The First-Ever, Totally Righteous, Mysteriously Thought-Provoking KultureshoK Voting Guide

Gimme a sticker, folks: I VOTED!  The bubbles have been filled and the envelope sealed.  I can't believe this is only the second election in which I have been eligible to vote, but I have nonetheless been more invested in this particular race than I ever expected to be.  I have made my final decisions on each California ballot proposition and take immeasurable delight in sharing the end results with you, my noble readership.  Take offense if you must, but these are the decisions I felt to be in the overall best interest of our economy, our government institutions, and more specifically, my young peers here in the Golden State, waiting patiently for adequate education funding and the chance to make a buck someday.  Enjoy!   

YES on Proposition 19— Control and Tax Cannabis in California!  I truly hope you weigh the facts as much as you can before voting on this one.  Politicians don’t know where to turn to fix California’s problems…deficits, high incarceration rates, unemployment…Prop 19 is projected to GENERATE $1.4 billion in tax revenue, REDUCE law enforcement and prison spending and save tens of millions of dollars while STREAMLINING police operations to solve more violent crimes, and CREATE 60,000-110,000 brand new California jobs.  Some call it crazy.  I call it common sense.

YES on Proposition 20— VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress!  In 2008, voters passed Prop 11 to create an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to end gerrymandering and backroom politics during CA state legislature redistricting.  A YES vote will extend this Commission’s power over California’s federal congressional redistricting process as well, so our elections and representation by our lawmakers will be more fair.  

YES on Proposition 21— Establishes $18 vehicle license fee surcharge to help fund State Parks and Wildlife Conservation!  Kind of a no-brainer for me…this is actually the Proposition with the least dramatic fiscal impact, and hey, it’s for a good cause, right? 

YES on Proposition 22—Prohibits the state from taking or borrowing certain local government funds!  Didn’t know too much about this initiative, but looking back on the financial crisis we just survived, I would be a little uncomfortable allowing more insider borrowing, especially within our government.  This may backfire on me, but as always, I am prepared to take the heat.

YES on Proposition 23— Suspends AB32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) until unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for full year!  I have received so many dirty looks for this one already.  Although the polling for this Prop is sketchy, I will not back down from my belief that our economy is too fragile for AB32 at this time.  I’m all for efficiency, but voters must face the reality that our “green” industries are simply oversubsidized by the government and our “green” policies are just dragging the rest of our economy down. 

NO on Proposition 24— Saves recent business tax reforms!  One word: JOBS.  No matter what your opinion is about “big corporations”, I hate to break it to you, but they are the ones creating the shiny consumer products you use every day and employing tens of thousands of California workers.  If we repeal the 2008 tax reforms, these powerhouse companies will be double-taxed for each new employee hired.  In other words, they're not going to hire, and instead they're going to pack up shop and skedaddle to Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

NO on Proposition 25— Keeps the legislative vote requirement to pass the state budget at 2/3 majority!  This was the toughest Prop for me to decide on…on one hand, I would love to take away our legislators' pay every time the budget is late, but on the other hand, it’s way scarier to give them an “easy way out” by dropping the vote requirement to simple majority.  The problem isn’t the voting system—the problem is the legislators!  They need to learn how to do their jobs and compromise the old-fashioned way…or get booted out of office. 

YES on Proposition 26— Requires state and local “fees” to be voter-approved by a 2/3 majority!  Sooo…whose idea was it to start calling taxes “fees” in order to weasel his/her way out of asking our approval?  Not cool.  A tax by any other name would still smell just as bad, sneaky legislators, and the voter still has the last word on that subject!  YEAH AMERICA!

NO on Proposition 27— Keeps the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission!  (see Prop 20) Sneaky legislators again!  They must think they’re really funny, trying to get their redistricting power back so they can once again draw funny shapes on maps in order to discriminate based on locations of racial neighborhoods and party opposition within their district.  We can’t allow our lawmakers to abuse our institutions and our trust in this manner, or democracy will surely fail.  

Hope this gives you a little insight, whether you love me or hate me!  But either way, please, please, PLEASE, if you live in California, register to vote by October 18 and get out and VOTE November 2nd!

The impending demise of the Golden State and politics in general

Sorry I haven't updated in awhile, it's campaign season and everything has been crazy, both personally for me as well as in recent news.  Nothing of any substance is happening, just more of the usual mudslinging, fear mongering, and horrific journalism that made our country what it is today.

I simply can't believe what I'm seeing in this general election campaign--I guess I knew it was coming all along but it just happened so fast.  The average Californian voters (and Americans in general, I think) have finally proven without a doubt that they are no longer capable of making informed decisions.  I know this because the percentage points in favor of every campaign have been swinging from week to week with no actual event to drive the fluctuation besides new ad campaigns.  These people are not only relying on television for entertainment anymore, no--they now rely on it for all their information and personal decision-making processes.  Apparently people these days have no problem succumbing to a life of sitting on the couch and letting the press and corporate America soak their mind in "opinions" (FYI: it's not your "opinion" if you heard it on TV, that's someone else's opinion).  I don't watch TV (except ESPN, mind you), and I think that's what has helped me form such an objective perspective on law and politics.  When debating or discussing politics with others, I can tell just by the word choice and arguing style of a person whether or not they are speaking for themselves or quoting a commercial back to me.  It's very difficult to reason with these people because they usually feel compelled to stand firm on issues favored specifically by their political party--issues made known, of course, through partisan news networks and commercials.  The biggest problem with this mentality is that our politicians are not making it any better...corrupt governments + braindead voters = chaos on the horizon.

First example, the governor race in California.  To the educated, TV-less, moderate-minded observer, Meg Whitman is obviously an idiot.  She still hasn't revealed any political skill to the voters, but she has already run the most expensive gubernatorial campaign of all time, and we're still 4 months away from the election.  Too bad she has completely flip-flopped on a major issue that Republicans seem to feel very strongly about: immigration.  In June, she tried to buddy up with Pete Wilson, a strong supporter of the controversial Arizona law.  She promised the Reps that she'd be "tough on immigration" and even included photos of the border fence and statements about her distaste for the notion of amnesty for illegals in her 30-second TV commercials.  This caused many Latino voters to shy away from her.  Now, she has broken off contact with Wilson and launched a SPANISH ad campaign, complete with billboards saying "NO a la Proposicion 187 y NO a la ley de Arizona."  Since the start of this particular project she has gained significant support from Latinos and is even catching up to Jerry Brown in that respect.  Race issues aside (because I literally do not care what race a person is--it's what's going on inside the mind, and everyone is guilty in this case), these people believed a billboard and a few commercials rather than all the things Whitman said publicly back in June.  Furthermore, even her Mexico-hating Republican supporters haven't noticed the flip-flop!  The commercials they're getting on mainstream TV are making them happy enough I guess.  But it just goes to show how people are making decisions these days, and it's quite scary.  As far as Brown's campaign goes, I'm convinced he's going to lose simply because he hasn't represented himself solely in 30-second snippets.  Which is fine by me, because I will not be voting for him either.  I probably won't even vote for governor at all, as there are no qualified options.  I'm almost clinging to Arnold for dear life.

The second problem I'm seeing is the press's selective distortion of facts regarding Prop 19, the marijuana initiative.  As soon as the opposition came out with their lame attempt at a campaign, newspapers jumped all over it and are now publishing daily articles regarding the "dangers" of legalization, sometimes even 2 articles a day.  Today they're reporting a miniscule drop in the polls that we already knew was going to happen (now 48% against, 44% for), but of course they are acting like legalization is done and the initiative will never pass now.  Are you kidding me?!  How do these people find any honor in that kind of speculation?  As the opposition came out several months after the proponents, it's expected that their initial campaigning would slightly impact our poll results.  It's common sense.  It does not mean we can't bring that number back up in the next 4 months.  This wouldn't be so upsetting if I didn't know that most people are going to believe everything they read and never listen to a single fact again.  It's almost like the newspapers are being blackmailed by law enforcement to say these things and turn people against the initiative...I seriously wouldn't doubt it.  On top of this, everyone seems to be literally ignoring the facts about marijuana.  They say there are too many health risks involved (although they can't name a single health risk) and are afraid that stoned driving fatalities will come down upon us like a plague of locusts (even though millions have used the herb since cars were invented and we have never had widespread problems).  I guess none of it matters because logic is dead for most Californians.

The biggest indicator of the downfall of our government system for me is the Oakland verdict yesterday regarding the BART station shooting of 22 year old Oscar Grant, an unarmed black man, by Johannes Mehserle, a white police officer.  When Mehserle's "involuntary manslaughter" sentence was read yesterday at 4 PM, Oakland's worst fears were realized as protestors looted, rioted, and essentially wreaked havoc across the town.  I hope no one will chide me for siding with these rioters, as I am a young and fairly revolutionary-minded individual who believes that if that many people are angry, it's something to take seriously.  While many are calling the rioters out for being "unnecessarily destructive", I would suggest a bit of rhetoric on the Social Contract Theory.

We, the people, hand over some of our civil liberties in order to be protected and provided for by our government.  The point here is that our governments, including their law enforcement agencies, have not held up their end of the bargain.  We have paid income taxes and sales taxes into the system and helped develop California, and what have they done for us?  Bankrupted their treasured "social programs" and plunged us into billions of dollars of debt that we will never be able to repay, and STILL begged us for more, while trying to control our actions in the name of "morality" and "tradition".  They have prohibited, regulated, and taxed everything from businesses to bike helmets to our home appliances to the very food that we eat, and people are fed up.  When a police officer can kill you simply for acting silly in the BART station and essentially get away with it in a court of law, people are going to get pissed off.  And they are.  And it's going to get worse.  What happens when voters are literally too dumbed down to salvage what's left of the system?  Maybe democracy is dying.  Hopefully what comes after it is better.    

If I didn't have such a compelling interest in saving this country from itself, I would give up on the whole thing.  No rest for the weary...

Drawing the party line in the Millennial era

The Sacramento Bee (6.1.10) - "Little evidence in Washington that 'top 2' primary moderates politics"
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/01/2789318/little-evidence-in-washington.html

Proposition 14 is a June 8th California ballot measure that, if passed, will eliminate partisan restrictions on primary elections.  The article above is a lame attempt by some analysts to apply the effects of Washington's newly implemented "open primary" system to California elections.  Why would somebody even try to compare Washington state politics to California?!  Obviously the effects of an election-type law are going to differ from state to state, especially when one state has a fraction of the other's population.  California, in spite of its financial issues, is still a contender on the global economic scene.  Voters, legislators, and politicians here are constantly on the cutting edge of political and economic decision-making.  I'm not trying to sound arrogant here, I'm just trying to explain why I think this writer was comparing apples to oranges.

Here's why I think open primaries are a good idea for California, and maybe even most states.  The truth is that the party lines are currently dissolving due to a general sense of dissatisfaction with the government.  This isn't unusual--political parties often change their ideals and names as society progresses and certain issues become more or less relevant.  Often times people forget that the parties have gone through several changes even in the relatively short timeline of American history--remember the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Whigs from high school history?  Issues that the Democrats and Republicans have been battling over for years are simply becoming irrelevant, and no work is getting done because our old-fashioned partisan politicians are refusing to find new and innovative compromises.   Recent scandals, media hype, and the recession have also been serious blows to voter morale, and many people are choosing to no longer affiliate themselves with either party.

This brings me to current election rules.  For the primary gubernatorial election next Tuesday, each party will be allowing only their own registered members to vote for their own candidates (the Democratic party also allows registered Independents to vote).  Someone like me, who has declined to register with a political party, will not be permitted to vote for any candidate until the general election in November, unless you request a ballot by mail directly from the party you wish to vote for.

After the voting takes place, there is one winner from the Republican party and one Democratic winner.  That's basically it.  While non-affiliated candidates usually have not had a good chance at winning in the past, is it really right to cut off any chances of them running in the general election?  And what if two candidates from the same party could possibly be serious contenders in the race?  Doesn't matter--only the finalist from each party may run in the general election.  Our modified primary system simply does not allow for an underdog victory, and instead drives a wedge between the already floundering and overly regulated parties.  Prop. 14 would result in one universal ballot for all registered voters, as well as ensure that the top two vote recipients in the primary election go on to be the general election candidates, regardless of party.  It makes sense when you really think about it...why shouldn't the winners really be the winners? 

Opponents of this measure are trying to say that it simply won't make a difference--that the candidate with the most money will win the election no matter what.  I'm going to have to agree to disagree, on the grounds that I believe that is a complete insult to the intelligence of the Californian voter.  Ad campaigns and media attention are a big help to those running for office, but the last time I checked, the vast majority of people identify more with a candidate's basic values than how many commercials they have on the air.   

Prop. 14 is a good sign for young people because, if it passes, it will help California prepare for a truly bipartisan government in the future, if not multi-partisan.  The Millennial generation already shows great potential to bridge party gaps on many controversial social issues, including gay rights, drug policy, and racial interests.  The Millennials, I believe, will draw their own party lines years down the road, but until then, we need a "fair-and-square" voting system in which moderate and non-affiliated candidates will have a chance to change the way the government operates.  The change will be eventual--California elections will probably still be Democrat vs. Republican for a number of years--but without Prop. 14, we might never get the chance at all.  If we're electing the next executive for our state, I'd rather have a winner than a finalist, wouldn't you?  This is another culture shock I can definitely get behind.