I stayed up into the wee hours poring over the state AND county voting guides, only to decide (for reasons we shall not compromise ourselves by revealing here) that it might be prudent for me to abstain from voting. But rather than let those two hours go to waste, i present to you
KEVIN VONMUTANT'S VOTING GUIDE, in regards to the state of California and Alameda County, for the election to be held this November 2nd, 2010.
Please bear in mind that these recommendations are NOT the product of meticulous internet research, or any research at all, and might be thought of more as suggestions than imperative commands.
LET'S BEGIN!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-quick guide
Proposition 19: NO
Proposition 20: NO
Proposition 21: NO
Proposition 22: NO
Proposition 23: NO
Proposition 24: YES
Proposition 25: NO
Proposition 26: NO
Proposition 27: YES
Proposition 19: NO
( Marijuana is for most practical purposes already legal in California. While this law would further decriminalize marijuana possession, it would also disrupt the cash flows of many whose livliehood depends on the extant black market and funnel all the profits from the legal sale of marijuana into the pockets of a few conspicuously invisible parties whose money backed the inclusion of the proposition on the ballot. The sitch in northern Mexico should also serve to remind us that the disruption of highly profitable trade (illegal or otherwise) tends to result in an increase in street violence. I would be all about this thing if i thought it would mean a reduction in the Prison-Industrial Complex's strnglehold on the state, but with the fed gov reserving the right to enforce as they choose, this looks like it could-and according to those axioms about power, therefore will-result in an increase in profits for the new weed barons and no shortage of new, totally unnecessary incarcerations for the Prison industry.)
Proposition 20: NO
(This proposition proposes to consolidate the power of a 14-person "citizen's redistricting" committee [read: business interests] instead of letting the determination of defining voting districts remain in the hands of the state legislature. A 'yes' vote, by my reckoning, would serve to promote the interests of business and the transfer of state control from Government cigar-chewing white men to Business cigar-chewing white men faster than allowing redistricting to remain the province of the state reps and governor. Lesser of two evils. Yay democracy!)
Proposition 21: NO
(This proposition proposes to establish a fund to maintain state parks by levying an additional $20 to automobile registration in the state of California. Twenty more dollars is a lot of money to a lot of unemployed, underemployed, working poor Californians, who might also be the least likely people to have enough free time to go enjoy California state parks they've been funding. Why would THIS be the way to provide funding to maintain state parks? No thanks.)
Proposition 22: NO
(This law would prevent state government from diverting funds earmarked for transportation and redevelopment to other needs. Those "other needs" actually means public schools. "Redevelopment" actually means eminent domain land grabs. The law as it stands prevents a legal loophole for developers to get bailed out by state government after they put themselves in debt [and further into profit]. State schools lose poitentially billions of dollars if this passes. I researched this one pretty minimally, if anyone can rebutt please do!)
Proposition 23: NO
(This proposition proposes to suspend state standards for reducing the impact of global warming. There is no sensible reason to do this. Whatever giant corporations who sponsored this embarassingly transparent profit-grab want us to believe that voting against emissions standards will somehow create jobs, as if they can't wait to spend thier extra billions paying peoples' paychecks. I think not.)
Proposition 24: YES
(Proposes to repeal a piece of legislation that essentially increased taxes for everyone except gigantic corporations, who recieved a massive tax cut. Once again, there's no reason in the world to vote against this, unless you happen to be a shareholder in a gigantic corporation, in which case you can't read my blog but you CAN buy me a donut. Repealing this monumentally cynical legislation promises to benefit the state treasury to the tune of approx. 1.7 billion.)
Proposition 25:NO
(This proposition is an attempt to restructure the legislative vote requirement to allow a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote. Laws of this type have been passed all over the place to allow government organs with a high republican consistuency to have things thier way quicker and easier. The spoonful of sugar here is that a 'yes' vote would punish legislators who don't produce a budget on time by suspending thier salaries. Both sides of the arguement make senseless, irrelevant statements in the voter's guide, both full of loaded language and lacking in enough content to allow me to think critically about the proposition. I would highly recommend doing your own research here.)
Proposition 26: NO
(This proposition would require that the state legislature have to vote before levying fees against industries in-state whose business produces adverse social or ecological impact. Naturally this is a means to legally set up payola relationships between state legislators and big businesses. I would like to think that nobody would be stupid enough to vote for this. No, no, no.)
Proposition 27: YES
(Can this really be prop 20 in reverse? Yes, it can. This proposition allows the voter to choose between allowing a gang of definitely unaccountable, possibly shareholding 'citizens' [business interests; the specifics say you can be on the committee if you are registered to vote and 'are chosen according to specified rules, no further details in the voting guide]' ) to determine the assembly and senate districts, or allowing that responsibility to belong to the legislature. A 'yes' vote erects at least one more barricade between business interests and total control of the state.)
CANDIDATE GUIDE
I'd forgive you if you ignored this section; i don't believe in representative democracy. I don't believe that anyone can accurately or honestly represent the interests of a whole group of people, especially one as heterogenous and chaotic as California. But some of these people really want to represent your interests, while others would probably be happiest drinking beer and watching you break rocks in a work camp. And, yes, some big money deal somewhere has probably already made all of these decisions for us, but i've already done the hard work. You just have to put the tallboy down long enough to scratch a little bubble with a pencil.
You'll notice that everyone is representing either the Peace and Freedom party or the Green party. The peace and freedom party are an awesome, frizzy-haired, wide-eyed bunch of socialists-thier blurbs for election say things like "Tax the rich!", whcih stands alone against an entire paragraph of empty promises and bullshit by the democratic and republican candidates. They haven't got a chance in hell, but we all know this is mainly a game, right? Every once in a while i chose to promote a green party candidate over a peace and fredom candidate, on those occasions where they had a more considered economic strategy or otherwise seemed a little more realistic.
US SENATE-Marsha Feinland, Peace and Freedom party
GOVERNOR-Laura Wells, Green
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR-C.T. Weber, Peace and freedom. (Fuck you, gavin newsom.)
SECRETARY OF STATE-Ann menasche, Green (the peace and freedom candidate for secretary of state sounds like a 1st year college student)
CONTROLLER-Karen martinez, Peace and freedom
TREASURER-Charles "Kit" Crittenden, Green
ATTORNEY GENERAL-Robert J. Evans, peace and freedom
INSURANCE COMISSIONER-Dina Josephine Padilla, peace and freedom
SUPERINTENDANT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION-Larry Aceves (candidates for this position are not divided by party representation. I chose larry over the other guy because he used less language around standardized testings and generally seemed more relevant)
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DISTRICT ONE-Sherill Borg, peace and freedom ("tax the corporations.")
DISTRICT TWO-Toby Mitchell-Sawyer, peace and freedom
DISTRICT THREE-Mary Lou Finley, peace and freedom
DISTRICT FOUR-Nancy Lawrence, peace and freedom
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
This, if anywhere, is where your vote actually counts. Local elections operate at a smaller scale, which tends to contribute to a greater degree of transparency, and the potential payout isn't great enough for potential investors to profit too greatly and slant political outcomes too much. If you're going to vote at all, vote local.
The county of alameda voters guide, incidentally, is much funnier than the state voter's guide. Whereas trying to understand the state voter's guide is like negotiating with a series of implacable, impersonal supercomputers that might kbe programmed to exterminate you, the Alameda county voter's guide is like a po'-faced satire. Half of the pro- and con- arguments in regards to the proposed initiatives seem to be written by the same person, whose written voice is strongly reminiscent of the more vocal wingnuts at the Long Haul. The catalog of candidates for mayor includes numerous magnificent unintentional satires. It's actually kind of fun to read. On with the 'suggestions'!
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA-QUICK GUIDE
MEASURE L: YES
MEASURE F: NO
MEASURE V: YES
MEASURE W: NO
MEASURE X :NO
MEASURE BB:NO
MAYOR, 1ST CHOICE-Marcia Hodge (Moderate left with an excellent, higly visible campaign. African-american. Will probably turn out a two-faced democrat sellout, but could be an honest populist with an extremely long walk ahead of her.)
2ND CHOICE-Donald Lachlan Macleay (Clearly farther to the left than Marcia. Uses lots of progressive jargon in his statement. More likely to attempt to actually make changes to social and economic realities iin oakland, significantly less likely to be elected.)
3RD CHOICE-Rebecca Kaplan (Moderate. Least loathsome/ridiculous of the remaining candiates, who include a semiliterate escapee from a drum circle and an accountant.)
PROPOSITIONS
MEASURE L: YES
(Increases property tax in the city to help offset budget cuts to the oakalnd school district. Most poor, working or otherwise, are renters, who may be less likely to see the cost transferred to them. A low-income clause protects low-income homeowners from having to pay the additional tax. I say yes.)
MEASURE F: NO
(Levys an additional $10 to auto registration costs in the county to pay for transportation improvements, mainly road repair. No to more increases to the cost of living and working for the citizens of Oakland.)
MEASURE V: YES
(This measure proposes to increase the business tax on medical marijuana dispenasries from $18 to $50, with proceeds to benefit the city's general fund, and the counterarguements are pure People's Park gibberish. Had i ever in my life given a fuck about the rights of marijuana enthusiasts, or believed, as many of them seem to, that they are among the planet's most downtrodden, i might find this mild increase in administrative tax unacceptable, but i don't, and i don't, and it is. Yes on V.)
MEASURE W: NO
(they almost had me on this one. This measure would establish a fee, between $2 and $13, on all phones, including cellphones, in the city of oakland, to be paid into the general fund. A long enough analysis of the language revealed that MOST phones would fall into the $13-per category. No thanks.)
MEASURE X (how mysterious!):NO
(This measure proposes to levy a $360-per-single-family-unit property tax, essentially to pay for expanded policing. No, no, no. Leaving aside the fact that police are clearly an ineffective and dangerous tool for maintaining public order, if you really want more cops you can write a tax specifically for "mixed income live-work lofts".)
MEASURE BB:NO
(If i understand this byzantine tangle of a proposal, which i probably don't, this would allow the city of Oakland to continue to collect an extra tax, levied since 2005, and continue to NOT spend the collected money on more "public safety", IE police. Neither a yes or a no vote guaruntees more police on Oakland's already-besieged streets, but a no vote does make it harder for city officials to quietly collect more undedicated funds.)
You have until October 26th to register and until November 2nd to vote. Don't make me break this down for nothin'.
-KvM
No comments:
Post a Comment