You have until 8:00 pm to vote, so don’t miss it!
I’m a nonpartisan, so I got to choose what ballet I wanted. I selected a Democratic ballet. If you have a different ballet, then we’ll still at least have the propositions in common, so I’ll start with those.
- Yes on Prop 13 – Seems like everybody is agreed on this one. Haven’t heard any counterarguments, and I think it sounds pretty sensible.
- Yes on Prop 14 – Going against DailyKOS’s recommendation on this one. People still only get one vote, but this way, they’d have more choice in where they could use it during future primaries because they wouldn’t be automatically shackled to the party they’re registered with. Not such a big deal for me since I already have this privilege by being a nonpartisan. Also, I don’t buy the argument that this is actually a roundabout trick by the party bosses to somehow actually end up with more power. If anything, I think it would just force them to be less vicious and immature in their ads since they’d have to care more about centrists instead of just appealing to party hardliners and radicals.
- Yes on Prop 15 – I don’t like how only people with gobs of money are capable of winning. By letting candidates decide to use public funds in exchange for not going over a limit, more qualified people to would be able to run and would have a realistic shot against the kind of corrupt candidates that get zillions of dollars from corporate interests. And it would be optional anyway for the candidates, so when Scrooge McDuck decides he wants to run for governor, he could still decide to forego this and use his own considerable funds.
- No on Prop 16 – Corporate lobbyist legislation. PG&E got this onto the ballet to make more money by restricting what people can do to serve their interests. No thanks.
- No on Prop 17 – Corporate lobbyist legislation. This time, it’s from Mercury Insurance. They just want to be able to charge you for changing your insurance provider. No thanks.
- Yes on Prop H (Coronado) – Going against the Union Tribune’s recommendation here. I realize this measure is almost certainly going to lose on account of so much money being dumped into the campaign against it (all those silly “Kiss the tunnel proposal goodbye!” banners with bright red lips went unanswered as far as I could see), but I’m supporting it because it’s true that Coronado needs to study the different proposals on how to deal with traffic for now and the near future. This vote is not for or against the tunnel. It’s for or against studying what the tunnel would mean, as well as other traffic solutions. Also, in the voter information pamphlet, I found the argument against it to just be very, very poorly crafted. I’m sure that the opposing side has a legitimate case, but they did not make it in the pamphlet, and meanwhile, the proponents of Prop H made their case very well.
- Jerry Brown for Governor (Peter Schurmann would also be very good)
- Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor
- Kamala Harris for Attorney General (Ted Lieu would also be very good)
- Dave Jones for Insurance Commissioner
- Barbara Boxer for Senator
- Mary Salas for 40th District
- Ben Hueso for 79th District
- Tom Torlakson for State Superintendent of Public Instruction