I got my absentee ballot today! Now, how should I vote?

Today was an especially good day as I finally received my absentee ballot.  I will spare you the details of how I'm voting, just a straight Democratic ticket.  Yes, I am voting for Cruz Bustamante.  I have to say this election is a major dissapointment for me.  After horrible primary campaigns, I am stuck voting for Angelides (who I have little hope for).  His campaign has been absolutely dreadful.  Still this Foley scandal has legs and if Republicans stay home, Arnold could still lose.  I am pretty much voting in zero competitive races.  I am voting only to make a statement against the GOP and unfortunately there are no Republicans to take out.  But now, I have some questions on the ballot propositions.  Namely how should I vote?

I know I'm definately voting no on 85 and yes on 87.  And I'm probably voting no on 1b.  But before I cast my ballot, does anyone have any suggestions or arguments to vote on the following props?  Also, there seem to be all these court of appeal justices and supreme court justices I'm supposed to be voting for.  Are these all Arnold's appointments?  If so, perhaps I should vote No on all of them.  Wow, this diary is depressing sounding....well I'm not depressed.  Poll numbers are looking up across the country.  We approach the

•  Dude

  you left Bowen off your poll!

  by juls on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:45:37 PM PDT

  •  Oh crap

    She is like in the one competitive race in California and I'm actually excited voting for her!  Well hearing her name cheers me up.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:51:05 PM PDT

    •  yeah, and where's George Miller?

      by bumblebums on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:36:23 PM PDT

    •  Speaking

      of Bowen and absentee ballots.  Check out the diary I just posted.  McPhereson screwed up with the extra postage needed for the hella long ballots.

      by juls on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:48:51 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, make sure you use enough postage! n/t

        by neroden on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:49:56 PM PDT

•  You wait until you have the ballot

   to do any research on the election?

  Sigh.

  Do what I did on my SAT's, turn the paper sideways and color in a pattern with the boxes. Then smear it with bodily fluids and white corn starch and mail it in...wait three days and answer the door in your PJ's, the FBI will do the rest.

  by PBJ Diddy on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:50:46 PM PDT

  •  Well I can guarantee you that was a bad way to go

    Although I didn't study that much for the SAT's come to think of it.  I'm sick of the ballot system and I had heard very little about the ballot initiatives up until now.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:52:11 PM PDT

  •  it's an *absentee* ballot

    gives him/her over 3 weeks to decide.  what's the problem?

    by amitxjoshi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:09:17 PM PDT

    •  Um...no problem...

      but honestly, doesn't it speak a little bit about the state of democratic activism when a democratic activist comes to a democratic activist web site and asks who to vote for while holding the ballot in his hands three weeks before the election? Reminds me of the guy I knew in college who showed up for finals and said, "This is physics? I didn't bring my gym shoes!"

      by PBJ Diddy on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:19:16 PM PDT

      •  Actually, I like it

        If you're a liberal, it's a smart idea to come ask for advice, don't you think?  Take the CA propositions--it's impossible to actually read them and make up your mind about most of them!  So what do you do?  There's any number of websites which will give you advice, but can you trust them?  What's their motivation?  Is Howie Rich behind any of them?

        I say, smart move coming to DKos for advice!  Way better than making random choices, getting swayed by some TV ad, or just listening to the loudmouth in the next office!

        by amitxjoshi on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:43:06 PM PDT

  •  Here's how I do it

    I look to see if it is a legislative initiative or a petition initiative. If it is a petition initiative, I start out with a negative attitude (I assume that a petition initiative was presented by a special interest and that the issues and details have not had the benefit of being vetted). Next, I read the legislative assistants analysis in the Election Material. If I can't understand it in about a minute, I vote no. If I understand it but am not very certain, I start to read the actual initiative - but if its more than 4-5 pages, I stop and vote no.

    If its a legislative initiative, I read it noting the number of votes cast for it. If the votes approach 66% for and 33% against, I generally will vote yes figuring that it had full venting.

    This year I'm voting no on every petition initiative. Some have good intentions but carry too much baggage for me.

    by Serendipity on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:32:26 PM PDT

    •  You've inspired me to change my tagline. n/t

      by PBJ Diddy on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:21:10 PM PDT

    •  It's good to check the sponsers of the initiative

      and the backers.  If it's big oil or big pharma, veto it.  If it's nurses, educators, firefighters, etc, it's a good bet.

      by trashablanca on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:43:55 PM PDT

•  One thing I learned about absentee voting today

  It isn't counted in the mandatory 1% audit that occurs after the election, at least in California.

  by DDA on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:56:40 PM PDT

•  George Miller!

  in the East Bay!!!

  Now, on to how you should vote (since you asked and all)

  Props 1a-1e-YES (Nobody will raise taxes, and we needs us the money)

  Prop 83-NO,NO,NO-This law punishes small town people whose little hamlets will become child molester centrals (due to the provision that sex offenders cannot live near churches, schools , or libraries (i think). Per Mark Leno, the only two communities that right now can legally house sex offenders under this law are Fresno & Bakersfield. Also, the GPS technology is unreliable. It can show a person Violating parole even when they didnt, therby wasting lots of police time tracking them down for no good reason

  Prop 84-yes- again, we needs us the money, and noone will vote to raise taxes, so, bonds away. Levees is this State are in worse shape than N.O., and this is Earhtquake country.

  Prop 85-NO, NO,NO!!! But you already knew that..:)

  Prop 86-Yes. While a smoker, I realize this needs to happen. Sigh. GuessI'm quitting on ov. *th...

  Prop 87-Yes- but again, you already know that :)

  Prop 88-Yes- Prop 13 made this necessary, and dude, its only $50.00.

  Prop 89-YES, YES, YES. I gots relatives in Maine, and they loooove this!! Way past damn time.

  Prop 90- HELL FUCK NO- Satan Spawn of Prop 13, this legislation will fuck the people for the enrichment of a few. Sounds good- VERY VERY BAD!!!!!

  That is all  :)

  Happy Voting!

  by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:59:31 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I was all set to vote against Prop 83

    I'm sick of all these "tough on crime" laws.  Call me Angela Davis but I think that enough is enough.  You don't solve crime by throwing everyone in prison or by taking away rights from citizens who have done their time.  I know it's politically incorrect but why is it that every time a tragedy happens, we have to make a brand new law that takes away rights of the criminally accused?  It's very easy to sit around and happily say that "Criminals don't deserve rights".  However, what if you're wrongfully accussed?  We need prison reform, youth authority reform, juvenile court reform, better funding and oversight for police departments, and more after school programs.  While I'm at it, I think that all superior court justices should no longer be voted on.  Anyone can simply run for office and win regardless of how well qualified they are right now.

    No one ever thinks about that.  I'm voting against 90 as well, it's good in theory, but in practice will not work.  The government has a right to eminent domain.  I'll go for 1b, I don't really like it that much but it seems reasonable.  I'm voting for 86, it's not really fair but I want to keep California the most anti smoking state in the union.  :)  And you know what, I'll vote no on every single justice.  That way when Angelides wins in a miracle/shocker election, he can appoint all new judges.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:09:54 PM PDT

  •  Agree with all but 86 ...

    ...and I'm a non-smoker.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:46:51 PM PDT

  •  Disagree on 88

    I'm generally in support of anything that raises money for schools, but I honestly don't believe that a regressive tax is ever the answer.  88 calls for $50/year added onto property taxes, regardless of whether it's the Transamerica Pyramid or Granny's cottage.  We can do better.

    A good source to consult is Speak Out California, which has a voter guide that lists the state ballot initiative endorsements made by 10 progressive organizations.

    by JDinCA on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:56:41 PM PDT

    •  actually...

      Granny's cottage would be exempt.

      I'm still leaning towards "no" though.  Not sure yet.

      by midvalley on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 09:18:12 PM PDT

•  Vote for all the bond measures

  Some people complain about the finances, some even call it "fiscally irresponsible," which it isn't - the state desperately needs these things, otherwise you WILL see infrastructure collapse, lost jobs, lost dollars, and maybe lost lives.

  Further, the bond measures will fund projects that will employ a LOT of people, at good wages, in good union jobs, which will boost the economy in innumerable ways.

  It saddens me to see liberals and Democrats opposing such good uses of public monies.

  by eugene on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:00:15 PM PDT

  •  Well, I'd rather see taxes instead of Bonds

    But since that has a snowballs chance of hell happening  in the current political climate, I will vote yes on all bond measures.
    Sigh.

    by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:02:01 PM PDT

    •  All?

      by ogre on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:12:39 PM PDT

      •  YUP

        Every single one.

        by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:21:32 PM PDT

        •  Dems say no on 85, 88, 90

          http://www.cadem.org/...

          by jotter on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:25:32 PM PDT

          •  You're confusing bonds and props

            by eugene on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:25:40 PM PDT

            •  "every single one"

              is what drew my attention.   When you have a list of items to vote on, and someone says "yes to all", clarification is required, no matter what the original posters intent or meaning.

              by jotter on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:57:07 AM PDT

          •  I voted for 88....whoops

            by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:30:11 PM PDT

  •  I don't oppose

    I am huge into infrastructure and building projects.  I only wish that public transit was included in infrastructure spending.  Unbeknownst to most people, California is a huge agricultural state, we provide most of the food in this country.  I gladly recognize this and I'm willing to spend on bond measures to improve infrastructure in areas where it will benefit agricultural producers and workers.  

    And most of my educational experience has been in private institutions but I did spend a year in LAUSD.  The public schools are beyond run down and in disrepair, it is shocking.  One time I had to take this standardized test at University High School in West LA, I was shocked and disgusted by the condition.  The bathrooms were especially deplorable.  They were not regularly cleaned, contained few working fixtures, had broken doors, graffitti, and there was no toilet paper (fortunate for me, I only had a #1) or paper towels in the dispenser.  I ask you, how can students be expected to learn in that kind of environment?  They at least deserve toilet paper!  Not everyone can just magically afford expensive private schools (Bush's voucher program sucks) and eeveryone has a right to a quality public education.  So I am voting for the bond measures, especially the school bonds.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:17:45 PM PDT

    •  Regarding bonds

      I'll only vote for bonds with economic ramifications. I'll vote for the transportation bond, because better roads and rails will increase tax revs, paying for the bond. I'll vote for the school bond for the same reason. The conservation bonds though, and those type? I'm all for the aims, but I won't pay double for them through bonds.

      by ripzaw on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:23:21 PM PDT

      •  I feel ya

        But you'll never get the opportunity to "pay for them once" with taxes, because noone will vote for it.
        Lesser of two evils.

        by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:26:02 PM PDT

        •  True nuff

          It's one of those eternal questions - which is more important - forcing the legislature to take some damn responsibility for itself, or building a damn dam?

          by ripzaw on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:01:03 PM PDT

          •  Damn dam

            Dammit!!

            by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:01:41 PM PDT

            •  Now we're even <n/t>

              by ripzaw on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:13:24 PM PDT

    •  Angelides if for the High Speed Rail

      And Schwartenegger is against it.

      Just putting that out there...

      by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:26:51 PM PDT

•  Not on the list

  Debra Bowen.

  People who actively defent my vote and right to vote have my support.

  by ogre on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:12:16 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Debra Bowen for SoS.

    BIG deal.  Very important race.

    by neroden on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:47:47 PM PDT

    •  Bruce McPherson is a Diebolding SOB

      Bowen is the ticket.

      by trashablanca on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:47:27 PM PDT

•  For the love of god,

  vote against Prop 90.  It is really really really bad shit wrapped in an appealing package.

  By defining all new regulations as "takings" of property rights, Prop 90 requires the government to pay any landholder for the loss of any potential revenue due to new regulations.

  So if a new zoning regulation prohibits the building of chemical waste dumps next to your house, the owner of the empty land by your house can require the government to pay him the amount of money he might have earned by building a chemical waste dump on that land.  Which makes every new zoning regulation far too costly to even consider enacting.

  If the California EPA added a species to the endangered list, same deal.  California would have to compensate every landowner for whatever it is they can no longer build on their property.  

  It puts a complete end to the modern regulatory state.  Health, environmental, zoning, who knows what else.

  Make sure everyone you know knows to vote against, because the first line or two is about eminent domain, and lots of people are going to see that and vote for.  This could be really bad.

  by texas dem on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:16:35 PM PDT

  •  At first I considered it

    But after really looking at it carefully, I have realized what an absolute mess this is.  People don't realize how important government is.  No government shouldn't run your life, tell you how to operate, and they should always be striving for efficiency.  

    But what all these knee jerk anti government types don't realize is how important the government is for the safety and security of a community.  Who makes sure that our beef isn't infected with BSE so that we don't die from brain wasting a decade later?  Who watches over the spread of disease and makes sure that we have scientists working on cures and vaccines to the latest diseases?  Who puts out fires?  Who clears away garbage?  Who keeps our streets safe?  Who watches over our airports, our seaports, or train stations?  Who makes sure that our subway lines and freeway lines and other infrastructure gets built?  THE GOVERNMENT!!!  Now there can be privatization here and there for efficiency's sake but ultimately, the decision making has to come from the government.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:26:36 PM PDT

•  No on Prop 86!

  A resounding NO! Regressive sin taxes don't work and create organized crime.

  by michael1104 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:16:54 PM PDT

  •  They work to a point, but we're past it.

    by curtadams on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:19:47 PM PDT

    •  What "point" are you talking about?

      The research on tobacco taxes that I have seen concludes that higher taxes reduce youth smoking significantly.  None of that research concludes that there is a point after which there is no effect.  On the contrary, the research concludes that higher taxes reduct youth smoking, and that the higher the taxes the lower the prevalence of youth smoking.

      by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:57:50 PM PDT

      •  Eventually they just create corruption

        See prohibition and marijuana laws.

        by curtadams on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:36:15 PM PDT

        •  Taxes on Marijuana?

          I think marijuana legalization advocates would be pretty happy if marijuana were legal but taxed at $3.50 a pack.

          by ortcutt on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:09:05 AM PDT

  •  Prop 86 is progressive

    The truth is that low-income families will benefit the most from Prop 86.  They will benefit from the incentives to quit smoking that the higher costs bring, and they will benefit from programs such as Healthy Families which Prop 86 revenue will pay for.  There is nothing regressive at all about Prop 86.

    http://www.yesprop86.com/...

    The stuff about organized crime is fucking baloney too.  Do you have any research to back up the claim or are you just buying into the tobacco industry's talking points?

    by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:54:59 PM PDT

    •  yes nanny state

      whatever you say. "It's for your own good".

      Next time you trash the religious right for using governemnt to control your life, remember your utter hypocrisy and moral cherry picking when it comes to adults making their decision to use a legal product.

      by michael1104 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:08:38 PM PDT

      •  Taxes amount to the nanny state?

        Everyone is free to keep smoking if they want.  It'll just be more expensive.  If you think that all taxation amounts to the nanny state, then you should go live in the jungle in your anarchist paradise.

        by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:15:39 PM PDT

        •  its coercion yes.

          If you impose excessive taxes for the SOLE purpose of forcing people to stop smoking when it is legal to do so...and in a way that hurts poor people who tend to smoke the most..."for their own good" then yes it is the nanny state. And the taxes don't even go to healthcare for the supposed costs smokers cause but instead go to roads, then yes that is nanny state.

          If you're gonna impose an excessive tax to force smokers quit, then impose a $5 tax on Big Macs. OTherwise, you are a hypocrite.

          by michael1104 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:22:55 PM PDT

          •  Tobacco = Big Mac?

            It's ridiculous to compare a highly addictive subtance such as nicotene to a Big Mac.  Tobacco taxes are meant to influence behavior.  No public health advocate is going to apologize for that fact.  Tobacco taxes have some effect on the already addicted, but the main effect is on those who are not yet addicted.  Tobacco taxes are the single most effective way of reducing youth smoking rates.  I think you also need to think about what people really want to.  According to the CDC, 70% of smokers want to quit.  Keeping teens from starting smoking actually helps them from taking up a addiction that they will likely later regret and will likely kill them.

            by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:31:48 PM PDT

            •  answer me this.

              What causes more disease in America...being overly fat or smoking? I would say it's about the same.

              If you are gonna tax in order to save smokers from themselves, you better save fat people from themselves too.

              Some people would argue that excessive eating is also an addiction. Shoudln't we make peopel cut down from stuffing 2 Big Macs a day?

              by michael1104 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:52:07 PM PDT

              •  So, tax all food?

                This analogy is bogus.  First, you are again ignoring the addictive aspects of tobacco.  Second, people can eat hambugers and still maintain a healthy weight.  Any food will make people fat in too great a quantity.  Are you suggesting that we tax all food because it might make people fat?  That's absurd.  You'd be taxing people for what is a biological necessity.  By contrast, there is no safe level of smoking and tobacco isn't a biological necessity.

                by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:27:43 PM PDT

                •  oh please

                  that's bullshit. There are foods which are known to cause weight gain--severe weight gain. No one has ever shown that eating lettuce to excess causes weight gain. We know trans fats are unhealthy, we know high sugar content is unhealthy, and saturated fat content. You know full well the difference. You are gasping for straws.

                  by michael1104 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:24:23 PM PDT

                •  Not all food: just the unhealthy stuff

                  You know: milk chocolate, fast food, stuff with grease,  lots of calories and that stuff that clogs your arteries.

                  Of course you don't agree with michael1104: this is an emotional issue for you. You're looking for personal validation of the pain you suffered because your own family members couldn't kick the habit and died as a result.

                  The fact is (FACT!) that bad food and bad diet kills more people - more reliably - than tobacco does. You deny this because you're not looking for rational policy.

                  You're looking for revenge.

                  by opendna on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 01:07:34 AM PDT

                  •  Baloney

                    This is a rational not an emotional issue.  My father is very much alive, and I have been a public health advocate for many years.  I think public policy on healthy eating is a wonderful topic, but it really irritates me when all smokers can do is change the subject instead of staying on topic.

                    by ortcutt on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:06:49 AM PDT

                    •  Fine, let's stay on topic

                      You want to 'stay on topic', fine.

                      Tobacco taxes are the single most effective way of reducing youth smoking rates.

                      Once people realize that the taxes on cigarettes constitute over 50% of the retail price, gray market sales will grow and overtake white market sales. You'll see guys standing on street corners selling tax-free cartons of cigarettes. $20/carton profit ain't bad and it's an easy sale when the street price is $20 less than the retail price.

                      At that point, all laws against selling cigarettes to minors become unenforceable. Are there greater punishments for selling cigarettes to a minor than it is to sell cigarettes without a license? Are we going to send cops out to arrest street vendors of cigarettes? Mandatory minimum sentences? Parole violent offenders to make space? Not bloody likely.

                      You're coming from the perspective of a public health advocate. Great. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who grew up with the inane laws we pass in to 'protect our youth'. In high school I could spend an entire weekend trying to get a six pack or a pack of cigarettes and still not be successful, anyone could be obtained marijuana within hours. Crank wasn't much harder to get, and certainly easier than a bottle of vodka.

                      Prop 86 will make cigarettes as easy for minors to obtain as marijuana. I don't see how that acomplishes any public policy goals, but maybe they teach a different kind of economics in medical school.

                      by opendna on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 12:29:55 PM PDT

    •  I'll just preface this

      with the statement that I am a smoker, so my opinion might not mean that much to you.

      The current tax per pack in California is $0.87.  Now if this new proposal were going to raise that to $1 or thereabouts I would be all for it.  But what we are talking about here is an additional $2.60 per pack.  That makes for a total tax of $3.47, an almost 300% increase!

      So if this tax passes, I'll just buy my smokes from out of state.  Then California will lose even the 87 cents they are getting from me now.

      And if you don't think it will raise crime through illegal cigarette smuggling, consider the fact that a single truckload of illegal cigarrettes would be worth well over $1 million.  I'm willing to bet there are a few crooks that would be happy with the risk/benefit analysis of that.

      And finally, low-income people are people too.  They are adults who are perfectly capable of making thier own decisions about thier lives.  They are not little children who need a nanny state to control thier lives and tell them what's good for them.

      So I'll support these kinds of taxes when the government decides to start taxing cheeseburgers, soda, potato chips, pizza, and sitting around your couch watching TV at the same rates.  Those things are bad for you too.  Certainly the government should take some role in protecting those people from themselves.  But that will never happen because the majority of people do those things.  Smokers are a minority so it's easier to take away thier rights.

      And as a side note. I am 100% behind efforts to pass laws to limit smoking in public.  There is no reason why my choice to smoke should impact the health of others.

      by bluerevolt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:37:43 PM PDT

      •  OK

        You're a willing adult nicotene addict.  So, you are part of the 30% of smokers who doesn't want to quit.  That's fine with me.  If you want to buy your smokes out of state that's fine.  This law is intended to help the 70% of smokers who do want to quit and the youth who haven't yet become addicted.  Most teenagers (and most people in general) buy individual packs as they run out of cigarettes.  They aren't going to go through the bother of buying cartons of cigarettes out of state.  Studies of tobacco taxes and youth smoking indicate that tobacco taxes will have a significant effect on youth smoking.  It will also likely have an effect on adult smokers who want to quit.  It's a little strange when I hear people make arguments in terms of people's autonomy.  An addict has surrendered their autonomy to the commands of the addiction.

        by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:41:28 PM PDT

    •  I don't need research, you jerk

      I wouldn't have bothered responding except for your garbage about research. I don't need research to show a link to organized crime because I can buy "organized crime" cigarettes at the local convenience store - they're the ones without the California flag on the bottom. I can do the fucking math on a 40' standard ocean container of cigarettes without tax and know it's a hell of a lot of money. Easy money without serious criminal penalties. (Shit, maybe I'll start smuggling cigarettes if this thing passes.)

      Tobacco industry talking points can kiss my ass, and so can uppity moralists who want to legislate their ethics on the rest of us.

      Both smoking and sodomy are socially unacceptable activities which individuals engage in despite the well documented risks to their health. Some people believe that sodomites should be jailed and some people believe that cigarettes should be so expensive that the no one can afford them.

      Both groups are trying to impose their own personal morality on others through legislation. And yes, I think they are moral equivalents.

      by opendna on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 01:02:46 AM PDT

•  Write in favorite:

  George Miller

  by ripzaw on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:18:25 PM PDT

  •  Tee-Hee

    See my above post
    Beat ya to it :P

    by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:24:08 PM PDT

    •  Dammit!

      Foiled again!

      by ripzaw on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:59:07 PM PDT

•  Please make sure the political affiliations

  are correct on your ballot.  I wrote a diary on this yesterday.  Cleveland, OH sent out 1,500 absentee ballots in which the political affiliations were switched btwn the republican and democratic candidates.

  by franziskaner on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:22:21 PM PDT

  •  They did?

    Well obviously that benefits Republicans.  What a bunch of assholes, they're always using every tactic available to derail Democratic candidates.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:27:24 PM PDT

•  i voted for Villaraigosa

  but i'd like to write in Hilda Solis if I can :-)

  Lots of good Dems in Cali. Makes an Oklahoman like me jealous!

  by dem4evr on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:31:03 PM PDT

  •  She is AWSOME!

    And very nice, to boot!

    by SFJen on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:33:13 PM PDT

  •  I like Hilda Solis

    She took on Matthew Martinez and she won.  Oklahoma doesn't have very many Democrats but just be glad you didn't elect Steve Largent as governor.  I thought he was going to win from Day 1 (a prediction Arianna Huffington got wrong).  I really like Antonio Villaraigosa but he's not without his faults.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:35:17 PM PDT

•  My $0.02 on Ballot Propositions

  Prop 1A: No

  Prop 1B: No

  Prop 1C: No

  Prop 1D: Yes

  Prop 1E: No

  Prop 83: No (although this one will pass anyway regardless)

  Prop 84: Yes

  Prop 85: No, No, No, No, No, No

  Prop 86: Yes Prop 87: Yes Prop 88: Yes

  Prop 89: I haven't decided yet

  Prop 90: No, No, No, No, No, No

  by ortcutt on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:43:14 PM PDT

•  Debra Bowen for Secretary of State

  Support Debra.  Please call for her and donate to her campaign. She will protect our vote.
  I've met her several times and she is low-key, intelligent and committed. She's introduced, and had signed legislation protecting our vote. She's the sponsor of legislation requiring voter verified paper ballot and that one per cent of absentee votes be included in the audit, especially since we are pushing voters to sign on as permanent absentee voters.  Is everybody signed up? I vote that way because I work election day. GOTV.

  by santamonicadem on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:09:05 PM PDT

•  Vote sober?

  I  know what the Demon Rum can do to a person's reading and writing skills.  Just sayin...

  Wait... did I read this diary wrong?

  by Hail Ripley on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:19:04 PM PDT

  •  My reading and writing skills are fine

    And I don't like Demon Rum, it's White Russians and Cosmopolitans for me...

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:36:45 PM PDT

•  I just sent my vote for Lois Capps

  The last place I officially lived in the USA was in Santa Barbara, so that's where I vote absentee.  Since I am living outside the USA, I can only vote in the Federal elections, so this time I only got to vote for Congress and for Senate.  
  I voted for Walter Capps when I was a graduate student at UCSB, and it was very easy for me to vote for Lois Capps.  
  But which is my favorite?  I'm not ready to answer that one immediately.  
  I just sent my ballot back to the County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor & registrar of Voters in Santa Barbara via the Brazilian equivalent of Priority Mail.  It should arrive by Friday, the 20th of October.  And I don't mind telling anyone that it included a vote for Lois Capps.  
  By the way, I think it's pretty stupid that expats have to vote absentee in the last place they lived in the USA.  I was born in New Jersey and grew up in Maine.  Both of my parents are still in Maine, and that's the place I consider to be my home state.  I think I ought to be allowed to vote there.  

  by The Ice Cream Man on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:59:02 PM PDT

  •  Lois Capps is wonderful

    So was her husband, he was this ultra leftist/hippie professor at UC Santa Barbara.  He managed to beat an incumbent, Andrea Seastrand, and took a seat no Democrat had ever occupied before.  And I did not know that if you lived outside the United States, you could not vote in statewide elections.  I go to school in DC but I maintain my residency in California.  I see no reason to switch.  I like DC but I haven't moved here, I'm still a Californian.  Lucky for me, I'm being spared the Arnold ads.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:39:31 PM PDT

    •  Capps, Seastrand, and Capps

      The Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo county Congressional seat (which may have also included parts of Kern county), the 22nd,  is the one that Bob Lagomarsino occupied forever.  In 1992, the first election after I arrived at UCSB, Michael Huffington showed up and beat Lagomarsino in the Republican primary, then won the seat.  Two years later, Huffington spent what was then a record for a non-presidential campaign trying to unseat Feinstein.  
      Seastrand beat Walter Capps in 1994.  Organized labor worked hard over the next two years to get rid of Seastrand.  If blogs and the "netroots" existed then, I am sure they would have been involved.  Capps ended up running again and beating Seastrand in 1996, but was seriously injured when his car was hit by a drunk driver's car.  Professor Capps was unable to participate much in the final phase of the campaign due to his injuries, but won anyway.  He died of a heart attack in late October of 1997 and his wife, Lois, ran in and won both the special election in March of 1998 (I moved to Los Angeles in January of 1998, so I didn't get to vote for her then) and the normal election for the seat in November of the same year.  She managed to hold on to the seat in 2000, and then redistricting took the coastal, southern part of the district and put them in the 23rd CD, one much easier for Lois Capps to hold with the more conservative northern and inland parts retaining the number of the 22nd CD.  She was easily reelected in 2002 and 2004, and I am pleased to have been able to vote to help her keep the seat in 2006.  

      by The Ice Cream Man on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:31:03 AM PDT

•  And where is Al Sharpton?

  by CalDoc on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:14:19 PM PDT

  •  He's not a California Democrat

    Or anyone's favorite for that matter.

    "NOBODY LIKES MILHOUSE!"

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:37:09 PM PDT

    •  What is he?

      by CalDoc on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:48:16 PM PDT

      •  A New York Democrat

        by SoCalLiberal on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 08:26:04 AM PDT

•  ballot initiative guide

  check out The Courage Campaign's Stop Bush in CA ballot measure round-up here:

  http://www.couragecampaign.org/...

  not only how to vote on the 5 most crucial initiatives, but also why.

  by Todd Beeton on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:59:38 PM PDT

•  My Proposition Endorsements (ALL of them)

  NO - Proposition 1A Transportation Funding Protection
  How can we hold the legislature accountable if we proscribe everything with Constitutional amendments?

  NO - Proposition 1B Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security
  #1: $19.9 billion in bonds means $19.9 billion in interest; #2: there's virtually no earmarks for projects, it'll end up being $19.9 billion in pork instead of needed projects; #3 [self-censored to remain employable]

  NO - Proposition 1C Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
  Sorry, I'm selfish and I've had enough. $2.85 billion in interest to house senior citizens who squandered the tax breaks they took on my future income? That's hard to swallow.

  NO/MAYBE - Proposition 1D Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities
  This one's a tought one for me. If we're going to borrow money, we should do it for projects which will pay dividends - like building educational facilities. But I'm inclined to vote 'NO' because it's yet another school construction bond without funding teachers to fill the classrooms. Like the library bond in June, it looks to me like more of a pork project for construction firms than any real investment in the programs that work.

  NO - Proposition 1E Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
  You don't borrow money to buy groceries. Make SacTown grow a sack and take responsibility for these programs.

  NO - Proposition 83 Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring.
  Apparently this proposition isn't ready for prime time. Even advocates admit that it will need to be amended later. I say "get it right" or "enforce what you've got".

  YES/MAYBE - Proposition 84 Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements.
  I'm tempted to say 'No' because it's another proposition where 1/2 the public cost goes to interest and the Legislature gets to shirk responsibility. But when I'm siding with Americans for Tax Reform against Clean Water Action and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern   California, I've gotta reconsider.

  HELL NO - Proposition 85 Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy.
  You either get it, or you don't.

  NO/YES - Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes
  I can't decide whether to vote 'No' for rational policy, or 'Yes' for a subsidy for organized crime. There's only so many chances in a lifetime to vote in FAVOR of international smuggling, tax evasion and criminality, and this is one of them. I have no doubt that cigarette prices will fall if this prop passes; I'm not sure how I feel about that.

  YES - Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
  Tax on California's oil production, just like Texas and Alberta, and spend it on renewable energy? Perfect.

  YES - Proposition 88 Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax
  Unfortunately, it's not a repeal of Prop 13. But it's a start. Money raised today goes to educate the kids who will tomorrow be paying off all the bonds we issue. It only looks fair on paper.

  YES - Proposition 89 Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits
  This proposition is so bat scat crazy we've gotta try it out.

  ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING WAY - Proposition 90 Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
  Local governments would have to compensate property owners for any government action which restricted their right to do whatever they wanted with their land. New zoning laws? Pay up. New environmental laws? Pay up. New height limits? Pay up. Ban on toxic waste facitilities? Pay up. That ain't right, and it's been a disaster in Oregon.

  by opendna on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 12:49:59 AM PDT

  •  I voted yes on the lettered ones

    On all the rest I was in agreement.  I am voting No on 83 and No on 85 and yes on 87, 88, and 89.  88 is really clever, $50 for each parcel of land barely affects the individual tax payer while raising a ton of new money.  

    I don't beleive in the ballot iniative system at all but I can't pass up the opportunities created.  Ultimately, we will all be paying off these bonds in the future and it's terrible.  But on these ones, I don't feel badly voting for them.  We need money for disaster preparation.  Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd scrap all the ballot initiatives and the whole system.  Just let the legislature make law, maybe keep Prop 13 for residential properties only.  I'm tired of all this policy being created by voters.  It's anarchy.  Naturally, Arnold supports it because it furthers his needs.  He's an idiot.  I hate term limits too, we have lousy Democrats in Sacramento.

    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

    •  Why defend Prop 13?

      Prop 13 protects people who bought their property in the '70s, requiring that more recent buyers pay higher rates to make up the difference. The TransAmerica building is protected by Prop 13, but new home buyers aren't.

      IMHO, Prop 13 needs to be repealed.

      by opendna on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 09:54:10 AM PDT

•  Hmm

  Lois Capps or Judy Chu.

  by Giodude on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 05:03:39 PM PDT

•  Btw

  I have not gotten my absentee ballot yet. =( Hopefully soon..

  by Giodude on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 07:53:09 PM PDT