So my co-workers were confused at my "I voted touchscreen" sticker I got this morning from the polls. They thought it meant I voted at work or something. (I wish.) How did I vote? You can probably already guess:
No, no, no, no, no, no, yes, no.
73: This is the initiative that really pisses me off because it tries to redefine abortion. WTF. Notwithstanding the fact that 2/3 of pregnant teens DO inform their parents as it is; the ohter 1/3 usually have extenuating circumstances, which probably trump any attempt to go through the courts and circumvent the law.
74: I don't understand how this is supposed to help our schools. What bugged me most was looking at the stats for tenures in different states. CA currently one of the few states at 2 years, the shortest. Most states have a 3 or 4 year wait. Only 2 states have a 5 year wait. Why the hell are we going from one extreme to the other? When only 2 other states have a 5 year wait, doesn't that mean something? If it was an increase of 2 to 3 years, or even 2 to 4 years, I would have considered it, but 5?
75: I don't understand how this is supposed to help our state either.
76: Power grab. Go away.
77: While I agree with the principles behind this proposition, I highly disagree with its implementation. 3 retired judges? So redistricting from three old white guys is supposed to be better than redistricting from a bunch of old white guys and gals (with minorities)? Sure, voters get to approve it, but if we don't, it just goes back to the panel of 3. I don't see how panel of three can, in any impartial way, represent Californians' interests. Plus, it's smack in between two census years. Things are changing. I agree with the arguement that we need to wait for the next census before we go forward with it.
78: This one is the most amusing, because of who's financing it. It was always a huge PhARMA initiative, and then yesterday, I heard an ad from BIO. I was wondering if they were going to get involved. A bit late to the game, boys?
79: Using the state's purchasing power to argue drug discounts. Participation is mandatory if the drug companies want to be in the game. None of this namby pamby "if we want to 'cuz it's VOLUNTARY" crap of 78. All for it.
80: The one I wasn't sure on. Not sure how re-regulating will solve the problems, but don't know if sitting on the issue will help either. Reluctant no.
I agree with
catsonmars, this was a total waste of time and money. But, hey, if we're wasting money, you might as well vote. Maybe next time WE WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS CRAP.