I've joked often enough in the past that the one sure way to guarantee that a bill will get passed or a candidate get elected was for me to vote for them. Then I donated money, for the first time in my life, to a candidate last year, and the next week his small plane crashed, killing him and his wife. I stopped joking then.
Now comes the 04 California primary. I'm not particularly passionate about anything on this ballot. Kerry's the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Edwards' is right behind. Clark & Dean have dropped out and no one else is a serious threat to these two, and I'm frankly fine with either one as the Democratic candidate for President. I'm voting for Kerry because I've been following his campaign and I like what he says, but I'm comfortable with Edwards as well.
Propositions 57 & 58 have me on the fence. On the one hand, we're talking about amending the state's constitution and buying into a HUGE bond initiative, on the other hand, does it make sense to sit back and do nothing? I'm not fond of my first option there, but I'm ready to accept that, in this case, doing something might be better than doing nothing. So I end up voting for both of these.
Then there's Proposition 56. I don't know a lot about this one till I start reading about it prior to the election. I've managed to avoid most television for the past few months (the joys of taping everything… no commercials to sit through!). So I've dodged most of the advertising. But I read about this and realize that it's about doing away with the asinine 2/3 majority requirement to get a budget passed in this state and I'm 100% behind that!
I'd read a debate about this concept a while ago that stated that requiring a 2/3 majority does exactly the opposite of what it's intended to do. The idea behind the 2/3 majority is that, by requiring it for a bill to be passed, we operate under the assumption that an overwhelming majority of the people voting for that bill want it passed. What this fails to recognize is the sheer unlikelihood of actually achieving that 2/3 majority. (Think about it—if a 2/3 majority were required for any other election, when's the last time ANYTHING would have been accomplished in this country? We certainly wouldn't have had GW as President, now would we? hmmm… maybe this 2/3 thing isn't such a bad idea after all! But, I digress…) The point is, what happens when you require a 2/3 majority for the passage of anything is that you effectively shift the balance of power from the majority vote (the 2/3 needed for passage) to the minority vote (the 1/3 needed to block said passage). It's ALWAYS easier to get 1/3 + 1 votes to block something than it is to get that 2/3 +1 to pass something.
Arguably, this should mean that the only bills that get passed are the ones that the vast majority can agree upon. In reality (and especially when you apply this to budget bills, which are probably among the most contentious bills presented to any governing body) it means that the only bills that get passed are the ones that allow you to sway the largest number of those minority votes. This puts a tremendous amount of power into the hands of said minority votes… suddenly, they can bargain and dicker and look for advantages that they previously might not have had, all in the name of getting their vote on the side of that bill that everyone needs to get passed so they can go home. Suddenly, it's no longer the rule of the majority, voting for the good of everyone. It's the rule of the minority, looking out for their own self-interest.
So, as I said, I am all for Prop 56.
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, then, to wake up and learn that Kerry had clinched the nomination (good thing, but no particular surprise); 57 & 58 had passed (Not sure whether that's a good thing or not but, once again, no particular surprise) and 56 had been defeated. Yes, the only item on this entire ballot that I had anything resembling a passionate opinion about (and an opinion that I'd only held for a matter of days!) loses!
I swear, if I could make myself believe this truly worked (and I could then sell this idea to myself without my brain going into meltdown) I'd switch my vote to Bush right now in the hopes that I'd drag him down like I've apparently dragged down every other political issue I've ever had strong feelings about.
But I'm really not that good an actor. (And don't get me wrong—I'm not that modest. I think I'm a pretty good actor. But I'm not THAT good an actor.)
Now comes the 04 California primary. I'm not particularly passionate about anything on this ballot. Kerry's the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Edwards' is right behind. Clark & Dean have dropped out and no one else is a serious threat to these two, and I'm frankly fine with either one as the Democratic candidate for President. I'm voting for Kerry because I've been following his campaign and I like what he says, but I'm comfortable with Edwards as well.
Propositions 57 & 58 have me on the fence. On the one hand, we're talking about amending the state's constitution and buying into a HUGE bond initiative, on the other hand, does it make sense to sit back and do nothing? I'm not fond of my first option there, but I'm ready to accept that, in this case, doing something might be better than doing nothing. So I end up voting for both of these.
Then there's Proposition 56. I don't know a lot about this one till I start reading about it prior to the election. I've managed to avoid most television for the past few months (the joys of taping everything… no commercials to sit through!). So I've dodged most of the advertising. But I read about this and realize that it's about doing away with the asinine 2/3 majority requirement to get a budget passed in this state and I'm 100% behind that!
I'd read a debate about this concept a while ago that stated that requiring a 2/3 majority does exactly the opposite of what it's intended to do. The idea behind the 2/3 majority is that, by requiring it for a bill to be passed, we operate under the assumption that an overwhelming majority of the people voting for that bill want it passed. What this fails to recognize is the sheer unlikelihood of actually achieving that 2/3 majority. (Think about it—if a 2/3 majority were required for any other election, when's the last time ANYTHING would have been accomplished in this country? We certainly wouldn't have had GW as President, now would we? hmmm… maybe this 2/3 thing isn't such a bad idea after all! But, I digress…) The point is, what happens when you require a 2/3 majority for the passage of anything is that you effectively shift the balance of power from the majority vote (the 2/3 needed for passage) to the minority vote (the 1/3 needed to block said passage). It's ALWAYS easier to get 1/3 + 1 votes to block something than it is to get that 2/3 +1 to pass something.
Arguably, this should mean that the only bills that get passed are the ones that the vast majority can agree upon. In reality (and especially when you apply this to budget bills, which are probably among the most contentious bills presented to any governing body) it means that the only bills that get passed are the ones that allow you to sway the largest number of those minority votes. This puts a tremendous amount of power into the hands of said minority votes… suddenly, they can bargain and dicker and look for advantages that they previously might not have had, all in the name of getting their vote on the side of that bill that everyone needs to get passed so they can go home. Suddenly, it's no longer the rule of the majority, voting for the good of everyone. It's the rule of the minority, looking out for their own self-interest.
So, as I said, I am all for Prop 56.
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, then, to wake up and learn that Kerry had clinched the nomination (good thing, but no particular surprise); 57 & 58 had passed (Not sure whether that's a good thing or not but, once again, no particular surprise) and 56 had been defeated. Yes, the only item on this entire ballot that I had anything resembling a passionate opinion about (and an opinion that I'd only held for a matter of days!) loses!
I swear, if I could make myself believe this truly worked (and I could then sell this idea to myself without my brain going into meltdown) I'd switch my vote to Bush right now in the hopes that I'd drag him down like I've apparently dragged down every other political issue I've ever had strong feelings about.
But I'm really not that good an actor. (And don't get me wrong—I'm not that modest. I think I'm a pretty good actor. But I'm not THAT good an actor.)
Comments