PDA

View Full Version : I've got a proposition! Actually, Qs on a dozen props


CCWFacts
05-15-2010, 2:41 PM
In the time-honored California tradition, there are about a dozen props on my ballot. They are intentionally written in a way that will confuse voters so we don't know what to do. Therefore, I'm posting this thread to get some ideas.

I'm trying to analyze these in the context of my voting goals. My voting goals (which may be different from yours) are:


Protect the RKBA
Protect California from left-wing madness as much as possible.
Reduce the power of SEIU and related unions as much as possible
Protect California's taxpayers from our state gov't's budget extravagance


In light of that, here's what's on the menu. I'm also including Qs on some of the lesser-known positions. I'm a registered Democrat, only because that lets me vote in more meaningful primaries. I'll offer my opinions, but I don't know much, and am looking for more analysis:

Lt. Governor: I know Newsom is awful, but what about Korevaar and Han?

State AG: I know Kamala Harris awful. What about the others?

Insurance commissioner: No idea

Senator: I'll vote for anyone other than Boxer, just to have the pleasure of being able to vote against Boxer twice.

Party central committee, 42nd Assembly district: Any guidance?

LA Superior Court judge: I have no idea. These are the most difficult to pick.

LA County Assessor: any ideas?

Sheriff: It pains me that there is only one name on the ballot. I'm not voting for a wife-beating Scientologist (Sheriff Baca). Does anyone know a LEO in LA County who I can write in?

Measure 13: Limits on property tax assessment, const. amend: it says i tmight have a minor reduction in local property tax revenues, something I am in favor of.

Measure 14: Increase right to participate in primaries: What is this? If it might help conservative candidates I'll support it.

Measure 15: Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns: What's the best way to vote conservative on this?

Measure 16: 2/3 approval requirement for local public electricity providers: I think I'll vote for this. Municipalities have no business in the electricity business.

Measure 17: Auto insurance: What?

EDITED:

I just got the "vote green" voting guide. It looks like it's run by some aspect of the Democratic party machine here. I'll list their relevant endorsements; I obviously will not be voting for these people:

Assessor John Noguez: Endorsed by LA County Democratic Party

Superior Court Judge Office 28 Mark Ameli, Endorsed by Democratic Party

Superior Court Jude Office 35 Soussan Bruguera - Endorsed by Democratic Party

Superior Court Judge Office 107, Valerie Salkin endorsed by Democratic Party

Superior Court Judge Office 117 Tom Griego, endorsed by the Sierra Club and Sheriff Baca. If they can agree on him, that tell me all I need to know.

To reiterate, I'm posting these endorsements to indicate who I will not be voting for.

OleCuss
05-15-2010, 3:57 PM
.
.
.
Senator: I'll vote for anyone other than Boxer, just to have the pleasure of being able to vote against Boxer twice.

I'd tend to agree on this. However, I'd note that the only candidates in the Republican primary who are still viable are Fiorina and Campbell. Campbell is bad on most counts so I'd hold my nose and vote for Fiorina. I like DeVore much better but he is no longer a viable option.
.
.
.
Sheriff: It pains me that there is only one name on the ballot. I'm not voting for a wife-beating Scientologist (Sheriff Baca). Does anyone know a LEO in LA County who I can write in?

That sucks. I think your approach is right - but why not just write in your own name. It's not like a write-in is going to win anyway.
.
.
.
Measure 14: Increase right to participate in primaries: What is this? If it might help conservative candidates I'll support it.

Very bad idea. Sounds attractive but really just works to make California a one-party (Democrat) state. Since current registration is 45% Democrat and 31% Republican it is pretty likely that in many races you will have only Democrats running. I'd bet that you will never have two Republicans running against each other in November but that it would regularly occur that you'd have only Democrats running for a single office. Especially true since this is a big money state and most of the money is in the leftist LA and SF areas.

Measure 15: Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns: What's the best way to vote conservative on this?

Only thing I know is to vote "no".

Measure 16: 2/3 approval requirement for local public electricity providers: I think I'll vote for this. Municipalities have no business in the electricity business.

I'm voting against this. This is a maneuver by PG&E to effectively maintain its monopoly in certain markets. If it were a 50% vote it might make sense - but a 2/3 vote is way out there.

Measure 17: Auto insurance: What?

Mercury Insurance is apparently trying to effectively raise rates on those who have missed paying one of their premiums or make it potentially more daunting for those who have not been driving to get new insurance. It looks like the core issue is that Mercury will be able to use a lot more surcharges if this passes.


I have no opinion on the rest.

FWIW - and probably worth about what you've paid for it.

Can'thavenuthingood
05-15-2010, 4:14 PM
From the Lincoln Club Voting Guide (http://www.fresnolincolnclub.org/?pg=guide);

Proposition 14 (http://www.fresnolincolnclub.org/?pg=guide). ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS. Vote NO. Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Effectively eliminates third party candidates from appearing on General election ballots, and will allow Democrats to pick Republican nominees in primarie


Proposition 15. CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT. Vote NO. Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant.
Allows any local government and the state legislature to create full public funding of all political campaigns, without future public vote. Allows the State Legislature to fund public campaigns with general fund dollars. Ridiculous and unnecessary.


Proposition 16. IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Vote NO. Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. Protects the PG & E monopoly utility from the single source of competition it may have. Government already has to get a 2/3 vote for any General Obligation Bonds, including general obligation bonds to fund new electricity projects so this measure is redundant and unnecessary.


Proposition 17. ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Vote YES. Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage and has the effect of making some auto insurance discounts portable if you change insurance companies.

Vick

berg
05-15-2010, 8:00 PM
Yeah PG&E is sponsoring Prop 16 and stands to make a bunch of money if it passes.

shotcaller6
05-15-2010, 8:12 PM
My research leads me to vote yes on 13, No on 14, 15, 16, 17

dirtyJ
05-15-2010, 8:15 PM
Auto insurance companies should NOT be forced to accept continuous insurance discounts from other companies. This is just another way that CA is screwing around in business practices, and they need to stay the hell out. Prop 17 is MORE government, not less, and should definitely be voted NO.

GrizzlyGuy
05-15-2010, 8:16 PM
Proposition 16. IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Vote NO. Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. Protects the PG & E monopoly utility from the single source of competition it may have. Government already has to get a 2/3 vote for any General Obligation Bonds, including general obligation bonds to fund new electricity projects so this measure is redundant and unnecessary.

Vick,

Nothing in current law requires local governments to get voter approval before they can either spend public money or incur public debt to get into the electricity business. For example, if a local government decided that it might want to enter the electricity business, they can spend as much money as they like on feasibility studies, site studies, cashflow analyses, environmental impact studies, etc. without you getting a chance to vote.

Please see my article at Campaign For Liberty (and the follow-up one) for more information:

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

I wrote those just as if I was doing my usual Calguns thing of helping people understand the convoluted gun laws. :)

BKinzey
05-15-2010, 8:17 PM
Prop 17 is being funded by Mercury Insurance. If you drop your insurance (90? days or more) they can add a surcharge. So what do you think they are betting on? People being able to carry a discount from one insurance carrier to another or somebody dropping insurance (like military deployment overseas) and having to pay a surcharge to have it reinstated?:rolleyes:

CCWFacts
05-15-2010, 8:52 PM
Please see my article at Campaign For Liberty (and the follow-up one) for more information:

Thanks for the article. That is excellent. Unfortunately it confirms what I assumed: our electric supply is thoroughly government-controlled either way, and Measure 16 won't change it. But your logic at the end is persuasive: Measure 16 isn't going fix the problem (ie, get government out of the electrical business) but it will put an additional constraint on government. That's worth voting for.

sholling
05-16-2010, 9:41 AM
Proposition 14 I like this one a lot and both parties hate it. As a (small L) libertarian it allows me to vote for whoever I really want in the primary instead of the Republican Party's hand picked RINO whore or the Democrat Party's hand picked socialist whore. Let's face it the California Republican Party is run by the same RINOs that sold us out with last years tax increase and is already plotting to sell us out with yet another tax increase. What it does is put real competition into the system - the last thing that the two parties that colluded to give us a gerrymandered districts want.

Fact - the two Democrat scare tactic is pure BS. If two Democrats make it to the general election then a Democrat would have won anyway so that argument against the proposition is BS and pure keep the establishment in power propaganda. Bottom line if you want to always be limited to a choice between a RINO whore or a Socialist whore vote no. If you want a real shot at throwing the bums out then vote yes.

Proposition 15 is a loser. No!

Proposition 16 Don't fall for the socialist propaganda. The only reason that cities and counties want into this business is to use yearly rate increases as back door tax increases. No new agencies will be allowed to take advantage of low the cost coal fired plants LADWP contracts with, and instead will be forced to buy energy from the same sources as PG&E and buy from politically correct but very expensive "green" sources - but unlike PG&E won't be subject to rate limits. Do you really think your city council is bright enough and honest enough to run a cost effective power business or will they be tempted to bend you over to fund city programs?

Can'thavenuthingood
05-16-2010, 10:09 AM
This whole Proposition business is getting out of hand, it needs to be done away with ASAP.

A yes is a no unless it's no then it's a yes if the negative is viewed as positive but then common sense goes negative and out the window.

It's been the unions and now utilities money with the loudest voice beating the voters into submissive confusion.

Vick

TonyM
05-16-2010, 10:19 AM
Proposition 16 Don't fall for the socialist propaganda. The only reason that cities and counties want into this business is to use yearly rate increases as back door tax increases. No new agencies will be allowed to take advantage of low the cost coal fired plants LADWP contracts with, and instead will be forced to buy energy from the same sources as PG&E and buy from politically correct but very expensive "green" sources - but unlike PG&E won't be subject to rate limits. Do you really think your city council is bright enough and honest enough to run a cost effective power business or will they be tempted to bend you over to fund city programs?

The City of Santa Clara does it, and does it well.

Moving from Santa Clara to another city with roughly the same square footage, but into a newer better insulated home I saw my electricity bill more than double based on PG&E's baseline limits that are ridiculous.

I'd happily vote for anything that may eat into PG&E's business.

sholling
05-16-2010, 1:06 PM
The City of Santa Clara does it, and does it well.

Moving from Santa Clara to another city with roughly the same square footage, but into a newer better insulated home I saw my electricity bill more than double based on PG&E's baseline limits that are ridiculous.

I'd happily vote for anything that may eat into PG&E's business.
Research a little deeper. Grey Davis locked PG&E into high priced 20 year contracts at double the going price. PG&E's prices are set by the state and cannot be raised without permission. On the other hand there are no checks on city power rates. LA is looking to milk MWD (not locked into Davis' contract) to pay for their bloated spending. You'll see that more and more. But if you really believe that socialism offers a free lunch that's your choice.

Ironmany2k
05-16-2010, 7:48 PM
Gov: Poizner
Lt Gov: Levitt
Senate: Chuck DeVore

Measures:
14 NO
15 NO
17 Yes

TonyM
05-16-2010, 8:19 PM
Research a little deeper. Grey Davis locked PG&E into high priced 20 contracts at double the going price. PG&E's prices are set by the state and cannot be raised without permission. On the other hand there are no checks on city power rates. LA is looking to milk MWD (not locked into Davis' contract) to pay for their bloated spending. You'll see that more and more. But if you really believe that socialism offers a free lunch that's your choice.

I love that buzzword these days....

I don't want to go too OT here, so I'll just say that Santa Clara has been running their own power company for decades and saving their residents a lot of money.

You call it what you want, but my PG&E bill tops out at over $600 a month in the summer here. My parent's place in Santa Clara this summer won't go over $250, tops.

CCWFacts
05-16-2010, 8:25 PM
Oddly enough, a registered R friend of mine just received "Voting guide for Republicans".

What's odd is it endorses some of the same people the Democrats endorsed!

The "voting guide for Republicans" endorses Soussan Brugeura, Tom Greigo, and John Noguez. In particular it says that Superior Court Judge #117 candidate Greigo is endorsed by Sheriff and wife-beater Baca.

These endorsements make it really clear who not to vote for.

sholling
05-16-2010, 9:59 PM
I love that buzzword these days....

I don't want to go too OT here, so I'll just say that Santa Clara has been running their own power company for decades and saving their residents a lot of money.

You call it what you want, but my PG&E bill tops out at over $600 a month in the summer here. My parent's place in Santa Clara this summer won't go over $250, tops.
I have no idea how you manage to go through $600/mo in electricity. My bill this month from SCE was $130 for a 3bdr house. If I run the AC 18 hours/day 7 days/wk it won't top $250. I suspect the problem is with your house. I had a wiring issue (not sure what) that SCE came in and fixed for free and my bill dropped by more than half. What you need to do is 1) see how much you pay per kwh, and how many you go through per month. 2) Compare bills with your neighbors.

bigstick61
05-16-2010, 11:58 PM
This whole Proposition business is getting out of hand, it needs to be done away with ASAP.

A yes is a no unless it's no then it's a yes if the negative is viewed as positive but then common sense goes negative and out the window.

It's been the unions and now utilities money with the loudest voice beating the voters into submissive confusion.

Vick

I agree that the part of our constitution allowing this sort of direct democracy should be done away with, but it is pretty rare for people with a certain power to give it up once they have it, even if that would be beneficial. Too much democracy is one of California's problems (and this is hardly an issue limited to us).

GrizzlyGuy
05-17-2010, 10:40 AM
Thanks for the article. That is excellent. Unfortunately it confirms what I assumed: our electric supply is thoroughly government-controlled either way, and Measure 16 won't change it. But your logic at the end is persuasive: Measure 16 isn't going fix the problem (ie, get government out of the electrical business) but it will put an additional constraint on government. That's worth voting for.

Thanks for the compliment! :)

See my signature, I've now written three articles on Proposition 16. I'm a nobody, new at political blogging, but for reasons unknown... I've attracted the attention of the "big kahuna" on the other side: John Geesman (http://greenenergywar.com/about-john-geesman/). We're now in a dialog, he commented within hours of my first post, and commented on my second one as well.

It must annoy him greatly to have someone challenge his statist/progressive agenda and use ACTUAL FACTS in the process. :D

CCWFacts
05-17-2010, 10:48 AM
It must annoy him greatly to have someone challenge his statist/progressive agenda and use ACTUAL FACTS in the process. :D

IT'S UNFAIR TO RESORT TO USING FACTS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT!!!!