Proposition 70 -- More California electoral entertainment

Oh, for the good old days of high school civics class, where we learned how democracy is the best form of government.  "Best" because people are entitled to govern themselves through free and fair elections in which decisions are made by a straight-forward majority vote -- one-half of the total vote, plus at least one additional vote, determines the outcome of the election.  The majority rules, not the minority.

Oddly and -- to me, at least -- inexplicably, the majority sometimes lets itself get duped into giving up majority rule in favor of rule by the few.  Proposition 70 on California's June ballot tries to make that happen once again.

If this proposition passes -- ironically, it can be passed with a simple majority vote -- then beginning in 2024 the state's revenue generated by its cap-and-trade program can be spent only with a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature.  Cap-and-trade is California's program for discouraging business and industry from producing the carbon pollution that fouls the environment, damages peoples' health and contributes to global warming.  The program's revenues are to be spent in ways that mitigate the harm caused by this pollution.

Passage of Proposition 70 would amount to institutionalizing minority rule.  That's a recipe for gridlock and opaqueness in governance.  As it creates conditions that can empower and enrich the minority, it never ends well for the majority.

California has tried this type of minority rule before, with consistently poor results.  It used to take a 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass the annual state budget.  Unsurprisingly, the legislature was chronically late in producing a budget.  The passage of Proposition 25 in the 2010 election returned the process to a simple majority vote; since then, the state's budgets have been timely.

Compounding Proposition 70's ethical failure in promoting minority rule, and in the way it hopes that voters' memories are faulty, is the fact that it imposes itself on the state's governance not now, but six years in the future. 

Let's be real about this -- do we know what is going to be happening six years from now so accurately that we can be comfortable that the state's needs can be met in a timely fashion with this kind of legislative restriction?  We are living in a time where planning a lunch meeting for next week can seem like a strategic undertaking, so, no, I am not comfortable with that kind of restriction.

Democracy through simple majority vote instead of minority rule is of great value to me.  (I had good civics teachers in high school.)  Timeliness in the allocation of state government resources to help fix the problems of environmental pollution and global warming caused by carbon release is critical support for creating a healthy living environment in California.

These are the reasons to vote "No" on California's Proposition 70. 

The drawbacks of minority rule are by themselves enough reason to oppose this proposition, or any similar attempt to cripple the democratic process, whether it happens in California or somewhere else.

If you live in another state, or another country, and you see something like this happening in your election, then take heed of my advice:  Go ahead and be entertained by California's electoral shenanigans, but when it comes time to vote please remember my state's sorry experience with minority rule, and how that type of rule corrupts the fundamentals of democracy by minimizing the will of the majority.

California voter guide supports Hoosier view that state is weird

Appearing below is one more contribution to LeftWingCapitalist from my good friend Guy Heston.  With wit and empathy, Guy is a keen observer of the human condition.  I hope you enjoy his article on California's election eccentricities.

Our friend Michael from the great state of Indiana visited us here in California recently. While discussing world affairs over breakfast coffee he informed us that many Hoosiers (who after all elected the ultra conservative and now Vice President Mike Pence as their state’s governor) view California as some sort of strange planet where heaven knows what goes on—a truly foreign republic right out of Star Wars.

I must confess in some ways I can’t fault the more conservative Hoosiers. Let’s face it, and I say this as a native of The Golden State, California can be a bit out there. Just take a look at our recently released voter guide for the upcoming California primary election.

We have 27 candidates for governor. I am not kidding. There are the usual candidates, including the current lieutenant governor, the state treasurer, a state assemblyman, a self-described taxpayer advocate who is not surprisingly a Republican, and a self-described public policy advisor, which is California election talk for a Democratic politician who has been termed out from his previous spot. But that is just the beginning of our out there election fun.

Also among the gubernatorial candidates is a puppeteer, a virtual reality manager and a marketplace minister. I do know what a puppeteer does but must confess the other occupations are a bit of a mystery to me.

Moving down the ballot, the race for lieutenant governor is boring by comparison, with the candidates list including an attorney, economist, entrepreneur and retired business owner. And the race for Secretary of State gets even more boring as the incumbent is widely considered a shoe-in. He has not been challenged by a virtual reality manager.

Next we have the race for California Senator, which is where the best fun is found. Here we have 32 candidates, including long time incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein. To win she is going to have to beat a paratransit operator, a bus driver, a constitutional solutions advocate, a wireless safety advocate and 27 other Californians. Having worked in public transit I have the highest respect for paratransit operators and bus drivers. And do you know anyone who is not a wireless safety advocate? I’m not quite sure about what the job description of a constitutional solutions advocate includes but confess it sounds intriguing.

In our California Official Voter Information Guide, each candidate for statewide office has the opportunity to submit a statement of qualifications, so with this great number of candidates you can appreciate why the guide has the heft of an old-fashioned phone book. The statements of previously elected officials are run of the mill, although this time I didn’t spot anyone referencing motherhood and apple pie. But the statements of what might be called fringe candidates make for great reading. One candidate for U.S. Senator is running on a platform of nullifying the 2016 presidential election. I’m not even going to go there. Another wants to get the government out of our wallets, although he doesn’t specify how he would propose to pay for police, fire and all that.

But far and away the best statements of qualifications come from the candidates for governor. One candidate’s platform consists primarily of teaching your children calculus. Who could argue with that unless your child is an artist. And my personal favorite is from a candidate whose platform consists of two words, “Why not!” I honestly can’t say why not. Maybe he’s on to something.

Yes, California can be a bit strange, yet we are once again the world’s 5th largest economy that provides you with so many goodies like Google, Apple, Hollywood, and all that Walmart stuff that comes through our ports. So come on, Indiana, what’s not to like? Like you we are just one of the 50 states doing our best, even if a bit weirdly from time to time. And by the way, I’ve been to Indiana and like it!