Help me decide on these Michigan proposals
- Thread starter civvver
- Start date
Well I guess I'm not smack dab in the middle, but I'm around there.
I'm definitely voting for Gretchin Whitmer, I feel she's a no-brainer for me. I've read a lot of what she talks about, and she's really big on fixing education and roads, and she also has a very strong women's rights platform.
I'm definitely voting for Gretchin Whitmer, I feel she's a no-brainer for me. I've read a lot of what she talks about, and she's really big on fixing education and roads, and she also has a very strong women's rights platform.
sophie
Break My Heart
"After the 1990 Census, the district was reconfigured to include the Hopi Reservation on the other side of the state. This was a product of longstanding disputes between the Hopi and Navajo. Since tribal boundary disputes are a federal matter, it was long believed inappropriate to include both tribes' reservations in the same congressional district.[3] However, the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation. The final map saw the Hopi reservation connected to the rest of the district by a long, narrow tendril stretching through Coconino County. This was the only way to allow the district to remain contiguous without covering significant portions of Navajo land."
This dispute changed in 2012:
https://tucson.com/news/state-and-r...cle_219a2d09-86ce-5f2a-9248-e932f6d06e1d.html
Yes, I agree, which is why I supported CA-prop 11 in 2008 and support other states implementing similar measures going forward. It's also why I specified that we should move to a proportional voting system like STV.
Probably a troll, but Propositions, while important as a means of public referendum and democracy, can and often are written/supported by conservatives and private interests as a way to circumvent institutional checks and balances and constitutional protections. Often propositions are confusingly written - generally intentionally-so - as a means of garbling the message to sneak laws past the electorate. As such, propositions, more than any other voted-item, must be carefully read and evaluated before a decision is made.
An example of a conservative ballot measure would be California's Prop 8 in 2008 which constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It's also an example of a confusingly-written proposition, as the measure appeared to be a referendum on gay marriage, but the options were reversed, i.e. "Yes = no marriage" and "No = yes marriage".
Another example of a ballot measure favored by conservatives and also protecting private and corporate interests would be CA-Prop 13 from 1978, which:
a) restricted property tax to no more than 1% of the property's assessed value
b) prohibited the property value's inflationary increase to not exceed 2%
c) restricted property values to only be reassessed either upon a change of ownership or the completion of a new construction
This obviously benefits homeowners, but most especially homeowners of estates that don't change hands. This measure is also an example of why it's important to read a ballot measure carefully and consider its effects. Public schools receive their funding, by and large, from property tax revenues, so if you dramatically reduce revenues from property taxes, you have severely hamstrung public school funding. It should come as no surprise, then, that California, despite being far and away the richest state in the country, is also 41st in "conditions that help children succeed" and 39th in funding.
Another good one is Prop 60 from 2016, which would have made it illegal for porn actors to perform without condoms. Seems good on the face of it, but
a) the bill sought to empower OSHA to sue violators for noncompliance and
b) would have empowered any California resident to sue a porn production for identified noncompliance
part b) is the especially vicious part of this bill, as empowering private residents to sue porn productions would, in the case of amateur porn (usually informal videos shot by individual porn actors) give private citizens access to the personal information of individual actors. Also consider the case of real amateur porn: home videos often shot by real-life couples and amateurs. What happens in the case of a husband-and-wife couple uploading a home movie? Any rando can sue them and obtain their personal information. The point is, the measure would have done nothing to combat the horrific abuses that are all too common on professional porn shoots, but rather would have effectively eradicated the amateur industry (pretty much the only way individual actors have of circumventing the established industry) and would have exposed nonprofessionals (i.e. private citizens) to substantial harm in the form of making their personal information easily accessible. It should come as no surprise then that the bill was heavily supported (and possibly written or co-written) by porn production companies and almost universally opposed by workers rights groups and individual porn actors.
Point is: read your damn Ballot measures people!
Last edited:
Cheetah
Deity
Fascinating.
And just one other tangential question, since I want to be social and communicate instead of simply looking it up: There is precisely and always just one representative from each district?
And just one other tangential question, since I want to be social and communicate instead of simply looking it up: There is precisely and always just one representative from each district?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Coming from a legal weed state to an illegal weed state, you want legal weed. Everyone here is still smoking it, it’s just cutty quality being distributed in shady ways at high prices with no revenues or regulations.
Berzerker
Deity
The Hopi were there first, the Navaho came down from Canada a few centuries ago and were raiding Hopi food stocks so they were fighting. Ironically the Hopi have a legend their gods told them to live austere lives and they were spared the landgrabs of the USA because of their austerity.
I'd vote to legalize pot and end gerrymandering, but I dont know about 3... If I want to register I can, I dont need the state registering me against my wishes. My main objection is voter registration is how Kansas selects people for jury duty and if you dont do as your told they'd fine us for refusing to serve.
I'd vote to legalize pot and end gerrymandering, but I dont know about 3... If I want to register I can, I dont need the state registering me against my wishes. My main objection is voter registration is how Kansas selects people for jury duty and if you dont do as your told they'd fine us for refusing to serve.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
You can think of it as the state recognizing your claim to vote there by existing paperwork.
Berzerker
Deity
its not that I have some hatred of jury duty, its just back when they were bothering me I had other commitments and I'm a night owl - I was going to bed shortly before the time I'd have to wake up for jury duty.
I used to get called to a court on the south side where you actually served on Juries but the last half dozen times it was to suburban courts where by 11:00 they have figured out they won't need you and send you on your way with your check. The last company I worked for made you give them the check to offset your pay and prove you actually were there. But our new french overlords figure it's not worth the effort to process so they just let us keep it. Viva and all that crap.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Being conservative, I would say no on 2. The district I am in favors the dems, so not sure why it would be just a pure partisan issue. I am for getting rid of the current district structure, but not sure the new proposal will change things that much. Even if it works (or not) for other states, the proposal is only changing one form of gerrymandering with another. We have counties and a legal system that works just fine without trying to figure out how to make it fair for the top two political parties. I would vote to get rid of gerrymandering, and back to counties being represented as a whole, instead of lumping them together with counties of similiar industrial needs, or what other criteria political parties deem prudent.
On 1, why? I guess we need to let people do as they please and hope the income raised will out benefit all the other issues caused by people not being responsible enough. We were promised better schools and roads with money from gambling. Does that mean people will stop buying lottery tickets and replace gambling with pot? I guess there is not much of a point to argue against the state taking even more money from the people if the people feel like they are getting something in return for it.
On 3, how is it physically possible to register to vote on the last day available? All people who are currently registered in the state get auto renewed to vote each year on their birthday. Absentee voting is not that difficult. The only reason for this would be to expedite a chance for new residents to the state a chance to vote at the last minute. Or lead to having no polling places at all, but everyone doing it at any time after a certain date. The point about voting straight ticket is already confusing. A yes vote on this proposal means a straight ticket vote in both elections now. Talk about dividing the election even more. It would prevent people voting on the merit of the candidate and rely on one major candidate to carry the whole ticket. MI has always had an opportunity to cross party lines in voting. A yes would take that away, and we would become a one party state, but perhaps that is what the dems want. The state has historically been internally either republican or democratic, but always been a democratic state on fed. This last fed election was the first time MI voted red. If the majority of the pop had to vote for one party, it would probably be for the dems as a straight party, but the dems may loose their pet representatives if the Republicans can no longer cross party lines and vote for them in certain districts. I guess only time will tell, if it passes who looses the most. I guess the dems are gambling on still having the majority vote, and then locking it in by taking away the choice to vote for other parties. Unless the state remains red, all the way.
I realize that we are slowly moving to a social democracy and away from a representative republic. Voting yes on all these is just another step in that direction.
On 1, why? I guess we need to let people do as they please and hope the income raised will out benefit all the other issues caused by people not being responsible enough. We were promised better schools and roads with money from gambling. Does that mean people will stop buying lottery tickets and replace gambling with pot? I guess there is not much of a point to argue against the state taking even more money from the people if the people feel like they are getting something in return for it.
On 3, how is it physically possible to register to vote on the last day available? All people who are currently registered in the state get auto renewed to vote each year on their birthday. Absentee voting is not that difficult. The only reason for this would be to expedite a chance for new residents to the state a chance to vote at the last minute. Or lead to having no polling places at all, but everyone doing it at any time after a certain date. The point about voting straight ticket is already confusing. A yes vote on this proposal means a straight ticket vote in both elections now. Talk about dividing the election even more. It would prevent people voting on the merit of the candidate and rely on one major candidate to carry the whole ticket. MI has always had an opportunity to cross party lines in voting. A yes would take that away, and we would become a one party state, but perhaps that is what the dems want. The state has historically been internally either republican or democratic, but always been a democratic state on fed. This last fed election was the first time MI voted red. If the majority of the pop had to vote for one party, it would probably be for the dems as a straight party, but the dems may loose their pet representatives if the Republicans can no longer cross party lines and vote for them in certain districts. I guess only time will tell, if it passes who looses the most. I guess the dems are gambling on still having the majority vote, and then locking it in by taking away the choice to vote for other parties. Unless the state remains red, all the way.
I realize that we are slowly moving to a social democracy and away from a representative republic. Voting yes on all these is just another step in that direction.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
How many states legalizing marijuana will it take for the feds to legalize it too?
The best argument for voting YES on #1 is IMO that it will cut into the black market and eliminate parts of it.. if the legal product is sold at a reasonable enough price and the quality is there. That's on top of all the other reasons to legalize it.
I don't really get #3, but maybe I shouldn't have skimmed it. Why do you have to register to vote? Don't they know who is eligible to vote and who isn't?
The best argument for voting YES on #1 is IMO that it will cut into the black market and eliminate parts of it.. if the legal product is sold at a reasonable enough price and the quality is there. That's on top of all the other reasons to legalize it.
I don't really get #3, but maybe I shouldn't have skimmed it. Why do you have to register to vote? Don't they know who is eligible to vote and who isn't?
sophie
Break My Heart
Not as long as Sessions is AG. But I think the fact that Sessions and Trump haven't really tried to clamp down on legal-marijuana states in any kind of systematic way is very telling.
Republicans in some times and places try to use referendums to push their agenda as well. Just seems like this isn't one of them.
Berzerker
Deity
Trump's wishy washy on pot and supposedly in favor of medical pot and Sessions ran afoul of state's rights activists so the pot war lobby has resistance within the GOP in addition to the majority of Americans who want to end pot prohibition. They lost that war, they just refuse to admit it.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It is already "marketed" through various medical facilities all over the state except where local governments ban or the state does not allow a medical distribution license.
I am pretty sure the prop was a grass roots initiative which had to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot. People in general just want it available for consumption. It is already legal for medical reasons.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
But I read that federal agents can just start raiding anyone selling the stuff at any time, if they wanted to. And they've done so in the past I think? Seems sketchy
Similar threads
