How I will be Voting (CA)

Representatives & State Officials:

I will not be voting for representatives and state officials. I honestly don’t know enough about them and don’t think that our current information system really gives us enough information to make an educated decision. I am hoping that by the next election cycle, Polinav will be ready to go, so that I and others can actually make an educated decision on their elected representatives and officials. However, I will be going to vote on the Propositions.

Did you vote? I would love to learn about your experience voting. Please fill out this quick four question survey for me if you can.

I used this site to help me learn about these propositions.

Prop 1: NO

I’m voting no, not because I don’t think we need more water infrastructure (I think most infrastructure is worth doing). I’m voting no because I don’t think its enough and I don’t like ‘blockbuster’ measures. Meaning, I would rather have smaller measures with more focus. That way, as a voter we can decide whether (& how much) we want for reservoirs, water preservation, etc, instead of “oh, this a water infrastructure measure that does so much for this and so much for that”.

I won’t deny that we need to allocate a lot of money towards our water infrastructure. For those of us in Southern California, where we usually get something like 60% of our water from outside of the area (nowadays, with the drought, I’ve heard that its closer to 80-90%!), it is pretty crucial for us. However, if we’re going to do this, then we need to do it right; not some half-baked measure.

Prop 2: YES

Though I am generally for more government, I do think there is a need for fiscal conservatism. There was an old proposition that proposed similar measures, but it wasn’t a strong enough measure. This prop adds some teeth, so it could serve as a proper “Rainy Day Fund”.

Prop 45: YES

The main point that I’m going off of here is that it puts more power into the elected insurance commissioner. Its supposed to stop excessive rate hikes for 16% of health insurance plans in CA, but that is less of a sticking point.

My value here is this: I believe in stronger executive power (as long as they’re elected). If there are so many people making decisions, there’s no accountability, cause they can say that it was partly this other person’s responsibility. If you put more power in the hands of one person, then you can directly point to that person once the results are shown. I think a good example is the Kansas governor who dramatically reduced taxes. Now that governor has to stand by the changes he made. He can’t deflect blame. (I think this was the main problem in the financial crisis as well)

Prop 46: YES

This one is so convoluted. There are so many problems with both our legal system and our health care system, so I don’t know if its worth making changes within the system. However, I do think that the limits should go up and that the prescription database is a good idea (though the execution may be flawed). So I think that it would be worth the money to try it.

The main issue here is the limits (changing them for $250,000 to $1.1M). To the average person, $250,000 may seem like a lot of money (and it is!). However, there are many cases where its going to cost much more than $250,000 to pay for all the health care costs (the problem I have is not the increase in limits, but the exorbitant cut that lawyers have taken and will continue to take from these cases…I don’t think they’re worth the cut they take). So it will cause more in-fighting between Personal Injury law firms to take on the cases where someone has been badly injured (which may lower their cut through increased competition). But still, for the extreme cases, people need more money to take care of their costs. I don’t think this will increase the number of cases, but it will increase total cost.

Prop 47: YES

100% yes. We incarcerate way too much. CA’s prisons has a problem with overcrowding. Our prison system is also an area where we need major reform. We need to adopt more of a rehabilitation mindset instead of a punishment mindset. Do we want more healthy members of society or do we want to keep perpetuating these citizens back into their previous environment. We need to rehab and create opportunities for these people.

Prop 48: NO

I am not a staunch opponent of gambling, but at the same time, I don’t want to encourage. I have more of a libertarian mindset with this, that if people want to engage in their vices, then there should not be major hurdles to engage in them. That we have the right to do what we want to do. However, I do not want it to become ubiquitous where it becomes easy to engage in such vices.

The other point of contention that I have with this measure is that we’re “solving” the problem with indigent Native American populations by giving them access to a vice industry. Is that really the only way to bring them out of poverty? Seriously. Really? Just because they’re this “other group”, we cast our problem industry onto them? Like, one of the arguments supporters use is that it would have no cost to the taxpayers to help this poor population. But it does have a cost. More gambling addicts, more people who lose their savings… There is such a large “soft” cost to society by increasing access to gambling. We also can’t guarantee that the entire tribe will benefit and that they’ll be able to bring themselves out of poverty. This tactic has been used all around the US, but the Native American population is still one of the poorest people groups in our nation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s