Marcy Winograd

[Sean Mulligan]

Does any one here live in the 36th California Congressional District? Marcy Winograd is running in the Democratic Primary against Jane Harman. Harman seems like a real creep. Harman supported the Iraq War, Bush's illegal warrantless wiretaping, and abolishing the Estate Tax.

Marcy Winograd is a high school teacher in Crenshaw and peace activist. She calls for military cutbacks and using the money to rebuild America's infrastructure and creating green jobs. She has been endorsed by Ed Asner, Gore Vidal, Ron Kovic and Daniel Ellsberg. She has also criticized Israel for its attack on the Aid flotilla and is a founder of Jews for Peace. Winograd seems like a great candidate and I really hope she wins today's election.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yes, I live in the 36th district. I'll be voting for Marcy Winograd, but realistically she has virtually no chance of winning against Harman.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Thanks for reminding me to vote today! MY polling place is actually across the street. I live in Modesto, though, not your district.

Maybe we could make this a general 'California Elections' thread? I swear to God this state has a ballot every ten months.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Thanks for reminding me to vote today! MY polling place is actually across the street. I live in Modesto, though, not your district.

Maybe we could make this a general 'California Elections' thread? I swear to God this state has a ballot every ten months.

Well, PG&E has pumped some 44+ million dollars into Prop 16, which I'm going to vote NO on. I read that thing in my voter's guide and had a "WTF" reaction to it.

[Simon_Jester]

Which one is Prop 16 again?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Which one is Prop 16 again?

It forces communities that want to choose a different electrical service provider to hold a vote that must pass by a 2/3rds majority (which is hard as hell to do). It's basically PG&E using the political system to enforce their dominance of the market. Oh, and also it's a constitutional amendment. Because our state constitution isn't pathetic enough.

[Simon_Jester]

Pinto, how many times do I have to remind you that "pathetic" and "contemptible" aren't the same thing?

But yeah, this does seem to be a major institutional problem with the whole concept of referenda, especially ones that just need a straight majority to pass. If your threshhold were more like 60% or 66%, you might at least see less of this retarded jitter.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Pinto, how many times do I have to remind you that "pathetic" and "contemptible" aren't the same thing?

I don't remember you correcting me on this at all. Why can't both descriptors be valid?

But yeah, this does seem to be a major institutional problem with the whole concept of referenda, especially ones that just need a straight majority to pass. If your threshhold were more like 60% or 66%, you might at least see less of this retarded jitter.

If the whole concept of constitutional referendum system isn't bad enough, there's also the fact that it's driven by groups with money. Now you have a precedent of corporations and businesses throwing money into the system to further their own interests in the constitution itself. "Popular voter" initiatives indeed.

[Sean Mulligan]

Yes, I live in the 36th district. I'll be voting for Marcy Winograd, but realistically she has virtually no chance of winning against Harman.

I'm not so sure of that. She got 38 percent of the vote when she ran against Harman back in 2006 and then she had only compared for three months. Now, she has a lot of netroots support, and she has been endorsed by the group Howard Dean founded, Democracy for America, and the Machinists and Aerospace Workers union and the United Teachers of Los Angeles. Their is a lot of anti-incumbent feeling around the country and I've read that many voters view Harman as out of touch and are offended by her rove like campaign against Winograd. I don't live in California, but Winograd seems like a great candidate and I really hope that she is elected. Here is a link to her website. She has a lot of great endorsements.

http://winograd4congress.com/

[Master of Ossus]

It forces communities that want to choose a different electrical service provider to hold a vote that must pass by a 2/3rds majority (which is hard as hell to do). It's basically PG&E using the political system to enforce their dominance of the market. Oh, and also it's a constitutional amendment. Because our state constitution isn't pathetic enough.

I voted "yes" on 16. PG&E and the other big utilities in CA have been getting screwed by the municipal utilities for long enough because they have rules that require them to prop up and then ultimately buy out these dumb systems. For instance, in Redwood City PG&E recently had to pay $11 million to bring a former municipal utility which served eighty (!) houses up to code, and this was after they had to pay money to buy out the relics of this old system. In a throw-back to the name, these guys literally had turn-of-the-century water tanks made out of redwood logs that were rotting through, and which PG&E had to replace entirely with a modern system. The net result is that rate-payers for the big utilities have to pay for it when a local city decides that its local interests outweigh those of the rest of the state, create their own little island of anarchy, run it into the ground, and come back demanding their half of the estate.

Also, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about PG&E's "dominance of the market." Last time I checked, CA's attempt to remove PG&E and the other utilities from their monopoly turned out to be the biggest regulatory disaster in the state's history.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I voted "yes" on 16. PG&E and the other big utilities in CA have been getting screwed by the municipal utilities for long enough because they have rules that require them to prop up and then ultimately buy out these dumb systems. For instance, in Redwood City PG&E recently had to pay $11 million to bring a former municipal utility which served eighty (!) houses up to code, and this was after they had to pay money to buy out the relics of this old system. In a throw-back to the name, these guys literally had turn-of-the-century water tanks made out of redwood logs that were rotting through, and which PG&E had to replace entirely with a modern system. The net result is that rate-payers for the big utilities have to pay for it when a local city decides that its local interests outweigh those of the rest of the state, create their own little island of anarchy, run it into the ground, and come back demanding their half of the estate.

Also, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about PG&E's "dominance of the market." Last time I checked, CA's attempt to remove PG&E and the other utilities from their monopoly turned out to be the biggest regulatory disaster in the state's history.

No one's suggesting imposing regulations on state monopolies. The concern with prop 16 is creating an unfair competitive advantage between utilities such as PG&E and other electrical providers. Various communities (such as the city and county of SF) are exploring community choice aggregators that would provide them a combination of both private and public utility services. Prop 16 would make it very difficult for such communities to purchase their electricity outside of those established monopolies. If the motivation behind prop 16 really is based on the abuse of municipal utilities that translate to higher bills for PG&E consumers, then why is none of this mentioned by Prop 16 advocates? Also, how is establishing a 2/3rd voter requirement supposed to prevent sub-par municipal utilities from destroying their community infrastructure and then leaving big private utilities with the bill? Wouldn't a better approach include requiring every utility to adhere to modern standards? Then there's the question of why such a stringent requirement of 2/3rds of votes should be required when most people couldn't even be bothered with understanding their local utility situation. Or why it's even a god damn constitutional amendment.

[Master of Ossus]

No one's suggesting imposing regulations on state monopolies.

Since the analogy was lost on you, allow me to explain in greater detail: when the state last attempted to increase competition in the state power generation market, it was a complete and unambiguous disaster. Allowing people to enter the power generation market doesn't work when utilities have to plan for adding capacity into the grid years in advance. Munis do precisely this, and right now they can do it on a simple majority vote--a potentially very expensive problem that can leave California's remaining ratepayers paying for excess capacity that they're stuck with for years, or with inadequate capacity and strained transmission facilities that weren't designed to flip power.

The concern with prop 16 is creating an unfair competitive advantage between utilities such as PG&E and other electrical providers. Various communities (such as the city and county of SF) are exploring community choice aggregators that would provide them a combination of both private and public utility services. Prop 16 would make it very difficult for such communities to purchase their electricity outside of those established monopolies.

True, it would require a 2/3 vote to create a municipal utility. How is that an "unfair competitive advantage?" It just makes it harder to create a muni, which is a big advantage for the ratepayers because it allows for better planning and ensures that we're not stuck importing power at exorbitant prices, or stuck with excess generators that we don't use.

Moreover, how does Prop 16 make it "very difficult" for such communities to purchase their electricity outside of "those established monopolies?" We already have requirements that these big companies have to flip power from other suppliers directly to consumers. Why should utilities have to do this (allowing podunk generators to use their transmission facilities and lines at nominal prices) if they're not getting anything for it? Ratepayers are stuck with the bill for all of these reforms.

If the motivation behind prop 16 really is based on the abuse of municipal utilities that translate to higher bills for PG&E consumers, then why is none of this mentioned by Prop 16 advocates?

It's not clear to me that either side properly got their views across. California has the greenest utilities in the entire country, and munis aren't among them (e.g., LADWP), and they allow users to purchase renewable energy from anywhere--so why do opponents of Prop 16 focus on wanting "green" power? They just want cheaper power at the expense of the utilities and the rest of the state.

Also, how is establishing a 2/3rd voter requirement supposed to prevent sub-par municipal utilities from destroying their community infrastructure and then leaving big private utilities with the bill? Wouldn't a better approach include requiring every utility to adhere to modern standards?

It might be, but the state legislature has resisted that for years (too many NIMBY and special interest groups). More realistically, such a law would just trigger half the munis in the state to immediately sell off their death-trap systems to the nearest big utility, which would exacerbate the problem rather than making it better.

PG&E finally got fed up with the legislative impasse after they walked through the Redwood City Fiasco. Supposedly, SDG&E tried to bring one of these things up to the legislature 5 years ago, and consumer groups were outraged, demanding the ability to transfer costs to the rest of the state.

Then there's the question of why such a stringent requirement of 2/3rds of votes should be required when most people couldn't even be bothered with understanding their local utility situation. Or why it's even a god damn constitutional amendment.

It's the only way PG&E can bypass the legislative impasse. A 2/3 vote makes it harder, but really creating a municipal utility is a big step on only a simple majority vote, anyway. The voter disinformation coming out of the No-on-16 side really illustrates the dangers nicely.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Good lord, I looked at the republican ballot; Orly 'Obama is a Kenyan' Taitz is running for secretary of state!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Since the analogy was lost on you, allow me to explain in greater detail: when the state last attempted to increase competition in the state power generation market, it was a complete and unambiguous disaster. Allowing people to enter the power generation market doesn't work when utilities have to plan for adding capacity into the grid years in advance. Munis do precisely this, and right now they can do it on a simple majority vote--a potentially very expensive problem that can leave California's remaining ratepayers paying for excess capacity that they're stuck with for years, or with inadequate capacity and strained transmission facilities that weren't designed to flip power.

This is the second time you've ascribed disaster to state regulation of competition. And yet you haven't told me how rejecting prop 16 is tantamount to increased state regulation of the electrical market. Rejecting a proposition doesn't change the system; it maintains it.

True, it would require a 2/3 vote to create a municipal utility. How is that an "unfair competitive advantage?" It just makes it harder to create a muni, which is a big advantage for the ratepayers because it allows for better planning and ensures that we're not stuck importing power at exorbitant prices, or stuck with excess generators that we don't use.

Moreover, how does Prop 16 make it "very difficult" for such communities to purchase their electricity outside of "those established monopolies?" We already have requirements that these big companies have to flip power from other suppliers directly to consumers. Why should utilities have to do this (allowing podunk generators to use their transmission facilities and lines at nominal prices) if they're not getting anything for it? Ratepayers are stuck with the bill for all of these reforms.

Imposing a 2/3rds vote would make it much harder to switch utilities. Because you know... there's that added step of holding a vote with a 2/3rd benchmark to hit. I'm not sure what's so incomprehensible about that. As for unfair competitive advantage, imposing a 2/3rds requirement makes it harder for communities to opt for non-private utilities, thus making it more difficult to change the status quo - which is a statewide monopoly by IOUs. I'm not sure what's so incomprehensible about that either.

If the motivation behind prop 16 really is based on the abuse of municipal utilities that translate to higher bills for PG&E consumers, then why is none of this mentioned by Prop 16 advocates?

It's not clear to me that either side properly got their views across. California has the greenest utilities in the entire country, and munis aren't among them (e.g., LADWP), and they allow users to purchase renewable energy from anywhere--so why do opponents of Prop 16 focus on wanting "green" power? They just want cheaper power at the expense of the utilities and the rest of the state.

I never got the impression that the opponents were obsessed with wanting "green" power. Their main message was that PG&E are using their economic power to change the political landscape for their benefit.

Also, how is establishing a 2/3rd voter requirement supposed to prevent sub-par municipal utilities from destroying their community infrastructure and then leaving big private utilities with the bill? Wouldn't a better approach include requiring every utility to adhere to modern standards?

It might be, but the state legislature has resisted that for years (too many NIMBY and special interest groups). More realistically, such a law would just trigger half the munis in the state to immediately sell off their death-trap systems to the nearest big utility, which would exacerbate the problem rather than making it better.

And there's absolutely no way to directly prevent that problem either? Why does it feel like everyone's suddenly creatively bankrupt when it comes to coming up with solutions that directly address problems?

PG&E finally got fed up with the legislative impasse after they walked through the Redwood City Fiasco. Supposedly, SDG&E tried to bring one of these things up to the legislature 5 years ago, and consumer groups were outraged, demanding the ability to transfer costs to the rest of the state.

Regardless of the route the large IOUs have decided to take (through the legislature or the amendment process), it still doesn't seem like imposing a 2/3rds vote requirement (in the constitution no less) sound like a solution that best directly address the problem you're describing. And after 50+ million dollars of campaign spending, you'd think they'd articulate that problem to the voters too. But neither their commercials nor the actual ballot arguments reflect those concerns. It's extremely suspicious at best even if I gave them full benefit of the doubt.

Then there's the question of why such a stringent requirement of 2/3rds of votes should be required when most people couldn't even be bothered with understanding their local utility situation. Or why it's even a god damn constitutional amendment.

It's the only way PG&E can bypass the legislative impasse. A 2/3 vote makes it harder, but really creating a municipal utility is a big step on only a simple majority vote, anyway. The voter disinformation coming out of the No-on-16 side really illustrates the dangers nicely.

What? That's the only way PG&E can bypass the legislative impasse? Why can't PG&E fund a ballot initiative that adds standardized regulations for sub-par utilities to adhere to and attach to it a few additional provisions that hold utilities accountable for their practices so they don't just dump their shit and leave the IOUs with the bill? There's no indication whatsoever that this problem is the sole motivator of their campaign other than you say so.

[Master of Ossus]

This is the second time you've ascribed disaster to state regulation of competition. And yet you haven't told me how rejecting prop 16 is tantamount to increased state regulation of the electrical market. Rejecting a proposition doesn't change the system; it maintains it.

The problem wasn't "state regulation of competition." Competition in the public utilities in California has been regulated since the early 20th century. The problem was the specific efforts to break up the monopolies that California had created by encouraging an influx of new competitors into the utility business in the state without adequate safeguards--which is precisely what the current system permits and even encourages--there are strong incentives to create municipal utilities that are totally divorced with the incentives of the overall state or the ratepayers of all California utilities. The question should be whether or not the current system we have is good--and it's not. There's no reason for PG&E ratepayers to have to pay for Redwood City's disaster, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with these municipal utilities companies.

Imposing a 2/3rds vote would make it much harder to switch utilities. Because you know... there's that added step of holding a vote with a 2/3rd benchmark to hit. I'm not sure what's so incomprehensible about that. As for unfair competitive advantage, imposing a 2/3rds requirement makes it harder for communities to opt for non-private utilities, thus making it more difficult to change the status quo - which is a statewide monopoly by IOUs. I'm not sure what's so incomprehensible about that either.

Making it harder doesn't make it "unfair." That is a truly baffling claim that your entire argument seems to be based around. Indeed, since the simple majority decision can be demonstrably shown to impose significant costs (and economic inefficiency) on others, a very strong argument can be made that we should make it harder.

I never got the impression that the opponents were obsessed with wanting "green" power. Their main message was that PG&E are using their economic power to change the political landscape for their benefit.

And for the ratepayers. And for economic efficiency in the state utility grid. You cannot dismiss this claim by whining that PG&E is bigger than the munis--that's the only reason the munis have been able to get away with their bullshit.

Reviewing the No-on-16 bullshit, it's based on both the laughable claim that their side is promoting green energy (and "local" green energy--like the coal plants in Arizona that DWP gets away with only because it's not a big three utility in CA), and the equally laughable hyperbole that 16 locks out "all competition." Saying that it's expensive to pass this is totally fallacious, too: who cares how much money they're spending on promoting it if it's a good idea?

And there's absolutely no way to directly prevent that problem either? Why does it feel like everyone's suddenly creatively bankrupt when it comes to coming up with solutions that directly address problems?

So what are you going to do? The munis have systematically underinvested in their systems, and the utilities are still required to provide their customers with service (because that's one of the burdens incident to being one of the big three). You can either have the locals pay to upgrade their disastrous systems (which you know they're never going to go along with), you can have PG&E and the other bigs do it (which is where we are, now, and it's totally unfair), or you can ... do... what... exactly? Where's the money going to come from? PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE are actually being pretty reasonable with this, because they're basically writing off all the depreciation they have to pay for in these older systems that they still have to buy--they just don't want any more coming in, in the future, unless there's a 2/3 vote.

Regardless of the route the large IOUs have decided to take (through the legislature or the amendment process), it still doesn't seem like imposing a 2/3rds vote requirement (in the constitution no less) sound like a solution that best directly address the problem you're describing. And after 50+ million dollars of campaign spending, you'd think they'd articulate that problem to the voters too. But neither their commercials nor the actual ballot arguments reflect those concerns. It's extremely suspicious at best even if I gave them full benefit of the doubt.

But you don't see through the "No on 16" bullshit? Come on.

What? That's the only way PG&E can bypass the legislative impasse?

Ummmm... welcome to government in California. If you want a new law, you have to either go to the voters or else get it through the legislature. They've tried the legislature, and that hasn't worked. They're left with voters.

Why can't PG&E fund a ballot initiative that adds standardized regulations for sub-par utilities to adhere to and attach to it a few additional provisions that hold utilities accountable for their practices so they don't just dump their shit and leave the IOUs with the bill? There's no indication whatsoever that this problem is the sole motivator of their campaign other than you say so.

So what do YOU think they're after? Moreover, even if it's not the sole motivator, it's still a good idea because my reasoning in and of itself is sufficient to explain the need for a similar regulation.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The problem wasn't "state regulation of competition." Competition in the public utilities in California has been regulated since the early 20th century. The problem was the specific efforts to break up the monopolies that California had created by encouraging an influx of new competitors into the utility business in the state without adequate safeguards--which is precisely what the current system permits and even encourages--there are strong incentives to create municipal utilities that are totally divorced with the incentives of the overall state or the ratepayers of all California utilities. The question should be whether or not the current system we have is good--and it's not. There's no reason for PG&E ratepayers to have to pay for Redwood City's disaster, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with these municipal utilities companies.

Stop moving the goalposts. The issued raised in this response was never about whether the current system is good or not but about your implication that rejecting prop 16 was tantamount to increasing regulation. How else is anyone supposed to interpret "Last time I checked, CA's attempt to remove PG&E and the other utilities from their monopoly turned out to be the biggest regulatory disaster in the state's history."?

Making it harder doesn't make it "unfair." That is a truly baffling claim that your entire argument seems to be based around. Indeed, since the simple majority decision can be demonstrably shown to impose significant costs (and economic inefficiency) on others, a very strong argument can be made that we should make it harder.

That is a strawman of my statements. It isn't simply making harder that makes the system unfair. It's making it harder to change the status quo in a system that already favors monopolies that makes it unfair. Should the main concern really be the abuse of sub-par utilities, then the initiative should have addressed problems associated with sub-par utilities rather than establish a blanket and indiscriminate rule over every utility service provider - especially when that rule involves opinion of voters, something that you admit is problematic to begin with.

I never got the impression that the opponents were obsessed with wanting "green" power. Their main message was that PG&E are using their economic power to change the political landscape for their benefit.

And for the ratepayers. And for economic efficiency in the state utility grid. You cannot dismiss this claim by whining that PG&E is bigger than the munis--that's the only reason the munis have been able to get away with their bullshit.

It's not a claim I dismiss. It's that the law proposed doesn't appear to directly address the problem you raised. It only mitigates it by making it harder for communities to switch utilities while there are far better solutions that may exist.

Reviewing the No-on-16 bullshit, it's based on both the laughable claim that their side is promoting green energy (and "local" green energy--like the coal plants in Arizona that DWP gets away with only because it's not a big three utility in CA), and the equally laughable hyperbole that 16 locks out "all competition." Saying that it's expensive to pass this is totally fallacious, too: who cares how much money they're spending on promoting it if it's a good idea?

I frankly never visited their website. I read their arguments on the voter guide that came in my mail. Apparently, they included arguments about green energy in there as well but they only briefly mentioned it. The only argument that stuck out to me was the idea that the proposition would hurt competition, which is precisely what the description of proposition in the guide looks like it does. The abuse of sub-par utilities never occurred to me because neither side addressed it and the law doesn't even appear to address it well.

And there's absolutely no way to directly prevent that problem either? Why does it feel like everyone's suddenly creatively bankrupt when it comes to coming up with solutions that directly address problems?

So what are you going to do? The munis have systematically underinvested in their systems, and the utilities are still required to provide their customers with service (because that's one of the burdens incident to being one of the big three). You can either have the locals pay to upgrade their disastrous systems (which you know they're never going to go along with), you can have PG&E and the other bigs do it (which is where we are, now, and it's totally unfair), or you can ... do... what... exactly? Where's the money going to come from? PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE are actually being pretty reasonable with this, because they're basically writing off all the depreciation they have to pay for in these older systems that they still have to buy--they just don't want any more coming in, in the future, unless there's a 2/3 vote.

Your first option: Force those sub-par utilities to pay for their disastrous systems and sell it by making the point that the majority of Californians are paying the costs for these malpractices! And the law doesn't have to have immediate effects. It could provide provisions that allow those sub-par utilities to gradually upgrade their systems over time.

Regardless of the route the large IOUs have decided to take (through the legislature or the amendment process), it still doesn't seem like imposing a 2/3rds vote requirement (in the constitution no less) sound like a solution that best directly address the problem you're describing. And after 50+ million dollars of campaign spending, you'd think they'd articulate that problem to the voters too. But neither their commercials nor the actual ballot arguments reflect those concerns. It's extremely suspicious at best even if I gave them full benefit of the doubt.

But you don't see through the "No on 16" bullshit? Come on.

I've never seen a No on 16 commercial because, as I understand it, they frankly don't have the money for them. I derived my conclusion of this proposition by reading the voter's guide in my mail because I don't trust the advocacy sites to paint a fair picture.

What? That's the only way PG&E can bypass the legislative impasse?

Ummmm... welcome to government in California. If you want a new law, you have to either go to the voters or else get it through the legislature. They've tried the legislature, and that hasn't worked. They're left with voters.

That's a false dilemma. Apparently, there are multiple ways you can address a problem (imagine that) with varying degrees of competency regardless of whether you choose to use the legislative or the ballot initiative process.

So what do YOU think they're after? Moreover, even if it's not the sole motivator, it's still a good idea because my reasoning in and of itself is sufficient to explain the need for a similar regulation.

While it's hard to tell their true intentions, just from reading the proposition description itself, it sounds like they're trying to keep other utilities from sharing California electrical consumers. And your reasoning you present (which is never mentioned by either side) is not convincing because the proposed law is far less than ideal while failing to alleviate the concerns such a proposition would impose on the state.

[Master of Ossus]

Stop moving the goalposts. The issued raised in this response was never about whether the current system is good or not but about your implication that rejecting prop 16 was tantamount to increasing regulation. How else is anyone supposed to interpret "Last time I checked, CA's attempt to remove PG&E and the other utilities from their monopoly turned out to be the biggest regulatory disaster in the state's history."?

Are you being deliberately stupid or deliberately dishonest? The issue is whether refusing to pass Prop 16 is analogous to "deregulating" the utilities (no idea where you got "increasing regulation" from). It is, in that it's a deliberate election to increase competition without installing any safeguards whatsoever, or even reasoning as to whether or not competition should be increased or decreased in California electric utilities.

That is a strawman of my statements. It isn't simply making harder that makes the system unfair. It's making it harder to change the status quo in a system that already favors monopolies that makes it unfair. Should the main concern really be the abuse of sub-par utilities, then the initiative should have addressed problems associated with sub-par utilities rather than establish a blanket and indiscriminate rule over every utility service provider - especially when that rule involves opinion of voters, something that you admit is problematic to begin with.

It doesn't target "every" utility service provider. It specifically targets municipal ones that haven't been installed, already. The issue is obviously that creating municipals is uniquely damaging to society, and even the very act of creating a muni harms the rest of the utility's customers--a point you have studiously refused to acknowledge.

And why should it be bad to involve voters?

It's not a claim I dismiss. It's that the law proposed doesn't appear to directly address the problem you raised. It only mitigates it by making it harder for communities to switch utilities while there are far better solutions that may exist.

In most places, mitigating problems is a good thing. Obviously not true with Pint0 for brains.

I frankly never visited their website. I read their arguments on the voter guide that came in my mail. Apparently, they included arguments about green energy in there as well but they only briefly mentioned it. The only argument that stuck out to me was the idea that the proposition would hurt competition, which is precisely what the description of proposition in the guide looks like it does. The abuse of sub-par utilities never occurred to me because neither side addressed it and the law doesn't even appear to address it well.

And we return to the original point: creating competition in California's utilities was a disaster. That was the part that was problematic about it. Maintaining laws that were put in alongside deregulation (read: the fucking easy ability of cities and locals to create munis and screw everyone else) because they "help competition" is retarded when competition in a market is a bad thing.

Your first option: Force those sub-par utilities to pay for their disastrous systems and sell it by making the point that the majority of Californians are paying the costs for these malpractices! And the law doesn't have to have immediate effects. It could provide provisions that allow those sub-par utilities to gradually upgrade their systems over time.

So you've just localized the problem to very small groups of people, potentially damaging their communities beyond the ability to recover (do you really think that 80 households in Redwood City are going to foot an $11mm bill?). It gets worse when you take into account that places like trailer parks have their own utilities--they'll just pack up and move before they upgrade their systems.

I've never seen a No on 16 commercial because, as I understand it, they frankly don't have the money for them. I derived my conclusion of this proposition by reading the voter's guide in my mail because I don't trust the advocacy sites to paint a fair picture.

You realize that the voter's guide is written by advocates, right?

Right?

That's a false dilemma. Apparently, there are multiple ways you can address a problem (imagine that) with varying degrees of competency regardless of whether you choose to use the legislative or the ballot initiative process.

And where would you suggest that they go?

While it's hard to tell their true intentions, just from reading the proposition description itself, it sounds like they're trying to keep other utilities from sharing California electrical consumers. And your reasoning you present (which is never mentioned by either side) is not convincing because the proposed law is far less than ideal while failing to alleviate the concerns such a proposition would impose on the state.

The proposed law is tailored to try and allow municipalities that have genuine grievances with the "monopolies" to switch to their own systems. It just makes it a little harder. Creating a municipal utility shouldn't be the first step because it seriously harms the ratepayers.

[Sean Mulligan]

How could Harman have beaten Winograd? I thought everyone was sick of Harman. How could California's Proposition 14 have passed and Proposition 15 been beaten. Proposition 14 would further drive up the cost of elections and make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot. I don't see whats so how the claimed goal of proposition proponents of the proposition resulting in more centrist officials would be considered a good thing? Also, why did the fair election proposition 15 that would result in public financing of candidates and help to reduce the domination of big money on state politics.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

How could Harman have beaten Winograd? I thought everyone was sick of Harman. How could California's Proposition 14 have passed and Proposition 15 been beaten. Proposition 14 would further drive up the cost of elections and make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot. I don't see whats so how the claimed goal of proposition proponents of the proposition resulting in more centrist officials would be considered a good thing? Also, why did the fair election proposition 15 that would result in public financing of candidates and help to reduce the domination of big money on state politics.

Yeah, so much for the anti-incumbency mood. Winograd lost on slightly better but similar margins as she did in 2006.

[Sean Mulligan]

How could Harman have beaten Winograd? I thought everyone was sick of Harman. How could California's Proposition 14 have passed and Proposition 15 been beaten. Proposition 14 would further drive up the cost of elections and make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot. I don't see whats so how the claimed goal of proposition proponents of the proposition resulting in more centrist officials would be considered a good thing? Also, why did the fair election proposition 15 that would result in public financing of candidates and help to reduce the domination of big money on state politics.

Yeah, so much for the anti-incumbency mood. Winograd lost on slightly better but similar margins as she did in 2006.

Harman ran a Karl Rove style campaign, claiming that Winograd would leave America vulnerable to Al-Qaida and Iran. Her campaign seemed to be gloating in their victory statement. I would think that Harman would want to conciliate Winograde supporters, because she needs their votes to win the general election this November.

[Sean Mulligan]

At least Marcy Winograd did a little better then she did four years ago. She refused to accept corporate contributions while Harman was recieved funding from military contractors. Harman refused to debate Winograd and smeared Winograd with Rove like attacks that Winograd would cripple America's defences and leave us vulnerable to Al-Qaida and Iran.

I can't figure out why the voters approved proposition 14 or rejected proposition 15 but at least 14 might be declared unconstitutional. At least 16 and 17 were rejected.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I can't figure out why the voters approved proposition 14 or rejected proposition 15 but at least 14 might be declared unconstitutional. At least 16 and 17 were rejected.

How is proposition 14 unconstitutional?

[Sean Mulligan]

I can't figure out why the voters approved proposition 14 or rejected proposition 15 but at least 14 might be declared unconstitutional. At least 16 and 17 were rejected.

How is proposition 14 unconstitutional?

The proposition violates the rights of voters especially members of minor parties, because it doesn't allow write-in ballots, and violates the right of free association of members of minor parties by pushing minor party candidates off the ballot.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5776

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Proposition 14 was a valiant expansion of the extremely good legislation in Washington State which means that we can have democrat/versus/democrat races; it does the exact opposite of what you say, by guaranteeing that the top two, regardless of party, go into the runoff election. It means that anyone can ultimately be elected to office, the person the votes choose, instead of fanatics from extremist wings of the parties getting chosen by their own fanatical supporters and then running against each other with a pathetic race to the centre. Top Two primaries with effective runoffs for general elections between the two highest vote getters are the best and most straightforward solution to the broken party system we can have, and they're not at all unconstitutional, Washington State's has been racking up plenty of court successes in the ridiculous challenges to it. It actually fits perfectly as it is a considerable progressive victory against the forced two-party choices currently available in most of America.

[Illuminatus Primus]

One should consult Dahl's How Democratic is the U.S. Constitution? on how regressive and absurd the U.S. Constitution is. There is a reason no one else uses our shit system. We basically have an absurdly rigid constitutionally-enforced two-party-state, among other grossly undemocratic tendencies.