tongodeon's US / CA / SF Voter Guide
I've been paying a lot of attention to the Presidential race and Prop 8 but I have no idea how to vote on the rest of them. So I'm publishing the Tongodeon Voter Guide, which is kinda like the voter guides in many other papers except that many of the blanks are filled in with my mostly uninformed opinions. If you've got a good argument for how I ought to vote please let me know. I am not committed to most of these and I am soliciting smarter ideas. I will edit this post as I consider the comments and settle my thoughts. On election day if you don't know how you should vote feel free to take my suggestions with you.
Federal Ballot (Purple)
President: Obama/Biden
US Representative: Pelosi's a lock whether or not I like her. I'd kinda like to vote Libertarian except that they'd probably let the pot club come back.
State Senator: No information/opinion.
State Assembly: Tom Ammiano, since I've got an 'in' with him after the work I did with Zach and the pot club. Also, he killed at SF Comedy Day.
Judicial: No information/opinion
School: Vote four unfamiliar names out of fifteen? Totally lost here, people. Also: where is Starchild?
Community College Board: We have one of those?
Bart Director: Huh?
California Ballot (Brown)
Democrat suggestions
Republican suggestions
1A: YES. High speed trains are cool. Boondoggle? I'm willing to chance it.
2: NO. I think the avian flu concern is not unfounded, I have raised chickens and see what they do to each other, and I think we'll just end up getting our eggs from Mexico where they do this anyway. In the absence of clear safety or economic benefits I'd rather err on the side of less intervention.
3: NO. We apparently already did this one and not even all of that money has been spent yet.
4: NO. What's more unfortunate than a teen who wants an abortion? That teen's parents forcing that child to raise an unwanted child. Or that teen resorting to home remedies.
5: NO. By the time you're a professional drug dealer you're pretty much off the wagon. Not confident that it will work. I'd rather allocate $460,000,000 toward decreasing the likelihood that kids will not fall into that cycle in the first place.
6: YES. We're going into a recession. There's going to be more crime. We'll need it. I wish this wasn't true. Lots of people in my neighborhood are walking around only because there isn't room in the jails for them.
7: NO. The "yes" people are bagging on nuclear. Also, with carbon fuel getting scarce I think there's enough economic incentive already.
8: NO, YOU PETTY IRRATIONAL BIGOTS.
9: YES. Crime victim notification seems like a not-bad idea, and it doesn't seem to cost much if any money.
10: NO. High fuel economy vehicles don't need to be "promoted" while there are still waiting lists for Priuses.
11: YES. Gerrymandering sucks. Constituents should get fair districts, even if they are Republicans.
12: NO. Pissed that California has to pick up the check for a war that we didn't even support.
San Francisco Ballot (Blue)
22 ballot measures? Fuck. What are you hippies trying to do to me?
Chamber of Commerce recs.
A: NO. The largest bond measure in San Francisco's history is poorly planned and faces problems with financing.
B: NO. I'd probably feel better about "affordable housing in San Francisco" if the assholes living in it weren't breaking into my friends' cars. Also, ballot-box budgeting does not necessarily result in the most effective use of funds for its stated goal.
C: NO. Why would I want to prevent city employees from serving on boards? Are they assholes or something?
D: NO. Pier 70 can be funded by the suits who are going to make money off it when it opens.
E: YES. Recall elections are disruptive and prone to sketchiness. (Gray Davis)
F: YES. Saves money. Also, it will make the every-four-years ballots tremendous. I am OK with this, since I'd like people to get outraged about all these damn measures and put a cap on them.
G: Yes. Throws a bone to working parents and it doesn't cost the City anything.
H: NO. Lots of hippies seem to be saying vote yes, including something called the Green Guerrillas Against Greenwash. Also the renewable-energy targets laid out in the measure--such as 100 percent clean electricity by 2040--don’t require a charter amendment. The green energy component of Prop. H is just a sneaky way of getting voters to approve a takeover of PG&E and conversion to public power.
I: NO. Why are voters deciding whether to create "an independent rate-payer advocate", whatever the hell that is? Shouldn't the mayor decide something like this? Tempted to say No because if we needed one of those the mayor would have hired one by now. Also, if H passes then we won't need I.
J: NO. Historic Preservation Commission? Are those the douchenozzles who won't let me install aluminum or vinyl windows in the front of my house. Fuck them.
K: A THOUSAND TIMES NO (Apologies to Starchild, whose paid argument on page 153 supports K.)
L: NO. The Board of Supervisors already funded the thing. And Gavin left this proposition on the ballot because he hopes his more moderate candidates can use it as a wedge issue against progressives. That sucks.
M: NO. I already couldn't tell my tenants I was evicting them or negotiate for their departure because informing them of my intent would have been "harassment". The problem is not that SF tenants are insufficiently protected; the problem is that they are not aware of their already extremely powerful rights or don't assert them. No.
N: YES. The transfer tax applies only to houses of $5m or more.
O: NO. Taxing "current and future technologies for telephone communciation" sounds a little like that taxing the internet chain letter. If you want more tax money just raise the tax rate. Don't think up new taxes on random things.
P: NO. Why do I have to figure out whether to "change the size and composition of the Authority Board"? Isn't that the Mayor's job? He supports it but the rest of the city government opposes it.
Q: YES. (no arguments submitted against it)
R: YES! George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant. Also: Colin V. Gallagher is a humorless prick.
S: Yes. (no arguments submitted against it)
T: Yes. (no arguments submitted against it) If people are ready for treatment, we should make sure we can offer it to them.
U: Yes. San Francisco not declaring their opposition to funding war would be like Dallas not voting for a policy mandating one military invasion per year.
V: Yes. ROTC was not for me but let kids check it out.
Board of Supervisors (Pink) (Board of Supervisors)
My friend in city hall thinks that either David Campos or Eric Quezada are good picks. Mark Sanchez is supposedly lazy but fortunate to have the kind of name that makes otherwise uninformed voters prefer it for whatever reason. Vern Matthews has a good first name but the guy himself seems crazy. I met Eric Storey at the Mission Police meeting and he seemed like a nice guy but a little out of his league.
This is a instant runoff ballot so I think I'm picking Storey, Campos, Quezada in that order. Storey will not win but I want to give him a vote to keep his dream alive. Seemed like a cool guy and I'd like to see him run again.
Update: this summary is also pretty good.
When you post a new comment, please put the name of the position you're commenting on ("Prop 8") in the Subject so that it's easy to find.
Federal Ballot (Purple)
President: Obama/Biden
US Representative: Pelosi's a lock whether or not I like her. I'd kinda like to vote Libertarian except that they'd probably let the pot club come back.
State Senator: No information/opinion.
State Assembly: Tom Ammiano, since I've got an 'in' with him after the work I did with Zach and the pot club. Also, he killed at SF Comedy Day.
Judicial: No information/opinion
School: Vote four unfamiliar names out of fifteen? Totally lost here, people. Also: where is Starchild?
Community College Board: We have one of those?
Bart Director: Huh?
California Ballot (Brown)
Democrat suggestions
Republican suggestions
1A: YES. High speed trains are cool. Boondoggle? I'm willing to chance it.
2: NO. I think the avian flu concern is not unfounded, I have raised chickens and see what they do to each other, and I think we'll just end up getting our eggs from Mexico where they do this anyway. In the absence of clear safety or economic benefits I'd rather err on the side of less intervention.
3: NO. We apparently already did this one and not even all of that money has been spent yet.
4: NO. What's more unfortunate than a teen who wants an abortion? That teen's parents forcing that child to raise an unwanted child. Or that teen resorting to home remedies.
5: NO. By the time you're a professional drug dealer you're pretty much off the wagon. Not confident that it will work. I'd rather allocate $460,000,000 toward decreasing the likelihood that kids will not fall into that cycle in the first place.
6: YES. We're going into a recession. There's going to be more crime. We'll need it. I wish this wasn't true. Lots of people in my neighborhood are walking around only because there isn't room in the jails for them.
7: NO. The "yes" people are bagging on nuclear. Also, with carbon fuel getting scarce I think there's enough economic incentive already.
8: NO, YOU PETTY IRRATIONAL BIGOTS.
9: YES. Crime victim notification seems like a not-bad idea, and it doesn't seem to cost much if any money.
10: NO. High fuel economy vehicles don't need to be "promoted" while there are still waiting lists for Priuses.
11: YES. Gerrymandering sucks. Constituents should get fair districts, even if they are Republicans.
12: NO. Pissed that California has to pick up the check for a war that we didn't even support.
San Francisco Ballot (Blue)
22 ballot measures? Fuck. What are you hippies trying to do to me?
Chamber of Commerce recs.
A: NO. The largest bond measure in San Francisco's history is poorly planned and faces problems with financing.
B: NO. I'd probably feel better about "affordable housing in San Francisco" if the assholes living in it weren't breaking into my friends' cars. Also, ballot-box budgeting does not necessarily result in the most effective use of funds for its stated goal.
C: NO. Why would I want to prevent city employees from serving on boards? Are they assholes or something?
D: NO. Pier 70 can be funded by the suits who are going to make money off it when it opens.
E: YES. Recall elections are disruptive and prone to sketchiness. (Gray Davis)
F: YES. Saves money. Also, it will make the every-four-years ballots tremendous. I am OK with this, since I'd like people to get outraged about all these damn measures and put a cap on them.
G: Yes. Throws a bone to working parents and it doesn't cost the City anything.
H: NO. Lots of hippies seem to be saying vote yes, including something called the Green Guerrillas Against Greenwash. Also the renewable-energy targets laid out in the measure--such as 100 percent clean electricity by 2040--don’t require a charter amendment. The green energy component of Prop. H is just a sneaky way of getting voters to approve a takeover of PG&E and conversion to public power.
I: NO. Why are voters deciding whether to create "an independent rate-payer advocate", whatever the hell that is? Shouldn't the mayor decide something like this? Tempted to say No because if we needed one of those the mayor would have hired one by now. Also, if H passes then we won't need I.
J: NO. Historic Preservation Commission? Are those the douchenozzles who won't let me install aluminum or vinyl windows in the front of my house. Fuck them.
K: A THOUSAND TIMES NO (Apologies to Starchild, whose paid argument on page 153 supports K.)
L: NO. The Board of Supervisors already funded the thing. And Gavin left this proposition on the ballot because he hopes his more moderate candidates can use it as a wedge issue against progressives. That sucks.
M: NO. I already couldn't tell my tenants I was evicting them or negotiate for their departure because informing them of my intent would have been "harassment". The problem is not that SF tenants are insufficiently protected; the problem is that they are not aware of their already extremely powerful rights or don't assert them. No.
N: YES. The transfer tax applies only to houses of $5m or more.
O: NO. Taxing "current and future technologies for telephone communciation" sounds a little like that taxing the internet chain letter. If you want more tax money just raise the tax rate. Don't think up new taxes on random things.
P: NO. Why do I have to figure out whether to "change the size and composition of the Authority Board"? Isn't that the Mayor's job? He supports it but the rest of the city government opposes it.
Q: YES. (no arguments submitted against it)
R: YES! George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant. Also: Colin V. Gallagher is a humorless prick.
S: Yes. (no arguments submitted against it)
T: Yes. (no arguments submitted against it) If people are ready for treatment, we should make sure we can offer it to them.
U: Yes. San Francisco not declaring their opposition to funding war would be like Dallas not voting for a policy mandating one military invasion per year.
V: Yes. ROTC was not for me but let kids check it out.
Board of Supervisors (Pink) (Board of Supervisors)
My friend in city hall thinks that either David Campos or Eric Quezada are good picks. Mark Sanchez is supposedly lazy but fortunate to have the kind of name that makes otherwise uninformed voters prefer it for whatever reason. Vern Matthews has a good first name but the guy himself seems crazy. I met Eric Storey at the Mission Police meeting and he seemed like a nice guy but a little out of his league.
This is a instant runoff ballot so I think I'm picking Storey, Campos, Quezada in that order. Storey will not win but I want to give him a vote to keep his dream alive. Seemed like a cool guy and I'd like to see him run again.
Update: this summary is also pretty good.
When you post a new comment, please put the name of the position you're commenting on ("Prop 8") in the Subject so that it's easy to find.