14:27 - February 5, 2008: Presidential Primary Election
For most elections, I post my votes and reasons. Here are my planned votes for the February 5, 2005 Presidential Primary Election. I am registered as Democrat.
The most useful site that I've found has been www.smartvoter.org, run by the League of Women Voters.
President of the United States: Dennis Kucinich
I wanted to write that I'm voting for the candidate most likely to win the general Presidential election. And my analysis says that Hillary Clinton would be the most likely candidate to win the general election.
But when I wrote down her name as my choice, my heart broke. I wish that I could be dispassionate. In the end, I cannot forgive those who voted for H J Res 114, which authorized President Bush to use armed forces against Iraq.
The Democratic candidates who voted for the war were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards.
The Democratic candidates who could not vote for or against the war were Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel.
The only Democratic candidate who voted against the war was Dennis Kucinich.
With most candidates (except John McCain) running away from the Iraq war, it seems a strange reason to vote for a candidate. But Dennis Kucinich showed the resolve to vote against the War in Iraq while most people were running toward it. This vote is my way to thank him.
Proposition 91: NO
Transportation Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
The argument for Proposition 91 convinced me to vote against proposition 91. (To get an idea of how strange politics can get, follow the link.)
Proposition 92: NO
Community Colleges, Funding, Governance, Fees. Initiative constitutional amendment and statuute.
Education is a core issue for me. I took a lot of time to examine this issue, to read the legislative analysis, the main site for the proposition, and the main site against the proposition.
In the end, I agree with the California Teachers' Association. Because Proposition 92 does not tie funding to the number of enrolled students, it seems to me more likely to waste money than to help students.
Proposition 93: Weak NO
Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
I am mildly philosophically opposed to term limits. Term limits guarantee that the long-term expertise needed to make good decisions further move from the elected officials to the unelected staff.
However, we need the legislature to represent where the state is now. I also know that the old adage, "If voters think that a person has been in office too long, they can vote her out" doesn't work: the power of incumbency is too strong. For example, my representative, Fortney "Pete" Stark has represented my district since 1973, despite having created very few laws. Therefore, I consider term limits a necessary evil until we find something better.
I oppose Proposition 93 not for changing how candidates count the term limits (from 3 two-year terms in the State House, plus 2 four-year terms in the Senate to twelve years total) but because of the grandfathering clause that allows 34 legislators to reset their total time in government. If they hadn't allowed for grandfathering, I would have voted yes.
Propositions 94-97: Weak NO
Referendums on Amendments to Indian Game Compacts
Let's analyze the finances of Proposition 94 according to the legislative analyst:
| Change to budget | Gain | Loss |
|---|---|---|
| Increased payments to RSTF | $1,700,000 | |
| Ending payments to SDF | $28,000,000 | |
| New payments to General Fund | $42,500,000 | |
| 15 percent of the next 3000 slot machines added | No amount estimated by leg. analyst. Total of this and next "could result" over $50,000,000 (total payments to General Fund could be over $100,000,000.) | |
| When tribe reaches 5000 slot machines, 25 percent of the last 2000 machines added | No amount estimated by leg. analyst. | |
| Effects on taxable economic activity, reduced gambling-related revenues, and less money to the RSTF | "The combined impact would be in the tens of millions of dollars annually." |
The hard numbers of Proposition 94 give a gain of $16,200,000 to the state. However, counting in those areas that the legislative analyst only gave round numbers, the effect could be between a loss of $14,800,000 (no extra money from the next 5000 slot machines, impact from the loss of revenue being $30,000,000) to a gain of $62,000,000 (a full $100,000,000 from tribes; loss of revenue at just $10,000,000.)
I assume that the other propositions are similar. Since I prefer the state to have more steady income (gambling income should rise and fall more severely than general income), I vote against this compact and the other four.
Those are my planned votes. What do you think?
Take care, all.
This analysis was originally posted at "Fluorescent Dreams Wax Cylinders", at "http://chipuni.livejournal.com". Feel free to reproduce this analysis, provide that you include this paragraph with the link to the original analysis.
You went for the money angle. I'm looking at the phrase in the original deal that reads "exempts some projects from the California Environmental Quality Act", and now I may have to vote for the damned thing, instead of against it.
Because dude, if you can't vote for anyone who voted for the war - even if they were spoonfed lies by Condi Rice and the gang - how on earth can you allow people to potentially dump toxins into the groundwater to feed the state's coffers? Am puzzled.
The primary is the one time you get to vote your conscience, to show the position you take and the position the party should take. It's really the only time you really need to know the candidate's positions, because they will all be similar, and therefore more important to choose who will most support your ideals.
Hoping to game the primary by voting for 'the most likely candidate' sells your ideals out, and only teaches the politicians to not take strong positions.
I don't regard candidates' stated positions before an election as a good guide to what they'll do once they're elected. In particular, remember that in 2000, George W. Bush ran heavily against the nation-building that Bill Clinton had been doing.
Past behavior as an executive shows what they're likely to do as President. That's why former (and current) Governors tend to be elected: they've shown how they act as executives.
That doesn't answer my question at all. That's entirely about electability. Governors never had to 'deal' and never have to deal with foreign affairs or military. You could just as easily say that lacking is why they get elected, instead of Senators and Representatives. Either way, we have no more governors running.
Why is electability, or winning the primary so important, or more important to people than the stands and history of the candidates?
On the Democratic side, we have no governors still running. On the Republican side, Gov. Mitt Romney has won the most contests so far.
Why is electability, or winning the primary so important, or more important to people than the stands and history of the candidates?
There are four questions hidden in that one. Let me try to untangle them.
Why is electability so important?
We live in a democracy. For a candidate to win, he or she must get 50% + 1 of the votes.
Why is winning the primary so important?
Only once has a candidate won the general election who had not won a party's primary... and that one was a very special circumstance. The closest that we came was when Theodore Roosevelt (who had already been President) took second-place in the election of 1912.
Why is winning a primary more important than the stands of a candidate?
As I said before, I strongly do not believe that the stands of a candidate have much to do with how they will act. If you disagree with me, consider George W. Bush's Issues page from 2000.
Why is winning a primary more important than the history of a candidate?
I don't think that it is. I think that the history of a candidate in an executive position shows how he or she would act in the Presidential position.
You didn't answer my questions, again. Why is electability important in the primary? Especially this primary, in which every Democratic candidate has more electability than any Republican. I didn't ask how electability was important.
So, why choose an candidate with a mythical 'electability' instead of the one which represents your faction of the party best?
PS: I'm not a Republican. Therefore, I am disinterested in their candidates, or their lies. If a candidate lies, they're off my list. I might listen to a candidate of a party that isn't Republican - I have before - but I have no reason to listen to, or care about, Republican candidates. When they finish choosing a candidate, I'll pay attention.
Pointing out Bush as an example is... Disingenuous. Clinton attempted to do what his positions were. Bush Sr attempted to do what his positions were. Reagan did do what his positions were (and then had to un-do some of them so the country wouldn't go to pot under his name). Etc, etc. No candidate has managed all their campaign promises - but I doubt you'd find more that did more things exactly the opposite than Bush. He's outlier data. Not statistically important.
Get back to my questions, please ^-^
If I may make a guess -- correct me if I'm wrong -- your definition of 'electability' involves opinion polls of matchups between Republican and Democratic candidates.
If you hired me for a professional response, I can give a statistical analysis, bringing those polls forward to the election day. But I can tell you the result for free:
This far out from the election, the polls mean nothing. Even without knowing that the variances will be greater once the two candidates have been chosen, no candidate is guaranteed the election.
If I'm wrong about your definition of "electability", then I apologize in advance.
When I say "electability", I mean those variables that contribute to whether a party's nominee has been chosen. In particular, since 1948, four times out of five, when one candidate has had executive experience (Governorship, Vice-Presidency, or General in the armed forces) and the other has not (Senate experience), then the one with executive experience wins:
(Thank you for getting me to work through this table; the relationship is there, but not as strong as I thought.)
All three of the main Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards) have Senate experience but not executive experience. Two of the three main Republican candidates (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, but not John McCain) have executive experience.
If the Republicans don't nominate John McCain, then the final contest will look like one of the above years: one candidate with executive experience, the other without. I would put my bets on the candidate with executive experience.
Does that answer your question?
It doesn't answer why do you think electability is important over influencing the party platform.
Although, you did manage to choose the latter, you said you preferred the former.
So why?
I know the 'how'. You're good on the how here. But not the 'why'.
(I also linked this discussion over at The Gaming Den where my Santa Cruz friends post)
Voting solely based on influencing the party platform gets a very nice sheet of paper with wonderful words... and the other, pragmatic party in the White House.
It's this attitude is why we still have a two party system in the US. We don't vote who we think is the best candidate, but who we think will win. Americans hate to back a loser.
Otherwise, I think we're pretty much in agreement.
(If for no other reason than the Cristina Kirchner effect, I guesstimate that Hillary is more likely to win.)
I could easily be wrong, though. I usually am, when it comes to politics.
About term limits...
Personally, I resent term limits, because I want to vote for the best person, no matter whether s/he's been there for three terms or not. I don't change doctors because he's been practicing family medicine for six years. We shouldn't have to change lawmakers just because they finally learned how to do the job.
Re: About term limits...
Re: About term limits...
I am mildly tempted to vote yes on 91, just to be capricious. Serves them right for shoving 1A onto the ballot after the deadline had passed.
My fiscal analysis was based on statements made by the legislative analyst, not on statements by either pro- or anti-94-97 crowds.
I'm guesstimating that, since the payments to the general fund will be greater than the current payments to the SDF (disadvantaged tribes), that by itself won't cause a fiscal problem.
Trying to figure the fiscal effects of the measure is tough. Really tough.
On the other hand, all this revenue that the state may get from this deal is likely to come disproportionately from lower-income Californians, and I don't like the unequal treatment that the current arrangement gives, in that it provides for the existence of a special class of people who are allowed to run casinos while no one else can ... this offends my sense of "equal treatment under the law".
So we'll see on those. :)