rob.sfo Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 So it's Prop Season again. For any Californians, I've listed the Propositions below, with links to the official texts. I've also provided a brief description, and my Yes/No vote with a brief interpretation. I'd appreciate anyone giving their thoughts on the props, especially if you think I'm mistaken in my evaluation. I only spent about 10 minutes going over these & I have only recently taken an interest in political voting, so I'm sure there's a lot I could be missing. If I posted this in the wrong section...sorry. Cheers, Rob *************************************** No on Prop 73 WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. Makes it more difficult for teens to have abortions. Anti-Life at it's base. Yes on Prop 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years. Tenure is anti-free market and should be abolished, so this is a step in the right direction. Yes on Prop 75 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. Limits Union contributions towards political purposes. Unions are anti-free market and should be abolished, so anything that imposes restrictions on Unions is an improvement. Yes on Prop 76 STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. Imposes limits on and reductions in state education funding. States shouldn't be funding public education, so anything limiting or curtailing that funding is good. Unsure on Prop 77 REDISTRICTING. Unsure of the impact of this one. Liberals seem to be against it, billing it as a play by conservatives to gain more seats in the Legislature and Congress. No on Prop 78 DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. Welfare No on Prop 79 PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. Welfare No on Prop 80 ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. Government intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 I'd agree with all your votes. On the one that you say "unsure", I think its an unimportant issue. Giving to an independent panel rather that letting legislators do it has some minor merit, but hardly seems worth a drive to the poll-booth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 (edited) Let me bust out my book and see what I marked for each of them. 73 - Yes 74 - Yes 75 - Yes 76 - Yes 77 - Yes 78 - No 79 - No 80 - No It seems we disagree on Prop 73. I think it's important to note that the Proposition explicitly does not require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion; it just means that physicians need to inform parents that an abortion is taking place. The choice still remains in the hands of the pregnant girl. Since parents are the custodians of their child's welfare, and presumeably are providing the medical insurance which pays for the abortion, I think it's entirely proper that the parent knows what is going on. (Mod's note: I have split the discussion on Prop 73 (parental notification of minor's abortion) into a separate thread (link) . - softwareNerd) Edited October 21, 2005 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 *EDIT* Dave...do you have a specific reason for voting "Yes" on 77? I'm new to California, so correct me if I'm mistaken, but as I understand it, right now politicians set the boundaries within their own districts, with the aim of maximizing votes in their favor. I've seen examples of this in other states, and I don't like the way it turns out. In North Carloina, there is (or was at one time) one district which is basically a thin strip that winds it's way around the state to concentrate all of the low-income areas into a single district, minimizing the amount of political impact low-income voters have. While the immediate results in North Carolina may be desirable (less votes in favor of welfare), the principle is a bad one. Here in the People's Republic of California, the libs have a lot of control, and even the immediate results aren't desireable. Prop 77 takes immediate control over district boundaries out of the politician's hands and puts it into the hands of retired judges. For one thing, the judges have no immediate political interest--they are retired and aren't running for office. For another thing, judges (one would hope) tend to think more objectively and impartially than politicians. Besides that, this proposition is one of Arnie's, and I'm a fan of him as governor, although that's just an added bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 Here's a reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.sfo Posted October 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 Thank you both. That helps me out a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Do you have a specific reason for voting "Yes" on 77? I intend to vote "Yes" on 77. Gerrymandering (which is what Prop. 77 is trying to prevent) has a number of pernicious effects on government. In essence, gerrymandering allows incumbent politicians to select their constituents. One consequence of this is that the party that gains the most votes statewide may still wind up with a minority of the legislative seats, which is clearly anti-democratic. A second consequence is that gerrymandering creates "safe seats" -- districts where only one party is competitive. A politician elected to a safe seat has very little incentive to listen to the wishes of his constituents, because he has virtually no chance of being voted out of office. Ever wonder how politicians can say such flamingly idiotic things and still get reelected year after year after year? Gerrymandering helps a lot. I also think that anything the political class hates as thoroughly as anti-gerrymandering reforms ipso facto must be a good idea. It's sort of like voting against anything supported by the teacher's unions. I may also vote "Yes" on 73, on the grounds that abortion should be treated like any other medical procedure. As far as I know, if a minor wants to get just about any other medical procedure the parents must be notified. It's the lack of parental notification in abortion cases that's the result of government intervention. (I'm reminded of a scene in a first-season episode of House in which his minor patient needs to have an abortion, the child doesn't want her parents to know, and House is stuck telling the parents that he's going to perform a procedure and no, he can't tell the parents what it is, and no he can't tell them why. The illustration of government force shutting down the operation of the mind is palpable.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nate Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes on Prop 73 WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. Yes on Prop 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. Yes on Prop 75 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. Yes on Prop 76 STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. Yes on Prop 77 REDISTRICTING. If the Liberals are against it, it HAS to be a good idea. No on Prop 78 DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. No on Prop 79 PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. No on Prop 80 ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 On Prop 75 (Union dues)... According to this article, when a similar law was passed in Utah, only 7% of teachers allowed their dues to go to politics. And, when a similar law was passed in Washington, the number of teachers contributing to politics went from 48,000 to only 8,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 On Prop 75 (Union dues)... According to this article, when a similar law was passed in Utah, only 7% of teachers allowed their dues to go to politics. And, when a similar law was passed in Washington, the number of teachers contributing to politics went from 48,000 to only 8,000. Great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamelBradley Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 I've actually decided to go with a yes on 78 and a no on 79. 78 could offer up to 40% discounts on some of these high cost Rx drugs. Every bit helps, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 I've actually decided to go with a yes on 78 ... offer up to 40% discounts on some of these high cost Rx drugs.What does this plan do that is not already offered by the various private firms that offer prescription discount programs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamelBradley Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 What does this plan do that is not already offered by the various private firms that offer prescription discount programs? 78 has been based on a succesful program taking place in Ohio that will immediately help those in need better afford Rx drugs. It's an improved version of the Ohio plan which on average offers 31% discounts. It will immediately make a difference to those who need help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagny Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Just found this thread...here are my votes: Proposition 73: No, because I don't think but yourself should be able to decide what happens to your body. There are plenty of parents who for religious (or otherwise) reasons would never allow an abortion. Proposition 74: Yes, because I'm tired of all those REALLY bad public school teachers. I went to public school and can attest to the fact that there are plenty. Proposition 75: Yes. It required consent of employees before unions use dues or fees for political purposes. According to the website Milton Friedman is for this as well! Proposition 76: Yes. Will finally get state spending under control. Proposition 77: Yes. Even my political science professor, last year, agreed that California need redistricting and she was Democrat! Proposition 80: No. Restricts customer's ability to switch from one private utitilies company to another provider. Proposition 78 & 79:No. I haven't had time to read about or research these as well as the others. Most likely I'll vote no as it sounds like they're having a state department regulate prices between pharmaceutical companies and customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 78 has been based on a succesful program taking place in Ohio that will immediately help those in need better afford Rx drugs. It's an improved version of the Ohio plan which on average offers 31% discounts. It will immediately make a difference to those who need help.I suppose I should have been more clear. I didn't mean: what benefit does this plan deliver to its members, I meant to ask how it worked. Why can a private organization not get the same benefits for its members? Is there something about government that makes it easier? Often, private companies don't cooperate and deal with government, they are forced. If this is the case, then as a beneficiary are you not responsible for this new exercise of immoral force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 As an update, none of the propositions won. This page has maps (link) that show how different area of CA voted on each prop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I am happy that 78-80 are not passing, but somehwat disappointed (although not surprised, considered which state I'm in) that 74-76, the one's I really care about are not. Incidentally, San Francisco passed a city-wide ban on firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.