[poorgradstudent]

More data good, especially the raw variety.

[poorgradstudent]

More data good, especially the raw variety.

[poorgradstudent]

More data good, especially the raw variety.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=MicroGravity]The Proposition method of governing in CA stinks. Very few people care enough to read the propositions carefully, and even fewer understand them. Never mind the long term consequences.
The spineless legislature refuses to make any hard decisions, and then various factions gin up a proposition. By the time it’s time to vote on the thing, it is often impossible to decipher what a Yes or No actually implies.
When (not if) the results are negative, the politician’s simply shrug their shoulders since it wasn’t their bill![/quote]
I agree with your first point, that the Proposition method stinks. Minimally, a lot more issues should require 60:40 majorities to go into law. Simple majority issues allow too many chances for one group to outspend/outcampaign their competitors one election, then lose out 2, 4, or 6 years down the line.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a spineless legislature, although I think they’re sometimes happy to hide behind the will of the voters. Due to the way the constitution is structured, some issues do require voter approval. However, due to the limited number of signatures required, a lot of bad props sneak onto the ballot if a big enough special interest wants to push them.

I would like to remind all the “No on everything” posters that Prop 1F’s only purpose is to limit legislature pay raises. Even if you vote no on the rest, yes on 1F sends more of a message than a straight No vote.

Personally I think CA has both a tax revenue problem AND a spending problem. I don’t have the expertise to have answers, but I’m pretty sure 1A-1E aren’t very good answers.

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

I’m really disgusted by both sides of the Prop 8 issue.

I’ll disclose, I’m seriously against Prop 8. I’m wearing a No on 8 sticker at work right now. I sneer every time I see a Yes on 8 sign, and honk and give thumbs ups to the No on 8 people I see in Hillcrest.

I’m appalled by all the sign stealing, vandalism, etc this issue has brought up. My friends are all liberals who are “No on 8” people, and a few people in my extended social circle have said things about social conservatives that made me sad. It’s exactly the kind of language that some social conservatives use about homosexuals. As Liberals we’re supposed to be better than that. We’re supposed to take the high road, turn the other cheek.

Unfortunately it’s one of those issues that is emotional, not rational. We also probably won’t know the final result until Thursday or so.

[poorgradstudent]

I’m really disgusted by both sides of the Prop 8 issue.

I’ll disclose, I’m seriously against Prop 8. I’m wearing a No on 8 sticker at work right now. I sneer every time I see a Yes on 8 sign, and honk and give thumbs ups to the No on 8 people I see in Hillcrest.

I’m appalled by all the sign stealing, vandalism, etc this issue has brought up. My friends are all liberals who are “No on 8” people, and a few people in my extended social circle have said things about social conservatives that made me sad. It’s exactly the kind of language that some social conservatives use about homosexuals. As Liberals we’re supposed to be better than that. We’re supposed to take the high road, turn the other cheek.

Unfortunately it’s one of those issues that is emotional, not rational. We also probably won’t know the final result until Thursday or so.

[Author]

Posts