Voting in midterm elections (Washington state)

I might not even post this, but I figure putting it down in writing would be a good way to get my thoughts organized.

First issue on the ballot: Initiative Measure No. 1053

"Concise Description: This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval."

I'll look into it further, but I'm skeptical. I don't have anything against increasing taxes in general, and it strikes me as difficult enough politically to do so. Requiring a 2/3 majority for anything seems like something that should be reserved for more extreme things.

Reading... oh, here's some bit in the intent section of the initiative. "These important policies ensure that taking more of the people's money will always be an absolute last resort." Seems a little extreme. I think I'm voting no. I don't think it's necessary to read much more, especially considering all the technical writing in the initiative I won't understand.

Next initiative: #1082

"Concise Description: This measure would authorize employers to purchase private industrial insurance beginning July 1, 2012; direct the legislature to enact conforming legislation by March 1, 2012; and eliminate the worker-paid share of medical-benefit premiums."

Okay, this one is a little confusing. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to accurately gauge what the effects of this would be without further research.

Ballotpedia looks like a [[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Workers'_Comp_Insurance_Reform,_Initiative_1082_(2010) legit site]]. (Note: Part way through using it I found out that it was launched by an organization that supports free-market activism. I didn't see any content that was blatantly biased, however.)

Hmm... so far it looks like it's privatization of insurance for things like worker's comp. I'm suspicious about this. It looks like something that could allow a company to really screw over workers. I think I'd be more comfortable with this sort of thing being under government scrutiny. It really doesn't seem like something that can be improved by the free market's influence. It may be true that these insurance costs are harmful to businesses, but this strikes me as the wrong way to go about it.

I guess a liberal bias on my part might already be showing. Hopefully my decisions aren't being made primarily based on a trust of government and a mistrust of businesses.

Regardless, so far I'm voting no on both of these.

The third initiative on the ballot: #1098

"Concise Description: This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health."

Ooh... this is interesting! If you didn't know, the state of Washington doesn't have an income tax. I imagine it will be hard for this to pass.

Since I'm not a real adult yet, I don't have much of an idea what a normal income is. According to Wikipedia, less than 5% of U.S. households earn more than $200,000. Wow. An income tax seems pretty reasonable with that considered.

I can't make a decision based on that alone. The measure lowers other taxes, so I'd have to check to make sure money isn't being lost to the rich on this. So far, I think I'm leaning towards yes.

Wait a minute, this is the one that's being supported by Bill Gates Sr., I've heard about this! Kind of cool.

It seems like the main argument against it is that later the taxes might be extended to include people with a lower income. This seems just silly.

Yeah.. I think I'm voting yes on this. Education can always use more funding anyway.

Fourth initiative: #1100

"Concise Description: This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers and producers."

I've heard of this one too. I'm kind of apathetic about it. I'm not too crazy about spirits.

This is kind of tough to make a decision about. But, I'm thinking this is something that is more appropriate for the private market. I'm not sure what the benefits of state control are.

Oh, well I guess there's revenue for the state. There should be better ways of doing that, though.

It occurs to me that I have the option of not voting on this issue. I just might do that. Maybe I'll come back to this...

Penultinitiate: #1105

FFFFFUUUUU- It's sort of the same issue.

"Concise Description: This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits."

Pretty damn similar. So far I don't really see much of a difference.

Well, here's one I found from a news article: "I-1105 differs from I-1100 primarily in that it prices liquor licenses based on the volume of liquor sold, whereas 1100 includes no price controls, making it more palatable to massive wholesalers like Costco."

Meeeeeh... I'll come back to it. Maybe.

Final initiative: #1107

"Concise Description: This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors."

Well I can tell you one thing, it sure would be nice if people consumed less of these things. Does the tax discourage people from doing so, though?

Ah jeez. I'm getting tired from hunger. I'll come back to this later.

1. 1053: If memory serves me right, the "2/3 majority to raise taxes" is what California did, and is a large part of the reason the whole state is pretty much bankrupt now - they've got about 34% of their legislature that would rather see the whole state crumble into the Pacific Ocean than raise taxes, EVAR.

Yeah, I saw a lot of arguments against the measure cite California as an example of how it would go to shit.

Interesting. I'm a canadian citizen, and though I do try to keep up to date with American politics, it's nice to hear the issues directly from the ballot box.

I'm agreeing with most of your choices here, though I'm somewhat confused about the liquor thing. There are government funded liquor stores?

The idea is to regulate alcohol more, I believe; some people feel that private liquor stores make underage drinking easier.

I better get this over with. The election is on the 2nd.

I think I'm voting no on 1107, so the sales taxes continue.

Referendum 52.

"Concise Description: This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013."

I'm all for making the schools less crappy. It's tempting, but I don't know how I can be sure it does what it intends. Hmm... it would create more jobs, if temporary ones. Then again, I bet there are more efficient uses of taxpayer money available.

Tough call. I might just not vote on this one either.

Oh wow, this next one would be an amendment to the state constitution.

State Senate Joint Resolution 8225:

Jeez... I can see how having this could be a potential problem if the economy ever gets really really fucked around here. Not being able to use funds to solve a problem could limit one's options. On the other hand, it'd be useful to have a measure in place to make sure the state doesn't spend more than it taxes.

Oh, dang, I think I just misread that. Let me take another look.

"Concise Description: This amendment would require the state to reduce the interest accounted for in calculating the constitutional debt limit, by the amount of federal payments scheduled to be received to offset that interest."

What? Require the state to reduce the interest accounted for in...

Oh, I think I get it. It would allow the state to spend money that it could anticipate receiving from the federal government? Is that right? It kind of looks like the opposite of what I thought it was at first. I guess I was confused because I didn't know there was a debt limit in place already.

Now... I'm not sure if I can get some hard numbers about Washington's debt, but one source said that it has been increasing these past few years. I'm not sure I want to vote for something that would allow the state to spend more than it already can.

Hmm...

Jeez, I'm not sure if I'm even understanding it correctly. I think I'm going to come back to it.

*Sigh* Making a lot of progress, aren't we?

House Joint Resolution 4220:

"Concise Description: This amendment would authorize courts to deny bail for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison, on clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that would likely endanger persons."

Well it certainly sounds good. As always, I'll have to do a little more reading.

Oh my, it seems that this measure was created in response to murders of police officers that happened in Seattle last year. I remember this being in the news! Very interesting.

Looking at the article, this seems like something I'd vote for. Yeah, definitely voting yes, considering bail companies. I didn't even know those existed.

Next we have candidates for office. I'll put those in a different post.

First up, who do I want in the U.S. senate?

Patty Murray (D) vs. Dino Rossi (R)

Now, I know I'm voting for Murray. I won't even bother to do any further research.

Normally I would feel uncomfortable expressing such a sentiment, but I think I'm justified here. The president himself came to my university to throw his support behind the Democratic candidate's rally, so it should be clear the stakes for him are that high. I have a lot of respect for Obama, and I think I trust his judgement regarding his assertion that voting Democrat would be more productive in this context. I think that it's a good idea in general to keep Democrats in federal office at this point, because the Republicans appear to be trying to impede the current administration for political gain.

As for Rossi, well. I've seen his ads and his debating two years ago, and I was not impressed. I really haven't heard anything good about him, frankly.

Don't take this as me being a fanboy for the Democrats. I have some issues with how things are being run in D.C., but I figure voting for the Republican will cause worse problems than it would solve, and I can't think of any it would solve to be honest.

So... Representatives for Congress... Norm Dicks (D) vs. Doug Cloud (R)

I'm probably going to use the same rationale on this one. Norm Dicks it is. (He was at that rally too, by the way.)

Next we have partisan offices for the state. Things are going to get a little less flashy, but I should vote for more local offices all the same. It's probably more likely to affect my life, and less people vote for them.

Okay, Kevin Van De Wege (D) and Dan Gase (R)

I remember voting for Van De Wege last time. I'm sure I can trust Past Awesome Gelzo's (PAG) judgement here. As it happens, I believe I've also voted for the previous two candidates I chose again.

Let's browse the Republican candidate's website for deal-breakers. Hmm... nothing overtly absurd.

"After more than a decade of signing the front side of paychecks as President and CEO of Coldwell Banker Uptown Realty, I have decided it is time to lend my experience to helping Washington State become the most business-friendly state in the nation. Washington state has incredible assets on a national and global level, but we don't have enough business people representing our state business in Olympia."

I guess that's a bit disturbing.

Uuugh... I don't jave much more time for this crap tonight. Let's just fast forward. I'm honestly pretty sure I'm voting for a Democrat when it's relevant.

There are some other offices where candidates are running unopposed. I don't think I'll bother voting for any of them. I mean, what's the point? I don't expect them to be beaten by a write-in candidate, and I'm not sure I care if they are.

That leaves about... five? more offices to vote on. I'll figure it out tomorrow.

My ballot is sealed. I'm running pretty low on sleep, so I decided it wasn't worth trying very hard to find the minor differences between the other candidates. I voted Democrat where I thought it would matter, and every other candidate was left blank. I also didn't vote on the initiatives I wasn't sure about.

Well, I'm off to the post office.

It's in the mailbox. To celebrate, let's watch WV gush about democracy.

I'll have to check back later to see if anything I voted for turned out to be a mistake.

Hmm, I understand that Washington State has new tougher election rules. How'd that work out for you?

I'm afraid I don't understand. Voting was as simple for me as it was 2 years ago.