PDA

View Full Version : Prop 14, et al, voter's guide?


darkwater
04-30-2010, 6:42 PM
Firstly, does Calguns normally publish a pro-gun voter's guide? I'm not asking in regards to voting on individual offices, since it is not too difficult to determine a candidate's stance on gun issues. It's propositions like Prop 14 that really worry me, ones that on the surface seem innocuous but could have a significant impact on California's political landscape, for better or for worse, which in turn would affect gun laws in CA.

Here's an editorial on Prop 14 that I read in my local paper, one that sides with known liberal media establishments on this issue: http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2010043099845/Opinion/Editorials/Proposition-14-would-only-enhance-democratic-process

cbn620
04-30-2010, 7:27 PM
I've never seen a Calguns voter guide and don't think there has ever been one. People on the forums, even people who are associated with the organization, will give opinions though. Other organizations you may trust also rate candidates and may offer info on props--the NRA (if that's your bag) grades candidates on their gun control stance, for instance.

There will likely be an official voter's guide from the election commission mailed out in the next couple months. These usually contain a description of the bill and arguments for and against gathered from various sources. (On another note: sample ballots usually come with or after that.) On the voter guides, they've gotten to where they'll usually send out only one copy per household even if there are several registered voters residing there.

If it's getting closer and closer to election day and you don't get a guide, try this page: http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2010/primary/index.html There should be a pdf uploaded there eventually.

There are also a few web sites like votesmart.org (http://www.votesmart.org) and ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org) that might help. Votesmart you can put in your zip code and look up current elections and find a heap of information. Ontheissues has a database of candidates and their positions on certain policy issues.

One last tip is you can Google for search terms like "[yes/no] on prop [#]" or "[newspaper name] prop [#]" and see what that gets you. The yes/no thing will usually yield an official web site of people for or against the proposition listing the organizations that support/oppose, usually featuring many opinion articles and arguments, as well as news articles that are relevant to the issue. On newspapers, of course pick ones you trust--you'll usually find plenty of information written by them especially the closer we get to election day. Could also try organizations in general that you trust instead of a newspaper.

Hope this helps.

ke6guj
04-30-2010, 7:30 PM
There will likely be an official voter's guide from the election commission mailed out in the next couple months. These usually contain a description of the bill and arguments for and against gathered from various sources. (On another note: sample ballots usually come with or after that.) On the voter guides, they've gotten to where they'll usually send out only one copy per household even if there are several registered voters residing there.
mine actually showed up today.

cbn620
04-30-2010, 7:32 PM
mine actually showed up today.

Wowza. Ain't got mine yet but I'll be on the lookout. Thanks for the head's up.

DarthSean
04-30-2010, 8:33 PM
It looks like the propositions are all bull**** as usual. The propositions on the November ballot will probably be even worse considering that the signature gatherers try to get me to sign petitions but won't give me any information on any details about them.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-30-2010, 8:37 PM
I didn't realize this was going to be on the primary ballot, I thought it was going to be a November issue.

I am all for open ballots. I think that at the very least having more moderates in the legislature will make things run more smoothly.

One thing though, the article says that districts are drawn by the legislature, this isn't really true anymore. Prop 11 changed that so an independent committee of CA residents draw the lines. We just have to wait for the census for it to actually mean anything.

Prop14 plus Prop11 means that we will have as democratically elected a legislature as possible. If we cannot get the state running smoothly with these two measures enacted, then it is not possible. If 14 passes there will be MAJOR shakeups next year, after the districts are redrawn.(providing Prop 11 does not get gutted in November)

Harrison_Bergeron
04-30-2010, 8:42 PM
It looks like the propositions are all bull**** as usual. The propositions on the November ballot will probably be even worse considering that the signature gatherers try to get me to sign petitions but won't give me any information on any details about them.

There are BIG issues on the November ballot. The politicians, including Pelosi, are trying to gut Prop 11 from '08. And there is a follow up to Prop 11 that would expand the committee to redrawing federal districts. Federal districts being drawn unbiasedly is our best chance of ousting Pelosi without moving to her district.

People blame our problems on the Governor, but our issues are caused by the Legislature and the state Constitution. There are very important issues related to reshaping the legislature on these two ballots. Once the legislature starts working smoothly and "representatively", then we can consider working on the Constitution and stop being the laughing stock of the country.

radioman
04-30-2010, 11:02 PM
It looks like the propositions are all bull**** as usual. The propositions on the November ballot will probably be even worse considering that the signature gatherers try to get me to sign petitions but won't give me any information on any details about them.

I won't sign a petition without reading it first, if they won't let me read it, I don't sign it. After, I get them into debate, and they don't know what they want you to sign is. this 14 sounds good, I will read more on it, it would nice to flush the toilet, on most props I vote NO and have for years.

loather
05-01-2010, 9:20 AM
14 on its face looks like a good idea, but I don't like the methodology they're using to do it.

It's still going to be a race for those who have the most money to spend on advertizing. The number one thing that gets people elected is name recognition.

demnogis
05-01-2010, 10:16 AM
Vote no on everything. (It all costs the state $).

Vote out all incumbents and do not vote for anyone with a (D) next to their name.

Probably shouldn't vote for anyone with a (R) next to their name either...

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 10:51 AM
DO NOT VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING!

Be an informed voter and actually educate yourself on the props. Not all props are high speed trains, if everyone voted no we would not have won Prop 11, and there would be no chance of this state ever working like a true democratic republic.

FirstFlight
05-01-2010, 11:12 AM
One has to be carefull the way they vote on propositions. The SOB's sometimes word them so if you vote NO you are acually voting FOR it. Read them ALL carefully.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 12:17 PM
Get on the NRA-ILA's email list (https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx) (and get your friends to get on the list), and ck the NRA-PVF's website (http://www.nrapvf.org/) before voting!

demnogis
05-01-2010, 3:54 PM
Harrison,
I was specifically referring to this current election cycle. All the props look to be a waste of money.

We're a Constitutional Republic, FYI.

DO NOT VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING!

Be an informed voter and actually educate yourself on the props. Not all props are high speed trains, if everyone voted no we would not have won Prop 11, and there would be no chance of this state ever working like a true democratic republic.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 4:11 PM
Prop 14- major benefit to the democratic process in our state. No, fiscal impact on the state.
Prop 16- Prevents local governments from buying electric companies without voter approval. How does that do anything but save money?
Prop 17- No fiscal impact on state, should save residents money on insurance.

Props 13 & 15 I don't understand enough yet to comment on.

I was using the words literally, we are republic where the representatives are supposed to be elected democratically, I was unaware that the two words together had a different connotation.

dwtt
05-01-2010, 5:53 PM
Prop 14- major benefit to the democratic process in our state. No, fiscal impact on the state.
Prop 16- Prevents local governments from buying electric companies without voter approval. How does that do anything but save money?
Prop 17- No fiscal impact on state, should save residents money on insurance.


This is misinformation, and he's just regurgitating the propaganda spewed by the supporters of these propositions.

Prop 14- look at the chart on Page 16 of the voter guide. If Prop 14 passes, the bottom chart will be how future primaries will be run. Which party has more voters in CA? The Democrat party. If the bottom chart of page 16 of the voter guide is how primaries will work, what's the chance both candidates at the November election will be from the Democrat party? Almost a certainty. The Democrat party will have no opposition in the November elections, and all they have to do is get their registered members out to the polls in June, which tends to have lower voter turn out, to lock in two Democrat candidates for November.

Prop 16 - This will require 2/3 voter approval for municipalities to start community choice aggregation (public power). I don't know if CCA's are a good answer, but requiring a 2/3 approval at the polls by the general public will mean it will never get approved. This will mean public power will never be approved.

Prop 17 - the claims for this proposition don't seem to correlate to what I read of the proposed changes. Everyone look at page 78 of the voter guide. The strike out text, which is the current law this prop will delete, already allows discounts even if someone buys insurance from another company.
"The Legislature further finds and declares that competition is furthered when insureds are able to claim a discount for regular purchases of insurance from any carrier offering this discount irrespective of whether or not the insured has previously purchased from a given carrier offering the discount."
It seems to me prop 17 is removing exactly what its supporters claim it will provide. Anyone see something else at work here?

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 6:50 PM
I was only referring to his claim that all the props are a waste of money, the ones I commented on do not cost anything, they just change things.

I disagree with your views on open primaries. CA is not going to get a true Republican governor anytime soon, nor does it need one, so an open primary would only allow non-Dems to put their opinion in on who should get the job, as it is now only Dems are picking the governor, so what do we have to lose?

dwtt
05-01-2010, 8:13 PM
I disagree with your views on open primaries. CA is not going to get a true Republican governor anytime soon, nor does it need one, so an open primary would only allow non-Dems to put their opinion in on who should get the job, as it is now only Dems are picking the governor, so what do we have to lose?
Sure, we can disagree about open primaries, but this affects more than the governor office. Look on page 15 of the voter guide to see the other offices affected.

singleshotman
05-01-2010, 9:20 PM
my father used to live in AZ, before WW2, when the state was solid DEM.He changed from REP. to DEM to vote in the primary elections, as any REP had NO change of getting elected.At least he could vote for the leesor of two evils.Prop 14 would at least help us get better DEM's than the current crop of left-wing anti gun nuts.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 9:37 PM
Sure, we can disagree about open primaries, but this affects more than the governor office. Look on page 15 of the voter guide to see the other offices affected.

I haven't gotten my voter guide yet, not even my sample ballot.

I am open to hearing other opinions on the subject. I was surprised to read that Louisiana has had open primaries for so long and is still the way it is, although I think that California's political landscape seems much better suited for the idea than LA's. I would be interested in reading about what offices you think will be unfairly lost to radical Dems. Two Dems winning a primary does not scare me, radicals from either party scare me and I believe that open primaries will cut down on the radicalism in our legislature.

loather
05-02-2010, 9:03 AM
Two Dems winning a primary does not scare me, radicals from either party scare me and I believe that open primaries will cut down on the radicalism in our legislature.

Real open primaries *would* be a good thing. The problem is this implementation of an open primary. In an overwhelmingly Democrat state like California, it means that it'd be Democrat vs. Democrat more often than not in the general elections. It also means that the Democrats can nominate as many radical bozos as they want to the primary and each of them will have about equal chance of getting in. Sounds like they're stacking the deck.

No, a much better solution is for each party to still have their own primary, be open to all registered voters, and have instant-runoff voting in both the primaries and the general election. *that* is a lot more fair.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-02-2010, 10:57 AM
I don't think it would be constitutional/legal to make parties abide by votes from all registered voters.

Plus, that would still be bad, in this election for example the registered Dems could all vote for Witman leaving Poizner with a snowball's chance in hell of an upset, when right now he's got a snowball's chance in death valley.

I think that political parties have worn out their usefulness in this country, and I want to see what it is like when they have less power to control the vote. I think that officials should be elected on their own personal stances, not their party affiliation. You guys are hung up on "what if two Dems win in the primary?" I think that is the problem, I would much rather we had the choice between Dems and Blue Dogs in CA, than the radical Dems and Rinos we have now. What good is a RINO? So what good, is the current system where party affiliation is just a label to attract votes, and nothing more?

If you live in a conservative district it is not going to magically become filled with liberals just because there are open primaries.

bandook
05-02-2010, 1:21 PM
Prop 14- major benefit to the democratic process in our state. No, fiscal impact on the state.
Prop 16- Prevents local governments from buying electric companies without voter approval. How does that do anything but save money?
Prop 17- No fiscal impact on state, should save residents money on insurance.

Props 13 & 15 I don't understand enough yet to comment on.


Prop 16 has no impact to the state but could have a major impact on your monthly utility bill. It is funded by PG&E and it is an attempt by public utilities to freeze out competition by municipalities. If this goes through, PG&E can raise its rates with impunity (PUC is a sham - they always rubber-stamp the rate increases anyway so don't count on those dodos stepping in).

Prop 17 Does not mandate lower rates, it just allows the insurance companies to give you a discount (if they feel like it). Just be sure that every $1 in 'discount' will probably be offset by $1.50 in increases somewhere else. (This is backed by the insurance companies and NOBODY can convince me that they are backing this so as to reduce their income)

I'm undecided on 14 - less bickering in the campaign ads but it consolidates the position of the Democratic and Republican parties (and the odd gazillionaire who got kicked out of their job and wants to buy a Governorship or a Senate seat with some spare change (Meg? Carly?)) as the only 2 parties able to finance a media campaign.
Prop 15 would help level the playing field a bit, but I really don't want to open up another spending program (you know they're going to set up a brand new bureaucracy to handle the 10 people who may want these funds)

Bizcuits
05-15-2010, 4:12 PM
Prop 13 - Yes
Prop 14 - Yes
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - Yes
Prop 17 - Yes

hate me or love me... that's what I voted.

OleCuss
05-15-2010, 4:57 PM
Proposition 14 means one party (the generally anti-gun Democrat party) rule. Vote for it at your peril.

motorhead
05-15-2010, 5:35 PM
when in doubt, judge by the supporters. is someone you dispise telling you to vote for something?

GrizzlyGuy
05-15-2010, 6:15 PM
Prop 16 has no impact to the state but could have a major impact on your monthly utility bill. It is funded by PG&E and it is an attempt by public utilities to freeze out competition by municipalities. If this goes through, PG&E can raise its rates with impunity (PUC is a sham - they always rubber-stamp the rate increases anyway so don't count on those dodos stepping in).

PG&E doesn't set it's rates, the government does. There are many misconceptions floating around about Proposition 16. Please see this essay that I wrote over on Campaign for Liberty:

California Proposition 16 - Who Controls the Power? (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35457)

dfletcher
05-15-2010, 6:57 PM
My tally:

Prop 13 - No
Prop 14 - No
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - No
Prop 17 - No

I believe in representative government. I do not believe in "majority" rule and have always voted no on the prop questions. For better or worse this is the way I've handled these issues since 1972 - haven't voted yes on a single one.

Alexander Hamilton (even if he was misquoted) was right. ;)

Scarecrow Repair
05-15-2010, 9:56 PM
It also means that the Democrats can nominate as many radical bozos as they want to the primary and each of them will have about equal chance of getting in.

This is illogical. Look at the Hawaiian election for an example of the Dems screwing themselves and a Republican probably winning.

If the Dems nominate two radicals, they will split their vote. If CA is 1/3 Reps and 2/3 Dems, that puts it at 1/3 Rep, 1/3 Dem1, 1/3 Dem2.

Pretty much by definition, the majority party having more voters is more likely to split their vote than the minority party, and altho it won't necessarily allow the minority candidate to win, it makes it much more likely that a moderate will trump a radical, as the radical only attracts the radical vote, whereas the moderate will attract both the center and the opposite radicals as at least being the lesser of two evils.

Again, look at the current Hawaiian election for a great example of how things really work.

Dwight K. Schrute
05-15-2010, 10:21 PM
If the Dems nominate two radicals, they will split their vote. If CA is 1/3 Reps and 2/3 Dems, that puts it at 1/3 Rep, 1/3 Dem1, 1/3 Dem2.

Hmmm.... in California
Dems = 45% of voters
Reps = 31% of voters

Assuming both sides have two strong candidates, they will split their vote

Split the Dem vote, each Dem candidate gets around 22.5%
Split the GOP vote, each GOP candidate gets around 15.5%

Unless, the GOP was united and/or got overwhelming Indie support, we'd get to choose between Pelosi and Boxer for the general election on a frequent basis.

Source for Party Affiliaiton (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:d5NNo5bOIuQJ:www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp%3Fi%3D526+party+affiliation+califo rnia+democrat+percent&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjfp27p2FbmADfMCka4cJamoB6bwbZnO3UbhVIl 07U1jASpp1RbdTod5zmPWprUzeLjTUv0qiy4yFp1l6aQoNRJjh t2Qwtuku0cAUAxvewE1JAHjHbnxYjUxjAqpiYaCTGLhycc&sig=AHIEtbRTIorSlYOLpRyZ7LAx_4Cfy8ssRQ)

lioneaglegriffin
05-15-2010, 11:52 PM
i usually look at who puts the most money behind each prop. usually tells you who has the most to gain. Seeing Pacific Gas & Electric has given $34.5 million and Mercury insurance is behind 17 means they want new ways to f*** us so no soup for them.

Scarecrow Repair
05-16-2010, 5:50 AM
Hmmm.... in California
Dems = 45% of voters
Reps = 31% of voters

Assuming both sides have two strong candidates, they will split their vote

Split the Dem vote, each Dem candidate gets around 22.5%
Split the GOP vote, each GOP candidate gets around 15.5%

Unless, the GOP was united and/or got overwhelming Indie support, we'd get to choose between Pelosi and Boxer for the general election on a frequent basis.

That's silly. Again, look at the Hawaiian election, where the majority Dems split and the minority GOP didn't, and the GOP looks likely to win. The majority party is always the more likely to split precisely because, being the majority, they include more of the centrists than the minority party. It would come to Boxer and someone reasonable, or Pelosi and someone reasonable.

If the minority party is so hell-bent on fielding two radicals that they split their own vote, it would be no worse than now. The GOP barely has any say in the legislature. Aren't the Democrats something like one vote away from having a 2/3 majority? It's hard to get any worse for the GOP right now.

sholling
05-16-2010, 8:59 AM
Vote no on everything. (It all costs the state $).

Vote out all incumbents and do not vote for anyone with a (D) next to their name.

Probably shouldn't vote for anyone with a (R) next to their name either...

Then you should be for Prop 14.

sholling
05-16-2010, 9:04 AM
My tally:

Prop 13 - No
Prop 14 - No
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - No
Prop 17 - No

I believe in representative government. I do not believe in "majority" rule and have always voted no on the prop questions. For better or worse this is the way I've handled these issues since 1972 - haven't voted yes on a single one.

Alexander Hamilton (even if he was misquoted) was right. ;)

So you would have voted no on Prop 13 and left us with taxes twice as high as they are now. Lovely.

Bizcuits
05-16-2010, 10:14 AM
So you would have voted no on Prop 13 and left us with taxes twice as high as they are now. Lovely.

Exactly... A fine example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Instead of actually researching the ballot you simply went down the whole thing marking NO. So for all you know there could of been a prop saying "Make Assault Weapons legal again". Considering Prop 13 is there to reduce taxes and you voted no.... Jesus christ man...

GrizzlyGuy
05-16-2010, 2:28 PM
My tally:

Prop 13 - No
Prop 14 - No
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - No
Prop 17 - No

I believe in representative government. I do not believe in "majority" rule and have always voted no on the prop questions. For better or worse this is the way I've handled these issues since 1972 - haven't voted yes on a single one.


If you don't believe in "majority" rule (a.k.a. mob rule) then why are you voting No on Prop 16? Please consider this follow-up article that I wrote at Campaign for Liberty about prop 16:

Who Controls the Power? John Geesman of GreenEnergyWar.com Responds (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35480)

An excerpt from my article, I think we should be on the same side of the "majority" rule thing (and I'm voting YES on 16, see my prior 'Who Controls the Power (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35457)?' article):

...our nation was founded as a Republic rather than a Democracy. The founding fathers and framers of our Constitution feared tyranny of the majority (a.k.a. mob rule) and placed safeguards in place that required consent from the minority for important decisions such as amending the Constitution (25% of state legislatures) and entering treaties (33% of the Senators)...Our founders were extremely interested in preventing tyranny (including tyranny of the majority) so Proposition 16 is not inconsistent with our nation's founding principles.

FYI, John Geesman (http://greenenergywar.com/about-john-geesman/) was Executive Director of the California Energy Commission, past President of TURN, and currently Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Council on Renewable Energy. He's voting NO on prop 16 and is clearly a progressive who favors "majority" rule (See my article, he refers to "the Obama ascendancy... the revival of Keynesian economic intervention; the reduction of the Republican caricature to faith-healers, snake-charmers and xenophobes").

I don't know why he has chosen to debate a nobody like me, but I guess my original pro-liberty/pro-prop-16 article was just too much for CA's equivalent of Al Gore (Geesman) to resist taking shots at. :rolleyes:

dfletcher
05-16-2010, 5:38 PM
So you would have voted no on Prop 13 and left us with taxes twice as high as they are now. Lovely.



I'll vote for people who pass laws to address problems. I realize that has its challenges, especially here in CA, but that is my preference. Since voting no maintains the status quo I think voting no is the best approach. I would entertain not voting at all on the ballot questions though.

dfletcher
05-16-2010, 6:02 PM
If you don't believe in "majority" rule (a.k.a. mob rule) then why are you voting No on Prop 16? Please consider this follow-up article that I wrote at Campaign for Liberty about prop 16:

Who Controls the Power? John Geesman of GreenEnergyWar.com Responds (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35480)

An excerpt from my article, I think we should be on the same side of the "majority" rule thing (and I'm voting YES on 16, see my prior 'Who Controls the Power (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35457)?' article):



FYI, John Geesman (http://greenenergywar.com/about-john-geesman/) was Executive Director of the California Energy Commission, past President of TURN, and currently Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Council on Renewable Energy. He's voting NO on prop 16 and is clearly a progressive who favors "majority" rule (See my article, he refers to "the Obama ascendancy... the revival of Keynesian economic intervention; the reduction of the Republican caricature to faith-healers, snake-charmers and xenophobes").

I don't know why he has chosen to debate a nobody like me, but I guess my original pro-liberty/pro-prop-16 article was just too much for CA's equivalent of Al Gore (Geesman) to resist taking shots at. :rolleyes:

I realize voting no may not be philosophically pure but I suppose it's the best I can do as voting no tends to maintain status quo.

Curious, as I understand Prop 16, it requires a 2/3rds voter approval before a local government can get into the power business, yes? The pro Prop 16 adverts I see (watching one right now) are funded by PG & E. Just my fairly simple approach, but it occurs to me that PG & E is funding Prop 16 in order to preclude local governments from getting into the power business by putting in place an insurmountable obstacle such as a 2/3rds majority vote.

Whether it's good or bad for local governments to do this sort of thing, I don't know. But it occurs to me these prop questions are designed to achieve a specific result, their sponsorship, motivations and results are often deliberately complicated and obscured.

dfletcher
05-16-2010, 6:21 PM
Exactly... A fine example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Instead of actually researching the ballot you simply went down the whole thing marking NO. So for all you know there could of been a prop saying "Make Assault Weapons legal again". Considering Prop 13 is there to reduce taxes and you voted no.... Jesus christ man...

Well look at the positive side - I got to vote "no" on Prop H.

I'll stick to the principle that we should elect people to pass laws and not rely on 51% of the voters giving "thumbs up" to an issue. I'll vote the way I see fit and wouldn't presume to tell someone else how they should vote or that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because I disagree with their method.

lioneaglegriffin
05-16-2010, 9:50 PM
I realize voting no may not be philosophically pure but I suppose it's the best I can do as voting no tends to maintain status quo.

Curious, as I understand Prop 16, it requires a 2/3rds voter approval before a local government can get into the power business, yes? The pro Prop 16 adverts I see (watching one right now) are funded by PG & E. Just my fairly simple approach, but it occurs to me that PG & E is funding Prop 16 in order to preclude local governments from getting into the power business by putting in place an insurmountable obstacle such as a 2/3rds majority vote.

Whether it's good or bad for local governments to do this sort of thing, I don't know. But it occurs to me these prop questions are designed to achieve a specific result, their sponsorship, motivations and results are often deliberately complicated and obscured.

i usually go to ballotpedia for my info. it seems they don't like gov. competition. so they want to frame it as a fiscal question when times are tough to stop them from stepping into their turf.

sholling
05-17-2010, 7:56 AM
I'll vote for people who pass laws to address problems. I realize that has its challenges, especially here in CA, but that is my preference. Since voting no maintains the status quo I think voting no is the best approach. I would entertain not voting at all on the ballot questions though.
Just understand that your choice to trust in government would have lead to taxes twice as high as they are today. As long as you are happy with that concept keep trusting in politicians.

OleCuss
05-17-2010, 8:06 AM
I honestly don't think it is quite that straightforward.

For instance, as I understand it, Proposition 13 (from years ago) controlled only some of the property taxes. So while some have been blessed by low property taxes, the rest of us have had higher taxes to compensate for their blessing. I'm not saying that it was necessarily bad law - but it was not unalloyed good, either.

If we want to ensure that our legislature is not going to increase our taxes and still spend more than they take in - we'll have to fire the lot of them and hire/elect responsible ones. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Doug L
05-17-2010, 9:14 AM
Firstly, does Calguns normally publish a pro-gun voter's guide?
I'm not asking in regards to voting on individual offices...
It's propositions like Prop 14 that really worry me...

Not sure about CalGuns, but, if you were asking about voting on individual offices, you could contact the Gun Owners of California. They have published a flyer with ratings of candidates for the State Senate and Assembly (I just picked up one at Burro Canyon).
It's also supposed to be on their website, but I checked there and the link to the voters' guide wasn't working.

www.gunownersca.com (http://www.gunownersca.com/)

As for Prop. 14, it's a pile of horse s***.
It's the perfect recipe for Democrats to select all of the candidates that will appear on the ballot.
In case anyone is still wondering, NO ON 14 !!!

P.S. Please don't take offense, but just out of curiosity, why would anyone read a newspaper called the Union Democrat???

dfletcher
05-17-2010, 9:53 AM
Just understand that your choice to trust in government would have lead to taxes twice as high as they are today. As long as you are happy with that concept keep trusting in politicians.

I don't "trust" anyone whether it's government or politicians - you prefer majority rule on some issues, I do not. These referendum votes are nothing more than a vehicle by which politicians can side step important issues and by which well organized and relatively small groups can mount a slick PR campaign to gain an advantage.

Referendum votes brought us Prop H, a mountain lion hunting ban and "free range" chickens of all things. The mountain lion ban is a great example of majority rule - folks in the cities (who will never see one) get to tell folks who live in the rural areas what they can or can not do. How would you like to work the land in Shasta or Siskiyou Cty and have an LA of SF resdent deciding what you can and can not do? And a few years from now, when the CA chicken farm industry (and veal BTW) is gone because meeting the Prop 2 requirements is too expensive (Prop 2 doesn't apply to out of state farmers) folks will wonder why.

If people continue to participate in these things we'll get more and more of them. Personally, I think they are a bit of a scam.

MajorBoothroyd
05-17-2010, 10:57 AM
P.S. Please don't take offense, but just out of curiosity, why would anyone read a newspaper called the Union Democrat???

They were all out of copies of the Corporate Republican???

Ironmany2k
05-17-2010, 4:19 PM
Great comments. I'm still open for suggestions but these are my picks at this time:

13 Yes
14 No
15 No
16 Yes
17 Yes

Harrison_Bergeron
05-17-2010, 4:40 PM
For those who say that 14 is bad and will result in total Democrat control, and that that is a bad thing: who are you voting for for governor? The general election is most likely going to be Brown versus Whitman, are you going to vote for the Republican candidate? Do you think the Republican candidate has anything to do with the Republican party? So, why are you so concerned with conserving a spot on the ballot for a Republican? All we have no are RINOs on the ballot, so what is there to lose? A RINO is a hell of a lot more dangerous to CA than a moderate Democrat.

---

I think that always voting NO because these things are the responsibility of the legislature is naive. Yes, we live in a republic, and yes that means that our representatives are supposed to represent us, but if they actually did that there would be no need for CGN or CGF.

Forget Prop 13, Prop 11 is a much better poster child for why the legislature does not deserve total control. We are supposed to elect our reps to make our decisions for us, but with them drawing their own districts to stay in office, who are they actually bound to represent? Would you have actually expected them to fix the gerrymandering issue on their own?[Hell, we voted on it and they are now campaigning to get it get the issue overturned in November.]

I can agree that the Proposition system is flawed. It is just too easy to get stuff on the ballot, and is too easily controlled by those with deep pockets, and thus needs overhaul. But, I think that the ability to vote directly is our only means of checking and balancing the legislative branch for the time being.

bigmike82
05-17-2010, 4:41 PM
I despise 14 because it destroys third party voting in general elections. For that reason alone I'm voting *hell* no.

bigstick61
05-17-2010, 6:56 PM
I don't "trust" anyone whether it's government or politicians - you prefer majority rule on some issues, I do not. These referendum votes are nothing more than a vehicle by which politicians can side step important issues and by which well organized and relatively small groups can mount a slick PR campaign to gain an advantage.

Referendum votes brought us Prop H, a mountain lion hunting ban and "free range" chickens of all things. The mountain lion ban is a great example of majority rule - folks in the cities (who will never see one) get to tell folks who live in the rural areas what they can or can not do. How would you like to work the land in Shasta or Siskiyou Cty and have an LA of SF resdent deciding what you can and can not do? And a few years from now, when the CA chicken farm industry (and veal BTW) is gone because meeting the Prop 2 requirements is too expensive (Prop 2 doesn't apply to out of state farmers) folks will wonder why.

If people continue to participate in these things we'll get more and more of them. Personally, I think they are a bit of a scam.

Part of the problem is the courts unconstitutionally destroyed the so-called "mini-federalisms" in which the upper House was structured much in the same way our Senate is, with each county being equally represented regardless of population. This is the only way to prevent the urbanites from completely dominating those who do not live in the big cities. Our system has little in the way of checks against the majority AND we have propositions where the majority can directly run roughshod over others or just go for bad legislation (in the sense that it promotes bad policy), and we all know what the majority in California is. But at least we can't say we don't live in a democracy. How wonderful for us. (I can't believe people have not figured out how absolutely terrible that form of government is.)

dfletcher
05-17-2010, 7:28 PM
I despise 14 because it destroys third party voting in general elections. For that reason alone I'm voting *hell* no.

I think that's an aspect of the bill most folks don't even consider. With only the top two worthy of running in a Nov final, is anyone going to support (or give money to or talented people work for) any 3rd party? Not likely.

Rather than a Democratic Party play for perpetual power perhaps the real goal the the eternal locking in of the two party system. I mean, we're almost there anyway, but at least a 3rd party can now run in Nov and influence by taking votes from one of the big two.

timdps
05-17-2010, 8:19 PM
GOC recommendations are up now (pdf)
http://www.gunownersca.com/documents/20101Q_Part2.pdf

tim




Not sure about CalGuns, but, if you were asking about voting on individual offices, you could contact the Gun Owners of California. They have published a flyer with ratings of candidates for the State Senate and Assembly (I just picked up one at Burro Canyon).
It's also supposed to be on their website, but I checked there and the link to the voters' guide wasn't working.

www.gunownersca.com (http://www.gunownersca.com/)

As for Prop. 14, it's a pile of horse s***.
It's the perfect recipe for Democrats to select all of the candidates that will appear on the ballot.
In case anyone is still wondering, NO ON 14 !!!

P.S. Please don't take offense, but just out of curiosity, why would anyone read a newspaper called the Union Democrat???

GrizzlyGuy
05-17-2010, 8:28 PM
Part of the problem is the courts unconstitutionally destroyed the so-called "mini-federalisms" in which the upper House was structured much in the same way our Senate is, with each county being equally represented regardless of population. This is the only way to prevent the urbanites from completely dominating those who do not live in the big cities. Our system has little in the way of checks against the majority AND we have propositions where the majority can directly run roughshod over others or just go for bad legislation (in the sense that it promotes bad policy), and we all know what the majority in California is. But at least we can't say we don't live in a democracy. How wonderful for us. (I can't believe people have not figured out how absolutely terrible that form of government is.)

Yes, the initiative process that these propositions are using was introduced by progressives during the Progressive Era (Prop 7 in 1911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_7_%281911%29)). The ability for our constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote of the citizenry is what makes our CA republic effectively a mob rule democracy.

People who vote NO to all the propositions are just letting the progressives win. When we have a proposition that adds a super majority requirement to the constitution (ex: the old Prop 13 or the current Prop 16) then that is a slap right back in the face of the progressives: 'Here you go, progressives. 50.001% of the voters say that YOUR PEOPLE will need 67% before they can raise our taxes the next time around'.

There's nothing better than beating a progressive at their own statist games. :D

sholling
05-17-2010, 8:41 PM
I think that's an aspect of the bill most folks don't even consider. With only the top two worthy of running in a Nov final, is anyone going to support (or give money to or talented people work for) any 3rd party? Not likely.

Rather than a Democratic Party play for perpetual power perhaps the real goal the the eternal locking in of the two party system. I mean, we're almost there anyway, but at least a 3rd party can now run in Nov and influence by taking votes from one of the big two.
This is where people completely misunderstand the purpose. The current system is designed to make each election a choice between establishment (party hack picked) Republicans and establishment (left of left) Democrats. People vote overwhelmingly for the R or D drone rather than 3rd parties out of fear of wasting their vote. Thus the 3rd parties can never hope to get a real foothold. I don't know about you but I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for a RINO that's been hand picked by the party bosses. And I'm sure there are Democrat gun owners that are tired of having an antigun nut job as their only choice.

By having what is really an open election with a runoff of the top two at the end you are free to vote for anybody in the first round without fearing your vote is going to waste. Vote for the Libertarian or Republican or Constitution Party candidate if you like.

When it comes to the runoff you pick the candidate that's closer to your views. Yes in theory if you are in a solidly Democrat district where a Democrat would have won anyway it's just possibly that it might be two Democrats that make it to the runoff - but in most cases the more moderate will win in the general. Even that is an improvement from the current system that always seems to send farthest left wackos and dumbest morons to Sacramento. The important thing is that this gives 3rd parties a chance to grow and become serious players. That's why both establishment parties hate it.