The California Election
Nov. 9th, 2005 10:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumHere 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 04:52 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 02:38 am (UTC)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.