Today's featured shit

I thought this was going to be the election that I stopped writing about it, but several people independently asked to see it, so I said fine. But enough about me. Let’s see what career-limiting things I can write about this time.

President and Vice President of the United States: Gloria la Riva and Sunil Freeman

As usual, the least important thing to vote on, even in 2020. More people vote for the electors for their state than anything else they vote on, which means mathematically your vote matters the least here. And as I love to say, if someone loses a state by 1 vote, they weren’t going to win by placating me, because they would have lost 1,000 other votes in the process.

Are you wondering where Kanye is? Well, in California he is the vice presidential candidate on the American Independent ticket, paired with Rocky de la Fuente. But people may not see his name, because his middle name (Omari) is included. Newsweek decided this was worth documenting.

Breaking news, BTW: Animaniacs has all new episodes on Hulu starting November 20. It has nothing to do with the rest of what I’m writing, but the demographics are the same, so I figure you would want to know.

Howie Hawkins, founder of the Green Party, did not sabotage my Peace and Freedom ticket in the primary by winning, but he is still running on his own. Angela Walker is his veep.

Jo Jorgensen heads the Libertarian ticket and is not paired with a girl named Spike, but surely at least 500 people will vote for her and Jeremy Cohen them because of the name alone.

The odds-on favorite to no one’s surprise is the Democratic ticket Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. You surely did not come here to see what I think of their candidacy. Did you buy a fly swatter yet, though?

Donald Trump and Mike Pence go for reelection on the Republican ticket. We all know how wrong I was 4 years ago (note the lack of link—go find it yourself), so I’m not going to say they have no chance this year. And I did just get knocked out of a poker tournament Friday night on a 4-outer, so this shit does happen! We can’t run the election twice, so be sure to vote.

The last ticket on the ballot is the Peace and Freedom one. (It’s determined randomly. Kanye doesn’t have that kind of pull.) If Gloria La Riva wants to run again, fine. Every presidential election with them on it could be the last one. Sunil Freeman is her running mate.

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

Her opponent is Justin Aguilera, who I wrote about during the primary. The only real mystery is whether Lofgren will stay my representative after redistricting.

Aguilera is the kind of Republican that could win against a mortal opponent in this district. For example, he supports high speed rail. As a resident of San Martin, he understands what commuting is. I bet he supports Measure RR also, but more on that later.

State Senator, District 15: Dave Cortese

Jim Beall is termed out because people are stupid and voted for term limits decades ago. The carousel continues, and we have Dave Cortese and Ann Ravel.

Cortese is the more liberal candidate, although both are Democrats so don’t get too excited. He has the same backers (unions) that he had when he ran for mayor of San Jose and lost. His advantage is he’s been in the area and hasn’t left.

Ravel’s advantage is she has President Obama’s endorsement, and the few remaining Republicans in this district are more likely to vote for her than Cortese. I actually underestimated her in the primary and didn’t expect her to advance. I am out of touch with insider politics, so this tells me she is the establishment candidate. I guess we’ll see what happens.

I know Cortese has ambitions to do more in the public sector, and because of term limits this is the next stop for him. I have no idea what Ravel’s aspirations are.

Member of the State Assembly, District 28: Evan Low

Low is the incumbent and running against Carlos Cruz. Cruz has a mixed identity, generally supporting liberal causes and like most California Republicans would be considered a moderate Democrat in many red states. He does also retweet the President so it’s hard to pin him down.

Meanwhile Low is using Twitter to acknowledge National Coming Out Day. That’s about all you need to know to make your decision. Like a lot of these offices, the candidates are pretty different.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 24: Stuart Scott

In 2014 he was going for Office No. 4. Now it’s Office No. 24. There’s probably a Pittsburg joke from 1970 there somewhere, but I’m going to keep it cool as the other side of the pillow.

Santa Clara County Board of Education, Member, Trustee Area 4: Ketzal Gómez

Did you know not presenting a name as written is a microaggression? It is! And that’s fine. I don’t know why people are so afraid to learn new shit about how to communicate better with others.

Anyway, Joseph Di Salvo is the incumbent and should win handily. He’s been in this role for 12 years and is going for a fourth term. Like many of you in Trustee Area 4, I don’t know much about any of these candidates beyond the ads I get in the mail.

The other candidate is Lucia Garcia, who did not file a candidate statement.

I’m voting for Gómez because Di Salvo went to Bellarmine, and I want to vote for someone who only attended public schools. That reason is as good as any.

San Jose Unified School District Governing Board Member Trustee Area 3: Tomara Hall

Besides seeing where school board candidates attended, I also look at endorsements.

Kristen Brown is the establishment candidate and has endorsements from the usual suspects: our city councilperson, Dev Davis, the mayor, State Senate candidate Ravel and the aforementioned Joseph Di Salvo, which she presents as “DiSalvo.” Microaggression! Anyway, if you’re voting for Davis, Ravel, and Di Salvo, this is your complementary candidate.

Tomara Hall is not Tally’s sister, and she is a Warrior, having attended Stanislaus State. She has a mixed heritage like I do, although she has had to overcome a lot more than I had. She is the “progressive” candidate and a good complement to my ballot.

Carol Myers did not file a statement. She ran in 2004 for the same office and lost to Pam Foley by only 108 votes. I bet she had a statement that time.

Carla Collins is the appointed incumbent. The race is probably between her and Brown. Collins has the mainstream liberal endorsements (Cortese, Low, etc.) so for many of you that’s probably what you need to know. But I’m personally very excited to see someone like Hall in office, and that’s who I will fill the bubble for.

(That’s right, we’re no longer connecting arrows on the ballot. We’re back to standardized testing. #NoStrayMarks)

City of San Jose, Member, City Council, District 6: Jake Tonkel

I’ll tell ya: This district is amazingly full of drama for such an unimportant office. I know San Jose doesn’t have a strong mayor (not yet anyway—stay tuned), but this is the most overrated race on the ballot.

This is another race where you already know how you should vote. Davis is the establishment candidate and incumbent. She didn’t get a majority of votes during the primary, so technically this is a runoff. It’s kind of a bass-ackward way to do it, but I think it is because there are normally not 2 serious candidates.

Anyway, Davis is fine, even if she is a little too establishment for my taste. I wish she would work on her interpersonal skills and run a smarter campaign, but maybe it’s working for her. Anyway, I will give a few examples because I have a captive audience, and we all know the Raiders are going to blow this game against the Chiefs.

The previous officeholder, Pierluigi Oliverio, was not my cup of tea either. But he was very passionate for his work and would give straight answers. So even though I did not vote for him, I knew I didn’t need to freak out about him.

Davis, on the other hand, has minions to do a lot of her communicating, and she is rather outspoken about how she wants to be engaged with. For example, on Nextdoor Oliverio would close most of his posts, which is his right to do. Most local politicians follow this strategy for good reason. We’re an ornery bunch on Nextdoor, and the negativity can have a reverse halo effect. Every now and then the mayor’s social media person forgets and leaves a post open, and all hell breaks loose, every time. This is our city. These are our people. Let’s own our shit, can we? This is who we are.

Anyway, Davis ends all of her posts with this paragraph-long disclaimer that she cannot see posts on Nextdoor and cannot reply to them. What a load. Funny how no one else has the need to say such a thing. One time she posted a poll about which movie to show in a park to the community, and her minion didn’t lock the post! Good times.

But let’s not overlook the things she has done in her first term. Like right there she organized the weekly showing of movies to give the community something to do. I mean, not this year, because, you know why, but in previous years this was a thing.

She also supported Hope Village building tiny houses near Lelong and Willow, which completely blew my mind. Politically it was another strange move for someone who represents a lot of heartless people, to be fair. The news coverage got really out of control, and the city council vote failed, so she was vulnerable for nothing. You know this wasn’t a publicity stunt because it isn’t mentioned on any of the crap I’ve gotten in the mail for this race. Just a lot of unforced errors by this otherwise solid city councilperson.

Enough about her. Let’s talk about her opponent, Jake Tonkel.

Tonkel won the second most votes in the primary and is in the narrow progressive lane as a candidate, similar to the aforementioned Hall. The lane is narrow because there was a road diet, and so now there is a dedicated space for bicycles. The other two candidates were fringish but not crazy. (Well, one of the candidate’s mother was a little outdoor, but that’s more me being on Nextdoor too much than anything.)

From an identity politics perspective, it is clear who to vote for. Tonkel is running on Davis’s left, which is fairly easy to do, and I see this race as a plot point in the biopic on his life in 60 years. He’s got a big future ahead of him in politics, and this is just his getting his feet wet. Like most incumbents, Davis did not get any serious competition, but Tonkel turned on just enough people to keep her below 50%, so here we are.

I don’t know how much of a difference his winning would make in isolation, but other districts have similar candidates running this election as well, and if the electorate votes all of them in, it will be like having a Squad, only for city council.

The only other thing I will say is that the San José Police Officers Association is investing heavily on defeating Tonkel because he supports reallocating police funding for other public safety purposes. I’m not going to get into the “defund the police” movement here, other than to say it is a really stupid name if you want people to support the cause.

I mention this endorsement because of all the negative mail I’ve received about Tonkel that they have paid for. I support restoring pensions for our police and hiring new ones, but they really give me pause when they send out such inaccurate mailers about Davis’s opponent. And is this race really so close that it is even necessary? Davis should win this in a walk.

Anyway, this is a very easy decision for voters. It just depends on what priorities you hold personally. I’m not going to be upset when Davis wins.

Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Director, District 4: Dorsey Moore

I can’t believe I voted for someone who won last time! With literally zero info to work with, I will vote for Moore again. I want more Moore!

Both candidates live within a mile of me, which I find amusing. That’s life in Willow Glen for ya. His opponent Janis Hall has a Gmail email address, which I prefer to Moore’s Hotmail, but she also has a Washington DC area code. Can you imagine, if this were a multimillion dollar race, the kinds of ridiculous negative ads we would get about these things? We need fanfic is what we need.

Proposition 14: Yes

This is a bond issue for stem cell research. Before getting into that, let’s talk about bond issues.

Interest rates are at all time lows. And the way you determine whether to borrow money, whether you’re a government or an investor, is if your return on investment will be greater than the interest you pay. That’s why $24 trillion in public debt is not a problem for the nation. It’s money we mostly owe ourselves, because people are willing to buy bonds that pay very little interest. For the state of California, it works roughly the same way. The main difference is that California has to balance its budget, and the federal government does not.

Anyway, I mention that because $5.5 billion in bonds today that cost $7.8 billion to pay off over 30 years is pretty good. I wish my mortgage only required that much to pay in interest. Having said all that, if you don’t like bonds, then it doesn’t matter what else is involved.

If you voted for Proposition 71 last time, then you probably are voting for 14 this time. It’s just an issuance of more bonds for the same thing. The no argument before was one of morality, and that did not work, so this time they are going for one of fiscal discipline. I’ve already said what I think about that.

Or have I? One more thing: The bonds don’t have to start being paid back until 2026, so whatever financial disaster we may face in the short term because of COVID-19 are unlikely to matter then.

Proposition 15: Yes

In about 50 years, assuming California hasn’t fallen into the ocean because of an earthquake or climate change (or both), people will look back on Proposition 13 as a way to give Baby Boomers more of whatever they wanted, as had been done for their entire life. The writing is starting to appear on the wall, but if you squint just right, you can defend this property tax law, even today.

As millennials take over the world they are not going to stand for an entire generation’s screwing over of the system so they could have inflated housing values and commensurately lower property taxes.

But this is not yet another screed on Proposition 13. The Internet has done this one enough.

Proposition 15 continues the slow dismantling of Proposition 13, focusing on commercial property. The reason why Proposition 13, even today, has majority support is because people don’t want their property taxes to reflect the actual current value of their home, and if they thought about it, they would not want the value of their home to drop because of an increase in property taxes, which is what would happen to the housing market if Proposition 13 were repealed. But Proposition 15 does none of that.

Taking away the tax benefit for commercial property will stabilize funding for the state at a time it needs it most, because of the economy crippled by COVID-19. This was going to be on the ballot anyway, but the case for it now is stronger. Property tax revenue is the most consistent source of funding for a government. That’s why after Proposition 13, locally at least, have seen our sales tax increase more than 50%. Despite what Howard Jarvis thinks, the government will get theirs one way or another, and better to get it from something stable. Sales tax fluctuates with the economy and is extremely regressive. It should not be the primary source of income for anything unless there is no other choice. That’s the world we live in now. More on that later too.

The argument that increasing property tax on commercial property will raise leases is ridiculous. The market will bear whatever the market will bear. If commercial property owners decide to increase leases to counter this tax increase, they will see decreased demand for their office space, at a time when office space demand is already cratering because of COVID-19.

The other “no” argument is the oft-cited slippery slope argument, which is that they will come for your residential property tax benefits next. Maybe, but the passing of Proposition 15 has nothing to do with that reality. Yeah, I said it. Expect in 8 years or so a Proposition that fully repeals Proposition 13 and also cancels the state portion of the sales tax. Jarvis will rise from the dead, and I will be so thrilled to see it.

Proposition 16: Yes

This proposition effectively repeals Proposition 209, which passed when I was in college. It ended affirmative action programs in the public sector in California. Considering that public sector jobs are often a good first step for immigrants and people of color in California, this dealt a severe blow in our state’s efforts for equality.

Looking specifically at admissions standards for the University of California system, we can see relative increases in white and Asian admissions and decreases in Black and Latino admissions in the 24 years since 209’s passage. One can make the case that this is the result of systemic racism and the original reason for affirmative action in the first place.

Many people were not in California in 1996 or were not old enough to vote, and among those who were, there is still a basic misunderstanding (led by conservatives admittedly) of what affirmative action is. I will try to explain it briefly here: When considering whom to hire among qualified candidates, affirmative action allows you to consider other factors in their candidacy, such as their background.

That’s it. It’s not about hiring people who aren’t qualified or having quotas. It’s about giving qualified women and minorities a better chance. And as someone who is uninspired by and sick of working with a bunch of mediocre white guys, I’m all for it. I told you this was career-limiting.

I don’t see how it passes, though. Although many of the people who supported 209 are now dead, a whole generation of people no longer directly see the benefit of such a program.

Proposition 17: Yes

California doesn’t always lead the way. This map can show you where felons can vote and when they can. We are one of two states where you have to be released from prison and not be on parole before being able to vote again. Proposition 17 would put us in with 18 other states plus DC that allows convicted felons to vote once they are out of prison.

The argument against 17 is that parolees would still be in jail if it were not for being on parole. I guess. The larger question for me is why people are allowed to vote. I think of it as you need to interact with society to be an informed voter because that’s where empathy comes from. (And with the shelter-in-place because of COVID-19, I wish that we did not have to make a lot of the decisions we do collectively as an electorate.)

Kevin McCarty helped write the argument in favor of Propostion 17, and I can’t help but wonder whether it is because his name sounds a lot like Kevin McCarthy.

The only argument I would make in favor of Proposition 17 is that people who get their franchise back (that means they can vote) are less likely to commit crime again. So it is fair to say that Proposition 17 would lower crime.

Proposition 18: Yes

The law is pretty clear on whether you can vote. Will you be 18 on Election Day? If so, then the answer is yes. The coincidentally numbered Proposition 18 seeks to tweak that slightly: If you’ll be 18 for the general election, you can vote in the primary as a 17-year-old.

The main argument is that minors are too easily influenced and should not be given this option. My favorite is the all caps argument in the voter guide that “17-year-olds are captive audiences in school.” Yes, because all 17-year-olds listen to their parents and teachers.

I honestly don’t feel very strongly about this one. Most 17-year-olds won’t vote unless they get the day off from school, and if we move our primary back to June, it is less likely for that to happen anyway. The optics of telling someone they can’t vote is a greater concern, and that’s enough for me to vote yes.

Proposition 19: Yes

This one is kind of muddy too. It’s another amendment to Proposition 13, specifically removing the protection granted by Proposition 58. It does two things under the auspice of being a compromise.

Basically, if you’re old, disabled, or lost your home to a wildfire, you can transfer your current property’s Proposition 13-adjusted assessed value to a new home within the state. This means you would not have to pay more in property tax just because you moved. If you bought a more-expensive house, then you would pay normal property tax for the difference in cost.

So how is that revenue loss for the state made up? It removes some protections currently allowed for inherited property, mostly from Proposition 58, which was passed in 1986 before the effects of Proposition 13 were completely obvious.

Now, more money will come in because of the ending of Proposition 58 than from people moving into new homes with this new benefit, so a lot of it will go toward fire protection. The rest will go to the general fund, which by extension will increase school funding because of Proposition 98. Like I said, it’s muddy.

The commercials are pretty disingenuous. A lot of firefighters talking about the benefits if it passes, etc. But look how complicated this is. I get why the ads are the way they are.

This isn’t going to make a lot of difference one way or the other for most people, but the slight increase in property tax revenue, as well as the improved targeting toward inheritance and away from fire victims, the old, and the disabled, is enough for me to pull the lever.

Proposition 20: No

This is another one that is pretty easy for people to figure out. Proposition 20 limits the effectiveness of Propositions 47 and 57. If you voted yes on Proposition 57, you probably want to vote no on this one.

Proposition 20 reduces which crimes are eligible for prisoners to be released early. The argument in favor of it is that Propositions 47 and 57 have increased crime because, somehow, knowing that you won’t be in prison as long for certain crimes removes the deterrent that it provides. I mean, prison does not serve as a deterrent for most crimes in the first place, but that’s not what it is being debated here.

An argument against Proposition 20 is that we would have to build more prisons if it passes, because we would not be able to parole as many inmates. I think that will convince a lot of people, but the reason I am voting no is because Proposition 20 is not going to measurably reduce crime.

Proposition 21: No

This is the one where I lose all my friends, just like with Proposition 10 two years ago. Briefly, rent control does not work. It traps people in houses and wastes natural resources by increasing commutes when people change jobs, because they cannot afford to move closer to their work if they are in a rent-protected home. Brookings, hardly a hotbed of conservatism, agrees.

This is another one where disingenuous arguments, for and against, are simplified to make their point. And of course I know many people who benefit from rent control programs. But in a state with a severe housing shortage, I want the freest market possible to get as many new houses built as fast as possible. The government should be focusing on systemic equality and creating opportunity for everyone.

Having just written about this, I don’t have a lot of new things to say.

Proposition 22: No

It’s really weird to see tech companies and the political machine collide because they’re so different. Tech startups specifically are VC-backed and are focused on growth vs. profitability, whereas governments consume 80% of what they create. They could not be more different.

But that VC money does not last forever, and many logistics-based tech companies are staring down the barrel of a business model that has never made sense, and they are looking for a way out so they can exist for a few more years.

And that’s Proposition 22. After the Assembly passed AB5, these companies pitched a fit and swore they would leave the state. Honestly I would not care if they did. I could get around town before they were here. I could get food delivered to me before they were here. Life would go on, just like if Krusty the Clown were no longer on the air.

The whole thing is ridiculously disingenuous. The only reason they want this to pass is to keep going for a few more years, before autonomous vehicles take over all of the jobs that these companies swear they want to save.

Here is the thing about the economy in general, and I am including a lot of businesses that are going out of business this year as part of this: What people demand is what will thrive. It’s harsh, but true. If people can safely go to live music again someday, there will be demand for live music venues, and they will be created. It may not be the clubs you go to now, just like you may not be able to go to the restaurants you go to now, but people will still want to sit in public with crying babies and eat mozzarella sticks, even if it won’t be Applebee’s. This is the inherent risk anyone who goes into business takes. That’s why they get the profits when it works out. Don’t bully me into saving a donut shop or a karaoke bar. The friends I didn’t lose when writing about Proposition 21 are gone now.

Anyway, back to this proposition. You are not entitled to have someone else get your dry cleaning, or your burrito, or your kids from basket weaving practice. You have to pay them for it. Proposition 22 makes the logistics startups pay for it, and they know if they raise the price you pay, you will not want it anymore. And that’s fine. As a business model it does not make sense until robots are doing all the work! They want all the reward of that future without the expense of paying for it now. And that’s what I mean about the public and private sectors colliding, and I’m not going to vote for the government to take on this burden when they will not receive any of the benefit.

Proposition 23: Yes

This is another version of Proposition 8 in 2018, which failed. All the same ads from all the same backers, only with a new number.

A result of Proposition 23 would be fewer places where people could receive dialysis. Sounds terrible, right?

Well, the places that remain would be safer and be required to have a physician or nurse practitioner on site. That sounds better to me.

Not a lot of new info this time around. If you voted yes on Proposition 8 (not that one, the kidney one), then you want to vote yes on this one too.

Proposition 24: No

This is probably very important to a lot of people, but there’s not a lot of money in it, so you won’t see a lot of ads.

Short version: If you care about your personal data online, you should vote yes. I don’t care about this stuff. That’s why I am voting no. I know my personal information is worthless because it’s about me. But no judgment here! It’s really a decision only you can make about yourself, and Proposition 24 grants you that authority.

The arguments for and against are kind of annoying, but they’re trying to get whichever side they are on to emerge on top, so I get it.

Companies that would otherwise benefit from personal info are behind Proposition 24 because this law doesn’t go as far as it could. If it does not pass, the legislature could pass something stronger. Think about how people feel about GDPR. So that is another reason to vote “no.”

But if you subscribe to the “bird in the hand” argument and you care about your personal info, you’re happier with Proposition 24 than without it. So you have to ask yourself what you think will happen next. See? Pretty complicated.

Proposition 25: Yes

Bail is a funny thing. If you have money, you can use it to post bail, and you can live your life until it’s time to show up in court. If you don’t, then you sit in jail until your trial, and you can’t go to work or pay your bills. So even if you’re found not guilty, your life is forever changed, and the chance of your committing a crime of necessity has just gone up, because those bills need to get paid. This setup exacerbates systemic racism, whether you like it or not.

There is one more thing to think about: If you don’t want to wait for your Constitutionally guaranteed fair trial, you can plead guilty now and hurry up and serve your time. This results in thousands of people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit, because their primary goal is getting back out so they can try to find work. Of course now they have a criminal record, but this is not the first thing on their mind. This also supports the argument that prison is not a deterrent to commit crime.

I attended a conference a couple years ago that made a strong case about how money bail does not cause so many systemic problems, but subsequent research has not caused me to stick with that opinion. If California gets rid of it, we will figure out pretty quick whether it was a good idea, although other research shows it is promising.

Like Proposition 20, it really depends on your views on crime.

Measure G: Yes

This is a collection of 3 separate things San Jose would like to do differently, and they decided to put them all on the ballot together because, honestly, they aren’t controversial, and it is cheaper to have 1 measure instead of 3.

First, the Independent Police Auditor would have more oversight, which in the current climate can only be a good thing. One negative for some people is it would give the city council more power to change how it works, vs. leaving it up to voters. I’m fine with taking direct power away from the voters on topics they don’t understand.

Next, it would increase the Planning Commission from 7 people to 11. I’m fine with that too. It is being sold as a way to increase diversity, which I don’t exactly buy, but a city of a million people should have more representation. By comparison, the House of Representatives has had 435 members since the country had one-third of the population. No wonder your Congressperson is unresponsive.

Finally, there is a surprisingly proactive clause for if the census is done late. The City Council districts will be redrawn next year, but it would be smarter to do it with the new census data. The law doesn’t allow for postponing this redrawing because why would the census ever be later? Why indeed.

Measure H: Yes

This increases the cardroom tax 10% and allows cardrooms to have more tables. It raises $15 million for the general fund. You’re either for this kind of thing or you aren’t.

Measure I: Yes

This is a 9-year $18 parcel tax for community college job training programs. The most interesting thing about the measure is that they do not capitalize “internet,” which makes it painfully clear to me that I am severely outnumbered when it comes to that argument.

Measure J: Yes

This is an $858 million bond measure for repairing community colleges. Unlike the parcel tax, people owning more expensive property will pay more for it, to the tune of $175 per $1 million in assessed value, amortized over the length of the bonds. Remember, interest rates are at all time lows.

Measure S: Yes

This renews an existing parcel tax for water supply and flood protection.

Measure T: Yes

The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (the person I voted for last time won, remember?) wants to renew a $24 parcel tax.

Measure RR: Yes

This is a one-eighth cent increase in the sales tax to pay for Caltrain.

Caltrain is a funny story. Unlike most of the eleventy billion transit agencies in the Bay Area, it does not have a dedicated funding source beyond farebox recovery (highest in the Bay Area by a lot incidentally), and it gets the scraps from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara County budgets, such that they are.

There are not a lot of obvious options in the current climate to raise funding, with ridership (and car traffic for that matter) down across the board because of COVID-19.

The timing for this measure is especially poor because sales taxes are regressive, and most people support public transit for commuting, vs. because of the options it gives people who cannot drive.

People make an argument that someday traffic will be the way it was last year, once the shelter-in-place for COVID-19 is lifted, but I disagree. People commuting to work on average will never be going into the office 5 days a week again. Many in fact will take advantage of offers to work remotely and leave the Bay Area entirely. Personally, I look forward to the decreased demand for roads and housing, and I say this as a property owner. People buying houses as investments are furthering their own portfolio, not the public good, and this will put a stop to it. It’s also why Proposition 21 isn’t as big of a deal as it sounds, even if you support rent control. Rent control keeps rent low when there are outside forces causing it to otherwise increase. Rent is down 20% in San Francisco during the past year, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Anyway, I vote for transit initiatives that give people more options to get around, especially ones that benefit the environment. Remember: Caltrain is being electrified, so it will also be a greener solution than the diesel option presented to us today.

I shot a lot of my wad on the primary column last spring, so there’s not much left in the tank this time. But most importantly the social media preview for this piece will include the verb “shot” and the noun “wad,” so page views should be through the roof. Too bad turnout will be at a record low for a midterm election.

I wish you could make people care. You can’t, really. I mean it doesn’t mean you don’t try. But you can’t take it personally when people click Like or tap Favorite and then move on. Sometimes that’s the only currency you can get when it comes to receiving payment. So be it. Like I’m not writing any of this for someone else. I’m obviously doing it for me.

Before getting into Willow Glen’s ballot, I want to talk about the key issue on the minds of those who are actually paying attention to this election: control of the Senate. It just doesn’t matter.

On first blush, the reason seems obvious. Majority! Majority means majority! Well, you need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate so who cares whether it’s 50 or 49 or 51? In addition, the House isn’t interested in passing anything the president will sign. For better or for worse, the president will still be issuing executive orders when shit needs to get done. And for the record, Obama is still at 183. His predecessor, George W. Bush, had 291. (Bill Clinton had 364. In roughly the first half of the 20th century, every president from Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower had at least 480. It really doesn’t matter how many executive orders presidents give. But it seems to be a big deal these days, so there you go.)

Another argument is that the ruling party gets to hand out committee assignments or some such. If the Senate as a whole isn’t going to pass anything for another 2 years, then who gives a shit? Just focus on your candidates if you have a race to vote on, and don’t nationalize a statewide election.

So what do I think will happen? I don’t know. And anyone who thinks they know is full of shit. There are too many polls within the margin of error, and we don’t know how accurate polling will be with this election because response rates are lower than ever, and one-third of households don’t own a landline. The polling industry hasn’t had this type of disruption to it ever. Will they normalize the data well? We’ll find out. I’ll give the Republican Party credit: They were ahead of the curve, in their attempts to “unskew” the polls in October 2012. It was a snow job to inspire false hope, but they were on to something, accidental or not.

The other issue is Louisiana and Georgia. No one is polling at 50%, and a majority vote is required in those two Senate races. That means runoffs. Louisiana’s is later in the year. Georgia’s isn’t until January 6, 2015. Throw in two races (South Dakota and Kansas) in which the indepedent is competitive, and there’s no way we’ll know anything for a long time. But again, the thing we will know will still be worthless. Enjoy the political theatre provided, but don’t see more to it than there actually is.

One more thing: I’ve never seen the administration get so little credit for the recent goings-on. Unemployment is under 6%, something Mitt Romney swore only he could do. Gas prices continue to drop. The deficit is under $500 billion, down 70% from 2009’s record $1.4 trillion. Second quarter GDP growth was 4.6% (although a lot has to do with it shrinking 2.1% in the first quarter, which mostly had to do with the weather). And somehow this is the worst president we’ve had? I know what will make it better: flipping the Senate and continuing not to pass any legislation! Got it.

Anyway. What do I get to connect the little arrows, using blue or black ink, for this time around? Stay tuned.

Governor: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown

I already complained about the jungle primary. I’m not going to do it again. Like all the statewide offices, I get 2 choices. Thanks, Obama.

I actually streamed the debate while walking to pinball league. I like listening to old people talk, and I’m not going to pick up the phone just to talk to my grandparents. I don’t have a landline, and using my iPhone as a telephone? Can’t hear a damn thing.

Anyway, Brown was a lot funnier in the 2010 debate vs. Meg Whitman. And Neel Kashkari is a better opponent than, say, Bill Simon. But I have to ask myself: Who will do a better job governing the state for the next 4 years? For me, it’s an easy decision.

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom

I want someone who isn’t going to wait for the governor to leave the state before enacting a bunch of legislation. Having a lieutenant governor of the same party as the governor seems to help keep that from happening. Neither candidate submitted statements, and I haven’t gotten any crap in the mail, so this is all I have to go on. Did you know Newsom is aixelsyd? He is!

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla

I voted for him in the primary. You’re welcome, Alex. I know four Alexes already. I really don’t need another one in my life, Pete Peterson is running as an outsider, but how slick is that name? Come on. Also, he uses inflammatory words like “outrageous” when talking about taxes. If I need you to tell me how to feel about taxes, I have bigger issues than remembering to vote. He also complains about state politics being a “merry go round.” Well, that’s what you get for having term limits.

Controller: Betty T. Yee

We’re guaranteed a female controller. I voted for Yee in the primary for Archie-related reasons. Ashley Swearengin didn’t provide a statement. What am I supposed to do? (Also, Kashkari endorsed Swearengin during the debate, so I guess there is also that.)

Treasurer: John Chiang

I voted for him in the primary, too. His opponent, Greg Conlon, has a huge typo in his statement, saying “GDB,” instead of “GDP.” Yeah, I want someone that sloppy in charge of my money. It’s bad enough my complex’s HOA has someone that unqualified in the same role. (Hint: It’s me.)

Attorney General: Kamala D. Harris

It’s true: I have a rule about taking the candidate with a prepared statement, which Ron Gold has. But I also have a rule about sticking with the candidate I selected during the primary, barring egregious acts. Well, there is one thing. There are rumors that Harris could replace Eric Holder. And she says she doesn’t want the job which is the obvious response if she really does. But I believe her. And I can’t have Newsom up there without Harris balancing him out. (They both have San Francisco roots.)

Finally, Gold’s statement talks about price fixing and high gas prices. I guess it’s bad timing that prices have dropped so much the past 3 months. Well, he tried.

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

The power of incumbency. In Jones’s prepared statement, he lists all of his accomplishments. They’re pretty impressive. It also reduces Ted Gaines to talk about concepts. “Not creating jobs” and “I can do better” don’t work when the state is already creating jobs and doing better. There’s nothing tailored about this statement. He can use it again if he runs in 4 years. I bet I could find another candidate who wrote the same thing. You get the idea.

Member, State Board of Equalization, District 2: Fiona Ma

It’s kind of funny because there are at least 1,000 people in California who, on seeing that James E. Theis drives a pickup truck to work every day, will automatically vote for Ma for that reason alone. Hey, other people can make voting fun, too. It’s not just me. Like Jones, Ma has done a tone of stuff, so I don’t have a reason not to vote for her.

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

I voted for Lofgren in the primary. Robert Murray didn’t provide a statement. No wad left to shoot.

California Assembly, District 28: Evan Low

Well, I guess I will be able to vote for Low after all. I went with someone else in the primary but expressed regret in doing so. Redemption, sanctuary—call it what you want. I get my man. Chuck Page got the endorsement of my least favorite Chuck: Chuck Reed. Also, his prepared statement has a TinyURL for his Facebook page. Such terrible usability! Just put the Facebook URL in your statement or say “find me on Facebook.” Of course, having your Facebook page URL end in “cpageAD28” is too clever anyway. It makes the TinyURL seem less bad. Next time, use “chuckforassembly.” Anyway, I can’t have someone assemble on my behalf with that kind of social media strategy.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Yes to all

Let’s do them all at once. Goodwin Liu was appointed by Governor Brown in 2011. He went to Stanford. Mariano-Florentino Cuellar was just appointed by Brown in July. He also attended Stanford and is a law professor there today. Kathryn Mickle Werdegar was admitted to the California Bar 50 years ago. Fifty! She went to Cal and has been on the court for 20 years.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District: Yes to all

You don’t get any information about these guys. Here are the names for keyword density reasons: Eugene Milton Premo, Adrienne M. Grover, Patricia Bammatre-Manoukian, Miguel Marquez, and Franklin D. Elia. I would say Grover is my favorite because that’s a Sesame Street character.

You know what it is? Voting is fun. You get to make those little arrows on the ballot. But there just aren’t enough arrows to fill! Well, now you can fill a whole bunch more with these Appellate District candidates! How fun!

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 24: Diane Ritchie

Another one in which I picked a winner in the primary. I guess it’s not that hard to do because there are two winners, by that definition. Anyway, both candidates make a good, um, case, but I don’t have a reason not to vote for the incumbent.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson

Same story. Already picked him once. I don’t like that Marshall Tuck uses charter school success as a reason for voting for him. I appreciate the benefits of charter schools, but you don’t know which ones are working out until the students become part of society. Tell me something more tangible next time.

Mayor, City of San Jose: Dave Cortese

Well, my guy made it to the general election, and he’s facing off against Sam Liccardo. There are really only two differences between these candidates: age and their views on pension reform. I’ve already gotten into my issue with pension reform. In short, if it were that big of a deal, then why use so much fear about the unknown when stating a case for it? “Unfunded liabilities” is a dog-whistle phrase for me. It sets off my bullshit detector.

I am a little nervous. I see a lot of Liccardo signs in my neighborhood, although that does provide some affirmation, because Willow Glen has a ton of money. I really doubt the people with the most money have the best interest of the city as a whole. I also haven’t gotten any mail from Cortese. Hopefully he’s spending time on the East Side, where his name may play better because it sounds more locally ethnic than “Liccardo.” (Both men are actually Italian. They have a ton of things in common, actually.)

In their debate, Liccardo and Cortese disagree on what it meant that 300 cops resigned. Cortese says it is because of pension reform, but Liccardo points out that they left before pension reform passed. That’s true. It’s also true that pension reform felt inevitable at the time, and if you’re looking to move, you want to get out while the getting is good. The specter of pension reform alone is enough to scare cops and make recruiting more challenging as well.

We’ll see what happens. I haven’t found any polls on the race, so it’s really going to be a surprise once they start counting the votes. All I will add is that the murder rate has doubled during Reed’s time in office, and Reed endorses Liccardo. That is enough right there for me.

Proposition 1: Yes

Ahh, the propositions. The real opportunity for creative writing. Proposition 1 authorizes $7.5 billion in bonds for various water infrastructure projects. The timing is politically intelligent because of the drought. I don’t see how this fails. The reason you vote no is because you think we’re already doing enough to manage the state’s water supply.

Proposition 2: Yes

I don’t see how this one fails, either. It uses language like “rainy day fund” and “vote yes,” which can really sway voters.

Proposition 2 takes 1.5% of the general fund and sets it aside, as well as some revenue from capital gains taxes. It sits there until the budget runs a deficit, after which the funds can be unlocked to help balance the budget. This is important because of Proposition 13, which reduced the percentage of tax revenue that comes from stable sources, such as property taxes. Capital gains taxes and sales taxes show much more variance. That’s why we had some big budget deficits during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. So if we can’t repeal Proposition 13, this is another way to address the issues that it cases.

Now, because this is being done at the state level, it becomes less important for local school districts to have a rainy day fund of their own. And like it or not, local government needs to be able to trust the state. Sometimes it doesn’t work out, but it’s very expensive and inefficient for governments that don’t trust each other to get things done. In the context of Proposition 2, it means that the maximum size of local rainy day funds will be reduced. And that’s where the “No on 2” crowd comes in.

A group called “Educate Our State” has written the argument and rebuttal. Such a clever name. Perhaps a little too clever? I think Educate Our State is worried about something that’s not an issue. Yes, if we had a $26 billion deficit again then local districts would be helpless in reducing cutbacks because of a lack of a useful rainy day fund. But that’s not going to happen. We have a $10 billion surplus this year, and we can use upcoming surpluses to prepare for the future. The state is not setting up local schools so they can be hung out to dry. It’s not 2009 anymore. There’s nothing to be afraid of. I can’t support a side that uses fear to prove a point.

Proposition 45: Yes

I knew this one and Proposition 46 were going to be annoying because the TV ads started in the summer. Let’s take a look.

Auto insurance, health insurance. What do they have in common? They historically go up, and they’re run by insurance companies. Well, in California, that’s only half true. Auto insurance rates have dropped during the past 20 years. No other state can make that claim. Know why? A key reason could be Proposition 103. The same insurance protections that Proposition 45 will provide? Those are the ones that affected the auto and home insurance industries in 1988. It has saved Californians $102 billion.

Will the same concept work for health insurance? Why not? Maybe not the best argument, but it’s better than the fear, uncertainty, and doubt you get from the No on 45 TV ads. And having the president of the California Chamber of Commerce write the argument against Proposition 45 doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Since when has that organization cared about the general public? They were probably against Proposition 103 as well.

Proposition 46: Yes

To me, this one is even easier to understand than Proposition 45. First of all, the maximum damages for pain and suffering that someone can receive in California is $250,000. It hasn’t changed since 1975 and therefore isn’t indexed to inflation. Proposition 46 increases this to $1 million and also puts a cap on attorney fees.

Second of all, Proposition 46 will reduce the number of people who die because of prescriptions that don’t work with each other. Some drugs just shouldn’t be taken with others. But if you don’t get all your prescriptions from the same pharmacy or doctor, you may accidentally take two different medications that, when taken together, can provide an undesired effect. It happens a lot, up to 440,000 people every year. Imagine if there were a database that would alert doctors and pharmacies that a potentially dangerous medication was about to be administered to a patient. That’s what you get with 46.

Honestly, that’s enough for me. But the deceptive ads talking about hackable databases and trial lawyers takes the cake. Throw in the “No on 46” sign next to the Liccardo sign I saw in my neighborhood, and I know I am on the right side of this one.

Proposition 47: Yes

This one is a little closer and has a lot to do with how you feel about crime. Dealing with it is expensive, and there are arguments that say we overpunish some offenses and underpunish others.

Proposition 47 makes an effort to do this, reclassifying some misdemeanors and felonies for the purpose of saving money. The saved money would go toward mental health programs and other similar stuff like schools and crime victims.

I’m fine with this but am still thinking about it. I don’t think voters should be making these types of decisions because we don’t understand how the prison industry works. But are we better off with this proposition than without it? Yeah, probably.

Proposition 48: No

This one is the hardest one for me. On one hand, I give Native Americans whatever the fuck they want. I even let them call themselves Indians. I mean, I just don’t care.

On the other hand, new casinos aren’t expanding the pie anymore. This industry is now pretty self-sustaining and doesn’t necessarily need this type of expansion. Now, we can’t let the free market decide because the system isn’t set up that way. Voters always have to approve these things. We may have finally reached the point where we don’t need to keep adding more.

It’s hard, because Governor Brown supports Proposition 48, and many other Indian casinos in California are against it. Of course: They don’t want the competition. But the impartial analysis even says that most of the increased economic activity will be offset by decreases elsewhere. Such mental masturbation can be fun, but this isn’t the right setting for it. And it is kind of nice to know I don’t automatically agree with the governor on everything.

Measure G: Yes

Boring. Measure G has to do with retirement boards. Nothing is secretive today, nor would it be tomorrow. Measure G just lets San Jose’s governance be modified. The No side didn’t submit an argument or a rebuttal to the Yes side’s argument, so phooey on them.

Measure Q: Yes

Measure Q is a $24 15-year parcel tax for the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. It requires a two-thirds majority. Property owners have the means to pay for preservation like none other. I’m happy to pay an extra $2 every month to help out.

The No argument is quite predictable. It’s written by taxpayer organizations, who never seem to want to spend money on anything. They also use hyphenated phrases such as “bureaucratic-elite.” Makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

Target already has 11 locations in San Jose, so perhaps this can keep us from having more of those as well. I can’t afford to buy any more baseball cards.

I got all my work done, and rather than get caught up on 10targets.com, I decided it was time to tell people how this general election is going to go down. Probably, it will be via the elevator. Anyway, I don’t need to force wisecracks because they happen anyway, especially if a candidate has a phallic-sounding name.

President and Vice President: Joel Edelman and Lance Armstrong

It’s time for the least important thing on the ballot. Think about it: When 10 people vote on something, each of those votes is 10% of the electorate. With more than 200 million US citizens able to vote for this contest, well, you know where I’m going. So have some fucking fun with it.

Guess what? My entire life I had been looking forward to the 2012 general election. Do you know why? Because it’s the first one in which I would be at least 35 years old. That’s right. I can be the president. And that’s what I’m going to do. I am writing myself in as president.

But I need a vice president as well. Well, I might as well use the same strategy that I used for the primary. What better way to meet someone I have always wanted to meet than to have them be running mate? Pure genius, it is. But at the same time, it needs to be someone that nobody would want as president. That way, no one will ever assassinate me. See? I’m thinkin’.

And that’s why I will be writing Lance Armstrong in as my vice president. He has everything: Name recognition, access to money, and the contempt of our society. How perfect is that? So it’s an Edelman/Armstrong ticket in 2012.

United States Senator: Dianne Feinstein

Similar to my annual Oscars sheet, I usually get one candidacy right. This time it’s going to be Senator. Elizabeth Emken is everything I don’t want in a candidate. She lives in Danville. She doesn’t understand how the world works. And she has a chip on her shoulder because her son is autistic.

Just in general, don’t get me started on autism. What constitutes the condition has been widened over the years so more people can “have” it, and it’s become the Dallas Cowboys of conditions. “Don’t talk shit about the Dallas Cowboys,” people always say. Well I do. And Emken is Tony Romo and Leon Lett, rolled into one.

I got to vote for Feinstein in my first ever election, 18 years ago. She’s the Glass Joe of ballots. You’re always going to get that one right. This could be my last chance to practice my star punches, but I will still enjoy six more years of her success.

United States Representative, CA-19: Zoe Lofgren

The voter information pamphlet screwed up Robert Murray’s candidate statement by not putting the bullets in front of the bulleted statements, and it all goes downhill from there. His occupation is “businessman/lawyer/entrepreneur.” Sounds kind of redundant, or perhaps it was a tie between “businessman” and “lawyer,” so he decided to add “entrepreneur” as a tiebreaker. His statement is also very presumptuous. For example, I didn’t know I already knew what it took to raise a family and run a business.

Anyway, his whole tack is that he doesn’t like the national debt. Well, who owns the bonds that cover the national debt? Mostly, it’s Americans. And with interest rates so low, it’s clear there is a lot of demand for buying our debt. His statement is all talking points and platitudes (ugh, now I can’t use either of those phrases again).

Lofgren speaks in hyperbole as well, but more importantly her votes have reflected my values often enough that I will continue to vote for her. And it’s nice that I will at least get another one right on this ballot, because she’s got no chance to lose.

California State Senator, District 15: Jim Beall

California has a jungle primary now, because you’re all assholes and voted to have one. Like jungle volleyball, it sucks. Well, the top two vote-getters in the district during the primary were Joe Coto and Jim Beall. These were the two candidates that I had the hardest time choosing between in the first place. I went for Beall last time and have no reason to think otherwise this time. I don’t appreciate all the negative mailers that Beall has sent out to smear Coto, but whatever. That’s tiebreaker shit, and I already made a decision in June. See why jungle primaries are retarded?

California State Assembly, District 28: Paul Fong

Stupid WordPress. I accidentally activated a keyword shortcut, and then when I hit Undo, it deleted the entire paragraph on this race. I hate typing things twice. I hate typing things twice. Anyway, in June there were two candidates on the ballot: Paul Fong and Chad Walsh. Well, what a shock. Those two were the top finishers in the primary. And now I get to vote for the same person twice. I don’t like any kind of repetition. So anyway, I will continue to vote for Paul Fong. Lame-ass jungle primaries.

Santa Clara Valley Water District, District 2: David Ginsborg

The candidate I wanted to vote for didn’t submit a statement. His name is Drew Spitzer. Spitzer! For the water district! That’s perfect. Oh well. Maybe next time he will submit a statement. Barbara Keegan is well qualified, but she made a mistake: One of her flunkies came by with a card listing her endorsements (including Charlotte Powers, who I helped win a city council seat in 1992), and per usual, I ignored the knock on the door. However, what handwritten note was written on the card? “Sorry to miss you.” Miss me? You weren’t even here! None of that malarkey, Joe Biden or otherwise. That leaves David Ginsborg. An endorsement from Rod Diridon Jr. goes a long way with me. Also, under occupation he includes “father.” Fuck yeah.

Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, District 4: Garnetta Annable

Benjamin Cogan is an automotive technician. I wish he had put the rag down for a minute so he could have typed up a candidate statement. I would have liked to have seen what he would bring to the table. Dorsey Moore talks about solar, which is a big keyword for me, but he is also heavy into the jargon, using the phrase “user experience.” I am a user experience professional, as it were, and I’m sure that he and I have nothing in common in our careers. Nobody, not even me, should be using the word “experience” as a noun unless you’re talking about Dr. Frank. The incumbent is Garnetta Annable. I don’t recognize voting for this before, so maybe it’s some new thing that resulted from a measure passing. That’s probably it. But there is an incumbent already. So I really don’t know. My job is to connect the broken arrow next to my candidate with a pen. Garnetta is 66, so she will make sure old people will be able to use everything, so that’s great.

Proposition 30: Yes

I don’t hide the fact that I am a big fan of Governor Jerry Brown. And you have to admit: There have been a lot fewer controversies than during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s time in office. One of the things Brown said was “no new taxes, without voter approval.” Well, guess what 30 is? Yep.

The budget was on time as well. Requiring a 55% majority instead of 2/3 helped with that, of course, but one of the other tricks was to put a state-size version of the “fiscal cliff” you might have heard about with the federal government. In short, if 30 fails, there will be another $6 billion in public service cuts for the current budget year. The current, 2012-2013 budget year. Remember that for when we get to 38. Ninety percent of that is what’s referred to as K-14 schools, essentially everything except four-year colleges. The money comes from incomes higher than $250,000. Specifically, it changes the state income tax rate from 9.3% to as high as 12.3% for those making over $500,000 per year. Today, anyone making $48,029 per year or $40 million per year pays the same state income tax rate.

If you want to vote no it is because you vote no on everything. The standard no argument is being made by the standard no arguers: taxpayers associations and small business associations. They hate everything. They don’t understand the reason their business is still small is because they don’t know how to run a business. Instead they point fingers at regulations and other liberal bastions of hell. If only we had a supply-side economy.

Proposition 31: No

Some states have a two-year budget cycle instead of a one-year budget cycle. The idea is that this will somehow limit spending. However, it hasn’t. The “off-year” budgets tend to mimic the annual budget that it was designed to replace. The reason for this is, just because the state goes to a biennial budget, it doesn’t mean most businesses and public works departments don’t still work on an annual basis. Two years is too long to do the same thing, no matter what it is.

This would have been easier to sell when we had overdue budgets and $20 billion budget deficits. However, we’ve gotten the budget under control, relatively speaking. The economy is improving. Thankfully we didn’t have the opportunity to fall for this when it could have seemed like a sensible decision.

There are other individual aspects of 31 that are interesting, such as allowing governors to reduce spending as needed, but the bad outweighs the good. If you like to do the same thing for twice as long as we have been doing them, then you would like 31.

Proposition 32: No

Half of a solution, 32 prevents unions from using payroll deductions for political stuff. But that’s how they get their money. Still, getting money out of politics is fine.

But wait. What about everything else? Oh, maybe someday that will be addressed. But for now, 32 only deals with the union side of the money problem in politics.

Usually the ads that yell the most are the wrongest. And the ads are pretty lame. They spin this in an inaccurate fashion. And many of them use a made-up word: exempted. Perhaps you mean “excepted” or “exempt.” That’s normally grounds for dismissal, but I have to overlook this. Even if you assume there will be similar measures taken with other forms of campaign contributions, they haven’t happened yet, and until they do, there is an imbalance that will cause low-information voters to do more stupid shit.

The reason you vote yes on 32 is because you don’t like unions and would like to shut them up for good

Proposition 33: No

I remember this one. It was Proposition 17. Ah, I miss the shit show. Basically, people with gaps in their insurance coverage would then have to pay more for insurance, because those who don’t would get to pay less. That would make it more likely people wouldn’t get insurance at all because it would cost too much. So like a lot of things, it sounds like a good idea until you think about what will actually happen.

The reason you vote yes is because you’re having trouble budgeting your existing insurance coverage and could benefit from the discount. And in fact two years ago, I voted yes. The economy sucked. These short-term measures seemed important to maintain a quality of life that was more endangered than it is today. But now with the economy finally getting a little better, it’s easier to look at the big picture. Having uninsured motorists costs all of us more in the long run. I’ve changed my mind.

Proposition 34: Yes

There’s not much to say. You’re either for the death penalty or you aren’t, unless you’re John Kerry. Then you’re for it until you’re against it.

The main arguments for repealing the death penalty involve innocent people convicted and sentenced to death. Big deal. They still have to sit in jail for life. How is that better? No, the reason I am against the death penalty is because red tape makes it cost more than keeping them alive. Also, it does not deter crime. The only thing it does is provide closure for some victims’ families. I say “some” because they don’t all feel this way. And besides it doesn’t matter to me what they think anyway, because their bias is no better or worse than anyone else’s. I’m not going to grant them any extra affordance. If gang violence is such a problem in our society, then why do we allow this mentality among, say, the likes of Marc Klaas. Let’s devote resources to when the kids could still be alive. Amber Alerts are awesome. The death penalty is not.

Proposition 35: Yes

I like to be the one who zigs where people zag. But sometimes I can’t do it. Proposition 35 essentially makes it so human traffickers would now have to register as sex offenders. This is not going to be a deterrent. People traffic humans because it’s lucrative. Does anyone commit crime because they think they can get away with it? Not really. It’s because it’s an easy way to bring some scratch. In addition, this goes after the symptom and not the root cause, which I hate: It doesn’t reduce demand for sex workers. This is no different than the war on drugs. Demand-side economy, people. Affect demand, affect the supply, not the other way around.

The reason you vote no is because you like small government. All this does is create more rules and more bureaucracy. But of course social conservatives like government spending when it controls people’s private lives. So really only libertarians will be voting no. These types of props annoy me.

Proposition 36: Yes

It would be weird for people to vote one way on 34 but another way on 36, but it will happen. The death penalty is a very clear concept and something most people don’t need to spend a lot of time thinking about. Three Strikes maybe isn’t so cut and dried.

We’ve all heard the stories about a criminal’s third strike being relatively less egregious than the first two. Well, 36 is addressing that. Only “serious” or “violent” felonies will count. Otherwise, I guess it’s just a foul ball. There are exceptions, but that’s the general idea.

On paper it still seems like a bad idea, but let’s take our heads out of the sand for a moment. We’ve built hella jails since Three Strikes passed in the ’90s. Crime hasn’t gone down as a result of Three Strikes. People commit crimes because they have to or because they’re bored. Life in prison? At least then you wouldn’t have to cook. And that’s just the half of it. Think of all the people that get let out of jail early so the Three Strikes people can stay in.

If you vote no, you better be ready to vote for some more prisons so we have somewhere to put them. That kind of sounds like government spending, though, doesn’t it?

Proposition 37: No

This one makes me have to take a shower every time I think about it. Let me explain it as clearly as I can. The point of 37 is to identify certain foods as having genetically modified ingredients. It also restricts the use of “natural,” which is a nice-to-have. This one is like 32 for me. It’s putting certain foods at a disadvantage for no reason. It’s part of a larger solution that hasn’t been laid out yet. There’s no reason it couldn’t have been laid out here, but it wasn’t.

Look, we’ve had genetically modified food for years. Think about how big a cauliflower was when you were a kid. Now think about how big they are now. Cauliflower has been the size of my head my entire life! How do you think it got that way?

Essentially, if 37 were enforced properly, just about every piece of produce, including organic produce, would have a GMO sticker on it. All this is going to do is scare consumers. We already have a societal problem when it comes to getting people to eat their fruits and vegetables. How does this help that? The few items that wouldn’t have the sticker will cost more because more people will foolishly want them.

I’ll be transparent. I love genetically modified food. We’re going to solve world hunger with this shit. We’re already on the way there. We can’t discourage this kind of technology. I don’t give a fuck that Monsanto and DuPont are behind the no campaign. I understand why they are against it, and I know those two companies are bastards. But I’m not going to support 37 out of spite. Just because Monsanto poisoned an entire town with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) production doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong. Actually, to stubbornly frown upon every action they make, regardless of potential result, is quite the conservative viewpoint.

But all of that aside, if you want to mark food as being modified, fine. But there should be no exemptions. It can go right there, next to that pareve and Circle K stuff. Just don’t give me that “you have a right to know” BS. I will tell you. Your food is already genetically modified. And the crops that weren’t? They crosspolinated with crops that were. Blame the bees. Don’t blame me.

Proposition 38: Yes

I hate Molly Munger. There aren’t non-misogynistic words out there that I can use to describe how I feel about her. She can’t understand normal thinking. There.

Whenever we have two competing education propositions, they both fail. People don’t understand that only one can become law, so they vote no on both. And it’s already so hard to get a single one of these to pass. Ugh. Anyway, more on 30 and 38.

The one with more votes, if both pass, is the one that becomes law. And 30 is way better than 38, because 38 wouldn’t take effect until 2013. That means the cuts in the budget I talked about if 30 didn’t pass would still happen. In addition, the tax increase is spread across all who make $7,316 or more. Granted, the increase is small, but poor people don’t save money. (That’s why they’re poor!) You’re taking purchasing power away from them, and that’s bad for the economy. The reason you take money from rich people is because they were saving it, and idle money doesn’t grow the economy.

So why not vote no? Because 38 is getting its ass handed to it in the polls. Of course, Munger’s brother, who is behind 32 incidentally, has decided to drag the state down with him, so he has spent $8 million on killing 30. Just because these propositions are about youth doesn’t mean you need to act like a goddamn child. So 30, which was leading in the polls, will probably fail as well. Thanks for nothing.

The one piece that is missing from this is why Ms. Munger is doing this. She is spending $30 million of her own money to support 38. Whatever gains she would get from 30’s failure can’t be worth that much. Is it really just vanity?

You have several reasons to vote no. Spite is a big one. Also because you want to help 30 pass if they both pass. However, it’s really unlikely that 38 will get more votes than 30. Might as well go for both and be glad it will be decided by more than one vote.

Proposition 39: Yes

Three years ago, we were having another wondrous budget cycle, in which a 2/3 majority in the State Senate and Assembly were required to pass a budget for the governor to sign, and it just wasn’t happening. Similar to Ben Nelson during the healthcare reform discussions, a few choice Republicans brought out the sausage-maker to get some favors made, in exchange for their budget-approving votes. One of those was to let businesses that had income in California count that income as being earned in other states, if those other states had a more favorable tax plan for them. So what a shock that corporate income tax fell as companies reported all their in-state income in a different state.

Think it isn’t that simple. Well, taxpayer groups lead those who oppose 39. That tells me all I need to know.

The reason you vote no on 39 is because you think that requiring these corporations to pay more in taxes will cause them to have fewer jobs. So basically all you Austrian economic types should be all over the no.

Proposition 40: Yes

Remember 11 and 20? These paved the way for the redistricting that occurred in 2010. Every 10 years, districts are redrawn because people are born, people die, and people move. Generally, Republican-led redistricting efforts result in more gerrymandering than Democratic-led and non-partisan-led efforts. So because Brown won the governorship in 2010 and had large Democratic majorities in the State Senate and Assembly, it should have resulted in more-fair districting. It also meant more Democratic seats because in 2000 the districts were not drawn as fairly, and many hugely Democratic districts were created to make it easier for Republicans to capture other districts.

If that’s not enough, the no campaign suspended its opposition, so why support a side that has already given up. It didn’t work on A Different World when Jesse Jackson tried to help Dwayne Wayne run for office, so it’s not going to work here.

Measure A: Yes

I’ll give the county credit. They know how to get their sales tax increases. They do their homework to figure out how much they can get away with, and they pick an election cycle in which they will get more of the votes they want.

This pragmatism comes into play because the county is only asking for an eighth of a cent sales tax increase. I mean, why fucking bother? It’s kind of a general fund catchall sales tax increase to cover recent cuts to public services to police, hospitals, homeless stuff, etc. They must have figured out a quarter cent wasn’t going to pass, especially considering the economy was worse when it was written. Now, maybe a 1/4-cent increase might have paid off, but we’ll take what we can get.

The same anti-tax people that hate everything the way Grouchy Smurf does are those who are behind the no campaign here. I’ve said enough about these Howard Jarvis cocksuckers already.

Measure B: Yes

B was in danger of not being on the ballot, I believe, because the sample ballot content was two words too long. Well, they must have figured it out because here it is. In short, it is a 15-year extension of a parcel tax set to expire next year. It’s to cover water stuff. There’s always water, education, and road stuff on every ballot. Here’s the water one.

Opponents of B quibble about where the money actually goes, but like a fart, as long as the money goes in the general direction of water works, I’m happy to let the county have a monopoly on my parcel tax money. People that drink bottled water are like people who send their kids to private school. You can if you want, but I’m still going to use the free alternative.

Measure D: Yes

No fucking chance. Minimum wages are usually raised through legislation or other non-direct-voting methods. (There’s a finer way to describe this, but my vocabulary is failing me.) San Jose State students came up with D to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Hell yeah. I will always support a minimum wage increase, especially in a time with falling union enrollment. Business owners who cry about raising prices and firing workers don’t know how to run a fucking business.

Let’s say you have a business where you pay your workers minimum wage. Your labor costs are about 25%, for the sake of argument. (Most service jobs in, say, the fast food industry, tend to result in about a 20% labor cost.) That means your labor costs go up to 31.25%. If your business model depends on these 6.25 percentage points in order to be profitable, then you have a shitty business model. Just because you can legally hire people to do things doesn’t mean it’s good for society. We could do without McDonald’s in any case. Use some creativity and figure out what we need in this demand-driven economy. Fill a void. Don’t just do what other businesses are you doing. “Turnkey business” means “lazy and can’t think for yourself.” There’s a reason why 95% of businesses fail, and it’s staring at you in the mirror.

Measure E: Yes

It’s another cardroom gaming initiative. Right now M8trix and Bay 101 have 49 tables each. If E passes, they can combine to have 128 tables, effective 2013. Effective 2014, each cardroom can have up to 79 tables.

In addition, should slot machines ever become legal in California (not Native American ones), they would now be legal as well in these cardrooms. In addition, voter approval would no longer be required should other types of gambling be decriminalized in California. So if dice games such as craps were decriminalized, they would automatically be permitted in these two cardrooms and not be subject to a vote first.

Previous measures that increased the number of tables also increased the percentage cut that the city got. This one doesn’t do that, although revenue would increase because of the sheer increase of available tables. This would be why you would vote no, if you wanted the cut to go up.

Measure H: Yes

Besides parcel taxes, sometimes school districts float bond measures to get funds to take care of stuff. In this case, San Jose Unified wants $290 million to update classroom technology, increase energy efficiency, and perform basic repairs to existing buildings. It can’t be used for teacher/administrative salaries of any kind. It can be used for the construction salaries that would result from these various changes.

Interest rates are superlow right now. It’s not a bad time for bonds. And of course the improved schools pay dividends in reduced crime and increase property value. You’ve heard this song and dance before. It’s the same shit. And of course the same jackasses are against it. So the anti-tax and libertarian crowds should be voting no. Remember we wouldn’t need any of this if Proposition 13 were repealed. This is just how it works today.