Hold your nose and vote on Tuesday, June 8, 2010: California Propositions

[mithriltabby]

As usual, I’ve done my research on for the upcoming election and written up my notes so everyone else can crib off my paper. Feel free to forward this on to anyone whom you think would find it helpful. If this helped you make up your mind, please leave a note here on my blog; even if you disagree with me on everything, I’m happy if I was able to save you time, and it makes all this worthwhile when I hear that I saved someone else a headache.

Propositions

• Proposition 13: Seismic Retrofitting Amendment. Ballotpedia. SmartVoter. Vote Smart. Follow the Money.

  Supported By	Opposed By
  Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury San Francisco Bay Guardian Sacramento Bee Los Angeles Times California Democratic Party California Republican Party Libertarian Party of California California National Organization for Women PAC Calitics Courage Campaign Mother Jones

  This is just a subtle tax incentive for doing seismic retrofits on buildings. No one even bothered submitting an argument against this one in the official state voter information guide. Yes.
   
• Proposition 14: California Top Two Primaries Act. Ballotpedia. SmartVoter. Vote Smart. Follow the Money. Coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle: Would open primary open Pandora’s box?; perspective from Debra J. Saunders. This is very similar to 2004’s Proposition 62, which was defeated at the polls; it is not like 1998’s Proposition 198, which was struck down in court.

  Supported By	Opposed By
  Californians for an Open Primary San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Sacramento Bee Los Angeles Times Pete Rates the Propositions Thomas D. Elias, columnist	Stop Top Two California Democratic Party California Republican Party Libertarian Party of California California Green Party San Francisco Bay Guardian The Center for Voting and Democracy Californians for Electoral Reform Mother Jones ACLU of Northern California California League of Conservation Voters California National Organization for Women PAC Calitics Courage Campaign Robert Cruickshank

  This act’s name is somewhat deceptive. What this boils down to is that there are no more party primaries; for races for Congress, the Legislature, and statewide offices, November is effectively no longer the general election. All the candidates run in June in a big gaggle, and the ones getting the top two votes go to a runoff in November. If voters belonging to a party want to get that party to endorse a particular candidate in the June race, they’ll have to work the party apparatus. What are the ramifications of this? As I see it:

  • Proponents say that this will eliminate the run-to-the-extremes primary strategy because moderates will be the ones who get the most votes. The problem I see here is that June elections usually bring out the partisans, which is part of the problem; it’s unclear that enacting Proposition 14 would change this without a massive effort to explain to voters that June is now the general election.
  • There will be huge, expensive wrangles over the June election.
  • In some districts, the November election may be between two Republicans or two Democrats, shutting out even a major party.
  • Vote-splitting could lead to perverse outcomes; in a district split 60%/40% Republican/Democrat, for instance, if 4 Republicans ran with 15% of the vote each and 2 Democrats with 20% each, the November runoff could be between two Democrats.
  • Voters will be able to game the system by crossing party lines to vote for an unelectable extremist from the other party, in hopes of sabotaging their chances in the November election.
  • There is no historical support for the notion that open primaries lead to getting moderates elected.
  • Open primaries in Louisiana and Washington have not shown a good track record of defeating incumbents.
  • In Washington, open primaries led to depressed voter turnout.

  Getting more moderates in office is a good idea, and I was initially predisposed toward this bill because editorial boards liked it and the major political parties hated it. I’ve been waffling over this one, though. On the one hand, passing even this bad bill might help us start to dig out of California’s dysfunctional deadlock, would show voter interest in electoral reform, and the problems it causes might whet appetites for better reforms; on the other hand, judging by the performance of similar measures elsewhere, it probably won’t work, and it might sour people on tinkering with the electoral system at all. The arguments for it tend to rely on principles that sound quite sensible, but don’t cite real-world experience, such as the lack of good results from similar laws elsewhere, or the lack of good results when we had a blanket primary in 1998 and 2000; the arguments against it that I find most convincing are the ones that involve these reality checks.

  A better solution, much more likely to elect moderates, would be to use instant-runoff voting in the November election, but that’s not on the ballot this year.

  After much indecision, I’m finally picking No. I want the pro-14 people to be right, but in my opinion, the evidence just doesn’t bear them out.

• Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act. Ballotpedia. SmartVoter. Vote Smart. Follow the Money. The ACLU of Northern California are neutral.

  Supported By

  Opposed By

  Yes on the California Fair Elections Act San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury San Francisco Bay Guardian Los Angeles Times Pete Rates the Propositions California Democratic Party California Green Party Consumer Federation of California California League of Conservation Voters Mother Jones California National Organization for Women PAC Calitics Courage Campaign CREDO Action Greg Brockbank, San Rafael City Councilman

  STOP PROP 15 California Republican Party Libertarian Party of California Sacramento Bee

  Even if you’re skeptical about fair elections, this one is worth your vote. It’s a test that only runs for two elections, and it costs taxpayers nothing— it pays for itself by raising the feeds to register as a lobbyist in Sacramento a bit above that required to get a license as a hair salon. Yes.
   
• Proposition 16: California New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act. Ballotpedia. SmartVoter. Vote Smart. Follow the Money. PG&E is spending millions to block local utilities: would require two-thirds approval from local voters before cities or counties could choose an alternate energy provider. PG&E don’t like journalistic scrutiny and their CEO admits this is an attempt to block communities from dropping PG&E when they get fed up; they’re using lots of deceptive tactics to sell it. A coalition of locally owned public utilities, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, are claiming that the PG&E Chairman admitted that Proposition 16 is designed to choke off competition.

  Supported By

  Opposed By

  Yes on Prop 16 California Republican Party Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council

  Taxpayers Against the PG&E Powergrab San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury San Francisco Bay Guardian Sacramento Bee Los Angeles Times Pete Rates the Propositions California Democratic Party California Green Party Mother Jones Consumer Federation of California California League of Conservation Voters Environment California Calitics Courage Campaign California National Organization for Women PAC CREDO Action Ross Mirkarimi and Mark Toney (respectively of the SF Board of Supervisors and The Utility Reform Network) Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury News

  If PG&E can’t provide the services that cities need, cities should be free to take their business elsewhere. What has a would-be monopoly scared is the prospect of losing customers to public utilities like Silicon Valley Power, which is serving Santa Clara to general approval. There’s already an accountability mechanism for this sort of thing called a city council; there doesn’t need to be an additional one. (Besides, ditching PG&E and setting up your own power is expensive; it will almost always require a tax increase or bond measure, and that already requires a separate vote anyway.) Frankly, I think we should regulate PG&E further so they can’t waste money ($34.5 million already!) from our power bills on this kind of nonsense. Vote No.
   
• Proposition 17: California Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act. Ballotpedia. SmartVoter. Vote Smart. Follow the Money. Meet the Spokeswoman for the Mercury Initiative.

  Supported By	Opposed By
  Yes on Prop 17 California Republican Party Libertarian Party of California Mike D’Arelli, executive director of the Alliance of Insurance Agents & Brokers	Campaign for Consumer Rights San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Sacramento Bee Los Angeles Times San Francisco Bay Guardian Pete Rates the Propositions California Democratic Party California Green Party Mother Jones Calitics Courage Campaign California National Organization for Women PAC CREDO Action Consumer Federation of California Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog

  This is likely to help very little and to jack up rates on some people who really need coverage. No.
   

Comments

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

Awright, you convinced me. :)

FYI, I also used both of your other posts to supplement my reading of candidate statements, etc. Usually the statements (or lack thereof) give me a pretty good idea, but like a resume, you always want to know what their past references think of them! Thank you for all three bits of research.

[mithriltabby]

Candidate statements are basically advertisements; I look them over to see what a politician is willing to claim about themselves, but I look for third parties to find out if there’s a chance they’ll live up to their promises. (I do have trouble voting for candidates with badly written statements. If they can’t be bothered to take the time to write well for their ballot statement, what kind of job are they going to do in office?)

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Even more so if they couldn't be arsed to write one at all. :P