![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My non-California readers may not be aware that California uses a proposition system to let citizens vote on issues. The proposition system is pretty messed up: it only takes ~1 million signatures to get a proposition on the ballot, a proposition passes with a simple majority, and any proposition that passes amends the state constitution. Often, the groups that fund the proposition system aren't even from California so we get a lot of special interests trying to alter the laws here. Needless to say, California's constitution isn't a simple, elegant document like the US constitution. Instead it's a mess.
The mess gets compounded every few months when we all vote on more propositions. I have a few simple rules for voting:
* Any proposition that's a bond measure I vote no.
California sells vastly too many bonds and the interest is killing us.
(Somewhat to my own surprise, I'm making my first exception to this rule since I was 18 and I'm voting yes on the bond measure that funds the high-speed rail connection between Northern & Southern California.)
* Any proposition that mandates a portion of the state budget be spent on a specific thing, I vote no.
Hard-coding the state budget into the constitution is idiotic, and a big part of what got California into our terrible budget problems. I don't care if your cause is prisons, children's hospitals, the environment, infrastructure, or UFO research.
* Any proposition that tries to do something foolish to the state constitution, or that should simply be handled by the legislature, I vote no.
This year there's a proposition that mandates how chickens are treated in farms. Seriously? You want to amend the state constitution for chickens?
I'm really stuck, however on Prop 7. This proposition "Requires government-owned utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025." Sounds good, right? The details sound pretty good, too, although I won't list them all here.
The problem for me comes when I read the argument against 7. The authors claim that this proposition really only benefits big energy, and will stifle smaller alternative-energy companies, and that's where a lot of California's alternative energy innovation comes from. Those in favor of the bill claim that's a lie and it won't have any affect on the smaller companies.
So who should I believe? What's best for California? All opinions welcome.
The mess gets compounded every few months when we all vote on more propositions. I have a few simple rules for voting:
* Any proposition that's a bond measure I vote no.
California sells vastly too many bonds and the interest is killing us.
(Somewhat to my own surprise, I'm making my first exception to this rule since I was 18 and I'm voting yes on the bond measure that funds the high-speed rail connection between Northern & Southern California.)
* Any proposition that mandates a portion of the state budget be spent on a specific thing, I vote no.
Hard-coding the state budget into the constitution is idiotic, and a big part of what got California into our terrible budget problems. I don't care if your cause is prisons, children's hospitals, the environment, infrastructure, or UFO research.
* Any proposition that tries to do something foolish to the state constitution, or that should simply be handled by the legislature, I vote no.
This year there's a proposition that mandates how chickens are treated in farms. Seriously? You want to amend the state constitution for chickens?
I'm really stuck, however on Prop 7. This proposition "Requires government-owned utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025." Sounds good, right? The details sound pretty good, too, although I won't list them all here.
The problem for me comes when I read the argument against 7. The authors claim that this proposition really only benefits big energy, and will stifle smaller alternative-energy companies, and that's where a lot of California's alternative energy innovation comes from. Those in favor of the bill claim that's a lie and it won't have any affect on the smaller companies.
So who should I believe? What's best for California? All opinions welcome.
