drscott | Voting

I spent an hour reading the voter information guides and filling out the absentee ballot. In California this is particularly laborious because the combination of a dysfunctional Legislature and the open initiative process leads to dozens of decisions on initiatives, many of which are cleverly spun to appeal to the unwary.

For President, I went back and forth a lot, but I can't feel good about giving either major party candidate my vote; both have strong points but many more disastrously wrongheaded policy proposals. Since the President cannot alone create law, most of the promises are hot air, and in the areas where the President has an important role in determining policy, both are beholden to their interest-group supporters in a way which is likely to be harmful to the general interest. One of the better arguments for voting Kerry (when you get past the "ABB" feeling) is that a Republican Congress needs to be countered by a President of the opposition party to reduce the number of stupid legislative ideas that make it through the system; while a lot of people think Clinton contributed to the robust late-90s economy, it didn't actually take off until the midterm elections of 1994 when fiscally-conservative Republicans took over both houses of Congress and restrained Democratic excesses. But I don't think that's quite good enough to vote for Kerry, and the combination of Kerry and a friendly Democratic Congress (which could happen by 2006) would be a mistake. So I voted for the closest minor party candidate I could find, the Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Since California is clearly going to cast 100% of its electoral votes for Kerry, my decision actually doesn't effect anything -- but it does allow me to keep my self-respect.

I have some guidelines for dealing with the initiative questions:

1) The best is the enemy of better. Often the initiative is an improvement over the status quo, but is argued against by those who suggest it's not ideal, and passage will reduce likelihood of a better fix to come along someday. Generally if something's an improvement, I'll vote for it even if I'd rather see more thoroughgoing reform.

2) The state tax system and budgetary process is already much too complex. If the initiative adds a new tax or specifically allocates spending to some favored cause, tying the hands of the Legislature, I will tend to vote against it.

3) California is halfway to enjoying the corrupt machine politics seen in places like New Jersey because of Gerrymandering and a primary process that favors extremists of either party over centrists. If the initiative helps break the control of the parties over the government or tends to allow more of the voter preference for centrists to be effective, I'm for it.

4) Bonds aren't free. Selling them reduces the discipline pay-as-you-go provides over excessive spending and ultimately increases the cost of government services. Special bonds for special purposes are particularly bad, generally pushed by an interest group to get the people to commit more resources to their cause than they would be able to get from (hopefully) more knowledgeable legislators.

5) Is the proposal "level appropriate"? That is, is the subject area of the new law in the proper purview of the governing unit? City council actions on foreign policy, for example, are not good uses of a city council's time and energy.

Given these guidelines, here's how I voted:

1A - This is a compromise agreed to by local and state governments on redirection of local revenues to the state. While I'd rather see a complete overhaul of state finances, this is a small improvement, so YES.

59 - Open Records. This is a basic good-government measure to be sure important public information stays public. YES.

60 - Assures a party of having a candidate in the general election. This is favored by those who benefit from the status quo of extremist partisan government - NO.

60A - Surplus Property. This is a piece of nonsense that had been included in 60 to fool people into voting for it. NO

61 - Children's Hospital Bonds. Special interest measure violating 2 and 4. NO

62 - Open primaries; allows the two best candidates to advance to the general election no matter what party they're from. A reform that should reduce the deathgrip of the parties and encourage more centrists candidates; a step on the way to instant runoff voting. YES

63 - Mental Health: new 1% tax on incomes over $1 million to fund only mental health services. California already loses more revenue than it gains by its unusually high taxes on high incomes, and this violates #2. NO

64 - Unfair Business Competition law restrictions; requires lawsuits to enforce these unusually broad statutes to be brought by either the state or indentifiable victims; a law firm could not simply file on behalf of the citizenry, which has been abused to extort settlements from many small businesses. A reasonable reform measure: YES

65 - State and local revenue wrangle: this one has been abandoned in favor of the compromise 1A. NO

66 - "Three Strikes" Reform. I don't like the "popular" sweetener added to this one of increasing (for no obvious reasons) penalties for sex crimes against children, which seem quite adequate now, but not handing out life sentences for third offenses which aren't violent or serious seems like a good idea. YES

67 - Telephone Surcharge for Emergency Medical Funding. Violates #2. NO

68 - Tribal Gaming Tricks. Sneaky ploy by racetracks and card clubs to allow them to open casinos. NO

69 - DNA Database. Allows collection of DNA marker samples from felons and those arrested for serious crimes; while your data could be removed if you later prove innocent, most will not bother. This is roughly how fingerprints are treated now, and since the data collected is only sufficient for identification, Brave New World abuses are unlikely. Not perfect but probably a good thing for improving the accuracy of the justice system. YES

70 - More Tribal Gaming Tricks. This one allows unrestricted tribal gaming with profits taxed at the relatively low corporate rate of 10%, while the Governer has been getting up to 25% for allowing restricted expansion with environmental control. NO

71 - Stem Cell Research Bonds. While I'd love to poke the Bush Administration in the eye for their wrongheaded restrictions on federally-funded stem cell research, this is both level-inappropriate (in that poor Californians would be funding research which will benefit people all over the developed world) and involves bond funding, which will increase the cost. NO

72 - Requires employers to buy health insurance for employees. Will have major unintended consequences and reduce employment for those who need it the most, even if they have health care coverage via another family member. NO