![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tiger_spotOur mail-in ballots have arrived, as have the ancillary voter's guide and candidate statements and so forth. Also piles of advertising.
Andres has noticed that the fliers addressed to him are clearly specifically aimed at Hispanic voters -- there hasn't been such a clear demarcation in the past, so we're assuming that this is a result of the neighborhood demographics, possibly combined with his last name. It's interesting to compare the different versions.
I am sad at the voter's guide -- my usual guideline for using it to evaluate propositions I'm unfamiliar with is to see which side uses more ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, then vote for the other one. (This is not the only research I do, but to date it's lined up fairly well with my actual preferences.) This year, that won't work, because EVERYONE IS VERY CONCERNED OMG.
The arguments for and against the wee local measures (school funding, that sort of thing) are interesting because all the "against" arguments are by the same people[1], and all the "rebuttal to argument against"s begin more or less "The opponents of this measure have their facts wrong." Well, not literally all, but it's a pervasive theme.
I have no idea what to do about redistricting (do you have an opinion? share it!), but everything else seems pretty straightforward assuming it does what the summary says. Does anybody have more information about the "driving under the influence" part of the argument against proposition 19? I'm for legalization on general principles, but I'm a little concerned about some of the groups that are lined up against it. It sounds to me like the things this proposition is apparently missing should be easy enough to add in later, but if there's a reason that's not the case I may have to think about it more.
[1] My other voter's guide guideline is to vote against anything supported by a group with "Taxpayers Association" in its name, and likewise to vote for anything they're against. There may be exceptions to this rule -- I am in fact for fiscal responsibility! -- but my version of fiscal responsibility basically means "Use taxes instead of bonds, sheesh, have you heard of interest payments?" and also "Tax the rich more than the poor, we can afford it." While there are arguments to be made that a particular tax or fee or what-have-you is unnecessary or poorly designed, a group whose only purpose is to not pay taxes is not a group I trust to make those arguments honestly.
Andres has noticed that the fliers addressed to him are clearly specifically aimed at Hispanic voters -- there hasn't been such a clear demarcation in the past, so we're assuming that this is a result of the neighborhood demographics, possibly combined with his last name. It's interesting to compare the different versions.
I am sad at the voter's guide -- my usual guideline for using it to evaluate propositions I'm unfamiliar with is to see which side uses more ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, then vote for the other one. (This is not the only research I do, but to date it's lined up fairly well with my actual preferences.) This year, that won't work, because EVERYONE IS VERY CONCERNED OMG.
The arguments for and against the wee local measures (school funding, that sort of thing) are interesting because all the "against" arguments are by the same people[1], and all the "rebuttal to argument against"s begin more or less "The opponents of this measure have their facts wrong." Well, not literally all, but it's a pervasive theme.
I have no idea what to do about redistricting (do you have an opinion? share it!), but everything else seems pretty straightforward assuming it does what the summary says. Does anybody have more information about the "driving under the influence" part of the argument against proposition 19? I'm for legalization on general principles, but I'm a little concerned about some of the groups that are lined up against it. It sounds to me like the things this proposition is apparently missing should be easy enough to add in later, but if there's a reason that's not the case I may have to think about it more.
[1] My other voter's guide guideline is to vote against anything supported by a group with "Taxpayers Association" in its name, and likewise to vote for anything they're against. There may be exceptions to this rule -- I am in fact for fiscal responsibility! -- but my version of fiscal responsibility basically means "Use taxes instead of bonds, sheesh, have you heard of interest payments?" and also "Tax the rich more than the poor, we can afford it." While there are arguments to be made that a particular tax or fee or what-have-you is unnecessary or poorly designed, a group whose only purpose is to not pay taxes is not a group I trust to make those arguments honestly.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-09 02:45 am (UTC)(To be clear, I don't know if that particular number is unusually high by comparison or not. Thus my concern; I'd like to know that before voting on it.)
Did you catch the one of those arguments-against that had an explicit "TEA party" reference in the bolded capital letters in the sentence complaining about being "taxed enough already"?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-09 02:56 am (UTC)Oh yes.
I had a good time reading this year's voter guide. I kept making astonished noises and reading bits out loud to
no subject
Date: 2010-10-09 01:07 pm (UTC)