Southern California → Where's Steve...

I would carefully rephrase that to when in doubt vote against everything only because of the shenanigans that politicians keep using to try to put one over on the unsuspecting voters, where NO means YES and vice-versa.

For example Prop. 40, where voting NO means you don't agree with the Redstricting Commission (e.g. we draw the lines) and you want the redistricting done some other (as yet unknown) way. What would probably happen, since who and how are not provided for by Prop. 40, is that the courts would need to get involved.

For some background on why there is currently no organized No on 40 support for Prop. 40, and why NO means YES (because it's a referendum) there is a writeup in LA Times editorial section here. Warning: you may get a headache following all the twists and turns.

My new M.O. for the last several elections has been generally: NO if it involves any new tax or fee; and vote for the non-incumbent candidate, even if from the same party as the incumbent, especially so if the incumbent has had the job for more than one term already, because IMO none of them has done a very good job, and sitting in one place too long causes entrenchment and stagnation.

This new run-off election system we voted for ourselves in CA is making for some interesting candidate pairings in this November run-off. It's fun, although not especially instructive or useful, to see two candidates from the same party at each other's throats. Also my mailbox is inundated with political advertising

It's an especially long ballot this time around, at least for us in LA, and I think short attention span/sound bite mentallity plus voter burn-out means sadly more voters will take their recommendations from a pamphlet that arrives in their mailbox or an ad on the tube instead of doing some reading and thinking.

PS: Steve doens't seem to have put an analysis together for the November election, or at least it's not on his website.

Very true, but the default No position means no change, one way or the other. On Prop 40* you seem to be informed and that's good, but a lot of voters (hopefully not the majority, but I fear so) don't take the time to wade through the spin and analyze objectively. For them I stick with my recommendation they adopt a default of No, so they are at least not making anything worse. (usually)

* I agree with your position on Prop 40 BTW.
 

The irony of these constant Propositions is two-fold:

1) The Initiative process was supposed to give the people of California a voice and promote grass-roots action. Most of the time they are actually driven by the big-money players on either side of an issue like big business or big unions, under the guise of grass-roots concerns.

2) If the Legislature was doing its job, namely representing us, the people, there should be no need for Initiatives to begin with.

The public has been hoodwinked.

I have to agree that it seems these days initiatives are either backed by big money, or just someone's nutty idea. Alot of voters, unfortunately, spend more time watching Survivors or Dancing With The Stars than pondering their collective futures.

Another problem with the initiative process is that any kook can put any crazy idea on the ballot, and this method of lawmaking takes place without the open hearings and review that normal legislation should go through. Then when inattentive voters pass one of these, everyone turns to the court system to sort it out, further muddying the problem.

Reading some of the propositions that have been filed with the Secretary of State from time to time shows just how many nutty ideas are out there. Maybe we need an initiative to up the stakes for filing new initiatives, along with another to give us a part time legislature!

Prop 38 is "someone's nutty idea" like Prop 98 wasn't enough . Everyone know these schools are top heavy in that the money goes to the administrators and not to where it should go. Between that one and Prop 30, I voted yes for 30. I know, I know, what am I thinking? I choosing that because my roommate works for the college and if 30 doesn't pass, there is a high likelihood she'll lose her job.

It's a tough call, I sympathize. I'll be voting NO on both of them, despite a close relative in my family being a newly minted CA public school teacher, and Prop. 30 certainly wouldn't affect my income taxes directly since I don't earn anywhere near six figures.

I can't stomach the idea of giving the state more and more when they haven't done anything to curb their overspending ways, and I don't believe Brown's woefull cries about devastating school budget cuts. It's the same ol' politician's song and dance... scare the public with stories of cutting school items, or fire, or police....

The Mercury News has a good article on this subject here. (See the section But are they really "cuts?")

IMO because our legislators would see this proposed new source of funding as an excuse to reduce by an equal amount the school funding from the general fund, the practical result of either proposition will be an almost zero sum difference in total funding to schools.

I agree with you. I wanted to say NO, but in case it's true, I didn't want her to lose her job. I haven't been secretive about this, but I do work for the state government and I know what you mean.

Prop 30 was the last straw for me... This wealthy guy is moving to NV or TX. CA is too crowded, far too expensive and now carries the distinct privilege of having the highest state tax rate on the planet. There are not enough rich people in the USA to tax in order to continue the madness of our uncontrolled spending. The easiest 15% raise I can give myself is to simply move. My new home will be less expensive, more luxurious and completely paid for by not having to pay any state income tax. Good luck CA... Peace!

But... it's only a "temporary" tax increase!