Stupid ballot measures: let's talk about the more bizarre ones
Califorina is odd in that every election we get about ten state ballot measures. They started out being some kind of democratic thing, but these days are more of a "I'm going to buy myself some government money" thing and are sponsored by billionares.
You can safely vote no on them all if you are too lazy to go through and figure out wtf they are. Some are no brainers and would be dangerous if they pass, like Prop. 8 which would ban gay marriage. Or Prop. 4 which would require parental notification for abortions.
Then you get a bunch of bonds. A whole bunch of "give us government money" propositions. Like Prop. 3 "Children's Hospital Bonds": the Guardian[*] claims this would have the state giving 80% of the money to private hospitals with endowments. And that voters passed a children's hospital bond 4 years ago. mmm... no.
(Contrast that with the SF city Prop. A which would help rebuild SF General (vote yes ;). The Guardian says its the only trauma center in SF, and that Palo Alto is the next closest. Um, do we have something in the East Bay?)
Really, the only bond worth passing is 1A, high speed rail. Do I even need to bother listing why?
I want to know who bothered to put Prop. 2 on. "Farm animal protections" Apparently requires some farm animals to be allowed to move around. Which sounds like a good idea. Will it drive the factory farms out of the state, I wonder? One of the proponents of it I talked to said they hoped other states would follow suit. I suppose then it wouldn't matter...
"Renewable Energy Generation" Prop. 7 sounds like it cuts environmental review for installing solar installations in the desert. It also sounds like it is badly written and not very clear. It has PG&E against it, which is making some people vote for it. The Chronicle says that all sorts of other groups are against it too, though. (environmental, labor, business) The Guardian says "experts in the field" weren't consulted. Safe "no" imo.
"Redistricting" Prop. 11 would change who does it. Hilariously enough, it forms a committee of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 independents. Republicans don't have that much power in redistricting now, so I think it's really funny that we'd toss them some in the name of "improvement".
I'm just now getting mail on the Oakland/Alameda propositions. Only 4 total! We're lucky! Haven't really looked at them yet.
[*] Regardless of what you think of their politics, they do tend to have a nice write-up one who is sponsoring a ballot measure and what the actual consequences might be. Something you can always use if say, you live in SF and have to go through city propositions going up to the letter V...!
You can safely vote no on them all if you are too lazy to go through and figure out wtf they are. Some are no brainers and would be dangerous if they pass, like Prop. 8 which would ban gay marriage. Or Prop. 4 which would require parental notification for abortions.
Then you get a bunch of bonds. A whole bunch of "give us government money" propositions. Like Prop. 3 "Children's Hospital Bonds": the Guardian[*] claims this would have the state giving 80% of the money to private hospitals with endowments. And that voters passed a children's hospital bond 4 years ago. mmm... no.
(Contrast that with the SF city Prop. A which would help rebuild SF General (vote yes ;). The Guardian says its the only trauma center in SF, and that Palo Alto is the next closest. Um, do we have something in the East Bay?)
Really, the only bond worth passing is 1A, high speed rail. Do I even need to bother listing why?
I want to know who bothered to put Prop. 2 on. "Farm animal protections" Apparently requires some farm animals to be allowed to move around. Which sounds like a good idea. Will it drive the factory farms out of the state, I wonder? One of the proponents of it I talked to said they hoped other states would follow suit. I suppose then it wouldn't matter...
"Renewable Energy Generation" Prop. 7 sounds like it cuts environmental review for installing solar installations in the desert. It also sounds like it is badly written and not very clear. It has PG&E against it, which is making some people vote for it. The Chronicle says that all sorts of other groups are against it too, though. (environmental, labor, business) The Guardian says "experts in the field" weren't consulted. Safe "no" imo.
"Redistricting" Prop. 11 would change who does it. Hilariously enough, it forms a committee of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 independents. Republicans don't have that much power in redistricting now, so I think it's really funny that we'd toss them some in the name of "improvement".
I'm just now getting mail on the Oakland/Alameda propositions. Only 4 total! We're lucky! Haven't really looked at them yet.
[*] Regardless of what you think of their politics, they do tend to have a nice write-up one who is sponsoring a ballot measure and what the actual consequences might be. Something you can always use if say, you live in SF and have to go through city propositions going up to the letter V...!