initial thoughts on the election ...

this may change throughout the night.

prop 1A: i think this is a question about whether or not you believe that the state should have control over money, or whether it should be the local governments. yes, i know it is actually a lot more complicated than this ... but it's not.

of course, the state and the federal government will always get the money they need. and this actually provides a way for the state to take more money than allowed. and of course, i come into this with a very conservative approach to government and law. so ... i am going to vote yes on prop 1A.

prop 59: just as with the first prop, i think it is better to boil these things down to simple beliefs, and suffer the practical consequences. i guess i think that if we all did this, we might actually live in a democracy -- where we all agree to live our lives by the happy medium of our core beliefs.

this prop is an attempt to make governments more transparent. i don't think it will actually do much, but it is a nice notion. and since i believe in notions, i am going to vote yes on prop 59.

prop 60: well, i really don't like passing constitutional amendments, nor do i like the fact that i am choosing to vote in favor of so many of these props. but what can you say. i think that the election should be between the people who get the most votes from their party.

i mean, i think that there should be as many political parties as there are unique points of view. i would like to see more independants, but i do still believe in political parties. and i feel like this prop is a question of whether or not you support party politics (which is not the same as two-party politics), so ... i am going to vote yes for prop 60.

prop 60A: there are a lot of things i do not like about this prop. for starters, i don't like to lock any one into a position where they would have to act a certain way, barring unforseen circumstances. i think that trust in the human element is the cornerstone of society, and something we should all have faith in. and really, that's the only thing that gets me through those days when i just don't know why i go on living in a world where so many people are so stupid.

simply said, i don't want to tell the government what it has to do with certain money -- and that is what this prop says. moreover, i don't like that this proposition would almost make it good for the government to sieze property. so, needless to say, i am going to vote no on prop 60A.

prop 61: this really isn't my topic. i have such rigid views in my support for universal health care. i honestly feel that the united states should join the rest of the world. i think it's silly. i think that the reason health care prices are so obscene has a lot to do with the way that the industry is not only allowed to run rampant, but also has so much pull in the various legislatures via lobbyists.

but i do not think the solution is for the government to just fork over money to health care companies. this whole system needs to be re-worked. and if you combine that with my core beliefs about medicine and whatnot, i just cannot support this prop. so ... i am going to vote no on prop 61.

prop 62: i am sorry, but there is no way that you could possibly convince me that limiting the choices to two candidates is a good idea. i am not sure what the motivation for this prop is, but i know that it reaks.

i do not believe that this will do anything to further the causes of third parties, nor will it be a referendum on tw0-party politics. i am going to vote no on prop 62.

prop 63: i certainly like the notion that money to pay for these "more noble" interests should come from the people that can afford it, but as i discussed earlier, i am not satisfied with the lack of a national health care plan, and i cannot endorse anything that aims to be either a patch or a pacifier. i am going to vote no on prop 63.

prop 64: this prop doesn't seem to be a lot more than a pitiful attempt to protect corporations from responsibility to the public. there could often be a position where a company is wrong, and the government (i.e. governor, attorney general or district attorney) might not see it that way.

the mark of a true democracy is how much the government does to make the citizens feel as if they are equals with the government. and i think that it would be a bad move to try and take away the rights of the people to sue whomever they want -- as long as the loser, and not the government, pays the court fees. so, i am going to vote no on prop 64.

i am not going to even discuss prop 65. most people should vote no on it, and save their opinions for prop 1A. and i think this is a good idea.

prop 66: needless to say, i am not a big fan of the three strikes your out laws to begin with. and it has nothing to do with my feelings about crime, as i believe that criminals should always be punished accordingly. i would suggest to the defenders of these kinds of laws that if you have a legal system that does not hold rapists in jails until they are no longer capable of raping women, then you have a serious problem, no matter what previous offenses they have.

i do not like it when you take these kinds of decisions out of the hands of human beings. a judge that sentences any rapist or molester to any thing less than life in jail should be removed from the bench. in my opinion, there cannot be second chances. and there certainly shouldn't be safety nets in the law to "make sure" that justice is served when justice is so often served on non-violent offenders.

we should never forget that justice is just another word for revenge -- and that is not meant to be a condemnation of justice. i think that revenge is a good thing. but it is a human thing, and it should not be outlined by people that are incapable of understanding the facts of the specific case.

having said all of that, i like this prop. it seeks to put some limits on the three strikes system. if it let's people out of prison that should not be let out, then there is another problem with the system, and it cannot be cured by more legislation that takes cases out of the hands of the judges that hear them. so, i am going to vote yes on prop 66.

prop 67: my support for universal medical coverage has a lot to do with my belief in what i consider to be an amicable bargain with government. i think that if we are going to allow government the power that we allow it, then it should serve the needs that every person "needs."

i do think that the truest form of democracy is a lot more like an anarchy than a republic, which is what we live in here in the united states. but i recognize that i do not have a lot of supporters in that belief. so i go ahead and accept government, and i demand that the government does certain things for us. of those, i believe in universal utilities. we should not be paying for power, gas, health care, phone, school, internet, and on, and on. we should not pay for anything that it is for the betterment and the advancement of our society that we all have access to. this is a lot more like "a rising tide raises all ships" than almost anything else you will hear the argument used for.

and in turn, i find it hard to support any legislation that suggests raising taxes on a utility to provide another. and that's the way that i see this prop. so, obviously, i am going to vote no on prop 67.

prop 68: i don't really know too much about gaming and indian gaming issues. i know that if our government signed a treaty with anyone saying that they should be allowed to provide gambling for our citizens, while others should not, then the government was wrong.

i look at prop 68 and i see the expansion in gambling. and it is an expansion that i am very comfortable with. and as i said in the beginning, it's best to boil these things down to their bare bones, and that's what i have done here. and so, i am going to vote yes on prop 68.

prop 69: sorry, this one is a little too much like 1984 for me. i can't do it. i am going to vote no on prop 69.

prop 70: well, i have been writing this for a while, and i see the end in sight, so let me move quick. this prop sucks. i like prop 68 because i believe that it could lead to the legalization of gambling. but a reservation is a sovereign land, and i am not going to vote for anything that i feel would be a violation of said sovereignty. i am going to vote no on prop 70.

prop 71: i don't need to spend much time on this issue. this is pretty simple to me. i don't think that the abortion issue is strong enough to stand in the way of progress. and let me make it clear that i neither support abortion nor the advancement of medical science. but i know better than to make other people live according to my sense of morality. i am going to vote yes on prop 71.

prop 72: and one last time, when are we going to get national heath care? let's change this system. we didn't really miss the boat, did we? either way, i am going to vote no on prop 72.