The California Election

[pecunium]

Here in Grover Beach the only things on the ballot were the statewide measures of the special election.

I voted against all but two.

They all lost.

Which isn't, if you ask me, the real story.

This was a power play by Arnie.

Last year he wanted the legislature to do some things. They didn't want to. He threatened to take them to referenda. The legislature caved and he got most of what he wanted. He also got bragging rights, and an image as someone who could cut through "politics as usual."

The he pissed off the nurses and the teachers. That gave the legislature the cover they needed to tell him to piss off this time around.

So he sought the special election, despite the voters saying they didn't want to spend the $80 million it cost.

A friend of mine describes himself as "slightly to the right of Genghis Khan." He exaggerates, but he's a lot more to the right than I am. He thinks the media is liberal, the democrats are overtaxing thieves and voted for Bush (I think; he hasn't said, and I've not asked) because he didn't trust Kerry.

He told me to vote no on everything.

Not just the union initiative, not just the anti-teacher intiative (those were both no-brainers for him to be against, his wife is a teacher, and he came of age in the 60s, when unions had clout. He knows they do more good than harm).

But against the redistricting intiative (which I am sort of for, because I think the present system of districting is part of the horrid mess we are in, but that's another post), the budget initiatve and the anti-abortion intiative

He's pro-life, sorta-mostly. He thinks Roe is decent law, but would like to see them harder to get (to be fair, he wants them harder across the board. I don't think he see it as some issue of moral judgement on those who get them, but rather a thing which ought be sought only as last resort, but I digress).

Why? Because Arnold has pissed him off. He was for the recall. He voted against Gray Davis, and probably voted for Arnold (and as he wasn't going to vote for Bustamante, I can't really fault him, Arnold was the second best choice in the field, if Davis was ousted).

But Arnold hasn't lived up to his campaign.

And this became (not that Arnold will admit it) a referendum on Arnold.

And he got skunked. Not only did all of his measures get whomped (and I'd have liked to see the two I voted for pass, just because it would be spit in his eye, as well as thinking they make decent law) but (and this is the kicker) voter turnout was almost as high as in a presidential election year.

Ponder that. According to this mornings news 42 percent of registered voters went to the polls. My first chance to vote was in an off-year election. Turn out (in a year that had a mayoral race, for LA, as I recall) was something like 28 percent.

This one got 42 percent. The verdict is in, and it's that Arnold is almost certainly unelectable next year.

Comments

[crisavec.livejournal.com]

I had wondered what was going on down there. Now I know...thanks!

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes yes.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

As a really pissed off California voter.. yep, that's about right. I voted no across the board because, although I might have possibly voted yes on one or two, I think special elections are horrid things that cost a hell of a lot of money and should be reserved for when they are really needed, and I want to discourage this sort of behavior.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Down here in Covina we had four school-board candidates (who didn't provide enough information for me to make an informed choice) in addition to the Initiatives. I voted for the one that seemed likely to reduce the cost for medications -- not Arnold's, which appeared to have been written by Pharmaceutical companies -- and against all the others. Yes, redistricting is a Problem, but using retired Judges selected by the majority of the State Legislature seems a bit iffy. And prohibiting Unions from contributing to political campaigns without permission of their members seems ... Strange because there's no limitation on businesses making such contributions from funds they might otherwise use to increase employees' salaries. It occurs to me that Unions generally support Democrats (and Democrats usually support Unions and workers), while businesses generally tend to support Republicans. The extraordinarily large turn-out suggests to me that Californians are becoming more concerned with (or about) Politics, and that quite a lot of them are dissatisfied with the State Administration, and perhaps the current Federal one as well. But then, I've not yet checked on the Yes/No numbers.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The union intiative was smoke and mirrors.

Right now any union member who disapproves of having his/her dues go to political action can opt out. The default state is in, but not only can they opt out, the option is on every dues certificate they fill out.

This, however, was an opt in, and each and every union member would have to do so, and the unions would have to keep records, to prove that each of them had done so.

The teacher one was worse: One of the grounds for dismissal was, "Knowing membership in the Communist Party."

TK

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Ah, you did the homework better than I did. I have to admit that I've taken to some short-cuts -- if the Howard Jarvis Taxpapers Association is for something, I don't have to read it to know that I'll be against it. (Yeah, I'm still bitter about the old Prop. 13 -- personal benefits from lower taxes on my house don't even begin to compensate for the social & economic damage that law has done to my world.) And this time the fact thad Mr. Swartzenegger was for something, plus a skeptical reading of the brief description ofit, generally revealed serious & deliberate holes. When younger, I disapproved of voting strictly along Party Lines, and still do in theory, but either I or the Republicans seem to have changed, and the support of that party has become a quite-dependable litmus test. *sigh*

I guess it's almost time to retroactively declare the CPUSA a Terrorist Organization, and treat everyone who was ever a Communist as a Terrorist, eh?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Prop 13 is probably the single greatest piece of harm ever done to Calif., and the ills it tried to fix could have been prevented, if the relief had been specific to single-family residential dwellings.

There are businesses, corporations and the like, still paying taxes on a 1976 assessment of their property, depsite significant improvements and increase in value.

Such users tend to cause more strain on the infrastructure, but they don't tend to sell property, and so they get to count it as an asset of "x" worth, and pay taxes on it as a liability of "y" worth.

I read the analyst's summary, and then the text of the bill. When in doubt I see was the FCL has to say about it. I was of a mixed mind on 79,80 and they were for them.

I voted yes on 79, just in case a lot of people were voting yes on 78.

TK

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

That's the best brief description of the results of Prop. 13 I've seen. Thanks -- I'll save it for furture quoting.

I'd like to think part of the problem would be resolved if we could get rid of the Legal Fiction that a Corporation is a Person (who just happens to have an indefinite life-span) -- a fine exaple of "Judicial Law-making" to which few Conservatives appear to object. But no ... the only workable way would be to insert a clause limiting application to something like private-residence-of-owner property.

Come to think on't, though, getting rid of corporation = person would probably greatly benefit the common weal in the sphere of Copyright/Intellectual Property Law as well. Snowball's chance of that happening, either, of course.

[mesoterica.livejournal.com]

In a not-totally-as-random-as-it-may-seem tangent: have you seen "Enron: the Smartest Guys In the Room" yet? As someone who wasn't in California for the Davis recall, I thought it had a really fascinating perspective on the way Enron affected that whole situation, and I've been wondering what Californians thought of it.

(It's also worth seeing for several other reasons. Not least of which is my burgeoning geek-crush on Bethany McLean...)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

God, I love watching greedy Republicans squander their political capital and then squirm as they explain why their losses were actually wins. (Sadistic, moi?)

I agree that the idea of taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators has merit, and I wish Ohio voters had approved a similar plan.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

As I said, there's another post in that, but right now, (and sadly for the foreseeable future) I am quite likely to be looking at Party Line, esp. as regards ballot measures, which means I'd have been against the redistricting because Arnold was for it, and McCain stumped in behalf of it.

Right now the Republicans are in the (relative) cold when it comes to districts in play. This would have changed that, and until they clean up their act, I don't want to make it a more balanced legislature. I'll take, relative, gridlock, over something like Prop.s 73, 74, 75, getting passed in the legislature.

TK

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Right now the Republicans are in the (relative) cold when it comes to districts in play. This would have changed that, and until they clean up their act, I don't want to make it a more balanced legislature. I'll take, relative, gridlock, over something like Prop.s 73, 74, 75, getting passed in the legislature.

Good point. If they're gridlocked, they can't do as much damage.

[zhaneel69.livejournal.com]

Thanks for providing the turnout numbers, I'd been wondering.

Zhaneel