Salvete.
Long story short, I was rushed for time on the ballot. I thought that I could write my ballot and send it in by mail by today or tomorrow, but the deadline was Wednesday. I looked at the ballot and told myself that, by in large, I trusted the Republican Party more than the Democrat Party. I voted along those lines. The other reason... I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll explain later.
Honestly, the candidates that I voted for didn't seem to matter too much to me. The county that represented me was heavily Republican conservative, so I knew that the man who represented us before (whom I both admire and respect) would be reelected. The positions for governor, lieutenant governor, et cetera had not made a very strong campaign in the past few weeks (I heard that the gubernatorial candidate ran out of campaign money), so I made little effort to promote them. I have strong opinions about the propositions, though, and I have tremendous support of a couple candidates that were outside my district and thus outside my vote.
The first one is Dan Logue. I shook hands with this man; I had a brief talk about Six Californias. He is a good man. I did research; he's well qualified (as a businessman and the choice of the Chamber of Commerce, among other things). He's well grounded in history and character; he seems milktoast at first glance, but he's a great guy. I heard him talk with a small group of about 10-15 Yolo Republicans. I wasn't all too impressed, but he got my vote. I'm campaigning on my own time, walking around my neighborhood with a sign endorsing Dan Logue. It's raining today, so I'm blogging about him. I want him to win.
The second, and perhaps the more interesting, is Charlie Schaupp. I heard him speak in a room of ten people- including myself and Schaupp. This man is beyond incredible. He is an ex-lieutenant colonel of the Marines, well-grounded in politics, the military, and farming. He follows party lines simply because Republican policies are better than nothing, but he is not hesitant to walk up to big-name Republicans and call them out for corruption. He is, pure and simple, a good leader. Want more proof? He went up against the Republican turncoat Bill Dodd during the primaries. The Democrat candidates were backed by millions of dollars, while Schaupp paid a small sum of about twenty thousand. Even still, Schaupp was able to oust two of the candidates and practically tie with the third. Why? Because he is the best man for the position. Period. Moving on...
Now for the reason why I voted Republican. On Monday, it was announced that Bill Clinton was coming to my area to endorse the Democratic candidates in the area. Naturally, everyone who could go went to the campaign rally, Democrats and Republicans alike. I was not pleased. They made the Republicans look like monsters, spreading false rumors and drumming up cheap support. This was an utterly cheap move by the Democrats in order to get more votes. As a Modern Whig, I was uncomfortable, to say the least. I respect Bill Clinton as a leader and a speaker; he did give the best speech of the lot. I will not stand, though, for a political ploy to draw potential voters in before bashing the other side. The Democrats even brought in representatives from other districts, such as Ami Bera, in order to get media coverage for said candidates. It's just... my vote speaks for me. I voted red.
Now for the propositions. I found most of them quite interesting, and I encourage the reader to delve deeper. Both sides of each argument are exceedingly complex. I'll go down the issues one by one.
Proposition 1 is a bill to spend over seven billion dollars on water infrastructure. Honestly, we may be in a "drought," but I don't think that the seven billion dollars would be spent wisely. Heck, it may be easier (and cheaper) to hire Arrowhead or Dasani or another big water company. That said, Republicans and Democrats both support it because it's better than nothing. I still say no.
Proposition 2 relocates the money that California spends. An extra 0.5 percent would go to balancing California's budget, and at least fifty percent of the money in the budget balancing fund would go into paying off debts. This could help turn around the poor economic state of California, if only by a little. The one catch is that it cuts out the excess spending to California public schools. While opponents consider this the fatal flaw of the proposition, I actually see this as a plus. Less money means less corruption and more efficiency. Yes.
Proposition 45 means that the Insurance Commissioner must approve any health insurance rate changes. This would slow down any health insurer's ability to adapt, especially considering the looming Obamacare that will wreak havoc on most health insurers. No.
Proposition 46 means that you can sue doctors for more money. It's stupid; I generally don't like people suing other people anyway. It also requires doctors to have drug screening, but I would like to think that people will know if any doctor's drug consumption affects their work. No.
Proposition 47 essentially lowers the penalties for drug possession. Drug possession is still illegal, but it's no longer a felony. As a Republican conservative, I would say no, but as a libertarian, I would say yes. I might post about drugs later, but I'll save you the details and say that I put yes, although I would undoubtedly understand and perhaps commend you by voting no.
Proposition 48 is perhaps the most fun to debate. It allows North Fork Rancheria, a casino company, to establish a casino that is outside of native American lands, call the grounds "native American lands," and pay native Americans money to operate the casino. Here's where the "buts" come in. The casinos will establish outside reservation soil. But that would mean that casino companies would be able to plant casinos everywhere in California! But shouldn't casinos already have the right to start up anywhere, according to libertarian principles? But the casinos will affect the environments around them, perhaps turning certain towns of California into miniature Las Vegases or worse? But wouldn't that be a good thing, creating more jobs and establishing economic hubs where they otherwise would not be? That's a lot of "buts." I voted yes, my friends independently voted no, it's a weird loop of political contradictions. Yes?
So that's my opinion of the 2016 California election in a nutshell. You may realize that this is my 99th post. I have something planned for my 100th post, and it's currently in a draft. Expect it soon, perhaps after the elections. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy my night before campaigning for Dan Logue tomorrow. Vote Dan Logue!
