2012 ballot measures

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

My decision on Washington ballot measures:

R-74 (same sex marriage): Lean yes

My boyfriend and I thank you.

Thank you for dropping that awful moderate routine.

I always said I'd support Democrats if they changed into reliable supporters of gay marriage. Changing times call for changing ideologies.

[nclib]

Can anyone take a stab at the gay marriage maps in MD, ME, WA, and MN?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My votes:

Florida:
Amendment 1: No
Amendment 2: No
Amendment 3: No
Amendment 4: Need more info
Amendment 5: No
Amendment 6: No
Amendment 8: No
Amendment 9: Yes
Amendment 10: No
Amendment 11: No
Amendment 12: Yes

California:
Proposition 30: Yes
Proposition 31: No
Proposition 32: No
Proposition 33: No
Proposition 34: Yes
Proposition 35: It depends exactly on what the laws are and who they apply to considering how ridiculous some "sex offenders" are. Lean no because even with actual sex crimes and human trafficking just tightening the sentences is not going to help reduce them.
Proposition 36: Yes
Proposition 37: No
Proposition 38: Yes
Proposition 39: Yes
Proposition 40: Unfamiliar with the map or what would replace it.

Minnesota:

No on both of course. I was just at a show to fundraise for the campaigns against them. And I'll make a map for MN when I have time.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue.  I suppose the industry is worried that people would be turned off.  Wait... would this just be for vaginal/anal intercourse or oral as well? It would make a difference in my support.

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this is the final total number of measures:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

------

How I voted on the Oregon measures (the first two were legislative referrals and the rest were initiatives): http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_2012_ballot_measures

Measure 77 ('grants Governor constitutional authority to declare and (financially) respond to natural or human‐caused "catastrophic disaster" (defined)') - Yes
Measure 78 (fixes typos in state constitution like three 'departments' of government ---> three 'branches') - Yes
Measure 79 (constitutionally bans new real estate transfer taxes) - No
Measure 80 (legalizes possession, distribution, and production of marijuana and hemp) - Yes
Measure 81 (a specific fishing ban that backers stopped campaigning for after they reached an agreement with the Governor through a state executive agency) - No
Measure 82 (amends state constitution to allow private casinos) - No
Measure 83 (authorizes a specific private casino in Multnomah county) - No
Measure 84 (abolishes state estate/inheritance tax & bans taxes on property transfers between family members) - No
Measure 85 (abolishes the corporate kicker) - Yes

[Napoleon]

I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue. 

And as Mr. Moderate said, if the workplace moves, what difference does it make besides lost revenue for the city of Los Angeles?

[Incipimus iterum]

Idaho Ballot measures
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Idaho_Teachers%27_Collective_Bargaining_Veto_Referendums,_Props._1_and_2_%282%29_%282012%29
prop 1 & 2 education bill
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Idaho_Online_Learning_Veto_Referendum,_Proposition_3_%282012%29
prop 3 education bill
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Idaho_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_HJR_2_%282012%29
Idaho Hunting and Fishing Amendment, HJR 2 (2012)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Idaho_State_Prison_Control_Amendment,_SJR_102_%282012%29
Idaho State Prison Control Amendment, SJR 102 (2012)

[SetonHallPirate]

My votes on the Florida constitutional amendments are as follows, and pretty simple:

Amendment 1: No
Amendment 2: No
Amendment 3: No
Amendment 4: No
Amendment 5: No
Amendment 6: No
Amendment 8: No
Amendment 9: No
Amendment 10: No
Amendment 11: No
Amendment 12: No

As for California, I don't have a vote, of course, but my hope is that Prop. 34 fails. Perhaps my single most staunch position is that I'm pro-capital punishment.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue. 

And as Mr. Moderate said, if the workplace moves, what difference does it make besides lost revenue for the city of Los Angeles?

WTF man. Why bother having any regulations at all, if you are worried about companies going out of state.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be voting for Questions 1 and 3 and emphatically against Question 2, which is odious even by the standards of ill-conceived ballot questions.

[Holmes]

I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue. 

And as Mr. Moderate said, if the workplace moves, what difference does it make besides lost revenue for the city of Los Angeles?

WTF man. Why bother having any regulations at all, if you are worried about companies going out of state.

^^ this.

So it's ok to regulate sectors and workplaces that don't affect you personally, but if it's the porn you watch...

[Lief 🗽]

Come on guys, no one wants to see porn with the actors wearing condoms. Why don't we force them to only do it missionary style and blur their genitals while we're at it.

[Donerail]

1-Aye (symbolic)
2-Aye (voting Nay makes you a HP)
3-Nay (nonsensical)
4-Aye (make around 20,000 jobs, increase GDP by $1 billion, increase personal income by $5.3 billion)
5-Nay (obvious)
6-Nay (no)
8-Nay (no)
9-Aye (see 2)
10-Nay (kinda stupid)
11-Aye (helps old people)
12-Yea (actually decent)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can anyone take a stab at the gay marriage maps in MD, ME, WA, and MN?

For Minnesota here's my take. Please note this isn't really my prediction of how it would go, just closer to how a 50/50 vote would be. Also I'm not taking into account blank votes counting as "No" even though that might end up killing it.

[Insula Dei]

I'll be voting for Questions 1 and 3 and emphatically against Question 2, which is odious even by the standards of ill-conceived ballot questions.

That's about euthanasia, right? What's your beef with it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be voting for Questions 1 and 3 and emphatically against Question 2, which is odious even by the standards of ill-conceived ballot questions.

That's about euthanasia, right? What's your beef with it?

Well, my basic beef with it is that it's euthanasia, but there's been a huge amount of concern within the Massachusetts medical establishment that the law that it's approving among other problems doesn't actually require witnesses at the time of death.

[Insula Dei]

I'll be voting for Questions 1 and 3 and emphatically against Question 2, which is odious even by the standards of ill-conceived ballot questions.

That's about euthanasia, right? What's your beef with it?

Well, my basic beef with it is that it's euthanasia,

Would you be opposed to the legalization of euthanasia for terminally ill patients who had been found mentally sound and who would be euthanized in a controlled environment?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be voting for Questions 1 and 3 and emphatically against Question 2, which is odious even by the standards of ill-conceived ballot questions.

That's about euthanasia, right? What's your beef with it?

Well, my basic beef with it is that it's euthanasia,

Would you be opposed to the legalization of euthanasia for terminally ill patients who had been found mentally sound and who would be euthanized in a controlled environment?

Much less strongly than the hot mess of medical irresponsibility that's on the ballot here, but probably, yes.

[ajc0918]

1 NO
2 NO
3 NO
4 NO
5 NO
6 NO
7 NO
8 NO
9 NO
10 NO
11 NO
12 YES

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Come on guys, no one wants to see porn with the actors wearing condoms. Why don't we force them to only do it missionary style and blur their genitals while we're at it.

You can barely see condoms these days.

[Sbane]

California propositions:

Prop 30: No (was torn on this)
Prop 31: Yes
Prop 32: Yes
Prop 33: No
Prop 34: Yes
Prop 35: No
Prop 36: Yes
Prop 37: No
Prop 38: No
Prop 39: Yes (was torn on this)
Prop 40: Yes

Pretty fiscally conservative on the whole.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue. 

And as Mr. Moderate said, if the workplace moves, what difference does it make besides lost revenue for the city of Los Angeles?

WTF man. Why bother having any regulations at all, if you are worried about companies going out of state.

It's not out of state, but only out of city, which is easy enough to do that as Mr. Moderate said, it will happen.  It's the sort of law that can only work as intended if applied on a larger scope.  As a city regulation it is worse than useless, as a California state law it would be marginally useful, and it would work best as a Federal law.


Anyway, South Carolina has one statewide ballot measure: Amendment 1 (2012). It would revise the office of Lieutenant Governor.  Currently the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, serves as the President of the Senate, and when the office is vacant, the President pro tem of the Senate becomes the Lieutenant Governor.  The amendment would have the Governor and Lieutenant Governor run as a ticket, have him no longer preside over the Senate, and when the office is vacant, the Governor would nominate a replacement who would be approved by the Senate.

I'll be voting no.  I'd prefer to simply get rid of this unnecessary office, but not only does this amendment keep the office, it makes it worse.

I have no problem with the first change, even if it does eliminate the amusing possibility of the governor and lieutenant governor be of different parties which has happened three times in the last ten elections. (The last was in 1998 where Bob Peeler was reelected as a Republican Lt. Gov. but Democrat Jim Hodges defeated David Beasley for Gov.)

The other two changes are what makes the amendment bad in my opinion.  If we must have a Lieutenant Governor, having him be the presiding officer of the Senate is the most useful thing he could do while waiting for the Governor's office to have a vacancy.  As for the nomination process, I agree that regardless of the change in how the office is filled that it makes sense to have the governor nominate a replacement, but other nominations made by the governor require that the entire General Assembly sitting as one body approve (each Representative and each Senator has one vote), not merely one house, and I do not like having a different method for this nomination.

[Lief 🗽]

Predictions for what happens tomorrow with the major ballot initiatives? I think Marijuana passes in Colorado and Washington (fails in Oregon), and the good guys win in Washington, Minnesota and Maine (but fall short in Maryland).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wanted to get a feel for the place, so today I drove into Michele Bachmann's district (around the Ham Lake/Andover area). I saw tons of signs, including many for Republican candidates, but few "Vote Yes" signs for the Marriage Amendment. Nothing compared to the "Vote No" signs down here. Yeah it's scientifically useless, but it gave me a good vibe and feeling.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Auto repairs and medical marijuana sailed right on through, and assisted suicide is looking on track to fail by a very, very narrow margin. A good night in Massachusetts overall.