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.

---

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 , but that is what the "Arguments" section says.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
I saw that too. I was so confused. I want to vote yes on it anyway.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
What would happen if it passes? Anything?
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
 
That bonk you heard, was a less restrained anti_maven fallin off his chair.

*learns lesson*


 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miro:
What would happen if it passes? Anything?

---