Wednesday, May 09, 2012

First Look At The Ballot

Got my sample ballot in the mail yesterday. Took my first look and figured out how I'll vote in all but one race:

U.S.  President: A no- brainer, obviously, with Gary Johnson getting the vote. He already won the Libertarian Party's nomination this last weekend.

U.S. Senate: There must be 25 or more candidates listed for senate under this new blanket primary. Just looking at the ballot gives an impression of how silly this idea is. With that many candidates who knows who might end up in the runoff?

I'll stick with principle, go with what I know, and vote for Gail LIghtfoot, perennial Libertarian Party candidate for what seems like forever. Who knows? With that many candidates running, maybe she could get enough votes to make the runoff.

U.S. Congress, 2nd district: Here's one I'm unsure of. Obviously Huffman won't get my vote. I want to vote for whoever has the second most popular support behind Huffman. That might be Republican, Dan Roberts, assuming all the Republicans rally behind one candidate. But I don't think Roberts has much chance of beating Huffman in this authoritarian district.

I'll likely hold out and see who the polls say is the leader for second place and vote for him or her. I suspect it will be Adams or Lawson.

State Assembly, District 2: I finally get a chance to vote for perennial Green Party and one- time Peace and Freedom candidate, Pam Elizondo. I've written here before that any candidate that shows up at a candidate forum in a sweatshirt is ok by me and, despite being a bit goofy, I like some of what I've heard her say in past forums.

Should she make the runoff against Chesbro, I might well vote for her then, too. If it's Chesbro vs. one of the other Democrats in November I'll likely stand aside- as the Greens put it- and not vote.

Prop 28- Term Limits: NO. Just another juxtaposing of legislators' terms of which I can't find any benefit to. Never mind that I'm ambivalent about term limits in the first place. I'd stand aside on this one, normally, but since the majority of skuzbags supporting this also support the tobacco tax, I'll vote NO on this one, too.

Prop 29- Tobacco Tax: NO, and an explanation shouldn't be necessary. A highly regressive tax paid mostly by the poorer in the state, not tobacco companies. More importantly, I'm appalled that anyone would vote for a tax that won't apply to themselves. I would never vote for a tax on someone else that I wouldn't have to pay.

It just goes to show how corrupting democracy has been on Californians. Most of those supporting this tax might never consider beating up some poor guy walking down the street and taking his wallet, yet they think that it's more than ok to do the same thing via the ballot box. Sick, sick, sick.

Measure Y- Abandoned Vehicle Fees: Who'd a thunk this libertarian would support the extension of a tax? I figure what the heck. It's just a dollar and, hopefully, goes for a good cause- abandoned cars being a pet peeve of mine. If someone can come up with a good argument against this tax extension, I may reconsider.

5 Comments:

At 9:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone but Huffman! Please vote for Susan Adams.

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

We shall see. I figure it's either Adams or Lawson, but we'll see what the polls say.

 
At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I share your ambivalence about term limits. The SF Chronicle pointed out that this one would at least allow whoever to spend their terms all in one place - no terming out and skipping from office to office, assembly to senate. It would at least give an electee time to learn the job. On the other hand it is still a form of term limits that guarantees that the full senate and house will have little institutional memory, leaving the same the power of the unelected in the bureaucracies and with the lobbyists. And to think that term limits was all so that people in other parts of the state could get rid of San Francisco's choice, Da Mayor.

 
At 11:09 AM, OpenID kunsoo1024 said...

I actually haven't made up my mind about Prop 29 as I agree that it is a very regressive tax. But I do have one quibble. The price/purchase curve on tobacco is actually somewhat elastic, meaning that price increases do in fact lead to purchase reductions, meaning that the tobacco companies cannot pass it all to the consumer. I remember reading about a study which suggested that the first tobacco tax we passed back in the late 80s or early 90s, for 25 cents a pack, resulted in 18 cents a pack increases in prices, meaning that the tobacco companies had to eat 7 cents per pack.

 
At 11:10 AM, Anonymous Eric Kirk said...

I actually haven't made up my mind about Prop 29 as I agree that it is a very regressive tax. But I do have one quibble. The price/purchase curve on tobacco is actually somewhat elastic, meaning that price increases do in fact lead to purchase reductions, meaning that the tobacco companies cannot pass it all to the consumer. I remember reading about a study which suggested that the first tobacco tax we passed back in the late 80s or early 90s, for 25 cents a pack, resulted in 18 cents a pack increases in prices, meaning that the tobacco companies had to eat 7 cents per pack.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home