the california propositions

Prop 1A: Transportation Funding Protection
Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security
Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund
Prop 1D: Public Education Facilities
Prop 1E: Flood Protection

These five propositions are billed as an integrated Rebuilding California plan. The very fact that the plan is split into smaller propositions is an indication of two things to me. First, while they complement each other, it is not necessary to pass all of them in order for any one of them to be effective. Second, the drafter(s) recognize that they're asking for a crapload of new bonds that will push the California debt to new highs. Accordingly, I did not vote yes on all of them.

Prop 1A - No
The budget is deadlocked enough already. This prop further restricts the ability of the legislature to shift funds to vital services in recession years. Now, I'm not going to argue that the Legislature knows best, but the real issue here is that Infrastructure is something that can wait in bad years, and there is already a good deal of protection in place such that borrowed Transportation funds will eventually be repaid.

Prop 1B - No
I believe in the importance of infrastructure as the foundation of a prosperous commercial economy, but this is both too much money given our state's current debt load, and too little money in terms of fully rebuilding California's enormous road network. The clincher for me is that most of the money appears to go to local projects. California's state-wide arteries are federal highways (101) or interstates (I-5) - thus, not covered by this bill. The only major artery that is covered is SR 99 - which is great for the Central Valley, but who else uses it? Meanwhile, most of the line items are specifically for local projects. Again, I'm not saying California as a whole doesn't benefit from local infrastructure improvements. It's just that, like all bond issues, we have to balance debt load against prioritized needs, and my view is that until our budget outlook improves, transportation is not the highest priority (this is the largest bond issue on the ballot).

Prop 1C - No
I don't have any confidence the state government has the ability to provide adequate low-income housing.

Prop 1D - Yes
I do believe education is the top domestic priority of government, with the possible exception of health care. I think it should be the responsibility of both local and state governments. While I generally believe this is something that should be covered by our already substantial state taxes, clearly that's not working.

Prop 1E - No
This is mostly about fixing flood protection in the Central Valley. The bill is timed to take advantage of the recent specter of Katrina, and it is an important lesson. We do need to make sure we have drinking water in case of catastrophic failure of flood control. But let's not pretend the problem is as bad as it is for below-sea-level New Orleans - the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers do not flood like the Mississippi floods, and hurricanes are exceedingly unlikely a hundred miles inland in a Mediterranean climate. Ultimately, though, this is the same issue as with the roads: not an immediate priority, yet they're asking for a fraction of the total cost for flood control updates.

Prop 83 - No
Tracking sex offenders with GPS? Give me a break. America at its hysterical, fear-mongering worst.

Prop 84 - No
Sounds like too much pork barrel.

Prop 85 (Parental Consent for Abortion) - No
How exactly does requiring parental notice "protect our daughters"? Maybe our granddaughters if you happen to be a pro-lifer. Why can't the proponents be honest and say this a pro-life/pro-choice issue? Because they know pro-lifers are in the minority among California voters.

Prop 86 (Tobacco Tax) - No
Although I have bronchitis and welcome the reduction in public smoking over the last two decades, I do not believe in morality-based taxation, and that's ultimately what tobacco taxes come down to. The government should not be in the business of coercing people in their private lives.

Prop 87 (Alternative Energy Tax) - No
A strange tax on California oil producers, presumably with the ancillary purposes of shutting down in-state oil production and increasing the cost of gasoline. Laudable (at least in general concept), but not important enough for California to be increasing its inefficient bureaucracy and debt load right now.

Prop 88 (School Parcel Tax) - No
You know, I may have been wrong on this one (I may have been wrong on every one), but when in doubt, I vote for the status quo. The doubt here is that this introduces a new parcel tax in perpetuity (whereas the bond will eventually be paid off).

Prop 89 (Public Campaign Funding) - No
I don't think public funding will reduce negative campaigning, nor do I think it will significantly increase the chances of people without powerful connections winning elections. Actually, I don't believe in the value in campaign advertising at all. The number of independent thinkers among the voting population is too low as it is.

Prop 90 (Eminent Domain Restriction) - No
My main problem with this one is the removal of the ability of the government to require plaintiffs to pay legal fees in case they bring a suit against the government over eminent domain. This could greatly increase the litigation burden on the government, which we pay for, after all. Honestly, is eminent domain abuse truly a widespread problem (and if so, why haven't I heard about it before?), or is this just a few disgruntled business owners?

prop o

Election Day is upon us again. It seems like only a few weeks ago I submitted my Primary Ballot, yet there is a raft of new Propositions to consider yet again.

The most germane of these is Oakland Measure O, which eliminates run-off elections in favor of instant run-off balloting. This means you list your top three choices for each office. When the counting starts, the candidate with the least first-choice votes gets dropped. Then they recount the ballots; any that have the dropped candidate as the first choice get counted as if the second choice was the first choice. And so on until there's only one candidate left.

The reasons for doing this are that it saves the cost of a second election, and it moves the election to November, which typically has higher voter turnout - especially among minorities.

According to the literature and SF Gate, this is already how voting is done in San Francisco, with Berkeley also in the process of implementing it. (Yet another sign that Oakland is really a suburb of Berkeley, and not the other way around.) Currently, Oakland holds its Democratic primaries, and if anyone fails to get the required majority (as almost happened in the mayoral election this year), there is a runoff during the general election (the election on Tuesday).

The argument against adopting instant run-off balloting is that it's too complicated. I don't see what's so complicated about prioritizing three candidates instead of picking one, but I do see a problem with the greater knowledge of the candidates required to pick second- and/or third-tier candidates. I assume though, that in this case you don't have to fill in all three slots, just as (I assume, I've never gotten a straight answer on this point) you don't have to vote at all for any particular office.

That means possibly only the most politically-conscientious voters will determine who wins a "run-off", rather than the larger voting population at the November elections. Which would you rather have: the rare run-off election determined by a fraction of the electorate, or the common case (as happened this year) of the smaller fraction determining the election before it ever gets to a run-off? You could argue that elections featuring run-offs are much more deeply felt by voters, with higher stakes. But if that were really true, voter turnout (either for the pre-run-off election or people making more than one selection in an instant run-off) shouldn't be a problem in either case. Personally, it's hard to find even one candidate to vote for in most offices these days, so it's hard to imagine a case where the new system would change the outcome of an election.

Of course, that sounds pretty lazy in hindsight of the 2000 Presidential Election, so I'll make a small effort here. Yes, this could affect the power of outsider candidates, but it's not clear whether it helps or hurts them. Theoretically, in a traditional run-off, those that didn't make the cut can endorse one of the run-off candidates, thus making their and their constituents' voice heard, perhaps changing the outcome of the election. In an instant run-off situation, either the candidates will include who the second and third choices should be in their campaign (that somehow seems unlikely), or else voters will just be left to their own devices.

And that's why I voted yes on Measure O. Contrary to Measure O's opponents claims that instant run-off is too complicated, I'd say it is two elections that is too complicated. With instant run-off, once you understand the way votes are counted your vote is entirely under your control; with a traditional run-off, the maneuverings of political parties come into play, trying to convince you to vote for someone you didn't want in the first place. I simply despise people telling me how to vote.

There are lots of other measures and propositions on the menu this Tuesday (the ballot is two double-sided pages for the first time since I've been in Oakland), but since this post has already run on, I'll talk about those later. Also, if I get the chance, I'll talk about the Peloponnesian War and what it means for Tuesday's elections.

how i voted and why

For Oakland voters, this is the most interesting election in quite a long time. As a friend pointed out, in Metropolitan California the Democratic Primary puts people in office, not the General Election.

Oakland Mayor

First, two-term Mayor (and formerly two-term Governor) Jerry Brown has hit his term limit, and is running for Attorney General instead. From Governor Moonbeam to a phoenix-like return from meditating in India to a pro-gentrification Mayor to a "tough on crime" Attorney General. Makes Arnold Schwarzenegger seem focussed.

But I digress. Current City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente was looking forward to strolling into office, when former fourteen-consecutive-term U.S. Representative for Oakland Ron Dellums came out of retirement to run. Commanding respect in Congress as well as his hometown of Oakland, Dellums looked like he might be the one strolling. Not the case: current odds are that there will be a runoff in November.

The conventional wisdom is that De La Fuente is the hard-working pragmatic insider, while Dellums is the visionary with national clout. De La Fuente looks like he will continue with Brown's current agenda, while Dellums is promising universal health care and housing for 100,000 new residents.

While Dellums, who is Black, is bound to get more Black votes than De La Fuente, who will tie up more Hispanic votes, that doesn't actually make much difference: at last count Oakland was 31% Black, 25% White, 23% Hispanic, and 19% Asian. What will decide the election is the rich, white Hills, and De La Fuente has concentrated his efforts there.

As racially diverse as Oakland is, it is almost uniformly Democrat, and, by California standards, these are old-school, labor-and-entitlement-loving Democrats. Platform-wise, there's very little of substance that separates the three leading candidates (I'm ignoring Nancy Nadel, since she seems too weak to have a chance), and the voters would not have it any other way.

I voted De La Fuente. Reasons:

1. Dellums has promised things that are well beyond a Mayor's nominal power. I just don't think he's going to single-handedly redefine the role of Mayor in American society.
2. One basic difference I see is that De La Fuente wants change from within, while Dellums will use his national clout to get state and federal assistance. I firmly believe Oakland does not need outside funds to solve its problems, and more money into a rotten system is going to be mostly wasted. Dellums cites the expanded Port, the Federal Building, and Chabot Space & Science Center as the things he's done for Oakland. There's a name for that: pork barrel.
3. And yet, De La Fuente has the onus of presiding over the City Council through years of horrible mismanagement. I haven't made up my mind totally, so I'd like to see a November runoff, and I think De La Fuente needs more help than Dellums. If only both could put their egos away and work together: De La Fuente the pavement pounder, and Dellums the dealmaker.

Propositions

Next, four propositions are up, three of which are bond issues. I don't know if it works the same way in other states, but in California, the only way projects get funded and people paid is by issuing bonds. All are related to education: two state propositions for building libraries and offering universal preschool, and two local props for reonvating community colleges and K-12 schools respectively. There is a lot of overlap, since some of the school funding would go to libraries, and the libraries are meant to work in conjunction with K-12 and adult literacy programs.

It may sound odd, but I chose the two local bonds, and neg'ed the state library bond. It's all the more hypocritical-sounding when you consider that I'm the only adult I know who averages over one trip a week to the library. Here's my reasons:

1. Oakland is not California. California is in a deep, long-standing budget crisis, and the last thing it needs is more general-obligation bonds for non-essential services that could be funded at the local level.
2. I've never seen a public library filled to capacity. Sure, you have to sign up for a computer, but the bond is not funding new computers — it's funding new libraries.
3. California has some of the shittiest K-12 education in the developed world (I know: I attended the LAUSD), but Oakland is so bad, California took over its school district. Some don't want to fund Oakland schools while they're under state control, but it looks to me like their situation is too bad to wait.
4. Even though it has some of the poorer neighborhoods in California, Oakland is actually richer than California as a whole. Without much industry/commerce to draw from, that wealth is mostly tied up in land. Almost everyone here is a tax-and-spend Democrat, and is happy to tack on a fourth parcel tax for a good cause.

I also neg'ed the universal preschool, not because I think it is a lower priority than K-12, but because I just don't like the way it's structured, in terms of only taxing high income brackets, in its emergency payment loophole, and in its low probable effect on overall enrollment. Besides, I have no confidence a state with California's current level of K-12 education can create a worthwhile preschool system.

Der nächsten Gubernator

In case you haven't already guessed, I have become disenchanted with the Democratic Party over the last decade. Besides regularly handing the Republicans elections liberals should have won, it just doesn't reflect my stance on economic issues.

On to the main question of the hour: Can either Phil Angelides or Steve Westly beat Arnold Schwarzenegger? Let me put it this way: at this point, I think they'd have a better chance outlifting him. And it's not just because Arnie came up with a well-timed budget surplus. Steroid-popping Schwarzenegger is just plain smarter than Harvard-educated Angelides or Stanford-educated Westly. Frankly, life-long Democrat though I have been, as of today, I think Schwarzenegger makes a better Governor than either of the Democratic candidates.

More important than solar power or clean beaches, more important than universal preschools or healthcare, more important than immigration reform, more important than balancing the budget, is that the California Government start functioning again. It is no secret that partisan battles have deadlocked the legislature for years, and the state is starting to self-destruct. Schwarzenegger currently enjoys the backing of key Democrats in the Legislature in promoting his new budget. That's an amazing rebound from last year's failed power grab.

Can you guess yet who I voted for? Yes, it was Westly. As pitiful as his resume sounds (Co-president of the Student Body? Part-time B-School Lecturer? 22nd employee of eBay when he saw a chance to cash in?), as lame as some of his proposed solutions are, as stereotypically Stanford-rich-boy as he is, he has indicated that he will work with Republicans. Angelides will fight them every step of the way, thus ensuring business-as-usual in Sacramento — which is to say, what meager progress there may be right now will grind to a halt. My guess is that Westly has an outside chance of beating Schwarzenegger if Arnold continues to get lumped in with the rest of the Republicans, but that Angelides, with his new taxes, has no real chance. I don't want Angelides as my Governor anyway. Not sure I want Westly, but I know I don't want the Democratic Party attempting to run California, and that's what we get with Angelides.

Hypocriticism

So it's a bit of an odd ballot: locally, I vote for the pragmatic tinkerer, while statewide I disown the pragmatic party-liner. I'm not particularly happy with either choice, but the choices are neither arbitrary nor driven by individual personalities.

Again, Oakland is not California. Indeed, it is a unique case in California. Oakland faces more severe problems with lawlessness, schools that are little more than drug emporiums, economic stagnation, and racial inequality than the rest of California. But Oakland has a politically-involved citizenry that has a great deal of consensus on what its problems are and even the general outline of solutions. Put simply: its problems are real, not political. And given how rich Oakland is, and California more generally, the real problems seem to me easier to solve than the political ones.

Ask me who should be President, and I will apply yet a different level of criteria. I don't consider the loss of a thousand jobs, or the paving over of wetlands, or doubling classroom size, or unaffordable healthcare as important as sending teenagers to be maimed or die in a war that does no one any good. At the national level, the stakes are much higher, and I'd take a gridlocked, bankrupt government over one that provokes and creates rogue nuclear states and international terrorist movements. If only this were a Presidential Election year!

thousand year reign

Just skimmed the Official Voter Information Guide for the California Special Election coming up a week from Tuesday. I normally try to keep a level head when I'm voting, but this looks to be the biggest power grab by a man of Germanic extraction since 1933. I refer, of course, to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

(Is Arnie still listening? Yeah? Okay, I think I'll end this post here.)

end of the stanford court

So, what everybody expected to happen has happened: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is dead. With the recent retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, this Labor Day marks the end of the Stanford Court.

Graduate of the Class of '52, attending Stanford courtesy of the G.I. Bill, it's no wonder that Rehnquist was a conservative. Stanford — the university whose only Presidential alumnus said during his 1928 election campaign, "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land" — is now, and has been for most of its history, relatively conservative. There was a brief interlude from 1980 to 1991, commonly known as the "Kennedy era", during which a yacht-buying Professor of Biology turned the University into a top-notch liberal arts college as well as a world-class engineering and science research institution. With the decline in its Humanities and Social Science departments ever since a certain gap-toothed, stilletto-wearing PoliSci Professor became Provost, Stanford is well on its way to reverting to its traditional role as a foil for MIT and CalTech, and a sort of USC-of-the-north for Palo Alto High School graduates.

No one doubts that Bush will replace Rehnquist and O'Connor with the most conservative lawyers he can slip past Congress. Of interest, though, is when lawyers from the Kennedy Era will hit the Court. Rehnquist hit the Court in '71, 19 years after his graduation from Law School; O'Connor had to wait another decade. So the Kennedy-era grads should hit the Court sometime between 2002 and 2020. Since Rehnquist and O'Connor voted Bush into office in the 2000 election, those grads will get a late start, but there's still plenty of time. God forbid we ever see the day when Clarence Thomas is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

P.S. But what about Breyer? Stanford undergrad, Harvard Law. I guess that makes him moderately conservative. Thoughts welcome.