California Proposition 91

[Concillian]

California Proposition 91 is quite an oddity. I'm sure very few of you are familiar with it.

The SF Chronicle does an adequate job of explaining the entire situation:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0/BAE2UC4G6.DTL

The jist of it is that Proposition 42 passed several years ago. That proposition disallowed the state legislature from taking funds collected from gasoline taxes that were supposed to be appropriated for transportation improvement projects and using them for other purposes... unless there was a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature which declared a need to use these funds for something else.

Well, every year since prop 42 there has been a much larger than 2/3 majority of the legislature approving usage of the funds for other uses. Effectively making the proposition completely ignored since approval.

So Prop 91 supporters collected signatures to get it on the ballot in 2008 to close the loophole. Shortly after it had been approved for the 2008 ballot, the Governor called a special election for other reasons and managed to get a similar Proposition (1A) on the ballot. Prop 1A is essentially proposition 91 with a relatively minor difference (1A allows borrowing from this portion of the transportation budget if it is repaid within a year, 91 requires repayment within 30 days).

That very similar proposition was overwhelmingly approved, with 77% yes votes. This approval effectively nullified any reason for prop 91, but it was too late to get prop 91 off the 2008 ballot. Signatures had already been gathered and submitted.

In the voter information booklet people are receiving for the upcoming primary election (Feb. 5th in California) the argument FOR proposition 91 states: DO NOT VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 91. It then goes on to explain some of what I just explained myself. There is obviously no argument against proposition 91, after all if the argument for the proposition is not to vote for it, it should be in the bag right?

Well, I'm not entirely sure. 1A passed with 77% of the vote. I'm betting that a large percentage of voters read the short 2 sentence blurb on the ballot and never read the arguments for / against or do any other research.

So I'm starting an informal contest with no reward for the winner.

What percentage of voting Californians do you think will vote for proposition 91 given the people who put it on the ballot's argument FOR the proposition states: DO NOT VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 91?

I'm down for 30%.

[Nystul]

The whole notion of earmarking certain incoming funds to a specific purpose is a bit of a farce in my opinion. When the Ohio Lottery was instituted, it was justified by earmarking the raised funds for state education. Who can possibly oppose it when the money goes to the kids? I believe the children are the future and all that crap. But does that raise the education budget of the state by the amount that the lottery brings in? Of course not. It just takes the funds from other taxes that would have been used for education and frees them up for other uses. At best, the lottery represents a guaranteed minimum that the state could appropriate to education, but even that probably has loopholes. Same thing with your gas tax. It's a convenient justification to implement a tax that would otherwise face stiff opposition.

As for people voting for the proposition when it is already obsolete, I'm sure that will happen a lot. Even more so in years of presidential elections, a lot of people will be showing up at the polls without understanding the direct vote issues. There isn't always much information out there even if you look for it. It's bad enough that people will be weighing the pros and cons of an issue they had never considered before entering the poll, but the language on the ballot can often be pretty confusing as well.

If 1A got 77% of the vote, your 30% estimate for this one may be on the low side. I'll say 40.

[kandrathe]

I'm down for 30%.

37.5%

[Concillian]

The whole notion of earmarking certain incoming funds to a specific purpose is a bit of a farce in my opinion.

I agree, and never vote for those kinds of propositions. There is a case like you explain where you just move funds around and don't really accomplish anything, and then there is all the recordkeeping that needs to be in place. Worst case, you tie legislature's hands where they may have critical bills to pay that cannot be paid because all the funds are tied up and are not allowed to be touched.

One of the fundamental flaws of Democracy is that voters have significant say on how to spend money and how much to spend, yet have very little idea of what the balance sheet of the state looks like.

[vor_lord]

What percentage of voting Californians do you think will vote for proposition 91 given the people who put it on the ballot's argument FOR the proposition states: DO NOT VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 91?

This depends -- what else is on the ballot? If this is going to be up the same time as say, a presidential election, then the percentage of people who know anything about 91 will be lower. I'd give it a shot at 50% or more in that space.

In a much smaller ballot where those who voted have a greater chance of having read about stuff (or else they just wouldn't bother)... it'd be lower.

[Concillian]

Sorry, i thought it would be obvious that this is a presidential primary election. So yeah, some people who normally don't turn out will turn out to help choose the presidential candidate of their party.

There are several other propositions on the ballot (I think 7 total, plus my county has 2 measures on the ballot)

[kandrathe]

I agree, and never vote for those kinds of propositions. There is a case like you explain where you just move funds around and don't really accomplish anything, and then there is all the recordkeeping that needs to be in place. Worst case, you tie legislature's hands where they may have critical bills to pay that cannot be paid because all the funds are tied up and are not allowed to be touched.

One of the fundamental flaws of Democracy is that voters have significant say on how to spend money and how much to spend, yet have very little idea of what the balance sheet of the state looks like.

We have many similar mandates which tie money to purposes whether they need them or not. Such as, the DNR gets a portion of the state gasoline taxes equivalent to the estimated portion of fuel used by recreational vehicles. It seems fair, but I believe we have some of the highest per capita funding of wildlife programs in the nation. I'm a huge outdoors guy, and I use the State parks and trails as much as I can, but when bridges are crashing down due to aging gusset plates it seems frivolous to spend millions on air conditioned nature centers and handicapped accessible wilderness hiking trails.

The latest fiasco in designated funds is the transportation bill they passed last year (before the bridge fell down). The language designates transportation funding to be allocated so that not less than 40% can be spent on mass transit systems, and not more than 60% can be spent on roads and bridges. So, transit will always get 40% to 100% of funding, but roads and bridges will only ever get 0% to 60% of funding. What is degraded, under built and falling apart? Roads and bridges. While the next minuscule transit project connecting downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul will cost over a billion dollars to build, and suck more tax money out of the DOT funds to keep running every year since it will never be economically viable. After the bridge fell it took the MN DOT two months to retool the existing roads to add extra lanes and shift all the traffic from THE main artery onto other roads. So, it is very obvious that the MN DOT intentionally keeps road congestion high.

[Concillian]

currently at 42%Y / 58%N with 95% reporting

It's also the proposition with the widest margin of victory or defeat on the ballot this election.

Really makes you wonder about people and the democratic process as a whole. 42% of people voted for a proposition who's proponents say 'don't vote for it'

[Buzo]

+1

[Sir_Die_alot]

currently at 42%Y / 58%N with 95% reporting

It's also the proposition with the widest margin of victory or defeat on the ballot this election.

Really makes you wonder about people and the democratic process as a whole. 42% of people voted for a proposition who's proponents say 'don't vote for it'

Lol I didn't think to actually check if people voted for this. Seriously shows the problem we have in California though. People who can't even be bothered to read the arguments for and against something shouldn't be voting IMO. :wacko:

[Concillian]

Lol I didn't think to actually check if people voted for this.

How could you not? As soon as I read the arguments for / against section in the voter info pamphlet, all I could think of was how many morons are not going to read this and vote for it anyway. I actually thought it had a chance at passing.

Most interesting part of this election IMO.

[Sir_Die_alot]

How could you not? As soon as I read the arguments for / against section in the voter info pamphlet, all I could think of was how many morons are not going to read this and vote for it anyway. I actually thought it had a chance at passing.

Most interesting part of this election IMO.

My opinion of the general public was too high apparently. And it never was very high.:P

[Artega]

I'd vote for 91 simply because I think giving bureaucrats a year to pay off a loan will just invite them to borrow and continually "forget" to pay it back.