And in the spirit of transparency, here are a few of my votes on some of the more controversial ballot measures:
Presidential election - Result: Barack Obama
Description: Hopefully that's obvious
My vote: Barack Obama. I went back and forth on this a bunch. Fundamentally, I believe in smaller government and reject the notion of a welfare state. But, I like the tone Obama carries and I believe he will be a moderate-centrist president. Democrats learned their lesson of being too leftist after they lost the house in '94. And, I hope this will bring shock to the Republican party splitting up the John McCain's from the Sarah Palin's. Whenever I considered a McCain vote, I just couldn't get past Sarah Palin. Plus, I favor Obama's stance on energy.
US Congress - Result: Nancy Pelosi
Description: Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat was up for reelection. She originally won in 1987 and has been reelected 10 times while never participating in the candidate debates.
My vote: Cindy Sheehan. Frankly, I know very little about Cindy. Probably not my most informed of votes, but it came down to the fact that this district has put Pelosi in office by upwards of a 75% vote and I really don't like the politics and conduct of Pelosi. While her agenda is obviously a little too liberal for my tastes, it's her strategy and tone that I disagree with. Plus, Cindy was an independent.
Proposition 1A - Result: Yes - It passed.
Description: This proposition would permit the state to issue $20B in bonds to begin construction on a high-speed inter-city train spanning between Sacramento, San Francisco, and Southern California. The train would reach speeds around 220mph - costing about $45 bucks for a passenger to go from SF to LA in 2 hours.
My vote: No. Frankly, this state is already in a massive fiscal crisis. While I'm all for public transportation to help remove cars from the road, I don't think we need a fancy train. A crappy train works fine - it just needs to reach more places. Who needs to go to LA in 2 hours? Ick - I don't want them coming up here... ;)
Proposition 2 - Result: Yes - It passed.
Description: This would create enforceable standards for the conditions of farm animals (i.e. confinement in a space allowing them to lay down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, turn around, etc.). This does include some exceptions (weak!), but more importantly if imposes fines on people that don't comply.
My vote: Yes. First of all, I'm all about increasing government revenues for infractions that I consider egregious. Second, my mother would be very disappointed if I voted against this. :\
Proposition 4 - Result: No. It did not pass.
Description: This proposition would have changed California's constitution requiring a doctor to notify the parents of a minor 48 hours before the minor can have an abortion. It also would impose fines on physicians that did not enforce this.
My vote: No. I can understand the logic of a parent wanting this to pass - especially if something went wrong during the abortion. I get it. Regardless, I'd rather the teenager not tell her parents with a safe abortion instead of not telling the parents with an unsafe abortion.
Proposition 7 - Result: No. It did not pass.
Description: In essence, this proposition would have instituted higher standards on electrical utilities (both government, and private) sooner. California already has renewable energy standards that utilities have to meet over time - this would have made it more aggressive.
My vote: No. One of the provisions for this actually would have pushed small businesses out of competition with the public and larger private utilities. As a small business fan - that's obviously not something I approve.
Proposition 8 - Result: Yes. It did pass.
Description: Probably the hottest topic of the election, this proposition called to alter the California constitution clearly defining marriage between a man and a woman and establishing it as the only recognized definition in the state.
My vote: No. First of all, I firmly believe this should not be an issue left to the state - or any government. Marriage is a definition defined by religion. Civil unions should be the state's only couple definition and all rights should be derived off of that (taxes, hospital visits, etc.). When two people get married in a church, they should also certify their civil union. Regardless, to me this seems like a pretty basic issue. It's a matter of creating standards and rights for one set of people, while prohibiting the lifestyle of another set of people. That simply shouldn't happen. Not only does it make the law more complex, but it stumbles into issues this species has stumbled on time and time again.
Description: This proposition would have permitted the state to issue $5B in bonds to fund research and give tax credits for consumers who purchase alternative energy vehicles.
My vote: No. Given the condition of California's budget crisis and the general principle that Government should only use long-term debt to fund infrastructure, this didn't seem like a good idea. (And do I really want a car running on shit to be in front of me on the freeway? I'm kidding. But seriously.)
Proposition K - Result: No. It did not pass.
Description: Prostitution in the state of California is illegal - throughout the whole state. This proposition for the city of San Francisco (all the lettered propositions are for the city - not state) would have changed the city's position on enforcing this law. While prostitution is still illegal, if a woman came to a police station and said "I'm a prostitute", they wouldn't arrest her. Last year, the city spent millions (single digit) enforcing this law (bookings, jail time, etc.).
My vote: Yes. I voted in favor of prostitution. :) (Mom, I'm sorry). Frankly, my decision came down to this: If a woman is a prostitute, and her pimp is beating the shit out of her, if she goes to the police to have him arrested - she'll get arrested too. That sucks. (no pun intended! Wow, rated R...). Shortly after I voted, my old roommate Will made a good point: "It's a law, it should be enforced." Fair enough.
Proposition R - Result: No. It did not pass.
Description: This proposition would have renamed a water treatment plant in San Francisco the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. Regardless of your political affiliation - you have to get a kick out of this.
My vote: Yes. He's gonna get all sorts of buildings and streets named after him (along with any other president) - so why not.
Proposition U - Result: Yes. This passed.
Description: This proposition somehow requires elected federal officials of the city's districts (US Congress, etc.) to vote against the Iraq war during Congressional votes.
My vote: No. I don't care what anyone's stance is on the Iraq war. This is like some ass-backwards version of micro-managing. This isn't how a constitutional republic works. Ugh.
Proposition V - Result: Yes. This passed.
Description: This allowed JROTC to be allowed back into high schools. Recently, I believe they were removed.
My vote: No. I went back and for on this a little bit. While I totally think students should have freedom of choice - it seemed to be a little questionable to have impressionable teenagers doing that at such an age. If they need discipline or whatever, join a sport. That's the time to pick up a non-consequential hobby.
