Here’s a fast roundup on my take on the current crop of California propositions…1A – bonds for high-speed rail. NO. I like intercity rail, but not enough to take on this financial burden at this time. Smart people also suggest that it’s unlikely to be workable – see this series at the Antiplanner.
Far from being a success, Japanese bullet trains put the previously profitable, state-owned Japanese National Railways into virtual bankruptcy. This forced the government to privatize the railroad and absorb $200 billion in high-speed debt.
Nor did the bullet trains slow Japan’s adoption of automobiles. Instead, the growth of auto driving accelerated when the bullet trains were introduced, partly because the Japanese National Railways responded to their monetary losses by raising fares. Since the bullet trains were introduced, rails lost more than half their market share of travel to the automobile.
Europe’s high-speed rail story is no better. Since introducing high-speed rail, rail has slowly but steadily lost market share to autos and airlines. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars per year subsidizing rail, the only European countries where rail has more than a 9 percent share of passenger travel – including Hungary and Switzerland – don’t have high-speed rail.
2 – bans factory farming. NO. Emotionally, I support this. We buy cage-free chicken and eggs. But we pay more for it, and I’m not sure that everyone in California can or should. So based on that, I’m inclined to vote no and let the market push for better treatment of farm animals.
3 – children’s hospital bond act. NO. We need more and better hospitals. But we don’t need bond acts with this language in them:
Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.
I’m not saying that the UC lobbyists decided they needed $196 million in funding and decided to bury it in a larger proposal – no one would be that sleazy. But that’s the effect. And we’re in a financial crisis, so I’d be inclined against even a well-crafted bill. NO.
4 – parental notification. NO. This was probably the hardest decision for me to make this cycle. Intuitively, as a parent, I’m very unhappy with the notion that my minor child could get healthcare without my consent. At the same time, I understand why issues around sexuality might be more difficult. And I’m in the ‘unhappily ambivalent’ category on abortion in general. This is one where TG swung my vote with her strong opposition; explaining that it was a vote for backalley abortions. So I’m holding my nose and voting NO.
5 – decriminalizes various drug possession charges and moves them to a treatment track. I support drug legalization; I think it would have a worldwide positive impact if we took the lawlessness, crazy profit, and institutional damage that it does to law enforcement, etc. But this proposal strips the judicial system of too much power in dealing with drug offenders, and doesn’t place the kind of regulatory regime in place that would support legalization. So a big NO on this one.
6 – sets aside almost a billion a year for law enforcement and prosecution. NO. I hate – that’s haich-aye-why-tee-eee – budgeting by initiative.
7 – mandate an unrealistic level of renewable energy. NO. Renewable good – Mandates that more energy than can be generated from renewables soon be purchased, guaranteeing billions in green utility boondoggles and high utility rates with not much to show for it.
8 – bans gay marriage. NO. Go read this and understand why.
What it is that matters in a marriage? Commitment. Duration. Primacy. It is a commitment – which means that in the face of conflicting desires, you have to anyway. It has duration – meaning it gains in value over time. An old good relationship is better than a new one. My dream is to grow old with TG, and to have the span of our history together as a part of what we share. It means that I will take care of her, and be taken care of by her in turn, and that in the time where long shadows come over our lives, we won’t be alone in facing them. And it has primacy over your other relationships. The act of saying to this person “You are the most important person in my life. Not my children, not my boss, not my pastor or anyone else matters more to me than you do,” fundamentally changes both one’s life and one’s relationships to others.
These are good things. They are not only good for people, they are good for society. They bind people to each other, and bind them to a future. They create the kind of ‘units’ of people that can successfully build societies and raise children.
The kind of sexual equipment that the people involved have, and what they do with that sexual equipment, has nothing to do with these core values. You’d hope that they were sexually compatible and satisfied, since seeking out other sexual outlets tends to conflict with the core values. But for crying out loud, what difference does their sexual behavior make to what really matters?
9 – criminal justice reforms. NO. Look, even prosecutor Patterico isn’t even supporting this. I’ve got problems with the language, and – again – think that we’re better off letting our legislators, you know, legislate.
10 – give T Boone Pickens all the spare cash in your checking account. NO.
11 – take redistricting out of the control of those redistricted. YES YES YES.
12 – CalVet bonds. YES. Safe, well-run program that helps California veterans buy homes.
I’l be voting at 7am tomorrow…
For me :
1A : Yes (borderline)
2 : Yes
3 : No
4 : Yes
5 : No
6 : No
7 : No
8 : Yes
9 : No
10 : No
11 : Yes
12 : Yes
So 1A, 2, 4, and 8 differ from AL, while the others are the same.
However, none of the 12 issues struck enough of a cord that I strongly care about the outcome of any of them, except possibly 11 (redistricting).
Why can’t we have propositions like this at the national level? It helps dissipate the blind party-line support that pervades everything else.
Why not have the people vote on offshore drilling, a border fence with Mexico, free trade with Colombia, raising the age limit for social security, etc.? Wouldn’t that be much better than the massive time wastage that occurs now?
WHY NOT?
FWIW, we are down the line identical. (Except the head of the ticket, of course.)
For me this is just an academic exercise in thinking about some issues, but:
1A – Bonds for high-speed rail: NO. (Unchanged.)
2 – Ban ‘factory farming’ of domestic animals: YES. (Having thought about this more, I’m all the more confident that, given an ethic of kindness to man and beast, this is the right position. (If there is such a thing as a “bleeding heart conservative” I’m it.) And I look forward to having something to “Woo Hoo!” about after the election, when Proposition 2 wins.)
3 – Bonds for designated Children’s hospitals: NO. (No change.)
4 – Parental notification of minor’s intent to have an abortion: YES. (No change.)
5 – Drug rehabilitation: NO. (Even more strongly NO than before, because of others’ arguments for the same vote.)
6 – Police funding lockup, gang crimes: (Even more strongly NO than before, because of others’ arguments for the same vote.)
7 – Renewable energy requirements: NO. (No change.)
8 – Bans gay marriage: YES. (Before yes maybe, now yes definitely.)
9 – Victims rights: NO. (REVERSED. The detailed arguments that this victims’ rights bill was bad law, and the argument that people might claim and use “victim” status as a bludgeon in divorce fights and similar cases, convinced me.)
10 – Renewable energy bonds, alternative fuel vehicles: NO. (No change.)
11 – Redistricting reform: YES. (Changed to yes definitely from yes / maybe. The reform seems to be genuine, and things are bad enough that they are not going to get worse.)
12 – Cal-Vet bonds: NO. (REVERSED. Again, additional facts and argument changed my mind. The bonds have a reassuring history, and the effect, a “hidden” subsidy for soldiering in the service of the state, is a good one.)
I think the most important propositions to pass are 4 (for parental notification), 2 (stopping factory farming) and 11 (election reform).
I think 8 (banning gay marriage) is completely justified. But if it fails, who died? Or what animals will be kept in horrific suffering because of it? And democracy is still mostly intact. True, the judges exceeded their authority, and the people didn’t rebuke them as I think they should, but still it was ultimately a popular vote to give in to the judges that settled the matter. And that’s democracy.
GK:
bq. _”Why can’t we have propositions like this at the national level? It helps dissipate the blind party-line support that pervades everything else.”_
It does, doesn’t it?
My idea of a good argument is one with enough civility, solid facts and sound arguments that that I might conceivably change my mind on the issue at hand, or at least learn something creditable about the other guy’s thinking. Such discussions are rare.
Grim, I’m very confused by some of your virtual votes given the explanatory text that follows them. Are you sure you tagged them rightly?
If California, which has 12% of the US population, can resolve these issues through ballot propositions, it can work at a national level.
And reading this thread, a first-time visitor to WoC would not be able to figure out who was the Democrat and who were the Republicans.
If some major national issues were determined by ballot, the current state of bitter partisanship would reduce massively, as would the ability of the MSM to distort perceptions. Right now, too much is decided by ‘I support the GOP position’, or ‘if the Right supports it, it must be evil’. The pressure to support your faction is tremendous, and too much of it is driven by the fear of experiencing your relatives, friends, and co-workers gloat if your side loses.
No one will key your car for a ‘Yes on Prop 8’ or ‘No on Prop. 4’ sticker, even as a McCain/Palin sticker virtually guarantees key-marks in the Bay Area.
So many federal issues could be resolved quickly and amicably. Again, ANWR drilling, Border fence, SS age limit, Colombia free trade, gasoline tax, partial-birth abortions, farm subsidies, tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, etc. all could be decided by ballot initiatives at the federal level.
Of course, the importance of Senators and Reps goes down, which is why we don’t have these initiatives.
Herewith, a large tumbler of ice water on my peers:
Might as well wish for a Constitutional Convention. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. –Unless something changes the playing field wonderfully or horribly. Even then I fear we’re just as likely to get dumbocratic laws passed as we are to get good ones.
Face it, an overall thoroughly informed electorate is a prerequisite for the wise functioning of the presently-constituted as well as the proposed new structure of the US Government.
And we are not going to get that with people willing to drum up voters from the gutters (I do not exclude young well off people from that categorization — ignorance is a gutter, too). Or, even moreso, with people willing to create random Federal laws when they are woefully ignorant and have all the other frailties. Ever hear of the guy in ancient Greece who saved his country and got done away with later? Like that. Only with higher tech.
Voting yes on 2, 4, 11 and I’m going back and forth on 6… patterico has a pretty good (IMO) argument for 6. Voting no on everything else
Yes on 1A and 2 and no otherwise.
Infrastructure spending makes sense as a bond issue. The other bonds, no IMHO.
As I have written before, I support the idea behind 11 only when other states (viz., red-leaning states) come on board, too. For example, I would vote for any such measure that had a trigger that it would become effective in the next election after 20 other states had non-partisan redistricting.
The Wall Street Journal reports (link):
bq. “Separately, California has set many a social trend. Now voters in the Golden State may start setting trends in a new area: animal care. A ballot measure called Proposition 2, which would prohibit ranchers from keeping chickens, veal calves and breeding pigs in pens or cages that are too small for the animal to move, was approved with 60.9% of the vote cast in favor of the measure with 100% of the vote reported.”
PROPOSITION 2 WON! WOOO HOOO!!!! (Happy dance!)
Could this promote a trend throughout the civilized world, or at least the Anglosphere, toward decent treatment for animals? I hope so!
The traditional definition of marriage appears to be winning or to have won in California. Good.