Ballot Initiatives

[Frosstbyte]

I'm wondering how people feel about the ballot initiatives in their state and the outcome from last night. I find myself in an odd place today. I'm happy that Obama won and am eager to see what he can do to bring about positive change in American politics, but my votes on CA ballot initiatives got voted down pretty much across the board with a few exceptions. The only things that came through for me were the high speed train initiative and the parental notification of minor abortions, which leaves a lot to be desired, given what was on the ballot. Prop 8's obviously a huge blow to equality and societal progression, in my mind, and I think the two crime-related initiatives that passed serve only to reinforce the pathetic "War on Drugs" effort and threaten to severely infringe upon the constitutional rights of criminals.

I was explaining to a friend today that I feel like a kid on Christmas who got a shiny new Nintendo, but was told that I could not have any games to play on it. This leaves me feeling pretty conflicted about the election in general.

Does anyone else have any similar reactions to how things went? Were there any initiatives in YOUR state that you feel strongly about or do you have any feelings about how your state voted on initiatives in general?

As a note of clarification, I'm mostly interested in how people are reacting to referendums passed or voted down in their own state, not how other people feel about the fate of initiatives in other states.

[Halx]

I'm largely sad that we have initiatives to give the government the power to weigh in on our personal matters. Its absolutely gross.

[Derwood]

We had five state propositions here in Ohio. I voted no on the Casino bill (the guy who was pushing it was a scumbag who had evaded casino taxes in other states), but yes on the rest. The one I felt best about was a measure that capped the loan amounts and interest rates at Payday Loan/Check-to-Cash stores

[Starkizzer]

I'm pissed about 8 as well. The criminal ones I thought were being voted down, I hope the one that gives more rights to the victims than the criminals gets through.

I am glad that prop 12 seems to have passed, our veterans deserve a lot.

[Fotzlid]

Here in Massachusetts we had only 3 questions on the ballot.

#1 was to abolish the income tax by 2010 which got voted down.
The opposition to this successfully got that voted down with a series of doom and gloom ads predicting the end to firefighters, elderly health care and teachers. It would have raised property taxes but i would have been ok with that as i would know my tax dollars went to my town instead of the fat cats on Beacon Hill.

#2 was to decriminalize possession of less than 1 oz of marajuana which passed. Now it would just be a civil fine for posession instead of a criminal complaint. A sensible first step IMO.

#3 was to ban greyhound racing which passed. A waste of time IMO as there are only 2 dog tracks in the state and their revenues are in free fall. A few more years and they probably would have just gone out of business as the casinos in CT are stealing their patrons away.

[Halx]

Originally Posted by Derwood

The one I felt best about was a measure that capped the loan amounts and interest rates at Payday Loan/Check-to-Cash stores

Now THAT is socialism.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by Halx

Now THAT is socialism.

Why is that socialism? They are establishing regulations for short term loans. We have tons of regulations on long loans, why not short term loans as well?

[smooth]

I knew the victim's rights bill would pass, and it makes me angry the lack of information people voting for it actually have about the system they felt needed changing. My general principle is that if I don't know the facts, I try and research them or I don't vote for changes. Guess that's too much to ask from my fellow citizens :\

[Frosstbyte]

I'm guessing, though certainly not positive, that the victim's rights bill will get challenged and overturned. It seems like a pretty serious violation of the federal Bill of Rights relating to criminal law and due process to me, so I'm not horribly worried about the fact that it passed. Until then, though, it's certainly a nasty little thing to make it into CA law.

I agree with you completely, smooth. This initiative and the initiative on non-violent drug offenses probably got a lot of votes from people who just looked at the title without thinking through what they meant. They're both horrible laws with corrupt, but pretty sounding, motivations. It's too bad more people didn't realize that.

[inBOIL]

I voted against 1A because it's funded by bonds. I see no reason to pay twice as much as we need to for an otherwise good project, but most other Californians don't seem to mind.

I have mixed feelings on prop 2 passing; I agree with what they're trying to do, but A) I don't agree with what is essentially an effort to legislate morality and B) I don't think it will reduce the prevalence of inhumane husbandry, just move it out of state.

Prop 8 passing irritates me immensely. I hope this doesn't signal that California is starting to become more socially conservative, especially if it's going to remain fiscally liberal.

[smooth]

lol, only someone from around the Bay Area would grow up here thinking Cali is a socially liberal state.
Where did you get that idea from? I grew up in San Diego and it irritates me when outsiders think the state is collectively liberal and chastise us for it. I don't care because of liberalism, I wish it was true, I care because it's incorrect and also means that people who buy into it within the state don't really understand how difficult it will be to fix fuckups like 3 strikes laws, this victim rights law, prop 8.

people talk about things like medical marijuana as examples of raging liberalism, but what they don't realize is that while some communities like Humbolt are pretty happy and high right now, the rest of the state only supports it in so far as they realize that we simply don't have the agencies to prosecute and the room to incarcerate potheads. the rest are opposed to it.

[Charlatan]

I find these referendums to be a strange way to run government.

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I find these referendums to be a strange way to run government.

apparently, state legislators like to avoid hot-button social issues (ie they're cowards)

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I find these referendums to be a strange way to run government.

I understand that the majority isn't always right, but the people have a voice in how certain issues are handled.

Personaly, I would like to see it left to monetary issues. Either raising taxes, getting rid of taxes/services, forcing the energy company to produce zero emission energy and raising the rates, allowing a casino to be built that might not have to pay taxes,...

I'm glad issue 6 failed in Ohio. Even though Argosy was behind it and I don't like the fact that the gambling revenues go to the river casino, Indiana and Detroit/Windsor casinos. But, it was a negative ad/smear campaign that worked on me. I hope that there will be a new casino proposal in the future with better terms.

I don't understand why I now have control of the ground water under my property, except if the public needs it or the government uses it. (Issue 2 or 3)

I am glad that the interest rate was capped at 28%, although I bet we see some of those check cashing places close. That isn't exactly a bad thing either. (Issue 5)

I am wondering what happened to issue 4? It was supposed to mandate that employers had to give sick leave to their employees.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I find these referendums to be a strange way to run government.

Yeah, I never knew it was so common in the US.

Here we reserve referendums for major issues (like changing constitutional rights or Quebec leaving Confederation). Not sure how I would like to have a bunch of different questions posed on a ballot.

[smooth]

it's not common in the US.
these are constitutional amendments we're talking about just like you're used to, highthief.
the other ballot measures *are* monetary issues.
the reason it looks like so much slop is on the ballots is because of this movement to distrust legislative bodies in normal civil life so regular issues have been elevated to constitutional amendment status that would not normally be elsewhere.

the reasons the legislation can't do much about it is not that they don't like hot button issues, but that as soon as wealthy individuals realized they can alter the constitution with enough money and votes then all kinds of shit got shoved into our state constitution. this hamstrings a lot of movement and decisions the legislation can actually make.

also, California's initiative process has been described as hyperdemocratic. It's much more populist friendly than other states, so you see it more often in California than even other states.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

#3 was to ban greyhound racing which passed. A waste of time IMO as there are only 2 dog tracks in the state and their revenues are in free fall. A few more years and they probably would have just gone out of business as the casinos in CT are stealing their patrons away.

wtf? who in their right minds thinks this needs to be legislated?

[smooth]

Originally Posted by spindles

wtf? who in their right minds thinks this needs to be legislated?

people concerned with animal cruelty.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by smooth

people concerned with animal cruelty.

what's next? horse racing? walking a dog on a leash? looking the wrong way at a dog walking by?

[smooth]

Originally Posted by spindles

what's next? horse racing? walking a dog on a leash? looking the wrong way at a dog walking by?

horse racing has long been a contentious issue within the horse community.

walking dogs on leashes and looking at them the wrong way are pretty safe activities over here in the states, unless you start dragging your pet around by the neck and kicking him in the ass. pretty basic stuff to understand I'd think...

you should probably google why sensible people have problems with horse and dog racing if you're still curious because it seems like you're just spouting off rather than genuinely curious at this point.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by smooth

horse racing has long been a contentious issue within the horse community.

walking dogs on leashes and looking at them the wrong way are pretty safe activities over here in the states, unless you start dragging your pet around by the neck and kicking him in the ass. pretty basic stuff to understand I'd think...

you should probably google why sensible people have problems with horse and dog racing if you're still curious because it seems like you're just spouting off rather than genuinely curious at this point.

I like to think I'm a sensible person. While I don't go often, I have been to the dogs a fair bit (especially as a kid as my mum worked at the local track). One of the reasons to ban something - "Greyhound racing is a dying industry", seems a ludicrous reason to ban something. Cruelty? Well, I don't know about the USA but Australia already has animal cruelty legislation, so I don't really see the point of this one, and also re dog doping, this would also appear to be illegal as well. I stand by my "why the hell was this legislation even up for a vote". Still looks like a waste of time to me.

edit: and by the way the other examples I set out were supposed to be ludicrous

[Fotzlid]

Originally Posted by spindles

wtf? who in their right minds thinks this needs to be legislated?

The group that was backing the question ran a successful ad campaign that portrayed the racing dog owners in a very bad light. The favorite things were the number of dogs injured in the past year (allegedly 800) and how they are kept in small cages up to 20 hours a day. Emotional blackmail to the liberal minded majority in the commonwealth. Something along the line of "How can you condone such blatant cruelty to these wonderful animals."

Being the cynic that I am, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if the dog tracks were behind it as they want casino gaming at their facilities and the state isn't keen on allowing it. Now they will have these large empty facilities, less taxes for local communities and over 1000 local people out of work.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by spindles

I like to think I'm a sensible person. While I don't go often, I have been to the dogs a fair bit (especially as a kid as my mum worked at the local track).

I didn't claim that people against racing bans were sensible or not.
You asked "who in their right minds" would support bans, and I replied that you should look up why sensible people support them. Banning because an industry is dying would be nonsensical to me, but banning due to keeping dogs in cages for 20 hours, injuries, and doping them would be three sensible reasons to me.

[roachboy]

i voted for that ballot initiative concerning dog racing because i know folk who do greyhound rescue, and the conditions the dogs are kept under are neither pretty nor necessary. there's been public concern voiced about this for a long time and nothing's change, so fuck em.

[abaya]

I was glad to see that I-1000, Death with Dignity, passed in WA state. That makes us the 2nd state in the nation to approve physician-assisted suicide (or whatever the hell you want to call it) after Oregon, and I hope many more will follow. It makes me feel better about going home to live in WA, because I know if if something happens to me or ktsp or my family, we'll have this available to us without having to move to Oregon.