California Ballot Proposition analysis

Unless you live in California, this won't be interesting at all (but California residence is no guarantee of "interesting").

In addition to the usual menagerie of candidates, we also have a lot of propositions on the ballot this November, and the pair of Voter Information Guides explaining them are almost 200 pages long. For some time, I've written up my own personal analysis of these and shared them with friends, and I usually get "Have you written your analysis yet?" emails shortly before each election. So I've taken to putting them on the web.

I believe that lists of nothing more than suggested yes/no votes is a waste of time, and shows arrogance of the one making the list: "People will vote with me just because I'm me". Popular Los Angeles radio hosts John and Ken have created just such a useless "voter guide".

Though I happen to share many of their views, I could not possibly be persuaded without knowing why they have taken each position. These propositions are often complex with subtle/hidden points that are easy to miss, and I'm often influenced when some previously-unknown data point is brought to light. But "I'm voting no" should not convince anybody.

I am saddened at what I see is a completely uninformed electorate, unable or unwilling to find out what the real issues involved are. "Buying into the buzzwords" means that the proposition with the best P.R., not the one with the best merit, will win.

I believe I have characterized these measures fairly, have certainly spelled out my own agenda, and would be delighted if I helped others reach a conclusion on how to vote this season. I'd of course be happy if I convinced you to share my view, but I'd be just as glad if my analysis crystalized your opposition, allowing you to vote with confidence the other way.

Steve's California Ballot Analysis - November 2 2004

Comments

[Jim]

Steve, you're always a wealth of well informed and reasoned information on thee most important subjects (computers and politics?). Quite inspiring actually.

I share your opinion for all but 67. I understand your emotion, but can't reconcile it with the "limited government, free markets, and individual responsibility". We should be demanding a repeal of the government requirement that requires emergency rooms to accept any patient and forbids them from obtaining identification and insurance information. We shouldn't be furthering government intrusion into this market with more tax dollars. Of course no one in a country founded on the principles of ours should have to work to free (which of course they are not so compelled), but I disagree that your medical care is an obligation that is fairly shared with me.

I'm voting, No.