Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Vote or Die

Last chance to take positions on the election...

First, I'll address the Proposition 30-38 issue. In my discussion of the California Propositions, I essentially treated these separately. Proposition 38 is a classic "split the vote" play. It's a very effective tactic: put a second proposition on the ballot mutually exclusive with a first. Make it just different enough from the first that some will prefer it, yet some will prefer the first. Voters who wish to express a preference for the first will vote against the second, while those who wish to express a preference for the second will vote against the first. As a result, even if only a small minority prefer "none of the above", it can be very easy for both propostions to fail to receive a voter majority. Both fail, which was the point all along of introducing the second measure. In this case, I like each enough I vote for both. I encourage others to do the same.

Onto some candates.

US House of Representatives: Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election. I simply cannot vote for her: she's a classic example of why people turn against the Democratic party. Pork, pork, pork. With California's new open primary this election is a two-candidate run-off. I regret there is no alternative, but the natural selection principle of voting is unfit genotypes are eliminated without regard to what replaces them. I thus regretfully vote Republican here. I have nothing against individual Republicans, but the party has become absolutely appalling. Still, I stick to the principle: it's the only way to hold candidates accountable. If I have to vote Republican, John Dennis is a good one to vote for.

US Senate: Dianne Feinstein is pro-war, pro-military, and I will never vote for her. Ever. But I simply cannot vote for Emken and her "Pipeline for posterity". I can only leave this one blank. It goes against my principles, but I'm stuck in a corner. This is the most wretched selection I've ever seen for Senate.

BART Board: This is a classic example of a local election where individual votes have some punch. People tend to overlook these, focusing way more on elections like that for President, where in California your vote is so close to meaningless it may as well be tossed in the trash. It's important to give some attention to these races.

Peter Klivans, challenging for the second time, says the right things "transit-oriented development". "Coordination with Caltrain" (easier said than done, unfortunately"). Here's his website. There's also a nice video from a candidate forum on YouTube. He seems to have vision that transit can be better.

Luke Lucas is another challenger. Here's his video. About all he can say is "Lets get things done." Did he hire Ed Lee's campaign manager?

Incumbent Radulovich doesn't have much campaign material out there. Web page is minimal. No youtube video I can find. No info on smart voter.org. He does have going for him that he was against the OAK boondoggle: here's an SF Weekly article. The Examinger likes the way BART has been going and endorces him (and the other incumbent, Linelle Sweet, who's in a different district).

My ranking on these candidates is Klivans, Radulovich, and Lucas. I like Klivan's vision that transit can be better, that other cities provide examples of transit-oriented development and of inter-agency integration. But Radulovich gets my second-place vote.

For the school board, I leave that to voters with kids.

No comments: