Great job!
But there's still a lot of room for improvement.
Before we get down to the grading, let's start with how my completely-biased-and-arbitrary grading system works. Each Proposition was given points on a grading scale, because each of the statewide measures was not created equal. Some were much more important than others.
For instance, part of the reason Californians failed so badly in 2008 was because they misfired on a 12-point proposition, regarding human rights with Prop. 8, while getting a 2-point question right, regarding chicken's rights with Prop. 2.
Correct answers for the propositions in the 2010 election were rewarded the following points:
A No to Prop. 19 (legalization of marijuana) was worth 2 points.
A Yes to Prop. 20 (Furthering the process of removing elected representatives from the process of drawing Congressional Districts) was worth 8 points.
A Yes to Prop. 21 (funding state parks via vehicle registration) was worth 4 points -- with the possibility of earning 2 bonus points based on sound reasoning.
A No to Prop. 22 (prohibiting California from borrowing or taking funds used for certain projects and local governments) was worth 7 points.
A No to Prop. 23 (suspending implementation of air pollution control law AB 32) was worth 10 points.
A No to Prop. 24 (rewriting tax law to repeal lower business tax liability) was worth 5 points.
A Yes to Prop. 25. (changing budget passage from 2/3rds supermajority to a simple majority) was worth 10 points.
A NO to Prop. 26. (requiring that certain state and local fees be approved by two-third vote in the state legislature) was worth 9 points.
A No to Prop. 27 (eliminating the state commission of redistricting) was worth 8 points -- with the possibility of earning 2 bonus points should Californians also get Prop. 20 right and not be confused by Prop. 27's redundancy.
So Californians were graded here on a 63-point base with the possibility of earning 4 bonus points. The traditional American public schooling grading system was used (A score of 90-100% earns an A- to an A+, an 80-89 percent earns a B- to a B+, and so on). And according to the LA Times' election results, Californians earned 47 points out of 63, giving them the grade of C with a 74.6%.
Californians earned points for their votes against Prop. 19, for Prop. 20, against Prop. 23, against Prop. 24, for Prop. 25 and for Prop. 27. Californians earned bonus points for Prop. 21* and for getting Props 20 and 27 right. Californians failed to earn points for their votes against Prop. 21*, for Prop. 22, and for Prop. 26.
*Obviously, I was for the passage of Prop. 21, even though it went against some of my basic principles of what I think state measures should be all about. What can I say? I like my state parks and they're in desperate need of a face lift. But voters should be prohibited from most decisions that deal with tax law or commit state funds to projects. The legislative and executive offices need flexibility to balance a budget. There are many reasons why California's state government is in such disrepair, but state measures that deny funds be drawn from certain revenue sources or commit funds to certain projects are among the most destructive. Voters usually don't know where the money's coming from. And then get angry when it's not there.
So, anyway, Prop. 21, despite my biased rejection of my own rule, gets bonus points.
To read how I came to my decisions on these state measures, click here.
The proposition results were predictable. Californians voted for measures that seemed to make basic sense, like changing the passage of a budget from 2/3rds majority to a simple majority and demanding that the folks who draw up legislative districts not be the legislators. But they also voted against anything that even appeared to either raise their taxes or gave the perception of Sacramento infringing on their localities, like their rejection of funding state parks, prohibiting the state from borrowing money from local governments and requiring that a 2/3rds majority be used to raise certain taxes. Predictable.
So predictable that Californians earn a C.
Other thoughts on the election ...
I watched the election results at the best environment for a political junkie: a newsroom.
The Press-Enterprise put on a streaming-live TV election show that mostly focused on local positions. Of course, I was writing up the local college sports stuff (the sports world doesn't break for an election, God damnit!) and compiling high school sports aget. But usually that building is pretty quite at night. Not last night though. It felt the way a newsroom should feel.
Plus, the Santa Ana River caught fire, so the whole building smelt like ash.
Mark Twain once said something like, "In California, you jump in the river and come out dusty." Yesterday, you jump in the river and you come out with third-degree burns.
Even though my eyes were watery watching the results -- brush fire ash will do that to you -- I'm not sad. Democrats had it coming. They deserved to lose the House. I'm just sorry the GOP is so incompetent.
But all in all, at least the teabagger tidal wave stopped at the Colorado River. Hell, even a moderate Republican -- at least by Alaskan standards -- may be elected for senator in Alaska. Americans are never as stupid as the news media portrays them to be ... unless they're also from Texas.
No comments:
Post a Comment