to collect unlimited amounts of money to fight the initiative. Political differences that separate politicians like Doolittle and Berman disappear when re-election is at stake. This is one of the few times you'll see one of the most conservative congressmen and one of the most liberal working together for a single purpose: 'Protect me!' .

And both backed the 2002 redistricting plan, which supporters and opponents alike agreed virtually guaranteed a decade of easy re-election for every member of California's congressional delegation. National Republican leaders loved it because it made it easier for the GOP to keep control of Congress, while state Democratic leaders were able to shore up four marginal seats they had snatched from Republicans in 2000. It was a bipartisan gerrymander and now, (Congress members) want to hold on to their safe seats.

The truth is for us gun owners in California-- things really cannot get any worse. Part of the reason there's such an apathy with gun owners in regards to voting is that many feel we can't change anything so why bother to vote. This may not be the perfect bill, but it is something that will not come again for a LONG time that may ultimatly give us the opportunity to unseat a LOT of election proof Dem's who are basically running the show on a state level.

NYC2SoCal
11-08-2005, 11:52 AM
The reason it is not supported by either political party is that it strikes at the only thing that surpasses party loyalty for polititions which is getting re-elected. I mean-- in August, Conservative Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin Placer County and 100% NRA rating, joined forces with liberal Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood and 0% NRA Rating, to persuade the Federal Election Commission to allow them to collect unlimited amounts of money to fight the initiative. Political differences that separate politicians like Doolittle and Berman disappear when re-election is at stake. This is one of the few times you'll see one of the most conservative congressmen and one of the most liberal working together for a single purpose: 'Protect me!' .

And both backed the 2002 redistricting plan, which supporters and opponents alike agreed virtually guaranteed a decade of easy re-election for every member of California's congressional delegation. National Republican leaders loved it because it made it easier for the GOP to keep control of Congress, while state Democratic leaders were able to shore up four marginal seats they had snatched from Republicans in 2000. It was a bipartisan gerrymander and now, (Congress members) want to hold on to their safe seats.

The truth is for us gun owners in California-- things really cannot get any worse. Part of the reason there's such an apathy with gun owners in regards to voting is that many feel we can't change anything so why bother to vote. This may not be the perfect bill, but it is something that will not come again for a LONG time that may ultimatly give us the opportunity to unseat a LOT of election proof Dem's who are basically running the show on a state level.

I agree.. Both parties say vote no, cause everyone is worried about their own seats.. Shows you how much confidence they have on their own ability or their record. We must remind those politicians that they work for us, the people, and not their own retirement funds from special interest groups.

"For all those years of being told to stand down or stand by..." this is the time we must do what we think is right.

I'm voting Yes on 77. This is what makes this country great. I vote how I want.

Placebo
11-08-2005, 12:56 PM
What is funny, is that I have not seen one Rebulican come out and support it.

Off the top of my head:
Schwarzenegger... Tom McClintock... John McCain...

Can'thavenuthingood
11-08-2005, 12:57 PM
We voted Arnold in to fix things. So now we vote against the tools he wants to fixit?
My thinking is, I voted him in and I'll support him. Way too much money being spent to squash his ideas for reform. Each on their own may not do a helluva lot, however taken all togeher they may begin to take apart the potlickers little kingdoms.

Yes on 74, 75, 76 and 77.

He's upset all the right people.

Vick

Placebo
11-08-2005, 1:00 PM
The California Rifle and Pistol Association supports 77 and when it comes to gun realted issues I vote with their recomendation which is why I voted YES on 77.

The unfortunate part about that (and I won't nor do I intend to begrudge anyone for how they vote) is that the CRPA frequently endorses luke-warm to downright grade 'F', RKBA state candidates.

Compare their endorsements with the voting records of recent anti-gun bills that have been proposed and passed and you might be surprised.

Placebo
11-08-2005, 1:06 PM
I agree.. Both parties say vote no, cause everyone is worried about their own seats.. Shows you how much confidence they have on their own ability or their record. We must remind those politicians that they work for us, the people, and not their own retirement funds from special interest groups.

Just like how the "governor who can't be bought" has raised nearly triple the money than that of his predecessor?
I'm not fond of the new double-standard of establishing just what constitutes a "special interest".

As for the rest, I'd say it's more than a bit assumptive to draw the conclusion that you have merely from the lack of bipartisan support.

Perhaps there are other reasons (like: prop. 77 was poorly drafted)?

Placebo
11-08-2005, 1:11 PM
We voted Arnold in to fix things. So now we vote against the tools he wants to fixit?

You may have voted for him...

My thinking is, I voted him in and I'll support him.

That sounds like blind allegiance in it's truest sense. You are aware of his voting record on "our" issues, right? (no flame intended here)

Way too much money being spent to squash his ideas for reform.

And way too much money was spent to initiate the battle for his "reforms" in the first place. What is your point?

Each on their own may not do a helluva lot, however taken all togeher they may begin to take apart the potlickers little kingdoms.

Yes on 74, 75, 76 and 77.

He's upset all the right people.

Vick

On that last part, politically, he is committing suicide by taking unwarranted swings at all the wrong people. I'm pretty confident that no matter what the results of this "extra" election, Schwarzenegger is as good as unelected come next vote.
JMO.

MrTuffPaws
11-08-2005, 3:12 PM
Off the top of my head:
Schwarzenegger... Tom McClintock... John McCain...

Well, scratch two of those. In what way does what John McCain think affect California again, and Arnold basically wrote the thing. Any republican members in the house that support it? The one local one that I checked does not support it. Being that no districts changed hands last election, it is not surprising either.

Charliegone
11-08-2005, 3:40 PM
You forgot something...

C) From the pool of retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline for appointment of the panel of Special Masters, three retired judges, who are not registered members of the same political party as that of the legislator making the nomination. No retired judge may be nominated by more than one legislator."

I think it is a good idea, but judges can be bought off, hopefully that will not happen. At least Ahnold is doing something, unlike the majority party in the Senate and Legislature...

Placebo
11-08-2005, 4:59 PM
Well, scratch two of those. In what way does what John McCain think affect California again, and Arnold basically wrote the thing.

You asked, I replied ...off the top of my head to be precise.
It should actually be no surprise that McCain jumped on the JoinArnold bandwagon -as for how he specifically affects California, ::shrug:: ...you got me, but that wasn't the point.

Any republican members in the house that support it?

The house being the House of Representatives? or are you asking if anyone in the State Assembly has openly backed it?

Either way, I'm sure there is a list of endorsements on the JoinArnold website. I'm not as concerned with it's (prop 77's) backers as I am with the actual initiative itself so it's best you find out on your own.

The one local one that I checked does not support it. Being that no districts changed hands last election, it is not surprising either.

Again, the conclusion being drawn is that that is why there is this alleged lack of support. I'll refer you back to my earier point that this is rather assumptive. There are plenty of reasons not to get excited by this proposal.

Placebo
11-08-2005, 5:08 PM
You forgot something...

C) From the pool of retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline for appointment of the panel of Special Masters, three retired judges, who are not registered members of the same political party as that of the legislator making the nomination. No retired judge may be nominated by more than one legislator."

I didn't forget that at all. In fact, it was included as part of my post for purpose of clarity. However, your bolded highlight is exactly what I meant when I said not to be fooled by the weak checks and balances that were attempted by the authors.

I think it is a good idea, but judges can be bought off, hopefully that will not happen. At least Ahnold is doing something, unlike the majority party in the Senate and Legislature...

On the contrary, I think the entire body of the state legislature is doing entirely too much with each and every sucessive session. That is the problem.
Or did you mean that there is a lack of action to "fix" the districts?

My main concern with prop. 77 is the fact that it allows the state legislature to draw district lines by proxy via the appointment of Special Masters to do the dirty work.
Sorry, but if we appoint an untouchable body of judges to make these changes, we will have little recourse in the future to correct this. Or can you cite where the California Constitution has been unamended recently?
The ramifications of this initiative run deep.

CaliTheKid
11-08-2005, 5:26 PM
The unfortunate part about that (and I won't nor do I intend to begrudge anyone for how they vote) is that the CRPA frequently endorses luke-warm to downright grade 'F', RKBA state candidates.

Compare their endorsements with the voting records of recent anti-gun bills that have been proposed and passed and you might be surprised.

They usually mirror the NRA in candidate endorsement which for most gives a good thumb nail of a candidate's voting record and although people can change and wildcat, make no mistake the NRA/CRPA candidate ratings/endorsements change accordingly. I don't think anyone would argue that one of the primary goals of the CRPA is to further gun rights in California and they are fighting the good fight for all of us.

On a side note, I would be interested in hearing some of the endorsements vs voting records you are citing as I am truly intrigued (although not surprised).

Placebo
11-08-2005, 6:13 PM
On a side note, I would be interested in hearing some of the endorsements vs voting records you are citing as I am truly intrigued (although not surprised).

The old forum was replete with this discussion on several occasions, but it's sort of off-topic on this thread. However, AB50 is a good example of what I was talking about.

Speaking nationally, the culprits should be more obvious. ;)

Charliegone
11-08-2005, 6:46 PM
I didn't forget that at all. In fact, it was included as part of my post for purpose of clarity. However, your bolded highlight is exactly what I meant when I said not to be fooled by the weak checks and balances that were attempted by the authors.



On the contrary, I think the entire body of the state legislature is doing entirely too much with each and every sucessive session. That is the problem.
Or did you mean that there is a lack of action to "fix" the districts?

Yes I did mean there is a lack of action to "fix" them. I mean, if you have district which is drawn directly by the legislatures, in other words, they are drawing them themselves, don't you think it would be a better idea if they, didn't draw it up themselves rather let someone else who is not affected much by partisianship?

My main concern with prop. 77 is the fact that it allows the state legislature to draw district lines by proxy via the appointment of Special Masters to do the dirty work.
Sorry, but if we appoint an untouchable body of judges to make these changes, we will have little recourse in the future to correct this. Or can you cite where the California Constitution has been unamended recently?
The ramifications of this initiative run deep.

Well that is why I hope they can't be bought off:D That is my concern as well, but sometimes (as it has been seen in the supreme court) judges do not always vote (for a certain case) as the person who put them there in the first place. They tend to be more objective than legislators and senators.