FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Oops! (California Prop. 91)

   
Author Topic: Oops! (California Prop. 91)
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Just got the "Official Voter Information Guide" for the upcoming election in today's mail. I suspect we'll get a revised version or an addendum or something soon.
quote:

Proposition 91

Summary: Yadda yadda yadda

What Your Vote Means: Blah blah blah

Arguments:

PRO: Prop. 91 is NO LONGER NEEDED. Please VOTE NO. Voters passed Proposition 1A in 2006, accomplishing what Prop. 91 set out to do. Prop. 1A stopped Sacramento politicians from taking our gas tax dollars and using those funds for non-transportation purposes. Prop. 91 is no longer needed. VOTE NO.

CON: No argument against Proposition 91 was submitted.

California government website has the same thing. I guess I can see why nobody felt the need to argue against it, given the current argument for it.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is it even on the ballot then?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Ummmm... Why didn't they notice that?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm assuming it's a mistake, and already e-mailed the feedback link at the website. But that's gonna cost a bundle to print the corrections, which is pretty annoying. Unless of course it's not a mistake, in which case I'm not even sure what to think (except it's still a waste of money).
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you sure it was actually mailed by the government? Is the website legit?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
littlemissattitude
Member
Member # 4514

 - posted      Profile for littlemissattitude   Email littlemissattitude         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Are you sure it was actually mailed by the government? Is the website legit?

I've got my official mailed-by-the-government "California Presidential Primary Election" official voter information guide in front of me. Page 5, in the Quick-Reference section. That is exactly what it says.

Well, not the "yadda, yadda, yadda" and the "blah, blah, blah" parts [Wink] , but that is what the "Arguments" section says.

Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I haven't heard back from the feedback comment, but in looking at the full argument instead of the quick-reference arguments, they make it quite clear that they are indeed the "official proponents of this measure," and encourage a vote of no anyway. Both this measure and Prop 1A were created back in 2006, but the other was passed in November 2006 and now essentially makes 91 moot. At least that's my reading of it. So I guess once they qualified this one (by signatures et al I'd assume) they were required to put it to a vote.

It'll be interesting to see how many people vote for it nonetheless. My general stance is a default of no unless I'm pulled toward it. I have no doubt that there are people whose default is yes unless they're talked out of it -- I just kinda hope not too many.

I'm feeling kinda sheepish, actually -- if I'd read the whole argument instead of the summary I wouldn't have written. And I so often disagree with the summaries that I don't count on them normally, but this time I just thought myself so darn clever to have caught something. Score one for humility!

Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
This is not the first time this has happened.

The process of getting a proposition on the ballot is long enough that sometimes it is irrelevant by the time it gets there. Gotta love our system. [Razz]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
I saw that too. I was so confused. I want to vote yes on it anyway.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It'll be interesting to see how many people vote for it nonetheless. My general stance is a default of no unless I'm pulled toward it.
See, I'm usually for "no"-- maintain the status quo-- unless I feel strongly that the proposition would make a good change happen, is needed, etc., and I am convinced that I understand as fully as I can what the effects of the proposition will be.

But when the official people who made the proposition SAY "vote no" I am just so contrary, I want to vote yes. Even though I know it would be a really stupid thing to do.

Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Miro
Member
Member # 1178

 - posted      Profile for Miro   Email Miro         Edit/Delete Post 
What would happen if it passes? Anything?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dr Strangelove
Member
Member # 8331

 - posted      Profile for Dr Strangelove   Email Dr Strangelove         Edit/Delete Post 
I so thought that it actually said "yada yada yada" and was about to fall off my chair laughing. Luckily, I've learned to restrain that impulse until I've read the rest of the thread where people wiser than I save me from self-embarrassment. [Smile]
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anti_maven
Member
Member # 9789

 - posted      Profile for anti_maven   Email anti_maven         Edit/Delete Post 
That bonk you heard, was a less restrained anti_maven fallin off his chair.

*learns lesson*

[Wink]

Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Miro:
What would happen if it passes? Anything?

The language will have to be compared to the existing law (including 1A) and to see if any changes (however small) must be made.

With any luck that will only cost the state money, and not come up with small differences between 91 and 1A that must be reconciled.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2