Help me decide!
By kate on October 26th, 2004
I’ve decided on most election issues, but I haven’t mailed my ballot yet because I’m still on the fence regarding three ballot measures:
1. I-872: “This measure would allow voters to select among all candidates in a primary. Ballots would indicate candidates’ party preference. The two candidates receiving most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.”
On one hand, I am like most Washingtonians who are angry about the loss of our cherished blanket primary. Damn the political parties for messing with a good thing. I like the “top two” because I could vote for whoever I wanted, regardless of party, and not have to vote only for one party on the whole ballot. However, I worry that a “top two” approach will make all candidates more centrist. Centrism can be okay for working together, but also leads to blandess and a loss of idealism. What seems to be the real question is whether primaries are for the parties to decide on their own who their candidate should be, or if they’re a “narrowing-down” tool to make the General Election more streamlined.
2. I-892: “This measure would authorize licensed non-tribal gambling establishments to operate the same type and number of machines as tribal governments, with a portion of tax revenue generated used to reduce state property taxes.”
This one is particularly hard. The rhetoric coming from both sides disgusts me with its hyperbole. On the Pro side, I am not particularly anti-gambling, and don’t feel a personal drive to keep slot machines out of “our communities”. (I never play them myself, but not because I disagree with them – I just think they’re boring.) Call me crazy, but I don’t think slot machines pose much of a danger to children.
On the Con side, I am even more disgusted by Tim Eyman’s blatant racism in claiming that the poor white casino owners just don’t get a fair shake compared to those mighty Indians. I’m all in favor of Native Americans getting some breaks compared to us – it’s only fair, given our history. That aside, I read a partiuclarly persuasive sentence about this issue in the paper that said something to the effect that it is a measure that takes money from poor people (who are much more likely to gamble) and gives it to rich people (who are much more likely to own property). That idea alone is making me lean against the measure.
3. Referendum 55: “This bill would authorize charter public schools and would set conditions on operations. Charter schools would be operated by qualified nonprofit corporations, under contracts with local education boards, and allocated certain public funds.”
On the pro side, this frees underperforming schools from some restrictions, allowing them the freedom to be a bit unconventional in their approach, while still holding them to state assessment standards. I’m very much in favor of local freedom from schools (instead of standards imposed from on high). Also, this measure forbids any religious basis for charter schools, and requires charter schools to enroll any student who applies. Funding will still be the same amount of money per student, and will follow a student to either a regular or charter school.
On the con side, groups that I usually agree with (such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State) are against charter schools. Some of that is opposition to religious charter schools (which aren’t at issue here). But there is also the idea that public schools should be for everyone. Why don’t we just make ALL the public schools better, instead of allowing the highly-motivated and highly-complainy families to run off on their own? If we force everyone to pool their resources into a single system, people will be forced to improve that system if they want things to be better.
I’m not even leaning on this issue – I’m perfectly balanced.
PLEASE, all you Washington voters, help me out here. Tell me how you’re going to vote on these, and why.
(Note: Please leave the other races out of it, as I’ve made up my mind on those.)
Filed under: current events
| « First aerial performance | My Livejournal Name: Copycat Jones » |
3 Responses to “Help me decide!”
Leave a Comment
Contact
Recently Read
October 26th, 2004 at 6:24 am
1. Primaries such as the one described are a tool to ensure a simple majority come election day. They’re not perfect, though — there are not-too-farfetched statistical scenarios wherein the 3rd place vote-getter would have won the election if he/she’d been allowed to stick around. Anyway, the two major parties in the US have WAY too much power. It’s pretty ridiculous. Anything that empowers the electorate to be more independent is a good thing IMHO.
As for your centrism argument — I can kind of see that, but it seems like a minor excuse compared to the larger benefits of disentanglement.
In reality, though, this whole “one vote per position” idea is quite antiquated and the US should get with the times.
2. I’m against this amendment. It seems like governments (of all persuasions) all over the world are turning to the magic “gaming” cash cow to solve their fiscal problems. For once, I’d like to see the government take a more responsible, more creative view — one with a long-term outlook for the type of society we’d like to create. Just imagine — one day tourists might flock to Washington State because it’s the only place where you CAN’T gamble!
3. I vote tentatively for the authorization of charter schools. It really depends on the implementation. If this has enough loopholes to become a thinly-veiled “voucher” system then we’ve got problems. If, in 10 or 20 years, it turns out this is a bad idea, how hard will it be to close/convert the charter schools?
But assuming that the legal footwork has been done, then I’m in favour of this amendment. It creates an useful experimental framework within which to generate new ideas for education. There’s nothing (or at least, there SHOULDN’T be anything) preventing the transfer of good ideas back to the mainstream schools.
My other big concern away charter schools is that all the keener parents with their keener children will go to them, leaving the slacker parents with their slacker children in the mainstream schools and hurting the experiences of both parties (although I tend to think the slacker children will suffer more). But as long as the ONLY impediment to going to a charter school is the fact that you’re a bad, lazy parent, then I’m ok with that.
October 26th, 2004 at 7:17 am
1. I’m voting “no” on this one. Statistically, those that get a significant number of votes in the primary are likely to get similar numbers in the general election. However, if we only allow the top two vote-getters (is that even a word?) slots in the general election, we lose even the option of voting for a third party. For example, consider a general election in which a centrist Democrat, a centrist Republican, and a liberal Green are running. Imagine that the Democrat wins with 41% of the vote, the Republican gets 39%, and the Green gets the remaining 20%. If we only had two candidates in the general election, the Democrat still would have won (probably, as the Greens are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican) but would have been ignorant of the significant portion of voters that would prefer a more liberal candidate. Having a third (or fourth, etc.) candidate enables voters to express a preference outside the mainstream, even if it means voting for a candidate you know won’t win, and forces mainstream candidates to take note of positions that veer from the norm.
I don’t think we should enact measures that limit our voting choices.
2. I’m also voting “no” on this one, although not because I care about the effects of slot machines on children (the machines would be limited to +21 venues). I’m voting “no” because I think Native Americans get shit on ENOUGH by the government. Realistically, gambling is often the only source of (decent) income for folks on the reservations. I don’t think we should take that away from them, and certainly not to lower property taxes. Perhaps I’m biased, since I don’t PAY property taxes, but I agree with the quoted characterization of taking money from the poor (gamblers) and giving it to the rich (homeowners) and so I’m against it.
3. I’m tentatively for this one, but I’m skittish of the loopholes and potential for misuse. I’ve seen some WONDERFUL alternative schools, but I’m wary. I think I’ll end up voting “yes” for this one but I’m not fully decided.
October 27th, 2004 at 9:16 am
1. I’m against this. I don’t like the vision that a heavily split primary field could leave a party without representation in the election.
2. No. I don’t see any value in these machines (vs. the entertainment/competitive value of something like poker) other than siphoning money away from the populace. I don’t think it directly endangers kids – that’s crazy – but I do think it is an unneeded distraction to the pocketbooks of people who don’t need to be wasting their money.
3. I’m against this. I understand that parents are leaving the normal school system via either private schools or home schooling, but I don’t think furthering that end is beneficial. The public schools need to be made to work in toto. Splintering off segments and focusing attention there would seem to distract focus from dealing with the issues. And since the legislature is already avoiding doing that… I think this is a mistake. I think it will pass, and this is sad. 🙁