• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

California Election November 2014 - Ballot Propositions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fenderputty said:
I agree it's suspicious. I've been leaning a little more on the "no" side recently. It's the one I'm back and forth on right now.

Edit: if prop 1 was so amazing and needed, why are voting for it as s bond measure instead of figuring out a tax or a diversion/cutting of funds from other areas.
Click to expand...

Aren't taxes harder to pass? Diverting funds from education would be the most likely thing, also, since that's everyone's punching bag
 
SenorArdilla said:
Prop 1: Yes. A complete rehaul of the water system sounds nice. That's to say CA should have done this a long time ago. But it's a lot money and CA is still in the red. I don't know...
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be an ass but your answer here makes it sound like you didn't read a single thing about this. The prop doesn't change a single thing about our current water system. It mainly funds the building of new damns and the clean up of some polluted water. It doesn't state specific areas for either of those things though. There is no place in So Cal or Central Valley to damn that will make a real difference. With the current permit system in the state no damn will be built for years. That's after the years spent with different areas campaigning to get the money for themselves. It also doesn't contain a single line about conservation or distribution.

This is a feel good bill. It does something but it doesn't do anything that will make a difference.
 
Laekon said:
I don't mean to be an ass but your answer here makes it sound like you didn't read a single thing about this. The prop doesn't change a single thing about our current water system. It mainly funds the building of new damns and the clean up of some polluted water. It doesn't state specific areas for either of those things though. There is no place in So Cal or Central Valley to damn that will make a real difference. With the current permit system in the state no damn will be built for years. That's after the years spent with different areas campaigning to get the money for themselves. It also doesn't contain a single line about conservation or distribution.

This is a feel good bill. It does something but it doesn't do anything that will make a difference.
Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one who thought that way. Thank goodness.
 
Kano on the Phone said:
It's also opposed by effectively every newspaper, union, medical organization, etc.

This prop is suspicious as hell, is going to raise health care prices and fuck up doctors in smaller areas, and there's too much under this one umbrella, so I'm on the no train.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Malpractice costs are a freakin' tiny portion of health care costs. Color me shocked its opposed by the people who are negatively affected by it.

It is not suspicious in the least. The original pain and suffering cap on med. mal claims was $250,000, which adjusted for inflation, should be a little over a million. Instead its $250,000, the equivalent of about $58,000 in 1970s dollars.
 
davepoobond said:
Aren't taxes harder to pass? Diverting funds from education would be the most likely thing, also, since that's everyone's punching bag
Click to expand...

It is harder to pass a tax. That doesn't change what I said though. I'm generally against bond measures though.

Laekon said:
I don't mean to be an ass but your answer here makes it sound like you didn't read a single thing about this. The prop doesn't change a single thing about our current water system. It mainly funds the building of new damns and the clean up of some polluted water. It doesn't state specific areas for either of those things though. There is no place in So Cal or Central Valley to damn that will make a real difference. With the current permit system in the state no damn will be built for years. That's after the years spent with different areas campaigning to get the money for themselves. It also doesn't contain a single line about conservation or distribution.

This is a feel good bill. It does something but it doesn't do anything that will make a difference.
Click to expand...

This only makes this worse. Take out a loan to accomish jack and shit.
 
Angry Grimace said:
No it isn't. Malpractice costs are a freakin' tiny portion of health care costs. Color me shocked its opposed by the people who are negatively affected by it.

It is not suspicious in the least. The original pain and suffering cap on med. mal claims was $250,000, which adjusted for inflation, should be a little over a million. Instead its $250,000, the equivalent of about $58,000 in 1970s dollars.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone in the medical field opposed to this then? Look at the donations list for YES see if you can find any law firms on this list!

Consumer Attorneys Issue PAC
Consumer Watchdog
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP
Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield, LLP
Bruce G. Fagel, A Law Corporation
Bisnar/Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP
Christopher B. Dolan
CA Nurses Association Initiative PAC
Shernoff, Bidart, Echeverria, Bentley, LLP
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.
Wylie Aitken, a Law Corporation
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
Don A. Ernst
Gillin Jacobson Ellis & Larsen
Law Offices of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
Waters & Kraus, LLP
Click to expand...

Look at the donors for the NO campaign

California Medical Association Physicians' Issues Committee
Cooperative of American Physicians Independent Expenditure Committee
NorCal Mutual Insurance Company
The Doctors Company
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
California Hospitals Committee on Issues
Medical Insurance Exchange of California
California Dental Association
The Dentists Insurance Company
Click to expand...
 
1. Was Yes. Now Undecided, due to what I've read from this thread.
2. Yes. I am concerned about how this money will be disbursed should a "rainy day" actually occur, though.
45. Yes. I don't trust insurance companies to have people's best interests at heart.
46. Leaning Yes. I don't hold firm to this lean, though, but I don't really see a downside.
47. Yes. I've never been a supporter of "tough on crime" nonsense. Nonviolent criminals should be helped--not punished.
48. Question: if tribes are allowed to build casinos off reservation land, do those casinos get taxed?
 
As an actuary I say vote YES for Prop 45. Filing rates in California is an extremely difficult process and insurance companies must rely on highly paid professionals, such as myself, to complete this process. If Prop 45 is approved the demand for actuaries will increase, and thus indirectly my potential future salary. Given insurance is a competitive industry it will be California policy holders who ultimately bear this increased cost, and I will thank y'all for it.
 
Which proposition allows me to eliminate the proposition system?
 
Laekon said:
I don't mean to be an ass but your answer here makes it sound like you didn't read a single thing about this. The prop doesn't change a single thing about our current water system. It mainly funds the building of new damns and the clean up of some polluted water. It doesn't state specific areas for either of those things though. There is no place in So Cal or Central Valley to damn that will make a real difference. With the current permit system in the state no damn will be built for years. That's after the years spent with different areas campaigning to get the money for themselves. It also doesn't contain a single line about conservation or distribution.

This is a feel good bill. It does something but it doesn't do anything that will make a difference.
Click to expand...

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/

Pro:
PROPOSITION 1 provides a reliable supply of water for farms, businesses and communities, especially during droughts. It supports economic growth and protects the environment. It is fiscally responsible, is guided by a comprehensive state water plan and does NOT raise taxes.

Con:
California can't afford Prop. 1's misplaced spending. It does little to relieve the drought or improve regional water self-sufficiency. It threatens our rivers and streams. Private water users won't pay for these dams; taxpayers shouldn't either. Prop. 1 drains funding for schools, health care, roads and public safety.

And you're saying that everything that the pro side claims it will do isn't even written down on paper? Wow. This whole thing is a confusing mess.
 
InvaderZimmer said:
Why is everyone in the medical field opposed to this then? Look at the donations list for YES see if you can find any law firms on this list!



Look at the donors for the NO campaign
Click to expand...

Do you have a response to the argument, though?
 
SenorArdilla said:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/

Pro:
PROPOSITION 1 provides a reliable supply of water for farms, businesses and communities, especially during droughts. It supports economic growth and protects the environment. It is fiscally responsible, is guided by a comprehensive state water plan and does NOT raise taxes.

Con:
California can't afford Prop. 1's misplaced spending. It does little to relieve the drought or improve regional water self-sufficiency. It threatens our rivers and streams. Private water users won't pay for these dams; taxpayers shouldn't either. Prop. 1 drains funding for schools, health care, roads and public safety.

And you're saying that everything on the pro side claims it will do isn't even written down on paper? Wow. This whole thing is a confusing mess.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but it just doesn't make common sense. The biggest part is $2.7 billion for storage/dams. But look at the last dam built in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Valley_Lake It cost $1.7 billion 20 years ago. Planning started in 1987, construction in 1995, and it wasn't full until 2003. So what is $2.7 billion in 2015 going to really going to do for us?

Also since it's a bond and not a tax we have to pay interest so how much does the prop really cost in the long run?

Sadly I don't think anyone has good ideas to help the situation quickly. From what we hear even if we stopped watering every lawn in the state it wouldn't really matter. All we can hope for is some good snow fall in the winter.
 
Laekon said:
I'm no expert but it just doesn't make common sense. The biggest part is $2.7 billion for storage/dams. But look at the last dam built in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Valley_Lake It cost $1.7 billion 20 years ago. Planning started in 1987, construction in 1995, and it wasn't full until 2003. So what is $2.7 billion in 2015 going to really going to do for us?

Also since it's a bond and not a tax we have to pay interest so how much does the prop really cost in the long run?

Sadly I don't think anyone has good ideas to help the situation quickly. From what we hear even if we stopped watering every lawn in the state it wouldn't really matter. All we can hope for is some good snow fall in the winter.
Click to expand...

so, what is the true purpose of writing a useless bill in this case? what is the underlying motive to having california have an 8 billion dollar bond that essentially does nothing?

i'm not sure that it "doing nothing" is exactly the right way to characterize it. It has to do SOMETHING. Whether or not that is good or bad is an entirely different issue from doing nothing and doing something.

the main argument seems to be the money is for a dam it cannot afford, which means a dam won't be built. Which means there's 2.7 billion dollars doing... what?

that it supposedly drains funding from everything else just to pay interest on money that is doing nothing makes just about as much sense as what you're saying is supposed to be common sense.
 
Casimir said:
From the link you posted, Proposition 46 does way more than raise the cap. The majority of it actually seems to enact safety mechanisms to protect patients and the general populace from harm due to negligent doctors.
Click to expand...

Require health care practitioners to consult the state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.
Click to expand...

That caught my eye from the link in Proposal #46, this actually seems like a double edge sword. Most of this stuff in this proposition seems like it protects the patients EXCEPT this last part.

Forcing every doctor to setup, use, and abide by the database sounds good in theory for limiting drug diversion, but in my state, monitoring program run by the state is so backlogged with requests and submissions that its hardly of any use; not every "healthcare provider" has access to it and the database isn't even up to date by a least a month. For a doctor that doesn't have access or can't get access also means they can't prescribe any controls to their patients if this law went into effect.
 
davepoobond said:
so, what is the true purpose of writing a useless bill in this case? what is the underlying motive to having california have an 8 billion dollar bond that essentially does nothing?

i'm not sure that it "doing nothing" is exactly the right way to characterize it. It has to do SOMETHING. Whether or not that is good or bad is an entirely different issue from doing nothing and doing something.

the main argument seems to be the money is for a dam it cannot afford, which means a dam won't be built. Which means there's 2.7 billion dollars doing... what?

that it supposedly drains funding from everything else just to pay interest on money that is doing nothing makes just about as much sense as what you're saying is supposed to be common sense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense to me and that's why I'm saying people should vote against it. I don't know why people are for it. From the NPR recording linked earlier it seems there are Unions for this because it creates union jobs. Politicians are for it because they can say they are doing something. Will it have some positive effects? Probably. Towns can use some of the funds to clean up some polluted water sources which is always good. Are those positives worth over $7 billion and will they prevent water shortages? Not in my opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong but I would feel a lot better if there were real actionable specifics in this bill instead of it being an underwear gnome business proposal.

Step 1. Money
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Water
 
davepoobond said:
so, what is the true purpose of writing a useless bill in this case? what is the underlying motive to having california have an 8 billion dollar bond that essentially does nothing?

i'm not sure that it "doing nothing" is exactly the right way to characterize it. It has to do SOMETHING. Whether or not that is good or bad is an entirely different issue from doing nothing and doing something.

the main argument seems to be the money is for a dam it cannot afford, which means a dam won't be built. Which means there's 2.7 billion dollars doing... what?

that it supposedly drains funding from everything else just to pay interest on money that is doing nothing makes just about as much sense as what you're saying is supposed to be common sense.
Click to expand...

Keeping the unqualified relatives of local politicians employed for awhile. It's a honeypot, grab every government contract while you can, the bottom will fall out eventually but they don't care, they'll just move on to the next taxpayer-subsidized con.

NO on everything
 
Yes on the sugar beverage tax for sure.

Lower consumption and raise revenue all for it
 
The SF Chronicle argues for a No vote on 45:
We've long supported the concept of giving the state insurance commissioner the authority to review and approve health premiums. But the federal Affordable Care Act has made some profound changes in the way rates and scope of coverage are determined, and this measure fails to adequately account for the new environment.

One of the most compelling arguments against Proposition 45 is that it could seriously undermine Covered California...

The measure is being advanced by Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica group behind Proposition 103, the 1988 initiative that created the elected state insurance commissioner's office and gave it the authority to approve or reject premium increases. That measure, as with Prop. 45, is structured to allow an outside group to intervene in cases - and collect legal fees and other expenses at the conclusion. Consumer Watchdog has collected millions of dollars through this process, and has come under fire at times for excessive fees.

Unlike auto insurance, health care premiums are set once a year, under tight timelines for the open enrollment period. Last-minute rate interventions would inject chaos and uncertainty into an already precarious process of balancing its "triple aims" of cost, quality and health outcomes...

Consumer Watchdog would like to cast this as a battle between righteous consumers and the evil insurance industry. Yes, the insurers are pouring big money against it, but they are not alone in their concerns. They are joined by consumer advocates and business groups who want the Affordable Care Act to succeed. Weinberg said the measure "feels like friendly fire."
Click to expand...
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-No-on-Prop-45-5755430.php?
 
Happy that election day is tomm, to at least stop the political ads everywhere. I'm also happy to eat crow and change to a yes vote on 45, even though I still have my doubts as to if it'll accomplish anything.
 
Surprised on some of GAF's decisions on these. Mine:

Prop 1 : No. Only one I have pause on, as not sure where the money is going or what exactly is planned.

Prop 2 : No. The saving's long term sounds good, but I'm not cool with limiting how much school's are allowed to save for future expenses. A lot of teachers in and around LA county already undergo a lot of out of pocket expenses to do their jobs. And I remember a few years ago teachers in Orange county, I believe, having to take donations from parents to even keep teaching. Yanking more money out of the school system just doesn't jive with me. Would have been a "Yes" if not for this.

Prop 45 - Yes. I'm ok with more transparency on health care costs. Not worried about a Insurance Commisioner Overlord as long as the public has visibility on his decisions.

Prop 46 - No. Raising malpractice suits and putting the squeeze on doctors will just raise insurance rates across the board.

Prop 47 - No. Agree that drug possession should be a misdemeanor. But shoplifting, gun theft, grand theft, stealing property/selling it, check forgery, etc. under $950 would only be a misdemeanor? Fuck that. If someone stole my PS4, I want that shit to be considered a felony.

Prop 48 - Yes. No problem with more business and competition in the casino industry or any other.
 
Prop 46 seems like it's about too many things to want them all to pass at once. Kind of a shame, I like the idea of removing the cap on non-economic damages. The rest of the baggage shouldn't be there :/

A quick glance at the opposition to prop 48 sounds like a lot of moral panic. More casinos, I say.
 
About prop 1, even if there are few opportunities to build dams in California, you can still do things like pump excess water into underground aquifers (during above average precipitation years) aka create a water bank. In any case, since California politicians don't put much money in the general budget for big water projects anymore, the easiest way for these to get funded is through a proposition.
 
flammie said:
About prop 1, even if there are few opportunities to build dams in California, you can still do things like pump excess water into underground aquifers (during above average precipitation years) aka create a water bank. In any case, since California politicians don't put much money in the general budget for big water projects anymore, the easiest way for these to get funded is through a proposition.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my feeling, as well. I think I'm going to end up voting yes on 1. Even though we won't see much in terms of immediate benefits, fleshing out our water infrastructure could be good for us long term and help us in the event of another major drought in the future.
 
Septimus Prime said:
Yeah, that's my feeling, as well. I think I'm going to end up voting yes on 1. Even though we won't see much in terms of immediate benefits, fleshing out our water infrastructure could be good for us long term and help us in the event of another major drought in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, did a bit more research on it and changed my mind to Yes on Prop 1 for about the same reason.
 
Jetman said:
Prop 47 - No. Agree that drug possession should be a misdemeanor. But shoplifting, gun theft, grand theft, stealing property/selling it, check forgery, etc. under $950 would only be a misdemeanor? Fuck that. If someone stole my PS4, I want that shit to be considered a felony.
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that the law isn't simply changing felonies to misdemeanors. All of the laws affected by the proposition are ones where there is currently a lot of wiggle room where the crime can be a felony or a misdemeanor at the prosecutor's choosing based on the circumstances. So for your example, someone who steals your PS4 could already be charged with petty theft (a misdemeanor) rather than grand theft (a felony), solely at the discretion of the authorities.

In practical terms, this proposition is probably being put forward to limit differences in criminal charges based on race. I am willing to bet that black people tend to get charged with grand theft while white people tend to be charged with mere petty theft for the same value of stolen merchandise. That is the sort of inequality that comes up a lot in the American justice system, and this proposition would theoretically limit it by eliminating the wiggle room and giving everyone the same criminal charges.
 
claviertekky said:
Welp, I mailed my ballot but the office has no record of it.

Mailed it quite a long time ago, too.
Click to expand...

We can only assume you're the victim of voter fraud now. If only California required State ID's, a Social Security Card and a pint of blood like those other states. Lesson learned right?
 
I can't remember from the last election: do we usually see CA propositions on the usual suspect voting results sites?
 
was checking the la times website for results and this story popped up.

Vietnamese translation errors could affect Prop. 46 vote, leaders say

The translation of the measureÂ’s title, which is printed in bold at the top of the Vietnamese language voter guide, includes a phrase that can be interpreted to mean that doctors would conduct drug tests, not be required to take them, said Lucy Huynh, a community health educator at the Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance, an organization focused on health and education.
Click to expand...
 
Apparently I was not able to vote because I didn't bring some form let alone didn't appear to be on their list despite voting many times since turning 18. =/
 
I know my deputy friends are pretty upset about 47 passing, since they already had to release so many criminals due to the prison realignment. They have stated that crime is way up since the realignment and this is going to just make it worse. Time will tell I guess.
 
Glad the criminal sentencing went through.
I'm surprised the indian gaming thing was so widely opposed. There's a casino not too far from me though, my county was almost split 50/50 on the issue.
 
Cyan said:
Yep.

1 - Yes
2 - Yes
45 - No
46 - No
47 - Yes
48 - No

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/

For once no really awful and inexplicable results. Went pretty much how I voted, barring 48 which I didn't care about.
Click to expand...

overall i'm satisfied as well.

the only i'm a little steamy about is 45 because the insurance companies REALLLLLLY didn't want someone regulating them


46 i abstained on. the most important measure was frankly the 47 for the criminal sentencing.
 
There were several prominent newspaper endorsements of No on 45 (I posted one above), on the basis that it was likely to undermine CA's Obamacare program in its ability to negotiate with insurance companies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hempcrete - Is is perfect for building in California? Yes!
21
791
EternalSunshine1976 replied
Adolf Hitler wins Namibia election
26
733
Thurible replied
"Gremlins 3" will open in theaters November 19, 2027
2
88
2K
Sephimoth replied
Your top 10 favorite movies of the 21st century. Post your ballot.
21
1K
kunonabi replied
  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
676
Jaybe replied
Top Bottom