It’s election time this Tuesday in California, and you know what that means. Yes, once again we have a raft of ideas so bad they couldn’t be shoved through the Legislature shiny new ballot propositions offered for our consideration.
Fortunately, I have painstakingly developed a straightforward algorithm for evaluating ballot propositions. It goes something like this:
Is the proposition related to water infrastructure?
If yes, do my two friends who are professional water engineers support it?
If yes, vote YES.
Else vote NO.
Else vote NO.
A small caveat: Lobbyists are hip to the fact that Californians tend to vote NO on propositions all things being equal, and so sometimes they cleverly craft a proposition such that a NO vote actually implements the opposite of what the voters might think it does. So the algorithm only works if you first unscramble any Bizarro Ballot Propositions such that NO really means NO, not YES. Me am not understanding? You am not understanding? Good!
Anyway, let’s apply the algorithm. Since none of the propositions relate to water engineering, we fall through to NO on each one. What could be simpler?
But wait — we need to check our work. Let’s pretend for a moment that we don’t have access to this powerful algorithm, and actually look at these propositions one-by-one:
- Prop. 91: Ensures that fuel taxes are spent on automobile infrastructure rather than public transportation infrastructure, thus helping maintain our state’s traditional massive subsidies of unsustainable transportation systems. For what it’s worth, this one was such a stinker that apparently its backers have bailed out. Analysis = NO. Algorithm = NO.
- Prop. 92: Lowers community college fees from $20 to $15 per unit and fixes a particular minimum percentage of the state budget for community colleges. Frankly, $20/unit is a fantastic deal for two years of college education, and further subsidies are already available to low-income students. I might support an expansion of these subsidies, but not a general fee cap. What’s far more pernicious is that this is yet another proposition that locks in a certain percentage of expenditures to particular interest, making it even more impossible to actually produce a budget. Analysis = NO. Algorithm = NO.
- Prop. 93: Reduces term limits to 12 years, but allows 12 years service in one house. My cousin grudgingly supports this one, but would rather see a limit like 30 years in the legislature. I’d rather see 30 years, too. I’d vote for that. I’d be even more excited about lifting term limits altogether — all we’ve done with term limits is trade our corrupt legislators for corrupt, stupid legislators. Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, Prop. 93 is tinkering around the margins of a dumb idea for no obviously good reason. Pathetic, go away, Analysis = NO. Algorithm = NO.
- Prop. 94-97: Indian gaming propositions. If Superbowl ads are to be believed, if you vote YES, you’re fucking over Native Americans. And if you vote NO, you’re … fucking over Native Americans. What to do? As it turns out, these propositions are simply how Schwarzenegger is implementing his payback to certain tribes for backing him in the 2006 election. While it’s admirable that Schwarzenegger sees fit to deal so honestly with his political supporters, I see no particular reason that I should bother to help him out here. Analysis = NO, NO, NO, NO. Algorithm = NO, NO, NO, NO.
Uncanny! The algorithm works perfectly. Tune in next election, when we’ll find out whether the algorithm works on English as an Official State Language, or whatever dipshit thing they’re putting up there next time around.
I like your algorithm. I more or less do the same. Is there a compelling reason to vote for this measure, and very little downside? Ok, vote YES! Otherwise, definitely NO!
Every time I decide how to vote on propositions, I start thinking we should lower the salaries of the Assembly. Aren’t we paying them to do this?
People around here have some pretty strong feelings about the Indian gaming propositions. San Diego County has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure (mostly roads) to support these giant casinos. And yet, we have never, and seemingly never will, get one red cent of the tax raised by propositions like 94-97. I’m a bit tired of paying various taxes to the county to build infrastructure to support what amounts to a highly regressive tax. Wait a minute, *I* don’t gamble. Maybe I should be voting YES!
I agree with your analysis except for Prop. 93.
There actually is some benefit that I see that the chair of a committee or some other managerial role in the legislature be held by someone with experience. The main change for the prop. is allowing someone to spend all their limited-term years in a single house rather than house hopping.
It doesn’t cost money and it certainly doesn’t hurt as far as I can tell.
I might tweak your algorithm too. The default position should always be NO (except in your Bizarro Ballot scenario), but when a proposition, A) doesn’t cost money, increase the state’s debt or tie the legislature’s hands in budget making, B) makes sense, C) doesn’t unfairly treat a single constituency, and D) is the sort of issue that can’t be done by the legislature alone, then I consider a Yes vote for it.
(I would treat your water engineer input as part of the “makes sense” category.)
Dinesh: Sadly, it’s not entirely our legislature’s fault. There are some very stupid structural reasons why so many basic funding & governing issues get thrown out to the voters.
Anyway, I figure any gambling deal that our Governor struck in order to reward his supporters can’t possibly be lucrative enough for the state to be worth voting for.
Adiv: I think that’s basically what my cousin is thinking, this could be a minor improvement, so why not. On the other hand I’m with Dinesh, “Is there a *compelling* reason to vote for this measure, and *very* little downside? Ok, vote YES! Otherwise, definitely NO!”
As for your tweak to the algorithm, no no no, now you’re inserting human judgement on the user’s part. Now you have to figure out what “makes sense” and “unfair” mean for each proposition. By contrast, you could implement *my* algorithm as a shell script (some combination of [regexps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regexp) and [/usr/bin/mail](http://www.math.sc.edu/system/man/mail.html) should do the trick). See?
Excellent analysis! Although I wish I had read it before voting, I see that I’m already one with the algorithm. There is no spoon.
The reason 93 had to go to the voters is that it’s an amendment to the California Constitution, changing a term limits rule that was put in by ballot measure; it can’t be changed without another ballot measure. And the argument in favor of 93 was compelling. Unless you like having a situation where the top expert in Sacramento on every issue is a lobbyist, instead of a legislator.
I’m strongly opposed to the top experts in Sacramento being lobbyists, which is why I support scrapping term limits entirely.
As for how restricting candidates to a single chamber and decreasing the amount of time they can spend in office does anything to alleviate that situation, well, color me puzzled.