NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone know anything about these?

Most of the time, ballot initiatives are a backdoor way of approving massive loans we end up paying back over 30 or so years with interest *well* in excess of the principal. My policy is to vote "no" on that sort of thing unless there some *very* compelling reason not to and simply no way the state legislature would approve the spending otherwise. Needless to say, that's a rare thing.

Since we have a number of California voters here, I thought I'd ask for opinions on out ballot initiatives and whether they make sense, since I'm a little confused about a couple of them. If you aren't voting in California, though, I'd really like to hear from you about your state's ballot measures, especially if they're unusual or controversial. :)

So here's how it looks to me, judging only by t.v. ads, radio ads, and an article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (I think that's where I saw it):

(If you're from elsewhere or don't care, feel free to skip this section.):wink:

---------------------------------

Prop 2: More room in cages for farm animals? Is that what this is about? Dunno about this. The ads seem more anti-Mexican than pro-animal, claiming (it seems) that stricter rules would have California farms lose their competitve edge to Mexican farms, resulting in salmonella-infected imports. The one animal rights-themed ad I've seen is similarly manipulative, featuring stock footage of a 'suffering' chicken in conditions that probably don't exist on our farms to begin with. Meh.

Prop 4: Mandatory parental notification for childrens' abortions. I haven't seen any ads pro- or con- just yet, and my policy on abortion in general involves a metaphorical ten-foot pole. If anyone knows whether this one makes sense, feel free to fill us in.

Prop 5: Looser law enforcement for drug/non-violent crimes, I think. Sen. Feinstein and Jerry Brown are against it, which means I probably ought to be for it, but I'm not convinced. The $8 billion we spend on prisons here each year is a disgrace, and funding addiction treatment is important, but somehow I doubt that simply freeing many of our state's prisoners would do the trick, and I'm guessing the implementation would cost more than the savings.

Prop 6: Increased criminal penalties for gang-related crimes. Gangs are using minors to carry out crimes - the measure looks like it's intended to make prosecuting minors as adults a bit easier, and ups the penalties for gun and meth-related crimes for repeat offenders. Basically, it would give the L.A. County District Attorney's office what it has been asking for forever, or at least since my internship there when I was in college, and, of course, make more than a few sociology professors sob. Tough call. :tongue:

Prop 7: Does anyone know what the heck this is? Something about renewable energy, but commercials suggest it's poorly written and would lead to all sorts of mayhem. Dunno.

Prop 8: *Anti*-gay marriage bill, meaning "yes" would create a constitutional amendment against it.

Prop 11: Redistricting. Anyone know if the new lines would be more/less gerrymandered? I'm tentatively voting "no."

Prop 12: Money for returning veterans' home loans. Yeah, it's a billion dollars, and yeah, we'll be paying heaps in interest payments, but unless the money's being diverted from a trust for war orphans or something, it's kinda hard to oppose. So 'yes' on that, why not.

---------------------------------

There are several more, of course, but these are the ones which are on the controversial side, or are in some way confusing to me, lacking as I do the time to really research this stuff. So please, let me know if I'm all wrong on one or many of these, and please share your local ballot measures if you like! Poll coming! :)

Edit: Poll should've been multiple-choice. I've asked if it can be changed in Moderation. Please forgive the error.

I've seen Prop 8 propaganda smeared about my town. And a pamphlet with an image of dominoes and the scare-words in red, "WILL THEY COME TO ASS RAPE YOUR CHILDREN, NEXT?" (or words to that effect).

I've seen Prop 8 propaganda smeared about my town. And a pamphlet with an image of dominoes and the scare-words in red, "WILL THEY COME TO ASS RAPE YOUR CHILDREN, NEXT?" (or words to that effect).

Yeah, the ones that have been playing recently claim that kids are going to be taken to their gay teachers' weddings. I only ever went to one of my teacher's weddings as a kid, and that sort of thing would be very rare at best. I don't even recall ever being taught about marriage in school, which would make the whole argument moot, but then again, I went to school in Illinois, and not California.

What if I'm from elsewhere and I do have an opinion? =)

Shouldn't this be a multi-option poll?

What if I'm from elsewhere and I do have an opinion? =)

Then please vote, but not yet. I botched the poll. :( Hopefully it can be fixed.

Shouldn't this be a multi-option poll?

Yeah, I screwed it up. I posted about it in Moderation, so it might be working soon.

I voted:

No on 1, pretty easy, for the same fiscal reasons you submitted.
No on 2, CA farms already have many protections, this may allow animals to be in the open yes but they'd also be more suspect to disease carried by migrating animals, such as bird flu.
Agonized yes on 4, though it is a topic that invites too much debate.
Yes on 5 because I hate the drug war.
No on 6, see above
No on 7, only affects gov't utilities, private can do whatever the hell they want still
Emphatic No on 8, evil commercials man, evil
Yes on 11 just for hope really.
Yes on 12 because, well honestly I'm biased.

i vove for # 8 because ppl should be able to marry who ever the hel they want. marraige is a religiuos practice. and last time i checked state and church were seperate which means our country has no say as to who we marry or not

Right, so I went to the Proposition 8 site. Or one of them, to look at the flyers again.

I won't link to that disgusting, bigoted, ignorant, fear-mongering trash here. But one flyer says, "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children."

That's right, prevent the gays from marrying, and you'll be saving children. And kittens, too! FROM TEH GAYS.

Of course, in their Myths and Facts Sheet, they say that it's a common myth that the Proposition discriminates against homosexuals. In fact, they say: "Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays." That's good, because I would hate to think the proposition is building on the fear that gay people are a threat to children or anything! Glad we cleared that up!

It's pretty god damn revolting.

i vove for # 8 because ppl should be able to marry who ever the hel they want. marraige is a religiuos practice. and last time i checked state and church were seperate which means our country has no say as to who we marry or not

Except marriage has civil, and legal ramifications outside of religion. Fail.

Right, so I went to the Proposition 8 site. Or one of them, to look at the flyers again.

I won't link to that disgusting, bigoted, ignorant, fear-mongering trash here. But one flyer says, "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children."

That's right, prevent the gays from marrying, and you'll be saving children. And kittens, too! FROM TEH GAYS.

Of course, in their Myths and Facts Sheet, they say that it's a common myth that the Proposition discriminates against homosexuals. In fact, they say: "Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays." That's good, because I would hate to think the proposition is building on the fear that gay people are a threat to children or anything! Glad we cleared that up!

It's pretty god damn revolting.

Absolutely. This is one of the few political issues of the last few years that I found out if someone I knew voted for it, I immediately lost a ton of respect for them. The two faced campaign that they have attempted to run is revolting, I really have to change the channel when a commercial for it comes on.

Right, so I went to the Proposition 8 site. Or one of them, to look at the flyers again.

I won't link to that disgusting, bigoted, ignorant, fear-mongering trash here. But one flyer says, "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children."

That's right, prevent the gays from marrying, and you'll be saving children. And kittens, too! FROM TEH GAYS.

Of course, in their Myths and Facts Sheet, they say that it's a common myth that the Proposition discriminates against homosexuals. In fact, they say: "Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays." That's good, because I would hate to think the proposition is building on the fear that gay people are a threat to children or anything! Glad we cleared that up!

It's pretty god damn revolting.

It did seem pretty obvious from the start that the whole thing with schoolkids was a red herring. Until yesterday though, I hadn't seen any anti-8 signage or advertising - it's been strictly pro-8 around here for yardsigns, and I had only seen the 'gay wedding' ad on television. I'm not sure what the polls say about that.

Anyway:

1: Not voting
2: For, just for the humanity of it
3: For, Think of the Children!
4: Against: This fucker has failed twice before, why should it pass now? That and notall teens have loving parents.
5: For, because it puts them into drug treatment facilities instead of releasingthem into the genral public
6: Not voting
7: Against, because as it has been repeatedly pointed out, it's poorly written and 10 is better overall (IMO)
8: Against, gay people have rights. And fuck traditional marraigeifit means that we have to deny rights to people.
9: For, see nothing wrong with it
10: For, Tax incentives for buying cars that run on renewable fuels? sign me up
11: For, Gerrymandering must die
12: Not voting

I live in Colorado and I see prop 8 propaganda: probably because I come from California and, for some reason, the internet can't seem to get that I don't live there anymore. In any case, I see your prop 8 and raise it a prop 48 - both for sheer lunacy and complete ignorance.

i vove for # 8 because ppl should be able to marry who ever the hel they want.

So you vote to ban them from doing so?

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

marraige is a religiuos practice.

Sometimes.

and last time i checked state and church were seperate which means our country has no say as to who we marry or not

It has no say in how your religion views marriage or who you may marry within that religion.

It does, on the other hand, have a say in how it will recognize civil marriages and what protections will be associated with that.

*not from Cali, so just giving my general opinion*

2) I'd have to know more about it, really.
4) No
5) Don't know much about this one, but it sounds like it could be a yes. I'm all for decriminalization of drugs and such.
6) Probably a no.
7) Dunno, because I'm just going by your description.
8) NO
11) Would depend on whether or not I thought they were overly gerrymandered. I wouldn't even bother asking if they were gerrymandered at all - I'd assume the answer was yes. But since the districting as it is was probably gerrymandered as well....
12) Maybe? I'm not sure what you mean. Returning home loans to veterans? As in, paying for their loans? For what reason?

12) Maybe? I'm not sure what you mean. Returning home loans to veterans? As in, paying for their loans? For what reason?

I meant "returning," as in returning to the U.S. from combat zones (though I was incorrect, it seems - the money would be for all vets, not just those returning from combat), sorry about that. But yes, that's all it is - a bond issue to pay for vets' home loans, simply on the basis that veterans deserve compensation for their service beyond whatever they're paid by whichever service they're in. Apparently, the state legislature voted unanimously in favor of putting the measure on the ballot. What isn't clear to me is why they couldn't simply include it in the recent budget, or in the next. As it stands we'll pay more in interest over 30 years than the vets will actually receive. Odd.

Apologies also for the sparse description of 7. I really am confused about it - the radio ads say that it's written without any mention of powerplants that generate less than 30 or so megawatts of energy, which would affect farmers and small business which operate their own generators, etc. etc. Not sure if that's true, though.

i vove for # 8 because ppl should be able to marry who ever the hel they want. marraige is a religiuos practice. and last time i checked state and church were seperate which means our country has no say as to who we marry or not

Marriage became a religious matter rather late. Historically it's been an economic rather than spiritual concern. People married to combine resources and to secure a line of inheritance or they arranged marriages for their children in order to make sure that they and their children had economic security. The Church, being constantly in need of funds, decided that it needed to control marriage in order to control its access to money and real estate (it also wanted to control women's sexuality, but that's another thread).

And, since it's establishment, this country has had a great deal to say about who can and cannot marry - from anti-miscegenation laws to laws about incest to laws restricting the rights of the mentally-challenged to marry. We no longer have official anti-miscegenation laws (though there's a lot of pressure against inter-racial marriages in some areas), but there are still laws about degrees of relationship allowed in marriage and the marriage of retarded individuals (strangely, I find no laws restricting the right of the insane to marry).

I meant "returning," as in returning to the U.S. from combat zones (though I was incorrect, it seems - the money would be for all vets, not just those returning from combat), sorry about that. But yes, that's all it is - a bond issue to pay for vets' home loans, simply on the basis that veterans deserve compensation for their service beyond whatever they're paid by whichever service they're in. Apparently, the state legislature voted unanimously in favor of putting the measure on the ballot. What isn't clear to me is why they couldn't simply include it in the recent budget, or in the next. As it stands we'll pay more in interest over 30 years than the vets will actually receive. Odd.

Hmmm.....

I agree with making home loans easier for vets to get and maybe even subsidizing them some. But I think that's already done federally.

But outright paying for them? Not so much.

Edit: Looking it up, it appears to be a "helping them" thing, although I've never seen bonds used that way. Either way, it looks like they pay it back like any home loan.

Apologies also for the sparse description of 7. I really am confused about it - the radio ads say that it's written without any mention of powerplants that generate less than 30 or so megawatts of energy, which would affect farmers and small business which operate their own generators, etc. etc. Not sure if that's true, though.

Yeah, that's one of those things I'd actually have to spend time looking into if I were a CA voter. You can never be sure how much of what you hear for or against a bill actually makes sense.

2. Undecided
3.Yes
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. Undecided - but probably no
8. No
9. No
10. No
11. Yes
12. Yes

There are only two proposals in Michigan this year. Both are largely expected to win, although Proposal 2 is a bit iffy.

Proposal 1

To allow medicinal marijuana. I voted yes.

Proposal 2

To allow stem cell research. I voted yes.

As far as state elections go 2010 is going to be far more exciting. More of the Senate is up for grabs, so hopefully we can get the Democrats a majority and boot Mike Bishop's worthless ass out. We'll need a new Governor and Granholm is term limited. We'll have to vote on a new Constitutional Convention, which could indeed pass depending on whether our state's situation improves greatly by then. Also, the unicameral group should be attempting to get on the ballot again.

I'm far more excited by state politics than national politics, partly because I like my state far more than I like the Federal government, and partly because the things happening are happening locally, not thousands of miles away.

Could be worse.

The Constitution of Alabama is the longest and most amended such document in the world (700+ amendments the last time I looked). The reason is that the framers who wrote it in 1901 were large business owners and wealthy landowners. The avowed purpose of the Constitution was to limit the political power of poor whites and African American voters. The mechanism chosen was to severely limit the powers of government in general and local government (Counties) in particular. What little power was granted was concentrated in the State Legislature.

As a result, in order to do even the most basic functions of government local governments are forced to get a bill passed thru the Legislature and/or get a Constitutional Amendment passed. Therefore there are numerous amendments on every ballot. Amendments affecting only one county can be voted on just in that county unless a single member of the legislature objects, in which case the amendment must be voted on state wide. That results in the ridiculous situation of voters state wide deciding purely local issues.

#1 - Rainy Day - Education in Alabama has a separate budget funded primarily with sales taxes and income taxes (with a little property tax thrown in). All other state agencies are under the General Fund with revenues coming from a myriad of taxes. Budgets are passed in May for the fiscal year 10/1 - 9/30 so both budgets are based on anticipated revenues. The taxes going into both funds are extremely sensitive to general economic conditions so when you have a downturn like now the funds go into mandatory cuts (proration - probably 5% for the general fund this year and 7-10% for education)

Alabama has 3.3 Billion Dollars in a Oil and Gas Trust Fund. Amendment One lets the general and education funds borrow from that 3.3 Billion and would require them to repay the Trust Fund


Yes...now on to the loony. And yes, these all are going to be voted on state-wide.

#2 - Shelby County - Currently when a Judge vacates his office the Governor appoints the replacement. The only qualifications are a law license and residency. This amendment would create a local Shelby County commission that would screen candidates for Judge and forward a certain number of names (usually 3) to the governor. He would then have to appoint one of that number.

#3 The City of Madison has annexed property in Limestone County. As a result residents of the city pay different school property taxes depending upon what county they live in. #3 would equalize the property taxes so they would be the same.

#4 - Blount County - apparently cities that border Blount County have been annexing property inside Blount County. Right now, only the area being annexed has to approve it. #4 would require any such annexation to be approved by a vote of all of Blount County.

#5 - Russell County - 20 years ago a fee was added to each court case in Russell County to pay for a jail. That fee expires unless #5 passes.The money is still needed to pay for upkeep of the Jail and other local functions.

#6 - Tuskegee - allows the citizens of the City of Tuskegee to elect two members of the local utility board

*snip*

You Alabamans are fucked regardless. Where your Virginian cousins are models of efficient and effective government, Alabama is a model for clumsy and unwieldy government. Still, I hear it's really pretty down there so at least you've got that going for you.

You Alabamans are fucked regardless. Where your Virginian cousins are models of efficient and effective government, Alabama is a model for clumsy and unwieldy government. Still, I hear it's really pretty down there so at least you've got that going for you.

Not having a winter helps immensely. Now if I could get a beer on Sunday, it'd be quite nice.

Proposition 1 in Connecticut would call a constitutional congress. The short version is that every 20 years, Connecticut votes on whether to become like California for an election cycle, allowing the public to vote directly on new constitutional amendments that politicians see fit to offer. Guess who is one of the stronger advocates of a constitutional congress this cycle? The Catholic CHurch. Why? Gay Marriage of course. Connecticut recently declared gay marriage constitutional. There are a couple other constitutional changes being considered, but I don't see anything that can't be handled with laws instead. Proposition 1 is about Gay Marriage. That's all.

Because the Catholic CHurch loves us all and wants to save us so much that they want to dictate what people can and can't do instead of what they should and shouldn't do. *feels all warm and gooey inside*

Proposition 1 in Connecticut would call a constitutional congress. The short version is that every 20 years, Connecticut votes on whether to become like California for an election cycle, allowing the public to vote directly on new constitutional amendments that politicians see fit to offer. Guess who is one of the stronger advocates of a constitutional congress this cycle? The Catholic CHurch. Why? Gay Marriage of course. Connecticut recently declared gay marriage constitutional. There are a couple other constitutional changes being considered, but I don't see anything that can't be handled with laws instead. Proposition 1 is about Gay Marriage. That's all.

Because the Catholic CHurch loves us all and wants to save us so much that they want to dictate what people can and can't do instead of what they should and shouldn't do. *feels all warm and gooey inside*

No one expects the Connecticut Inquisition!1!

Rhode Island has two ballot initiatives. One that basically says "plant more trees" and one that basically says "fix the roads and bridges and public transportation systems".

... and one that basically says "fix the roads and bridges and public transportation systems".

Both of em? :D

;)

I'm far more excited by state politics than national politics, partly because I like my state far more than I like the Federal government, and partly because the things happening are happening locally, not thousands of miles away.

As often as I've disagreed with my state governments over the years, I still agree completely in this regard - states really are best run by state governments, even if your governor is Arnold Schwarzenegger. :tongue:

Because the Catholic CHurch loves us all and wants to save us so much that they want to dictate what people can and can't do instead of what they should and shouldn't do. *feels all warm and gooey inside*

Ah yes. Today's new pro-8 add had a bit about gay marriage conflicting with our religious freedoms. Have churches anywhere been forced to accept or perform gay marriages? Would they lose tax-exempt status if they refused to do so? Not that I've ever heard of, but gay marriage hasn't been legal here for very long.

Im from Ohio and I do have an opinion about Prop 8. Since I'm from a state that has banned Gay marriages in the last election, I so would want to vote No on the issue. I believe that everybody has the right to live however they want to. As a Christian, I believe that whatever happens in your life is between you and God, I am not him, so why should I judge? Do you and do what you think is best in your life! Vote no.....

Oh I have a question, does California have casinos? We have a major issue, Issue 6, that would open up one big casino in Southern Ohio and I want to know someones opinion on it. Thanks!

Oh I have a question, does California have casinos? We have a major issue, Issue 6, that would open up one big casino in Southern Ohio and I want to know someones opinion on it. Thanks!

We have card clubs and a bunch of Indian casinos. The card clubs aren't considered casinos because they don't take a share of the winnings, charging for food/drinks/entertainment and (I think) admission instead. There was a big issue about Indian casinos in '06 if I remember right - something about having them pay corporate income tax, or something like that. Schwarzenegger supported it; Indians had to "pay their fair share," according to the ad. I think the issue was defeated.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_2008_ballot_measures

Ohio has five initiatives this year. I'm thinking yes on 1, 3 and 6, and no on 2 and five.

We have a major issue, Issue 6, that would open up one big casino in Southern Ohio and I want to know someones opinion on it. Thanks!

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Issue_6_%282008%29

Here's a bit of a review on the matter.

Personally, I'm for this issue. The area where they are talking about putting this has been devastated by the closure of the DHL facility there. So many people have left the area that some drastic surgery is needed to stop the bleeding. The construction of this casino can probably help with that.

FWIW, the California League of Women Voters (http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0811/index.html) recommends voting as follows:

1A. Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act - Yes
2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals - No position
3. Children's Hospital Bond Act - Yes
4. Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -No
5. Nonviolent Drug Offenses: Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation Yes
6. Criminal Penalties and Laws - No
7. Renewable Energy Generation - No
8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry - No
9. Criminal Justice System, Victims Rights, Parole - No
10. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewal Energy. Bonds - No
11. Redistricting Reform - Yes
12. Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 - No position

here is a 2 page pdf (http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0811/TheLeagueRecommends.pdf) which summarizes why they take the positions they do.

The California Democratic Party recommends (http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.4213689/):
1A. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. No.
8. No.
9. No.
10. Neutral
11. No.
12. Yes.


The California Republican Party (http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/november_ballot_propositions.htm) recommends:
1A. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. No.
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. No.
11. No position.
12. Yes.

I currently plan to vote as follows:
1A. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. No.
8. No.
9. No.
10. Not sure - leaning No.
11. Not sure - leaning Yes.
12. Yes.

First, here (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/) is an easy link to more information on all the California Propositions.


Prop 2: More room in cages for farm animals? Is that what this is about? Dunno about this. The ads seem more anti-Mexican than pro-animal, claiming (it seems) that stricter rules would have California farms lose their competitve edge to Mexican farms, resulting in salmonella-infected imports. The one animal rights-themed ad I've seen is similarly manipulative, featuring stock footage of a 'suffering' chicken in conditions that probably don't exist on our farms to begin with. Meh.

I think the "lose edge to Mexico" and "salmonella-imports" is pure fear-mongering.

The measures seems to be a reasonable step against animal cruelty and is endorsed (http://www.yesonprop2.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=85) by a wide range of concerns, including California farmers.

BTW, if chickens in California don't currently suffer under cramped conditions, then this law shouldn't have any negative impact on our farms, should it?

Prop 4: Mandatory parental notification for childrens' abortions. I haven't seen any ads pro- or con- just yet, and my policy on abortion in general involves a metaphorical ten-foot pole. If anyone knows whether this one makes sense, feel free to fill us in.

Evil bullshit that will put the health and safety of teens in danger. Hell no.

Prop 5: Looser law enforcement for drug/non-violent crimes, I think. Sen. Feinstein and Jerry Brown are against it, which means I probably ought to be for it, but I'm not convinced. The $8 billion we spend on prisons here each year is a disgrace, and funding addiction treatment is important, but somehow I doubt that simply freeing many of our state's prisoners would do the trick, and I'm guessing the implementation would cost more than the savings.

Expands treatment and rehabilitation of nonviolent drug offenders and seems like a good idea to me.

FWIW, you are right that Sen. Feinstein and Atty Gen. Brown are against. So is Gov. Schwarzenegger.

Prop 6: Increased criminal penalties for gang-related crimes. Gangs are using minors to carry out crimes - the measure looks like it's intended to make prosecuting minors as adults a bit easier, and ups the penalties for gun and meth-related crimes for repeat offenders. Basically, it would give the L.A. County District Attorney's office what it has been asking for forever, or at least since my internship there when I was in college, and, of course, make more than a few sociology professors sob. Tough call. :tongue:

Meh. You are right that this includes a crackdown on juveniles. It seems to be the "anti-gang hysteria bill." I say No.

Prop 7: Does anyone know what the heck this is? Something about renewable energy, but commercials suggest it's poorly written and would lead to all sorts of mayhem. Dunno.

Requires all utilities to generate 50 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2025. A laudable goal, but my understanding is that just about every "expert" says the thing is horribly written and will backfire. I say No.

Prop 8: *Anti*-gay marriage bill, meaning "yes" would create a constitutional amendment against it.

Evil amendment seek to deprive same-sex couples of rights. Hell no.

Prop 11: Redistricting. Anyone know if the new lines would be more/less gerrymandered? I'm tentatively voting "no."

I have mixed feelings about this, but the idea is that new lines would be less gerrymandered because they would be set by a 14-member independent commission rather than the legislature. I'm not sure on this one, however.

Prop 12: Money for returning veterans' home loans. Yeah, it's a billion dollars, and yeah, we'll be paying heaps in interest payments, but unless the money's being diverted from a trust for war orphans or something, it's kinda hard to oppose. So 'yes' on that, why not.

I agree, seems like a Yes.

i vove for # 8 because ppl should be able to marry who ever the hel they want. marraige is a religiuos practice. and last time i checked state and church were seperate which means our country has no say as to who we marry or not

Your argument contradicts your support for Prop. 8.

If people should be able to marry whoever they want, then Prop. 8 is wrong.

Prop. 8 would make the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman part of the state Consititution -- essentially codifying a religious view as the law of the state. That is more repellant to separation of Church and State than the status quo, which leaves churches to provide religious marriage and the state to provide civil marriage.

Ah yes. Today's new pro-8 add had a bit about gay marriage conflicting with our religious freedoms. Have churches anywhere been forced to accept or perform gay marriages? Would they lose tax-exempt status if they refused to do so? Not that I've ever heard of, but gay marriage hasn't been legal here for very long.

No. No. Hasn't happened in other states or Canada. Couldn't happen here.

The argument that allowing same-sex marriage violates someone's religious freedoms makes NO FUCKING SENSE and is completely backwards.

Prop 1 means trains, yay! I like trains.

I'm not in California, but I support Prop. 2 and oppose Prop. 4 and Prop. 8.

In Maryland, there are two constitutional amendments: one allowing the General Assembly to enact legislation for early voting, and the other allowing the government to raise education funds through slot machines. I support the first (why not?), but oppose the second: the government shouldn't be encouraging people to waste their money on a gambling system where the odds are stacked against them, and it certainly shouldn't be profiting off it.

I'm just glad the courts nixed Montgomery County, MD's "We're Bigoted Assholes and We Hate Transgendered People" ballot measure... it would have repealed the county's new anti-discrimination law (which passed the Council unanimously), and was being advocated with the pack of lies we've come to expect from the sort of disgusting people who sponsor measures like that.

edit the poll so i can pick multiple ones

In GA, there were 3 constitutional amendments up for a vote. One was about tax law on forested land, one would allow counties and such to spend school funds on other projects (among other things) and one had something to do with infrastructure districts.

I voted against all three. On the first, I saw no reason for it to be in the state constitution, whether it was a good idea or not. On the second, I'm not going to approve of school money being spent elsewhere - they're cutting education budgets like mad anyways. On the third, it was very poorly written and I'm not sure what the need for it was.

It didn't help that there wasn't much discussion of these things to flesh them out, not that this is new for GA politics.

By the way, Google opposes Prop 8 (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html).

Yay for Google. :)

that poll needed to be multiple choice.

there are definately more then one on it i'm voting yes on.

and balot initiatives ARE why i vote. you CAN always do your homework on them, just like legislators have to do on the votes they cast.
unlike politicians running for office, at anything beyond the most local level, where you can never really know what you're voting for.

here's mine:
1a (highspeed rail) yes!
2 farm animal condition standards; yes
3 children's hospital bond; absolutely; yes
4 NO!
5 yes, although this is a not so simple one
6 no. haven't read ALL the fine print, but don't trust it
7 yes, although it does have the problem of being 'ahhnees' with somewhat uncertain agenda.
8 you've got to be kidding, hell no i'm not supporting a bunch of fanatics telling anyone who or what they can marry.
9 another one i don't trust and gets a no from me
10 YES! (even though it does have the word vehicules in the title)
11 yes, although that was almost a coin toss, and might be a mistake
12 yes.

my local county has measures r and s

raising pay of county supervisors and chainging their terms of employment

those get my no on that.

(i want my local city and county budgets to go toward parks, libraries, and especially public transportaion, which is being woefully starved from what support they get from the state, right when not just potential, but actual ridership is at its highest)