V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
My recommendations:
I will vote YES for:
Prop 30: Protects funding for schools and local public safety.
Prop 34: Repeals death penalty and replaces with life without parole.
Prop 36: Reforms “Three Strikes” law.
Prop 37: Requires labeling of genetically engineered foods.
Prop 39: Adjusts taxes for multi-state corporations to fund clean energy & energy efficiency programs.
Prop 40: Redistricting state senate districts.
I will vote NO on:
Prop 31: Locks California into permanent underfunding of education, health, & other services.
Prop 32: Exemptions for billionaires & Super PACs, allowing them to buy elections, while barring unions from donating to candidates.
Prop 33: Auto insurance rate hike.
Prop 35: Violates First Amendment & imposes substantial & unreasonable burdens.
Prop 38: Competes with Proposition 30, which is clearly the better bill. Whichever initiative has the higher vote total will become law!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Democratic Party recommendations on state initiatives November 2012.
https://www.cadem.org/news/press?id=0138
Yes on Prop. 30: Protects funding for schools and local public safety
No on Prop. 31: Locks California into permanent underfunding of education, health, & other services
No on Prop. 32: Creates special exemptions for billionaires & Super PACs allowing them to buy elections
No on Prop. 33: Auto insurance rate hike
Yes on Prop. 34: Repeals death penalty and replaces with life without parole
Yes on Prop. 35: Increases penalties for human trafficking
Yes on Prop. 36: Reforms “Three Strikes” law
Yes on Prop. 37: Labeling of genetically engineered foods
No on Prop. 38: Munger initiative
Neutral on Prop. 39: Adjusts taxes for multi-state corporations to fund clean energy programs
Yes on Prop. 40: Referendum on State Senate district boundaries
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Green Party Positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2012 General Election
https://www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions
Endorses:
Prop 30: Taxes to Fund Education and Local Public Safety. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prop 34: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
Prop 36: Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Prop 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.
Prop 39: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
Prop 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
Opposes:
Prop 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Prop 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
Prop 33: Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
Prop 38: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.
No Position:
Prop 35: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ACLU Norcal takes the following positions on ballot measures for November 2012 elections.
https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/ca_propositions/index.shtml
Prop. 30 - Support
Generates funding for education and provides a stable funding source for counties to pay for the new responsibilities they have acquired through criminal justice realignment. Amending the California Constitution to permanently dedicate revenues to local governments to pay for that realignment is crucial.
Prop. 31 - Oppose
Prop. 32 - Oppose
Prop. 34 - SUPPORT!
Replaces death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole. Initiative would save $130 million a year. 140 people have been freed from death rows around U.S. after wrongful convictions. Hundreds of innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes in California. Replacing death penalty is the only way to ensure that California never executes an innocent person. We know that 46% of murders go unsolved in California each year, with higher numbers in Latino and African American populations. Initiative also directs $100 million of the savings to local law enforcement for solving murder cases.
Prop. 35 - Oppose
Prop. 36 - Support
Prop. 38 - Support
Raises $10 billion annually to provide funding for education and early childhood programs and provides for higher levels of funding for low-income students.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
League of Women Voters of California
https://ca.lwv.org/action/prop1211/index.html
YES on Prop. 30:
Proposition 30 begins to move California toward financial stability and adequate funding for all the services we want from our government; we can’t continue to cut vital public services like schools and public safety. This measure will provide some much needed income from a temporary increase in income tax rates for the wealthy and a modest temporary sales tax increase. The plan is a part of a balanced approach to eliminating our deficit that includes $8 billion in cuts, $6 billion in new revenues, and $2.5 billion in loans, deferrals, etc., this year. Proposition 30 also guarantees a stable source of funding for counties to pay for their new public safety responsibilities such as housing low-level prisoners and providing substance abuse treatment.
YES on Prop. 34:
The SAFE California Act will replace the death penalty in California with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Convicted killers will stay in prison for the rest of their lives, eliminating the possibility of executing an innocent person in California. This will save over $100 million every year— because the court and incarceration costs are so much higher for prisoners at risk for a death penalty. $100 million of these savings will be allocated over the next four years to pay for increased investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases. Convicted killers will be required to work and pay restitution into a victims’ compensation fund.
YES on Prop. 40:
We strongly urge a “YES” vote on this referendum on the state Senate maps drawn by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The question on a referendum is not intuitive; it asks if you want to retain the new law, or in this case, the maps drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. So vote YES to affirm the maps drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, YES—in support of the Commission, YES—to validate the open, transparent process, YES—to retain fair districts.
NO vote on Prop. 31:
Proposition 31 is based on good intentions and has some pieces that, taken alone, the League could support. However, Prop 31 has several significant flaws. There are questions about whether or not the provisions allow local governments to suspend state environmental requirements. What is clear is that there will be significant legal uncertainty, and years of litigation. In addition, the measure prescribes the specific manner of state and local government budgeting and puts this process into the state constitution. Prop 31 has other questionable provisions, such as establishing a significant shift of power over appropriations to the governor at times of fiscal emergency.
NO vote on Prop. 32:
This measure is not the campaign finance reform measure its proponents say it is. Proposition 32 promises “political reform” but is really designed by special interests to help themselves and harm their opponents. It looks like a campaign finance reform measure but unfairly targets one set of large campaign donors while giving other donors unlimited power. Its ban on payroll deductions for political giving will affect unions but not corporations, and even the restriction it places on contributions to candidates by corporations is full of loophole exemptions. It does not fix the problem of money in politics; Super PACs and independent expenditure committees will continue to spend without limitation.
The League is neutral on Propositions 38 and 39.
The League has not studied Prop. 33 (Auto Insurance Rates), Prop. 35 (Human Trafficking), Prop. 36 (Three Strikes Reform), and Prop. 37 (Genetically Engineered Foods).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
California Republican Party positions:
Prop. 30: OPPOSE
Prop. 31: SUPPORT
Prop. 32: SUPPORT
Prop. 33: SUPPORT
Prop. 34: OPPOSE
Prop. 35: SUPPORT
Prop. 36: OPPOSE
Prop. 37: OPPOSE
Prop. 38: OPPOSE
Prop. 39: OPPOSE
Prop. 40: SUPPORT
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
Here is a new link that gives a more thorough description of each proposition. A worthwhile read if you are serious about knowing what the initiatives are about:
https://www.kqed.org/news/politics/e...ions-guide.jsp
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
https://electioninfo.org/
I learned yesterday that 35 is badly written and could be interpreted to mean that those who have been convicted of prostitution, could end up on the Sex Offender registry. Hadn't heard that before.
https://reason.org/news/show/ca-vote...e-2012-prop-35
Yes, I generally side with Libertarians when it comes to Social Issues. It's their/your Laissez Fairyland Economic Theory that I consider impractical, irrational and unconnected to documented and known Social, Economic and Historical Reality.
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
I don't believe in Laissez Fairyland economic theory, if that is what you are implying. If so, you might be saying that because I support Obama. That is a poor estimation on your part and essentially an insult.
Like I said before, you and handy and other 3rd partiers can drown your sorrows at a bar somewhere.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
https://electioninfo.org/
I learned yesterday that 35 is badly written and could be interpreted to mean that those who have been convicted of prostitution, could end up on the Sex Offender registry. Hadn't heard that before.
https://reason.org/news/show/ca-vote...e-2012-prop-35
Yes, I generally side with Libertarians when it comes to Social Issues. It's their/your Laissez Fairyland Economic Theory that I consider impractical, irrational and unconnected to documented and known Social, Economic and Historical Reality.
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
Aahhh... don't know why I bother...:hmmm:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I don't believe in Laissez Fairyland economic theory, if that is what you are implying.
"I don't understand free market economic theory". There. Fixed that for you...
I've found that beliefs and hearsaids are extremely poor tools for navigating Universe. Knowledge seems to work much better.
You might try reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, Designing Freedom by Stafford Beer, and Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by R. Buckminster Fuller. just for starters. I have a longer list that I consider to be part of my Basic Straining Manual.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
If so, you might be saying that because I support Obama. That is a poor estimation on your part and essentially an insult.
We understand (we've been reminded over and over) that you're willing to continue to support the mass murder and crony-corporatism. No news there, and certainly nothing worth "estimating". We've also noted how quick you are to "feel" insulted. Get over yourself.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Like I said before, you and handy and other 3rd partiers can drown your sorrows at a bar somewhere.
I'd be happy to sit down with "other 3rd partiers" for an intelligent discussion over a cup of coffee and a snifter of good Scotch. Wouldn't waste it on a democrat, though. As for "drowning your sorrows", you're just projecting again. Enjoy your delusion, if it makes you feel good.
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
Edward,
Your reactivity caused you to jump the gun, once again.
My comment about Libertarian Economic Theory vs. their approaches to Social Issues was because I used a Libertarian website link for its information about Prop 35. It was the quickest one I could find in my search. It is comprehensive in the ways it lays out the Pros and Cons of the issue. Which is why I used it, in spite of my non-affiliation with that ideology.
Because I used it, I wanted to briefly demarcate my agreement and disagreement with Conservative Libertarianism. So those who don't know me won't jump to the conclusion that I am one. I've found that necessary over the years, since some people have a tendency to reach conclusions without sufficient evidence, or any evidence, and I want to avoid that. As best I can.
Obviously, that isn't something I can control. Some reactive reductionists will do what they do no matter how clear you try and be.
So, to be as clear as I can, regarding my previous Post:
It has NOTHING to do with your politics.
It has NOTHING to do with you at all.
The "your" in my "their/your" usage, was to acknowledge the Conservative Libertarians who read this site. It was not a "your" referring to you, Edward. Just because you start a thread, doesn't mean every response to it is addressed to you and you alone. That's a common mistake. We've all seen it many times.
Here's a hint, if I address you, by using your name, Edward, as I did at the start of this post and in the previous paragraph, then I'm mostly talking to you.
If I don't address you, by your name, Edward, and I don't address anyone else in particular, then I am writing to everyone who cares to read whatever it is. Everyone in Waccovia, and our guests.
It's not all about you. Unless I make it explicitly clear that it is.
Here's a tip on interpretation. If the shoe fits, then maybe you should wear it. If it's uncomfortable, then explaining why it doesn't belong to you, is fine. But you might want to make sure it's about you, first.
If it doesn't fit and you think the writer is mistaken, first ask if they are referring to you. And wait for their response. Before you jump to the conclusion that they are describing you, personally. I try to do that, it sometimes saves everyone from a lot of irrelevant agro.
As for your insults, because you thought you were being insulted, I'll let them lay. They speak for you, others can interpret them as they see fit.
Matters of political relevancy, are subject to interpretation. Totalizing dismissals, used to attack and demonize, speak for themselves and their author.
Active Force /Reactive Force. One does stuff, the other only prevents the first from doing stuff. If only more people understood that dynamic, we would waste less of our time...
Barry,
The Spell Check here is going nuts. It keeps trying to correct parts of words. Another glitch in Waccovia? [WaccoBB doesn't do the spell checking. It's your browser]
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
The irony, "handy," which you are completely missing, is that you and Miles have NOTHING in common other than the fact that you support 3rd parties or alternative crackpots (like Ron Paul).
I challenge you to sit down with Miles at a bar somewhere and down a "snifter" or whatever. But you'll never do it because you know what awaits you.
:wink:
Sincerely,
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by handy:
Aahhh... don't know why I bother...:hmmm:
"I don't understand free market economic theory". There. Fixed that for you...
I've found that beliefs and hearsaids are extremely poor tools for navigating Universe. Knowledge seems to work much better.
You might try reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, Designing Freedom by Stafford Beer, and Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by R. Buckminster Fuller. just for starters. I have a longer list that I consider to be part of my Basic Straining Manual.
We understand (we've been reminded over and over) that you're willing to continue to support the mass murder and crony-corporatism. No news there, and certainly nothing worth "estimating". We've also noted how quick you are to "feel" insulted. Get over yourself.
I'd be happy to sit down with "other 3rd partiers" for an intelligent discussion over a cup of coffee and a snifter of good Scotch. Wouldn't waste it on a democrat, though. As for "drowning your sorrows", you're just projecting again. Enjoy your delusion, if it makes you feel good.
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
The irony, "handy," which you are completely missing, is that you and Miles have NOTHING in common other than the fact that you support 3rd parties or alternative crackpots (like Ron Paul).
Don't know what "irony" you refer to. Miles and I have in common the understanding that NEITHER wing of the War Party (Demolican/Republicrat) will bring change for the better. We also have in common the fact that our favored candidates have been sidelined by the War Party. Paul was kept out of the RNC in Florida, and Jill Stein was ARRESTED at the entrance to last night's "debate". We also share the trait of rarely being reduced, like you, to name-calling, when you have no argument. And I'm willing to bet we both understand your utter inability to see the commonalities we share.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I challenge you to sit down with Miles at a bar somewhere and down a "snifter" or whatever. But you'll never do it because you know what awaits you.
You sound like Bibi Netanyahu, "Let's you and him fight". Challenge?! Please...
I'm willing to bet Miles and I could have a very enjoyable conversation, as long as we could attenuate the noise to signal ratio, which should be easy enough; you wouldn't be invited.
You don't "down" a snifter of good single malt as though it were shots of cheap tequila. You take small sips, spread over time, and savor the flavours as they present themselves. But you do express an example of why I wouldn't waste it on a democrat.
Another point on which Miles and I agree: you're behaving like a troll.
I have nothing further to say to a willing accomplice to mass murder.
Sleep with your own conscience.
Re: V o t i n g__R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
I have changed my position on Prop 38 and I now oppose it.
The reason why is because it competes with Proposition 30, which is clearly the better bill. Whichever initiative has the higher vote total will become law.
Please vote YES on 30 and NO on 38!
Thank you!
