So what's on my ballot?

Manic Moran

Probably the biggest thing that struck me about voting in the US is the sheer scale of the ballot sheet. In Ireland, I had a pretty short sheet. A couple of elected officials, and maybe a referendum on the EU or Constitution.

I think the impression is that I've got a sheet in front of me with lines for 'Governor', 'Senator,' 'House Representative', 'Mayor', and maybe one or two referenda.

No such luck. My ballot is so large that were I to post it instead of hand-deliver it, a standard stamp wouldn't cover it. Indeed, it's almost a chore, which makes me wonder if it could be related to the relatively low voter turnouts we have. Just to give you an idea, I'll go through my sheet as I fill it out.

First, I open the envelope. It is a yellow 12" x 6" with "Official Election Balloting Material" in big black letters, and "United States Postal Service Official Election Mail" logo up top. A hole in the envelope for my address to show through shows green paper, with my name, and "English" on it. (You can choose English or Spanish to be delivered)

I have a return envelope, an instruction pamphlet, and two ballot sheets. Each sheet is double-sided, a little over A-4 wide, and about 20" long. It is the standard ballot sheet I recognise from the polling stations, and feeds into an optical reader: Each option has two lines, you use a marker or pen or whatever to connect the two lines by your choice, making one big line. Feed the sheet through the optical reader. I like the system, it means it's counted electronically, so it's quick with no accidental miscounts, and there's a paper backup for recounts or verification.

So, Card A, side 1.

State Elections.

Governor. Arnie pretty much has this in the bag. He suffered a little bit of low popularity a year ago when he spent a lot of money putting propositions to referendum, only to see them all fail. On the other hand, he's a very active governor, not afraid to use his veto, but is moderate enough to make deals with the heavily democratic state legislature. Angelides, his rival, has nothing to offer except the 'Democratic' party title. Even the traditionally left-leaning newspapers around here have endorsed the Governator. Other candidates are an Engineer for the Libertarians, a Counselor for Peace and Freedom Party, a Financial Advisor for the Greens, and a Computer Shop Owner for American Independent.

Lieutenant-Governor.
I'd wager that the Democratic candidate, Garamendi, the current State Insurance Commisioner, has this one. His competitor, the State Senator Tom McClintock (And former Gubernatorial candidate) is just too right-wing for the population of California. Libertarians have a caregiver/musician, American Independent has a Real Estate Broker, Greens have a Financial Manager/Author and the Peace and Freedom lads have a car salesman running. (I should add, the names are listed on the ballot n a purely random order)

Secretary of State.
I have absolutely no idea who's in this race, or what their stances are. Actually, I'm not even sure what California's Secretary of State does. The main candidates are a State Senator (D), and the incumbent, appointed, not elected, Secretary of State.

Controller.
I think this is something to do with money auditing. For many of these races, the only way I get to find out who's running on what policy is to actively go to their websites. Republicans are putting forward the president of a taxpayer's organisation, the Democrat candidate is a member of the State Board of Equalisation, whatever that is. The minor parties are putting forward an acountant, a financial consultant, a priest and a teacher.

Treasurer.
Bill Lockyear, the current Attorney General, is running on the D ticket for this one. I did not like him as an AG, he spent a lot of taxpayer's money on frivolous cases, and I'm not sure I like the idea of him being in charge of all the money now! The Republican candidate is another member of the State Board of Equalisation. It musn't be a very appealing job, they all want out. Minor party candidates: a City Treasurer, a computer technician, and an investment advisor.

Attorney General.
For once, every party has put forward a candidate with a qualification vaguely related to the position: They're all laywers. The big fight is between Jerry Brown, current mayor of Oakland, and Chuck Poochigian, a state senator. This is going to be a tight race. Brown has name recognition and was Governor of California back in the early 1980s. On the other hand, he’s hampered in his run for the Top Cop position by the fact that he’s presiding over what was announced two weeks ago as the US’s third-most-dangerous city. Poochigian has the backing of a large number of police chiefs, sheriffs and police organizations, but may be hampered by the ‘Republican’ tag.

Insurance Commissioner.
Again, not entirely sure what this guy does. The Ds are putting forward the current Lt Governor who lost to Arnold two years ago, the Reps are putting forward a ‘Businessman/entrepreneur’ Only the Libertarians are putting forward a candidate whose current job is related to insurance.

Member, State Board of Equalisation, District 1.
I think I’ll skip this one. I’ve no idea what they do, or who the candidates are, beyond names on a ballot.

United States Senator.
Feinstein is going to have another easy victory. I hear good things about her Republican opponent, chap by the name of Dick Mountjoy, he just hasn’t got a hope.

United States Representative.
The House Race. Zoe Lofgren vs Charel Winston. Lofgren is easily going to win this heavily Democratic area.

Onto Side B of the first ballot sheet.

Member, State Assembly.
Democratic Incumbent will have an easy win.

Judicial:

I’ve got six ‘Yes/No’ appointment questions here. Basically they all say akin to “For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District: Shall Associate Justice XXX be elected to office for the term provided by law?” There’s no indication of what happens if a ‘no’ vote wins. I’ll have to look this one up.

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 13.
I’ve got a choice between the current County Prosecutor, and a teacher/attorney.
Count District Attorney.

The two candidates are the current Chief Deputy DA, and a current Superior Court Judge of Santa Clara County. Both are apparently well-qualified.


Although I live in San Jose, I am not technically within city limts, so don’t get to vote on the various council races such as Mayor. That one is a case of deciding ‘which lunatic should run the asylum’: The current mayor was charged in court with corruption a few months ago, and both candidates are accusing the other of more corruption. The minor county positions such as “Member County Water Board” were dealt with at the same time we were voting in the Primaries.

End of Sheet 1, Moving to Sheet 2, Measures and Propositions. These are all ‘Approve/Disapprove’ choices.

1A: “Transportation Funding Protection.” Basically it means that taxes on petrol can only be spent on road-related projects (improvements, safety, whatever) instead of being spent wherever.

1B: “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act”. Basically, it’s a question of “Shall the State take out $20bn of bonds to conduct massive infrastructure upgrades?” The cost after interest will be $40bn, but the theory is that the costs would be recouped by the effect of the upgrades.

1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act. A $3bn bond for shelters for battered women, low-income pensioners, veterans, and so on.

1D: Kindergarten Universoty Bonds. $10bn in bonds for schools, basically.

1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act. A $4bn bond.

The major oppositions to some of these bonds are not over the question of if they’re a good idea, but over the regulations referring to accountability and dedication once the bonds have been issued. Most should pass.

Proposition 83: Sex Offenders (et al) Monitoring. Basically enforces GPS monitoring of sex offenders. It’s a question of perceived benefit vs cost.

Prop 84: Water quality, safety, flood control, etc bonds. $6bn in more bonds relating to water.

Prop 85. One of the big ones. “Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy”. Basically it requires that parents be notified before an abortion is carried out on a minor. High profile ballot, has raised a lot of hot debate.

Prop 86. Tax on Cigarettes. Increases taxes on a pack by $2.60

Prop 87. Alternative Energy, Research incentives, Tax on Oil Producers. This is the biggest, most expensive proposition campaign in history. Basically, it’s supposed to hit the oil producers with a $4bn tax, to be spent on research on alternative fuels. There is supposedly to be legislation to prohibit the oil companies passing the cost on to the consumers. There is much skepticism that regardless of legislation the oil companies won’t be able to find other ways to make the punters pay at the pump anyway, and there are questions over the accountability of the bureaucracy that the measure would create. We’re getting bombarded by adverts.

Prop 88. Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax, Basically adds $50 to property tax togive to primary schools. Considering I pay about $7000 a year, it’s not a major increase.

Move to Side 2.
Prop 89. Politcal Campaign Funding. Adds a tax on companies to provide for public campaign funds, puts new limits on campaign contribution/expenditures.

Prop 90. Government Property Acquisition Ammendment. Like many states, after the Kelso US Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain, a ballot has been put in to limit the ability of a governing body to use eminent domain to hand property over to a private enterprise.

County.
Measure A.
This is basically a zoning measure. For the parts of the county which are not urbanized, they want to enact prohibitions on construction. It’s an argument between the reduction in rural area vs private property rights.

So that's what I get to vote on.

As I look around, I see other states are dealing with issues like reinstating the death penalty (Washington), increasing limits on abortion (North Dakota) and limiting marriage to heterosexuals (nine states)

So, Yanks, what interesting measures have you got?

NTM

tallus

Buying a house had less paperwork dude

Manic Moran

tallus wrote:

Buying a house had less paperwork dude

In the Land of Lawyers? You have no idea, I got writer's cramp.

NTM

lostexpectation

wow *brain melt* enough to put you off voting, very interesting MM.


what does gubernational mean and where the hell did they get that word?

well I guess that means the USA have more democracy then we do, if they get to vote on so many things, but I wonder how many people fill in the whole thing or do he just go tick their party name all the way down?

what exactly are propositions, did you need signatures or officials to raise them?

didn't the governator conspire with the energy companies to cause brown outsjust to raise prices and lever the democrat out of power, if so what isn't voting pointless.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

what does gubernational mean and where the hell did they get that word?

Gubernatorial: Relating to which goober is in charge.

Main Entry: gu·ber·na·to·ri·al
Pronunciation: "gü-b&(r)-n&-'tor-E-&l, "gyü-, "gu-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin gubernator governor, steersman, from gubernare to govern -- more at GOVERN
: of or relating to a governor

well I guess that means the USA have more democracy then we do, if they get to vote on so many things, but I wonder how many people fill in the whole thing or do he just go tick their party name all the way down?

Frequently, it's the other way around. An old trick is to put something really controversial on the ballot, that is likely to incite voters on your side up and voting, and while they are there, they might as well put a check next to the candidate.

what exactly are propositions, did you need signatures or officials to raise them?

Both. You can garner enough signatures to put a proposition on the ballot, or they can be placed by the legislature, or by the Governor.

didn't the governator conspire with the energy companies to cause brown outsjust to raise prices and lever the democrat out of power, if so what isn't voting pointless.

Not that I know of. The big ticket item when the Governator ran was over the triple-fold increase in car registration tax. The first thing he did was repeal it, just as he promised. The big electricity crunch was a little before anyone knew there would be an election.

NTM

Manic Moran

Well, the votes are in, here's how the Great State of California went.

Manic Moran wrote:

So, Card A, side 1.

State Elections.

Governor. Arnie pretty much has this in the bag.

Sure enough. He terminated Angelides. Wasn't even close. 55.8 - 39.2

Lieutenant-Governor.
I'd wager that the Democratic candidate, Garamendi, the current State Insurance Commisioner, has this one.

Which is indeed what happened. For a while, until I went to bed, McClintock was actually winning. This astounded me, as he's clearly on the right side of the spectrum. Garamendi clawed back into the lead though, finishing with a safe margin. 49.5 - 44.9

Secretary of State.
I have absolutely no idea who's in this race, or what their stances are. Actually, I'm not even sure what California's Secretary of State does. The main candidates are a State Senator (D), and the incumbent, appointed, not elected, Secretary of State.

48.5 - 44.7, to the non-incumbent D. Went the same way as Lt Gov, early R lead, then fell back.

Controller.
I think this is something to do with money auditing.

Clear win for the Ds, 50.9 - 40.0

Treasurer.
Bill Lockyear, the current Attorney General, is running on the D ticket for this one. I did not like him as an AG, he spent a lot of taxpayer's money on frivolous cases, and I'm not sure I like the idea of him being in charge of all the money now!

However, he is. 54.8, 37.0

Attorney General.
The big fight is between Jerry Brown, current mayor of Oakland, and Chuck Poochigian, a state senator. This is going to be a tight race. Brown has name recognition and was Governor of California back in the early 1980s. On the other hand, he’s hampered in his run for the Top Cop position by the fact that he’s presiding over what was announced two weeks ago as the US’s third-most-dangerous city. Poochigian has the backing of a large number of police chiefs, sheriffs and police organizations, but may be hampered by the ‘Republican’ tag.

Boy, did I call this one wrong. This was the vote/race that I was far and away most interested in. Moonbeam wins it, 56.7 vs 37.9. I work with a bunch of cops and other law enforcement types, they're not happy. Neither am I.

Insurance Commissioner.
Again, not entirely sure what this guy does. The Ds are putting forward the current Lt Governor who lost to Arnold two years ago, the Reps are putting forward a ‘Businessman/entrepreneur’ Only the Libertarians are putting forward a candidate whose current job is related to insurance.

A rare Republican gain for this one. The current Lt Governor, whose main campaign slogan appeared to have been "I've lost 75lbs" lost 38.9 - 50.6

United States Senator.
Feinstein is going to have another easy victory.

No surprise there. 59.7 vs 34.9

United States Representative.
The House Race. Zoe Lofgren vs Charel Winston. Lofgren is easily going to win this heavily Democratic area.

And indeed she did. 72.6 vs 27.4

[quoee]Judicial:

I’ve got six ‘Yes/No’ appointment questions here. Basically they all say akin to “For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District: Shall Associate Justice XXX be elected to office for the term provided by law?” There’s no indication of what happens if a ‘no’ vote wins. I’ll have to look this one up.[/quote]

Well, all the judges in the State seem to have gotten re-elected.

End of Sheet 1, Moving to Sheet 2, Measures and Propositions. These are all ‘Approve/Disapprove’ choices.

1A-1E

The major oppositions to some of these bonds are not over the question of if they’re a good idea, but over the regulations referring to accountability and dedication once the bonds have been issued. Most should pass.

Actually, they all passed. Quite handily. We are now going to go a further $70bn in debt.

Proposition 83: Sex Offenders (et al) Monitoring. Basically enforces GPS monitoring of sex offenders. It’s a question of perceived benefit vs cost.

But there seems to be little question. 70.5% in favour.

Prop 84: Water quality, safety, flood control, etc bonds. $6bn in more bonds relating to water.

Why not? What's another $6bn in debt? 53.8% in favour.

Prop 85. One of the big ones. “Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy”. Basically it requires that parents be notified before an abortion is carried out on a minor. High profile ballot, has raised a lot of hot debate.

Shot down, 54.2% against.

Prop 86. Tax on Cigarettes. Increases taxes on a pack by $2.60

The triple-fold increase in ciggie tax also died, 52.1 against.

Prop 87. Alternative Energy, Research incentives, Tax on Oil Producers. This is the biggest, most expensive proposition campaign in history. Basically, it’s supposed to hit the oil producers with a $4bn tax, to be spent on research on alternative fuels.

And millions of dollars later, the answer is... (unsurprisingly), No. 54.7 against.

Prop 88. Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax, Basically adds $50 to property tax togive to primary schools. Considering I pay about $7000 a year, it’s not a major increase.

But most people seem to disagree with me. 76.9% against.

Prop 89. Politcal Campaign Funding. Adds a tax on companies to provide for public campaign funds, puts new limits on campaign contribution/expenditures.

74.5% against.

Prop 90. Government Property Acquisition Ammendment. Like many states, after the Kelso US Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain, a ballot has been put in to limit the ability of a governing body to use eminent domain to hand property over to a private enterprise.

A fair few states had something similar to this on the ballot. California seems to be the only one which decided against, and I have yet to hear anyone explain why. 52.5% against. (Thanks, San Francisco)

Elsewhere...

Pennsylvania: Gulf War Veterans get a $500 gift.
Arizona. English is now the official language. A random voter will not get $1m. (There's an incentive to get to the polls). Ban on gay marriage defeated, the only state in which that happened. Their eminent domain ballot went further than most, and also passed.
Wisconsin: Death penalty reinstated.
Rhode Island: Felons on parole and probation can now vote.
Michigan: Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination has been voted down.
South Dakota. Draconian ban on abortions voted down.
Missouri votes to allow stem cell research
Ohio: No slot machines here, please!

At even lower levels, Seattle has decided not to change its rules governing strip clubs, and Santa Cruz has voted to make Marijuana enforcement the bottom priority of its Sheriff's Department. (On the other hand, Colorado, AZ and NV all voted against legalising pot)

NTM

metrovelvet

Its insane! Between Presidential, legislative, and then state congress and municipal elections, argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its unbelievably confusing.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Shot down, 54.2% against.
52.1 against.
No. 54.7 against.
52.5% against.

They like pushing it to the limit, don't they? Much better off if they sought more common ground.

bonkey

Regarding Prop 90...

Manic Moran wrote:

A fair few states had something similar to this on the ballot. California seems to be the only one which decided against, and I have yet to hear anyone explain why. 52.5% against. (Thanks, San Francisco)

I had already noticed an article on this before reading your post...

Although its only an opinion piece, the offered reasoning is interesting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshuah-bearman/californias-indecent-pro_b_33702.html

Manic Moran

That argument has been made elsewhere, (indeed, one of my NCOs voted against it on that very basis). It would certainly add to the administration as people figure out just what the lost prospective income is. That doesn't mean I necessarily think it's wrong though. AZ's ballot, which passed, provides money not only to the person being ED'd, but also to anyone else, even if their property isn't touched, whose property is devalued by that ED. I don't see a whole lot of difference.

NTM

FatherTed

Here is the ballot from my district:

http://www.norwalkct.org/TownClerk/elec2006/district142.pdf

Voted for
DeStefano/Glassman(Governor/Lt Governor)(Dem) - Lost
Lieberman(US Senate) (Ind) - Won
Shays(US Rep) (Repub) - Won
Wilms(State Senate)(Repub) - Lost
Paulson(State Rep)(Dems) - Lost
Bysiewicz(Sec State)(Dems) - Won
Blumenthal(Attorney General)(Dems) - Won
DePanfilis(Judge of Probate)(Repub) - Won
Lyons(Registrar of Voters)(Repub) - Lost

Manic Moran

How does that ballot sheet work? What's with the worms under all the names?

No state or local propositions?

NTM

oscarBravo

"Worms" == voting-machine levers?

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote:

How does that ballot sheet work? What's with the worms under all the names?

No state or local propositions?

NTM

http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/votingmachine.html

no props this time round.