Non-Political, How much effort do you put into your vote ?

[roydog007]

With the California primaries tomorrow I thought I would cruise the Internet for the official condensed, abbreviated ADD with no big words voters guide on the candidates and the issues. This is California ya know. Much to my dismay it seems to be unavailable at this time. That got me thinking. Of those of you who vote how much effort do you actually put into your decisions? I realize the responses will be a bit skewed due to the superior intellect represented here and the whole rider verses non-rider thing .

[russell_bynum]

Much to my dismay it seems to be unavailable at this time.

 

If the candidates and issues were presented in a clear and concise manner, then it would be easy to make your decision based on logic and facts. If everything is complicated, conflicting, and misleading, then you have to vote based on emotion. It is easy to manipulate emotion, but harder to manipulate facts.

[EffBee]

I put my heart and soul into it. Five reasons:

 

It is MY vote.

 

It is MY country.

 

It is MY money.

 

It is MY duty.

 

Reason #5. I believe that which I believe, with great fervor; and after a lifetime of study and observation, with GREAT conviction. Also, I've seen the alternative. I emigrated from such a country.

[Twisties]

Roy,

 

I voted for your first option, although that isn't how I do it (reading everything I can). But your second option was much less than I've done. For me, I've watched three of one party's debates, and one of the other party's. I've followed the news. I've visited the websites of several of the candidates from both sides.

 

The person I intended to vote for has dropped out, and I have no idea what I'll do tomorrow. I certainly haven't read everything I could, but I think I'm reasonably informed.

 

Jan

[Ken H.]

If the candidates and issues were presented in a clear and concise manner, then it would be easy to make your decision based on logic and facts. If everything is complicated, conflicting, and misleading, then you have to vote based on emotion. It is easy to manipulate emotion, but harder to manipulate facts.

It IS easy! There are several charts and such. Here are but two:

 

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732

 

There are even sites where you enter your preferences on a list of issues, then it tells you which candidate most closely matches your position. Here's one of them:

 

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

[roydog007]

Hey Ken Thanks for the charts.

I have done some reading on the issues and I also watched some of the debates.

However the bulk of my research is tonight

[Huzband]

Please, don't be so gullible as to base ANY part of your decision on what you may have seen in any of the so called debates.

 

Those are nothing more than pandering contests.

 

And that goes for both sides.

[KMG_365]

I just do what the voices in my head tell me to do . . . just like everyone else!

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

I usually get pretty deep into the information. Sadly, I vote permanent absentee because of my odd schedule, and had already cast my vote by the time Jerry asked Timmer a pointed question (right there in my kitchen ), the answer which would have changed my vote.

 

It's sad that no matter how hard we try, we never get the "real" story until we talk to someone who "knows."

[RichEdwards]

I read all I can from publications as diverse as the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. I watch most of the debates. I ignore the political pundits from both left and right. I get upset at the B.S. and outright lies but try to stay calm. It's not easy. While I do exist left of center on the political spectrum, I try to keep an open mind and would consider voting for any smart, honest, well-informed, ethical candidate no matter what his (or her) party affiliation.

[Firefight911]

I put my heart and soul into it. Five reasons:

 

It is MY vote.

 

It is MY country.

 

It is MY money.

 

It is MY duty.

 

Reason #5. I believe that which I believe, with great fervor; and after a lifetime of study and observation, with GREAT conviction. Also, I've seen the alternative. I emigrated from such a country.

 

+1 to that and can I get an AMEN!!!!!

 

Just ask 2bmwfan how I go about it!!!! We sat up last week filling out our ballots (absentee) and reviewing, etc. while we debated the topics at hand. (Larry the Cable Guy voice) It were FUNNNNNN!!!!

[keithb]

Phil

I will give and AMEN and raise you a hallelooya (sp). +1 to EffBEE and HUZBAND.

[DonMcCall]

research on the internet, hot debates with my wife. I tend to approve of the 'republican' general view of less govt, more private sector, but am in favor of a lot of the programs that the democrats would introduce into govt - just wish the private sector would 'step up' and get it done.

Guess I'm at the point where I'm voting a person, not a party. And it's a tough choice this year. I'm probably putting more into it than in previous years - Normally I don't get too involved until the party's have picked their candidates, and this year I'm actively researching for tomorrows primary...

 

Still, I'm sure things will be much clearer tomorrow morning AFTER my morning coffee.

[Bob Palin]

I'm just glad, given the choices, that I can't vote!

 

I've filled out a couple of those surveys and they both come up with the Alaska guy Mike Gravel, but I never hear anything about him anywhere else.

[ghaverkamp]

I've filled out a couple of those surveys and they both come up with the Alaska guy Mike Gravel, but I never hear anything about him anywhere else.

 

That's because those into him just keep looping

.

[Bob Palin]

I've filled out a couple of those surveys and they both come up with the Alaska guy Mike Gravel, but I never hear anything about him anywhere else.

That's because those into him just keep looping

.

That is, shall we say, a rather unusual approach!

[Twisties]

Please, don't be so gullible as to base ANY part of your decision on what you may have seen in any of the so called debates.

 

Those are nothing more than pandering contests.

 

And that goes for both sides.

 

I think they show something about how they handle themselves under pressure.

[rkd]

Here's another purported nonpartisan candidate calculator:

 

http://www.votehelp.org/

[Mr_Ed]

I voted for the second option although I'm actually somewhere between the 1st and 2nd. This year I've been paying A LOT of attention to the primaries for both parties. Once the nominees are selected my interest will go into over drive.

[tallman]

 

Not really, but sometimes...

[Timmer]

I don't do as much research as I'd like, especially with the California propositions, but I do much more than option #2.

 

I didn't mind Jerry's pointed question at all. It was good that he cared enough about the issue to ask. I tried to be as fair and balanced as I could about my response - including my broader philosophical concerns about directed funding and the overall implications for managing state budgets.

 

I took a few of the polls. One said I should vote Republican, the other said Democrat. I am soooo confused now!

 

[Dave McReynolds]

As others have said, there's a lot of room between #1 and #2. If I could, I would pick #1.5

[SeanC]

I don't do as much research as I'd like, especially with the California propositions, but I do much more than option #2.

Speaking of California propositions, I really don't know which way to go on these new Indian gaming issues.... Any opinions? I typically vote NO on all propositions (um, except for the weasely ones worded in such a way that no means yes, grrrr...), but I can't make my mind up on these. If I don't figure them out in the next few hours, I think I'll just sit this one out.

[90%angel]

Those props make me angry too Sean. Can we discuss these on the forum, or does that make it political? Well, if this is taboo, then mods can delete. BUT, I ended up voting no. I think they give the tribes far too much unregulated power to expand without regard to environmental issues. It's a deal with the devil; let the tribes do as they please, but at least the state will get money out of it. I say, let the state find the money somewhere else, cause I smell a rat with this one. YMMV, IMHO, and all the other appropriate disclaimers.

[ghaverkamp]

It's a deal with the devil

 

How long have you felt that American Indians are Satan?

[russell_bynum]

It's a deal with the devil

 

How long have you felt that American Indians are Satan?

 

If it were a deal that would allow "Big Oil" to do whatever it wanted without regards to environmental issues, would you have asked the same question?

[90%angel]

It's a figure of speech, Greg, sheesh.

 

Meaning, I think it's a bad deal that let's one party get away with something because another party benefits. Sub in any group you want there, and I would call it the same thing.

[ghaverkamp]

It's a figure of speech, Greg, sheesh.

 

Meaning, I think it's a bad deal that let's one party get away with something because another party benefits. Sub in any group you want there, and I would call it the same thing.

 

Oh. You learn something new everyday.

[90%angel]

For what it's worth, I think "deals with the devil" occur on a daily basis in politics. It's the nature of the beast. I guess if you want to be more optimistic, you'd call this "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".

[EffBee]

I don't do as much research as I'd like, especially with the California propositions, but I do much more than option #2.

Speaking of California propositions, I really don't know which way to go on these new Indian gaming issues.... Any opinions? I typically vote NO on all propositions (um, except for the weasely ones worded in such a way that no means yes, grrrr...), but I can't make my mind up on these. If I don't figure them out in the next few hours, I think I'll just sit this one out.

 

I also ended up voting NO. Independent analysis indicates that the "sharing" of the revenues with the 70 other tribes amounts to a total of $9 million, or about $130K per tribe. Pennies when you consider what the four major tribes stand to gain. Additionally, it appeared as though only $3million annually was absolutely guaranteed to the state. The rest was contingent on revenues from the new slot machines. If they don't deliver a certain income level, nothing more than the $3mil goes to the state. The four tribes keep the rest.

 

Finally, like Lisa said, I smelled a rat. These propositions would have put a chasm between the "have" and "have-not" among the tribes. And it would have made the four major tribes even wealthier and more able to negotiate or "buy" special deals that would have cut out the smaller tribes in the future. Just look at the amount of money they put into getting these measures passed (estimates are on the order of $140 million in advertising). And while voting NO temporarily denies any new revenues to the other tribes in the short term, it is the long-term solution, with a greater and more equitable sharing in the revenues, that will provide the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. IMO, these propositions simply put too much in too few hands, and these hands have, by the split they proposed, shown a propensity for uneven distribution.

 

Again, these were my reasons. Others may feel that at least getting the other tribes "something" is better than nothing, regardless of the overall effect. These things are judgment calls and a weighing of pros and cons. People are bound to evaluate them differently.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

I don't do as much research as I'd like, especially with the California propositions, but I do much more than option #2.

Speaking of California propositions, I really don't know which way to go on these new Indian gaming issues.... Any opinions? I typically vote NO on all propositions (um, except for the weasely ones worded in such a way that no means yes, grrrr...), but I can't make my mind up on these. If I don't figure them out in the next few hours, I think I'll just sit this one out.

 

I also ended up voting NO. Independent analysis indicates that the "sharing" of the revenues with the 70 other tribes amounts to a total of $9 million, or about $130K per tribe. Pennies when you consider what the four major tribes stand to gain. Additionally, it appeared as though only $3million annually was absolutely guaranteed to the state. The rest was contingent on revenues from the new slot machines. If they don't deliver a certain income level, nothing more than the $3mil goes to the state. The four tribes keep the rest.

 

Finally, like Lisa said, I smelled a rat. These propositions would have put a chasm between the "have" and "have-not" among the tribes. And it would have made the four major tribes even wealthier and more able to negotiate or "buy" special deals that would have cut out the smaller tribes in the future. Just look at the amount of money they put into getting these measures passed (estimates are on the order of $140 million in advertising). And while voting NO temporarily denies any new revenues to the other tribes in the short term, it is the long-term solution, with a greater and more equitable sharing in the revenues, that will provide the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. IMO, these propositions simply put too much in too few hands, and these hands have, by the split they proposed, shown a propensity for uneven distribution.

 

Again, these were my reasons. Others may feel that at least getting the other tribes "something" is better than nothing, regardless of the overall effect. These things are judgment calls and a weighing of pros and cons. People are bound to evaluate them differently.

 

Good post FB.

 

I can't remember the credientials... one of the local radio talk shows interviewed a government type who has actual experience with the "sharing" of gaming revenues and he pretty much put it out there that ALL of the tribes involved in these propositions are considerably "behind" in what their original compacts said they would share. Meaning, they're making the money but not paying out like they said they would. That sure makes me suspicious.

[Dave McReynolds]

I normally vote "No" on any proposition I don't fully understand and agree with. It's a lot easier to pass propositions than it is to undo them later on. While the political process in the legislature is often messy, at least competing ideas or competing demands for money have constituents and get heard. Once a proposition qualifies for the ballot, there's no changing it to take other needs or contrary positions into account. One of the reasons it's so hard to arrive at a balanced budget in California is because so much of the budget is pre-spent due to mandates passed in previous propositions.

 

I think propositions are useful as a hammer over the legislature for times when they won't act over an extended period of time. An example would be proposition 13, which limited property taxes during a time when many retired people on fixed incomes were in danger of being forced out of their homes during one of our prior real estate booms, and the legislature wasn't doing anything to solve the problem.

 

But it's a hammer that should be used rarely, and most often as a threat of what might happen if the legislature won't move.

 

What it's turned into, however, is a process whereby almost anything can be qualified for the ballot if enough money is available to pay a sufficiently large army of signature gatherers, who stand in the doorways of supermarkets and solicit signatures from shoppers, most of whom have very little idea of what they're signing other than whatever glib words are thrown out at them by the hucksters.

 

I think people are catching on to this, like they have to spam and phone solicitations, and many recent ballot propositions have failed to pass.

[roydog007]

Thanks for the commentary Fernando.

My first thought on any proposition is what in the hell are they trying to pull now ?

Usually it doesn't take too long to find something that ticks me off about any of them.

[leikam]

"Devil"... "beast"... "scratch"... you're on a roll, Lisa!

 

 

 

And to contribute something to this thread, I do some research but especially when it comes to the presidential vote, it doesn't much matter. I'm 96.3% sure I'll be voting against one party so whomever the other party throws up is going to be close enough. Although, who knows? This might be a year for change...

[steve.foote]

The real question is would you vote no on a proposition to end propositions?

[Dave McReynolds]

The real question is would you vote no on a proposition to end propositions?

 

Interesting question if taken seriously. By and large, propositions fall into six categories:

 

--Propositions on social issues that pass by large majorities and are later found to be unconstitutional

 

--Propositions that lock in funds for certain special interests, such as cigarette taxes for smoking problems that have now accumulated huge surpluses, but can't be used for other equally urgent needs

 

--"Feel good" propositions, such as outlawing hunting of mountain lions, that has simply shifted the killing of mountain lions from sport hunters to DFG pro hunters with little if any difference in the number of mountain lions killed, but rather than being a source of tax revenue is now an additional government expense

 

--Propositions that benefit certain well-funded groups and pass due to massive advertising campaigns, such as the Indian gaming propositions

 

--Propositions to fund various public works projects, that rarely pass

 

--Propositions that arise out of failure of the legislature to act on some problem due to legislative gridlock, such as prop 13, which is the reason for having propositions in the first place.

 

Considering how rare it is that any problems are ever really solved with propositions, how expensive the process is, and the difficulty of changing things once a proposition passes and withstands legal challenges, one wonders if there shouldn't be a better way of doing things. However, because of the last item, I would be reluctant to throw it out until we find out what that better way is.

[russell_bynum]

Considering how rare it is that any problems are ever really solved with propositions, how expensive the process is, and the difficulty of changing things once a proposition passes and withstands legal challenges, one wonders if there shouldn't be a better way of doing things. However, because of the last item, I would be reluctant to throw it out until we find out what that better way is.

 

Yep.

[ghaverkamp]

Considering how rare it is that any problems are ever really solved with propositions, how expensive the process is, and the difficulty of changing things once a proposition passes and withstands legal challenges, one wonders if there shouldn't be a better way of doing things. However, because of the last item, I would be reluctant to throw it out until we find out what that better way is.

 

Maybe legislative gridlock isn't such a bad thing. I tend to trust our general system of representative government, and propositions tend to do nothing but disrupt that and create a second, unelected legislature. I'd rather see it thrown out until we can find a better way to do direct democracy.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Maybe legislative gridlock isn't such a bad thing.

 

Can't remember who said it first, but "be thankful you don't get all the government you pay for."

[velomoto]

The real question is would you vote no on a proposition to end propositions?

This would be an interesting battle... Propositions are a HUGE cash cow to the advertising industry so do you think they're gonna just sit back and let this go away? Or to look at it another way, if you were running a bunch of radio or tv stations wouldn't it be in your best interest to discretely subsidize propositions which would adversely affect large industries with deep pockets (health care, drug companies, tobacco, lawyers, NRA, etc. etc.)?

[KMG_365]

The real question is would you vote no on a proposition to end propositions?

This would be an interesting battle... Propositions are a HUGE cash cow to the advertising industry so do you think they're gonna just sit back and let this go away? Or to look at it another way, if you were running a bunch of radio or tv stations wouldn't it be in your best interest to discretely subsidize propositions which would adversely affect large industries with deep pockets (health care, drug companies, tobacco, lawyers, NRA, etc. etc.)?

Oooooh! I LOVE a good conspiracy!

 

So, there's the topic . . . talk amongst yourselves . . . .