NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I got my California Absentee Ballot yesterday. It's big (read VERY big), and I don't know who half the candidates are.

So, I'm going to each candidate's and proposition's web sites and reviewing their positions, goals, etc. What would each ballot measure specifically do. For candidates I'm ranking them on the issues that matter to me and picking the highest ranking one. For propositions, I'm saying no unless I get an overriding reason to say yes.

Sound reasonable, or is my method flawed?

So, I got my California Absentee Ballot yesterday. It's big (read VERY big), and I don't know who half the candidates are.

So, I'm going to each candidate's and proposition's web sites and reviewing their positions, goals, etc. What would each ballot measure specifically do. For candidates I'm ranking them on the issues that matter to me and picking the highest ranking one. For propositions, I'm saying no unless I get an overriding reason to say yes.

Sound reasonable, or is my method flawed?Speaking as a former California voter, I'd say your method is spot on. My one beef with the California political system when I was there was the ease with which a referendum can make the ballot. It makes for bad decisions more often than not.

And while that voter information thing can be a pain, be glad for it. Most states, in my experience, don't provide nearly that level of information to the voter. I wish I had one here in Florida.

And while that voter information thing can be a pain, be glad for it. Most states, in my experience, don't provide nearly that level of information to the voter. I wish I had one here in Florida.

LOL, I haven't gotten that yet. Of all things, I got the absentee ballot first. But that's okay, because I have the Internet. :-) Funky as work internet is.

Very good. I would also wait until the last possible moment, before sending it in, to watch any possible debates.

So, I got my California Absentee Ballot yesterday. It's big (read VERY big), and I don't know who half the candidates are.

So, I'm going to each candidate's and proposition's web sites and reviewing their positions, goals, etc. What would each ballot measure specifically do. For candidates I'm ranking them on the issues that matter to me and picking the highest ranking one. For propositions, I'm saying no unless I get an overriding reason to say yes.

Sound reasonable, or is my method flawed?

Lucky you don't live in the UK. You only get to vote for your local MEP and Councillor and MP, (Kudos if you live in Wales, Scotland, NI or London!) every 4 years and get a choice of between only 3-5 for each. And the last time we had a nation wide referendum was in the seventies.

I envy you.:(

Yes on 1A (require transportation taxes actually be spent on transportation) and Proposition 90 (more eminent domain restrictions). No on everything else.

I can't recommend any candidates at the moment. I would vote Libertarian, but the recent flag waving, law and order, fortify the border sort of nationalist rhetoric flying around in that party is pushing me away. That sort of position seem very strange for a party with supposedly strong anti-government pro-market positions. Especially when the candidate for Governor seems proud of the use of lethal force in conducting the drug war (http://www.2006gov.com/issues012.html); aren't Libertarians supposed to be against the drug war? The Libertarian party candidates seem to have taken a Minuteman-esque swing, and it makes me physically ill.

If my choice is between the state or the desparately poor trying to survive, guess which one I'm going to pick? Some of us registered Libertarians should actually try to act libertarian...

(edit: I'm actually considering voting for the Green candidates for Attorney General and Secretary of State. I'm not too fond of the public financing of electoral campaigns and such, but the positions in favor of proportional representation, instant run-off voting, requiring increased recordkeeping and open source software in electronic voting, anti drug war, anti death penalty, and other such issues are refreshingly relevant and intelligent. The Libertarian Party should take note.)

So, I got my California Absentee Ballot yesterday. It's big (read VERY big), and I don't know who half the candidates are.

So, I'm going to each candidate's and proposition's web sites and reviewing their positions, goals, etc. What would each ballot measure specifically do. For candidates I'm ranking them on the issues that matter to me and picking the highest ranking one. For propositions, I'm saying no unless I get an overriding reason to say yes.

Sound reasonable, or is my method flawed?

Just vote for pornstars and ex-child stars. They'll run your government best.

Yes on 1A and Proposition 90. No on everything else.

I can't recommend any candidates at the moment. I would vote Libertarian, but the recent flag waving, law and order, fortify the border sort of nationalist rhetoric flying around in that party is pushing me away. That sort of position seem very strange for a party with supposedly strong anti-government pro-market positions. Especially when the candidate for Governor seems proud of the use of lethal force in conducting the drug war (http://www.2006gov.com/issues012.html); aren't Libertarians supposed to be against the drug war? The Libertarian party candidates seem to have taken a Minuteman-esque swing, and it makes me physically ill.

If my choice is between the state or the desparately poor trying to survive, guess which one I'm going to pick? Some of us registered Libertarians should actually try to act libertarian...


Not sure what they are doing with their drug war stance, but it is perfectly in line with Libertarianism to want to secure (but not seal) their borders. They are very pro immigration but cautious when it comes to illegal immigration because you never know who (criminals, terrorists) or what (diseases, viruses) may be coming across.

oh and the Libertarian candidate is naturally against taxes and especially wasteful spending and California taxpayers do pay for many services provided for illegal immigrants. This probably explains his strong feelings on the issue.

So, I got my California Absentee Ballot yesterday. It's big (read VERY big), and I don't know who half the candidates are.

So, I'm going to each candidate's and proposition's web sites and reviewing their positions, goals, etc. What would each ballot measure specifically do. For candidates I'm ranking them on the issues that matter to me and picking the highest ranking one. For propositions, I'm saying no unless I get an overriding reason to say yes.

Sound reasonable, or is my method flawed?yep... sounds reasonable.

Amazingly, I've only come across a couple of "oh-my-god-not-that-guy" candidates. :-) I expected a lot more.

oh and the Libertarian candidate is naturally against taxes and especially wasteful spending and California taxpayers do pay for many services provided for illegal immigrants. This probably explains his strong feelings on the issue.

If he were saying "kill the welfare state" he would have my support (review the links in my signature and keep in mind that the welfare state is NOT social), but instead he appears to be saying (http://www.2006gov.com/) "Save the welfare state from..."

Since the welfare state is the product of the voting California public and [i]not illegal immigrants, it seems to me that he is attacking the wrong people. The "Libertarian" candidate for Governor simply appears to be using the welfare state as an excuse for scapegoating a poor minority. If he was truly interested in advocating individual liberty, including open borders, he would be advocating the elimination of much of the regulation and cost of the immigration and naturalization process which stands to discourage legal avenues (I have plenty of books, articles, and other data in my possession that demonstrate that immigrants from Mexico want to immigrate legally but are discouraged by cost and long, confusing bureaucracy; respond here and I will post a list later). But I cannot and will not support his current stance. I will always side with real people against the state, especially when the state is the obstacle.

And talk of terrorists and associated armegeddon is just simple fearmongering. And at any rate, there are plenty of ways to reduce that risk without restricting the ability of the poor to find jobs and sustinence; removal of the American position as global hegemon not afraid to use military force at whatever whim and fancy would help (the wealthy economic interests and politicians who benefit from that global positioning will fight to the death to prevent any such thing, but we already know what the halls of power think about human liberty).