Ted’s Election Summary
Originally published at Ted's Commentary. Please leave any comments there.
Every election, I find myself spending a bunch of time figuring out how to vote on the various issues. In the past, only my wife has benefited from the research. This year, I want to at least let my friends know my voting plans.
So here, they are, with commentary where necessary. As a note, I’m a fairly safe democratic vote. I’ve considered other parties in the past, and will often advocate for more moderate democrats in the primaries, but in general elections, the republicans positions on social issues usually disqualify them.
Governor: Jerry Brown
We’ve tried the well-meaning republican with little governmental experience. Now we need someone who knows how to get things done in Sacramento and where the bodies are buried. Yes, Brown may be too close with some of the lefty special interests, but he’s also old enough to not be to beholden to them. I hope that he can force change through the legislature in a way that Meg won’t be able to.
Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Gavin is great. He led as mayor of San Francisco, and Lt. Governor will be a good position for him to get some more experience and hopefully prepare himself for higher office in the future.
Secretary of Sate: Debra Bowen
I like Debra Bowen. She’s done a good job so-far, particularly on the electronic voting machine issue.
Controller: John Chiang
Pretty much a straight party-line vote here. I haven’t heard any reason to dump him.
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Another straight party-line vote.
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
I voted for Kamala in the primary, and I still like her. She won’t defend prop 8 in court, and has the experience needed.
Insurance Commissioner: Abstain
Board of Equalization (2nd District): Abstain
Senator: Barbara Boxer
I don’t particularly like Barbara Boxer, but this is not the year to vote against her, with control of the senate hanging in the balance.
Representative (23rd District): Lois Capps
Lois Capps does a good job, although she’s more liberal than my ideal candidate. Also, her seat is gerrymandered to the hilt, so she can’t really lose anyways.
Assembly (35th District): Das Williams
This is mostly a party-line vote, although I did vote for Das in the primary, and I haven’t seen any reason to elect Stoker over him.
Judicial: NO on All
This may be a controversial call, but I think voting for judges is dumb, and I want to provide as much ammunition against any bad judges. Good judges don’t need my vote. If you don’t feel comfortable voting NO on all, just abstain. The worst thing you can do is vote YES on all. Alternately, you can doo what commenter artl suggests in this thread, and vote the opposite of what the conservative Christians on electionforum.org recommend: http://www.independent.com/news/2010/oct/21/endorsements/
Community college Trustees, Sanitary District, Water District, Schools, etc.:
I’ll probably abstain on all of these. There’s actually a race in the sbcc trustees, with the professors at SBCC recommending one slate that throws out some incumbents. I just don’t know enough to judge.
Propositions
19: YES
Although 19 may not be a perfect law, we need to do something to change our broken drug laws. New York legalized alcohol 10 years before prohibition was repealed, and I’d love to see something similar happen here. We need to do something.
20: YES
This may be the most important proposition on the ballot. Changing the redistricting process will hopefully transform california politics. We need competitive races, not gerrymandered districts that protect incumbents and dilute the voting power of minorities.
21: YES
I like our state parks and want to support them. Of course, my family uses them fairly often, so this is somewhat a selfish vote, but I think state parks are treasures for all citizens, and we need to support them.
22: NO
I don’t like propositions that restrict how the state can spend money. We’re in a tight enough spending environment already. Tying our hands on spending more is not a good idea.
23: NO
An example of “why should I be deciding this”? The assembly passed the law. If they want to suspend its enforcement, they can do so.
24: ABSTAIN
This one I just can’t really tell what the impact is. I like the thought of generating revenue wherever we can, but I also want to keep jobs in CA.
25: YES
We need to make passing a budget easier in CA. If the state isn’t ready for a majority vote to raise taxes, as least we can reduce the requirement to pass the budget to something easier to meet.
26: NO
Again, making it harder to raise taxes, even as fees is a bad thing. Leave things as-is.
27: NO
The redistricting committee is our best hope for changing CA politics for the better. Disbanding it after we’ve worked hard to establish it is a dumb idea.
Measure Q: BONDS YES
Now is a great time for organizations to borrow money if possible. Interest rates are low. If our schools can get some long term bonds for infrastructure improvements, now is a great time to do it. Also, this bond doesn’t increase the yearly assessment. It lengthens the period before it’s paid off, but that’s okay, in a world of low bond costs.
Measure S: ABSTAIN
If this bond measure was just for enhanced fire protection, I’d be all for it. However, I’m just not knowledgeable enough about the jail overcrowding situation in SB to make a call here. I’ll probably abstain.