Category: Politics

In the continuing controversy over whether we should have voting exclusively in English or not, one point seems to always be overlooked:  Who translates the ballot, supporting documentation, etc?  Translation is a subjective thing.  For any significant body of text, there are no two translators that would translate in exactly the same way.  The tone, use of vernacular, and subtle word choice can dramatically change a reader’s perception to a body of text.  If we have ballots in multiple languages, we can’t preserve the original author’s tone, and therefore, the original text is void.  I know that “yes”/”no” translate fairly easily; but the supporting text does not. 

If our goal is to have everyone voting fairly – on the same initiatives – then we have to distribute identical material to everyone.  Unfortunately, this means the ballot has to be in one language.  For now, that language is in English.  If the majority wants to change the language to something else, they can put up an initiative to change the language.  Whichever we pick, there should only be one.

Robert Gates today said that he thinks we aren’t winning the war in Iraq.

Gates is wrong.  I don’t know what definition of “win” he is using, but we completely won.  We dismantled their government, ousted their leader, put him on trial, and eliminated a huge segment of their military.  The country has been conquered and we now occupy it.  If we didn’t win, what else would it take before Gate’s thinks we are winning?

Let’s bring everyone home.  Let’s not do it over a month, or even over a week.  Call up the Marines now, and tell them to pack up and come home.  They won, they did great work.  They should be proud, and we’re very grateful.

We all know that our government is a Republic and not a Democracy. We call it a democracy, but it really is not, and never has been.

Did the framers of our government really intend that it be a republic and not a democracy? I think they did. In general, the common citizen will not, and cannot be expected to always know how to vote on a particular complex issue. So, a republic, in theory, solves this. The people elect the representatives, and the representatives carefully study, analyze and vote for us.

But, is this not dated? Certainly the framers of our Constitution also had a practical problem. The populous simply could not vote on every issue. There would be no physical means to collect daily votes on every minor issue that came up before the house.

Today, however, this is not true. Using technology, there is no reason that we could not change to a government which is completely a democracy, and where every citizen can vote from their living room on any issues, on a daily basis. Issues would come up, debates would be broadcast live across the nation, individuals could go to Washington and be heard, and then, everyone who wanted to could vote. Instead of having polling stations, individuals would make a trip to the library.

Here in California, the Governor just punted several issues to the people for voting. For whatever reason, these political hot potatoes were just too hot for the elected folk to make decisions on. What if this sort of election didn’t cost the taxpayers $80M, but instead was effectively free, riding on technology that was already in place for our regular voting?

Even if we didn’t have a real democracy, what if we had a real-time system the people could vote. Any elected official could go to the system and see the results from his constituency the exact results on any issue for those watching live? I guess it’s neat-o but not necessarily an improvement for any of us.

Practically, this is pretty costly. Security issues abound. But, it’s solveable if we want to. And it could radically change the way elections are handled. If nothing else, it’s fun to think about.

I got some propoganda mail sent to Democrats in California by the “Alliance for a Better California”.

It’s an 8.5″ x 11″ glossy with a picture of a karate guy’s big foot and reads, “Time to kick his [Schwarzenegger] butt for a change.” You’d think that with two sides of that large sheet, they’d be able to offer at least a modicum of actual information. But no.

On the flip side, it just says how they want you to vote on the propositions, but says absolutely nothing about what you are voting for. They just offer up choice quotes like, “This concept flunks out”, “Politics at its worst”, “Fails the basic test of fairness”, etc. There is no description of the flunky concept, the worst politics, or even the failing fairness.

How dumb do they think we are? Just send us the instructions on how to vote and we’ll do it without question?

I don’t really know if this is sponsored by Feinstein and Boxer, but their names are displayed prominently, so I think they must be at least be in approval. And if so, they clearly think I’ve got nothing but monkey fodder in my head. That may be true in my case, but they should never assume that! 🙂

Here is the full text of Proposition 78 and Proposition 79.

Both of these have a lot of details – far too many for me to capture what they are “about” in this short blog entry.

But, I can summarize them both very quickly! Vote NO!

The idea for each of these is to somehow offer discount prescription drugs to some set of low-income individuals. Each has a different set of benefits, each targets a different set of people. That idea is valiant, but each then ties into a bunch of complexities – including how these discounts are established, who benefits from the state & industry negotiation, who benefits from the new administration and overhead that needs to be created to establish these agencies. Lastly, the pro-78 folks are claiming that 79 allows for new mechanisms under which lawyers can file class-action lawsuits. Who knows.

Overall, it’s too complicated, too subtle, and has too many unknowns. On the other hand, it costs between $10M and $20M, and I’d rather we spend that money on somethat that we know is solid.

Of the propositions on the ballot this week, Prop 76 is one of the most complicated.

The basic premise of 76 is to prevent overspending within the state. California has had a long tradition of spending even in times of surplus, and 76 aims to curb that. The intentions are definitely good, but it’s specific mechanisms to do that are complicated. First, it limits state spending such that in years of surplus, the state can save money, rather than automatically spending the entire surplus. Second, it permits the governor, in some circumstances, to reduce spending at his own choice. Third, it overrides part of Proposition 98, which is has been a complicated formula for guaranteeing School Spending in our state.

I don’t like the idea of Proposition 98. Propositions that “guarantee funding” are just too inflexible for the demands of our government to last. Invariably, we outgrow these guarantees, and these types of propositions need to be replaced.

At the same time, however, my feeble brain can’t figure out if this plan is really good or not. Some say it will help the state, but they’ve failed to “connect the dots” such that I can understand how it will.

Therefore, I’m voting no on Prop 76. If it’s too complicated for me, it’s way too complicated for our politicians!