Proposition Party

Last night, Claire and Cecilia hosted a Proposition Party. No, not a "do you want to come home with me?" kind of proposition party, but a political proposition party. California has seven propositions on the ballet for Tuesday, and as usual, they are highly confusing. The Proposition Party is a social forum for people to come together and discuss the issues and help figure out which way to vote. Each person researches a proposition so they have something to share with the group. Frankly, I think this idea is genius, because without it I would have no idea what these propositions are about in the first place, so I commend the hosts for providing this opportunity. It's the first party I've been to in ages where I feel smarter for having attended.

What follows is an overview of why I am voting the way I am. I've done my best to consolidate it to the main influencing factors for myself, and am willing to admit that I have oversimplified and abbreviated some lengthy issues in an effort to keep it concise when each proposition could actually warrant entire essays to cover them accurately. Understand that a lot more thought has been put into it than may be indicated.

Prop 91: No. Transportation reform. Before the party, I assumed I would vote for it. Any measure to improve public transportation in our state is necessary, not only for environmental purposes, but because the system is so impractical that most people don't use it. It didn't take much research to learn that no one is in support of this proposition. The individuals who originally put this proposition into motion are now urging voters to vote no as well, since the state recently passed more progressive legislation on transportation and energy. By passing this proposition, it would be like taking a step backward. With that in mind, this became the most easy choice of all. It was fun debating its finer points before realizing this fact, however. It'll be interesting to see how many people vote "yes" on this bill, because that'll prove just how many people don't investigate these propositions at all.

Prop 92: Yes. This proposition will lower the tuition rate for California community colleges to $15 a unit. (Golly, doesn't my college tuition seem excessive now.) The general dispute seems to be that by lowering the costs for students, the government and tax payers may have to cover the difference. The opposing sides don't seem to agree on this fact, but as I see it, the government is constantly funding things it can't afford to pay for (hence our many deficits), so why not extend this mode of operation toward something as important as education? I'd like to see education be free (Go ahead, call me a socialist, I dare you!), but cheaper tuition will do in the meantime.

Prop 93:No. This proposition is about cutting politicians' tenures as the state level from fourteen to twelve year term limits. I'm all for term limits and preventing career politicians, so this measure is another one I thought I'd say yes to. The loophole in this prop, however, is that the would-be career politicians have tacked in an additional stipulation that dictates that the politicians currently in office would be able to have some of their years of service not count toward the term limits (under the "we're starting this now mentality) and in many cases would be able to finagle term limits as long as twenty years. It's a deceptive bill in that it promises term limits while actually extending the terms of current politicians. I was actually the last holdout on this issue; since I'm a fan of term limits, I was willing to accept the sneakiness of the current politicians to shorten terms in the future. But then when I found out about which specific (and despicable) politicians would stand to benefit from this passing and how they were taking the lead on this initiative, I changed my tune. Any politicians that unethical do not deserve to stay in office. So I'm saying no to send a message to the politicians that they can't get away with such crap.

Prop 94, 95, 96, 97: No. These propositions are about allowing additional slot machines to be placed in Indian casinos with each proposition essentially saying the same thing, except for four different Indian nations. I've been confused by this issue for the past month (all of the frequent political ads on television contradict each other, with the for and against ads running one after another), but before coming to the party, I leaned on the yes side. I'm still not decisively yes by any means, because I see pros and cons to this issue, but the bottom line is that there is really no accountability for how the revenues from these casinos are used. Currently, the casinos kick back funds to the Californian government and other tribes, but when you look at the figures, the money is a drop in the bucket compared to the total money brought in. In a way, the existing money coming in is just a small fee to appease the state and make it feel like it's getting something from the situation. In truth, the majority of the money goes to a consolidation of wealth. Certain tribes reap in billions of dollars and it's a case of government condoned "the rich get richer." My main reason for saying no is that by voting yes, the tribes have a contract with the state to continue the casinos under the current agreement until 2030 instead of the 2020 as is currently in place. I think we need to more thoroughly examine this system before allowing it to extend its operations further.

Anyway, like any debate, sometimes the discussion led to more questions than answers, but I'm very excited to now know what I'm voting for and having a more informed perspective when I go to the polls on Tuesday.