36 replies to this topic

[bob]

so i was looking at the book of fun propositions and figured i'd share my thoughts and hope you'd do the same. i figure you can look these up to see what these are, so i'll assume we're all on the same page, if you're a voter.

Prop 106 - hey, we don't need health care, right? how dare the federal government make me have health care. what is this? the USSR? oh wait, i totally want health care. and i want all kids to have it. i'm voting no.

Prop 107 - to be honest, i think affirmative action is a huge step backward when it comes to creating an equal field in the work place, but in AZ where the good ol' boy network still totally rules, i think i better vote no.

Prop 109 - just by looking at who is for and who is against, me thinks i'm against. i vote no.

Prop 110 - same here. no.

Prop 111 - seems innocent enough, which makes me think it's sketchy. apparently it's super sketchy. no.

Prop 112 - this one i'm really not sure about. it seems kind of like a good idea to require six months so there's more time to provide information and get ducks in a row, but i don't know...

prop 113 - this one seemed really confusing as well, but again, going by who is for and who is against, i say no. but i'd like to be better informed.

prop 203 - duh. yes. i'm tired of going to california to get my scripts filled. make me feel like a patriot voting yes on this. the rest of these make me feel dirty.

prop 301 - yikes. no. edward abbey RIP.

prop 302 - man, this is so stinky it's sad. NO!

as you can see, i'm not the most informed voter in the great enlightened state of arizona. lets get this rolling.

[differently biotic]

http://www.azsos.gov...lotmeasures.htm

[ladydemon]

I research everything.. did the props and voted pretty much like you Bobby.. Now onto the Judges. I will find out if you suck and i will vote against you.

[MrAwesome]

Prop 111 - seems innocent enough, which makes me think it's sketchy. apparently it's super sketchy. no.

Means you can no longer directly vote for Secretary of State and the person that oversees all of our State's elections is now directly tied to the ticket of whoever is running for Governor.

No.

[Jacki O.]

I research everything.. did the props and voted pretty much like you Bobby.. Now onto the Judges. I will find out if you suck and i will vote against you.

see my judge links in the other nov2 elections thread

[ladydemon]

I research everything.. did the props and voted pretty much like you Bobby.. Now onto the Judges. I will find out if you suck and i will vote against you.

see my judge links in the other nov2 elections thread

I like opening their bio's and looking their photos in the eyes, while I pen NO on the ballot.

[iudicium]

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

My system is infallible

[Tony]

on PBS Horizona last night (yes, i realize that simply by typing those words, i'm now an old man) they had strung together a series of debates on each of the propositions - basically they had a rep from an organized group that was for or against each proposition, and they duked it out for a few minutes on each one. I only caught the last half of it - they'll probably air it again or maybe have it online if you're interested - but it was pretty informative. you get to hear an explanation from each side, and then they got to call each other out on any bullshit.

the debate for 109 was particularly entertaining, because the lady on the "no" side basically ripped the "yes" argument to shreds and called the guy out for misrepresenting his facts. either he had no response or KAET elected to edit it out (possible, but not their style). anyway, i'm with bob on this one. NO.

110 actually seemed reasonable. but there was no organized opposition, so it was just the state land manager (?) addressing questions from the moderator. more research needed.

111 - holy shit, no. and it seems so harmless. the "yes" argument was basically "hey, isn't it silly that we don't have a lieutenant governor, so that when janet stepped down we got some republican in there to take over?" and i was like "hell yeah, that's silly". well, the proposition is FUCKED UP. it basically lumps the winner of the lieutenant governor primary onto the ticket of the winner of the gubernatorial primary, so they run as a team even though they might not be aligned at all. in other words, the governor doesn't pick a lieutenant that meets her/his platform goals. you get what you get. it also basically means that you wouldn't ever have an independent (or 3rd party) be aligned with a democrat or republican, because the primary determines who gets on the ballot. since there's no independent primary, they could NEVER be tabbed as LG. i will say this, however: the "no" argument also said that you don't want to put control of the elections (currently done by the secretary of state - would be handled in the future by the LG) in the hands of the LG and governor because it might put a partisan spin on things. and i guess that seemed reasonable, until the "yes" argument pointed out that we currently elect the secretary of state, and they could still clearly put a partisan spin on things regardless of the governor. so it's not like that aspect would really change. either way, this prop is dogshit. NO.

112 - seems reasonalbe. i'm in.

113 - i still don't fucking get it. i'm a grown ass man with a college education, and i don't get it.

203 - i don't even smoke pot and i'm in favor of this one.

301 - no fucking way.

302 - no. god, it sucks this is even up for a vote.

i'm going to try and find the first half of the episode to learn more about the first few on the ballot.

[joe.distort]

HORIZON rules...but ive realized that i dont even watch it anymore. i used to catch it 2-3 times a week.

[MrAwesome]

111 - holy shit, no. and it seems so harmless. the "yes" argument was basically "hey, isn't it silly that we don't have a lieutenant governor, so that when janet stepped down we got some republican in there to take over?" and i was like "hell yeah, that's silly". well, the proposition is FUCKED UP. it basically lumps the winner of the lieutenant governor primary onto the ticket of the winner of the gubernatorial primary, so they run as a team even though they might not be aligned at all. in other words, the governor doesn't pick a lieutenant that meets her/his platform goals. you get what you get. it also basically means that you wouldn't ever have an independent (or 3rd party) be aligned with a democrat or republican, because the primary determines who gets on the ballot. since there's no independent primary, they could NEVER be tabbed as LG. i will say this, however: the "no" argument also said that you don't want to put control of the elections (currently done by the secretary of state - would be handled in the future by the LG) in the hands of the LG and governor because it might put a partisan spin on things. and i guess that seemed reasonable, until the "yes" argument pointed out that we currently elect the secretary of state, and they could still clearly put a partisan spin on things regardless of the governor. so it's not like that aspect would really change. either way, this prop is dogshit. NO.

I know there are a few states(the only one coming to mind right now is Illinois) which are trying to eliminate the LG's office for exactly these reasons.

Most candidates running for SOS, and serving in that position, make it a point to avoid partisanship within the office. The problem here is that when directly connected to the gubernatorial ticket it is much more difficult to do that.

Anyway, POLLS!!! Only 203 has major support.

[bob]

Anyway, POLLS!!! Only 203 has major support.

duh. it's only passed three times already.

[Tony]

Anyway, POLLS!!! Only 203 has major support.

duh. it's only passed three times already.

it will pass again, only to have some higher up say "no, no, we can't allow this - just because the majority is in favor doesn't mean it's the right thing to do".

how ironic that the same people will also say "look, the majority is in favor of 1070, so how can you possibly overturn it?"

[MrAwesome]

Anyway, POLLS!!! Only 203 has major support.

duh. it's only passed three times already.

I thought it only passed once then failed a couple of times after the Voter Protection Alliance Act.

[differently biotic]

lame balls

[bob]

Anyway, POLLS!!! Only 203 has major support.

duh. it's only passed three times already.

I thought it only passed once then failed a couple of times after the Voter Protection Alliance Act.

i actually thought that as well, but NPR said it passed three times. for some reason, i generally trust NPR.