![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebAh, trying to vote.
EASY
Well, some things are easy for me this year. Here are those things in order from easiest to least easy.
City Council - District 10
Gregario Casar heard that some construction workers weren't getting paid. The construction workers were afraid to speak up because many of them were illegal immigrants. Casar did something to make sure those people got their pay. Whatever you think of illegal immigrants, surely hotels should not be able to get free labor out of people by breaking their contracts like bullies. Anyone who fights against theft and corruption is my man. His other viewpoints mostly sound good to me too.
Governor
Wendy Davis became known all over the country for taking a stand (literally) on something that's actually important. Her overall stands on some things are a bit fluffly, and I'm annoyed that she lets Republicans take ownership of things like "family values."
But Greg Abbott is scarier than Rick Perry. The latter, at least, could occasionally be reasonable or rational. So the choice is easy.
Lieutenant Governor
I remember figuring out a long time ago that Van dePutte sounded good and Patrick sounded crazy/scary, though I no longer remember the particulars. Patrick sounds sane but misguided on the LWV document, but I think he actually was friends with an undocumented worker he'd hired but then went turncoat on all undocumented workers, as if he didn't realize they were made out of people anymore.
Proposition 1 (city)
This is the proposition to build another light rail route. I love light rail. However, just like the last one, this one doesn't actually go anywhere good. And unlike the last one, it's not because it follows already-built railroad lines; they'd have to build new lines. Those who favor this route say that it's for places that will be growing in the future, places with potential. To me that sounds like something developers want. I think you should build things that are needed right now. I think there is no explanation for the route proposed here but corruption. This route is actually more accessible to me than the more obvious route through the center of town, but I don't care. I'm voting against.
Proposition 1 (state)
This requires half the money from gas and oil taxes that go into the rainy day fund to not just sit there but to actually be spent on transportation projects.
This sounds good to me. Also my old favorite Representative (no longer in my district) endorses it.
Senator
I have received many responses from my current Senator on the ballot (Cornyn) and every single one without exception has pissed me off. He likes to thank me very much for my opinion. He values the time I have taken to send him a response. He believes the exact opposite of what I have requested. He usually gives reasons that are based on bad data or otherwise make no sense, though occasionally he gives reasons that are just based on different priorities. And then he promises to take my opinions into consideration when he makes his decisions. When you lie in my face like that over and over and then also disagree with me on every single issue, it's easy to vote against you. But who do I vote for?
Alameel sounds basically okay, though stereotypically Democratic. Paddock sounds very hateful toward immigrants and mother earth, but I do like that she opposes spying on US citizens and is concerned about the suicide rate for veterans and active military. Sanchez did not submit a response to the League of Women Voters. I guess I'll vote for Alameel.
MEDIUM HARD
Other things are harder to decide.
Railroad Commissioner
(For those outside Texas, this is more important than it sounds.)
The League of Women Voters puts out some good information, but normally I don't care about the issues they ask about. But hey, they have an issue I care about for Railroad Commissioner: fracking. Sadly, I hate every one of their answers.
Steve Brown says "I would also support establishing a baseline of environmental factors through geological surveys and water tests to determine how drilling might impact an area." Um no, we don't need studies. I remember from one of Carl's classes in the 1980's that deep-well injection of hazardous wastes were found to cause earthquakes. Back then, that meant that you couldn't do it. Apparently the natural gas lobby is bigger than the hazardous waste removal lobby. But we don't need studies; scientists already know fracking sucks.
Mark Miller says "The Commission has rules to satisfy many purposes, e.g., prevention of waste, protection of mineral rights, water resources, and public safety. Fracking, per se, requires few additional rules. However, the fracking boom requires consideration of rules related to such things as waste water injection, discharge
of natural gas, and protection of surface owner rights." This doesn't sound like much. On the other hand, when a Libertarian says we need rules, that's pretty serious, so this guy might be my candidate.
Martina Salinas says "The commission also needs to be more vigilant in that only safe and reputable energy companies are allowed to operate in Texas." Only safe and reputable energy companies? There's no such thing. So no energy companies should be allowed to operate in Texas? Yeah, right.
Ryan Sitton says "All of the commission’s rules should be based on sound science and data and properly balance the safety and health of communities with our need to responsibly produce as much energy as possible." Science. And knowing that Americans want their power. Yes. But then he says, "Fracking is a proven, reliable and safe drilling technique that has allowed for tremendous growth in energy production." No, it is a profitable drilling technique that has made loads more natural gas available. Especially if they don't have to pay for any of the damage they do. But it is not safe at all. I hate this guy.
So, okay, I'm voting Libertarian here.
Austin Community College issues
These are
1 - growth bond (increase Highland, add one in Leander, and acquire land in SE austin for a "workforce" campus, whatever that is).
2 - maintenance bond (mostly for Rio Grande) and some other growth (Hays public saftey, Round Rock health force, Elgin sustainable ag and vet tech)
3 - raise the tax cap from 9 cents to 12 (over the next five years) to cover maintenance and "stabilize" tuition. Also finances a Nursing RN to BS program.
Figuring out how I want to vote on these issues requires me to figure out how I feel about three things: what should the ratio of student:taxpayer cost be for community colleges, do I like what these proposals are meant to do, and do I value and trust my particular community college? One could argue that it also matters whether I would personally benefit from any of these proposals.
I love colleges. Even community colleges. Love! But should these things be paid for by the students or by taxpayers? Does having cheaper classes help tax payers by improving the knowledge of some of her residents? At least it's not free--the people who benefit most do have to pay for part of that benefit, and they have a monetary incentive to not blow off the classes they're taking.
Now, what do I actually think about these proposals?
The first one about growth is probably just the sort of thing that makes sense to fund with bonds rather than regular income such as taxes and tuition. Also, I have a bias because it includes expanding the campus that is walking distance from my house. (Slobber, slobber.)
ACC has a nice page on these. They say "The college has since completed all planned bond projects [from the 2003 bond election] on time and under budget. In fact, strategic fiscal planning allowed the college to do more than promised." If that's true, I am impressed and inclined to entrust them with more money.
The second one about maintenance should be funded by regular funds such as tuition and property taxes. On the other hand, I get really sick about people not funding maintenance, so I kind of want to vote for this anyway.
Also, my friends in the School of Nursing at UT have told me that there is a huge demand for nurses (I also know this from my mom, who is a nurse) and that they can train only a certain number of nurses because there is only so much room in the local hospitals for them to practice. Still, if ACC can figure out a way to grant additional nursing degrees, that sounds kind of good.
The third one about raising the cap reminds me of how standard tip percentages have risen over the years. I am opposed to that. Yes, there is inflation. Therefore, things cost more at restaurants. And tips of a constant percentage will increase at the same pace.
So I'm inclined not to raise the cap on the percentage because property values increase and because the number of properties increase as the population grows. But ACC says that compared to other cities in Texas, our taxes are much lower than average and our tuition is much higher. So moving towards more taxes rather than more tuition is not going overboard compared to other cities. But the League of Women Voters says that attendance at ACC has fallen 8% since 2011, so why do they need more money?
I guess currently I'm inclined to vote yes-yes-no.
Representative - District 25
Betz has given the League of Women Voters no response. Montoya sounds surprisingly okay. My current Representative Williams has no response.
Attorney General
The Chronicle endorsements generally can't be trusted because they tend to recommend funding all bonds and voting straight Democratic. However, it's worth paying attention when they go against those trends.
I didn't see that happening for any races I can vote in. But I did read something that might make Robin want to vote for something other than the Libertarian candidate:
"After years of politicized prosecutions under AG Abbott, it's a relief to endorse an experienced lawyer who has pledged to end Abbott's commitment to secret government. There is no public benefit in sealing records of explosive chemicals or state subsidies to private businesses, and Houston will turn a bright spotlight on state operations once more." Sounds good to me; I'll be voting for Sam Houston. In spite of his name.
HARD
Ugh. Tired. Do not want to read any more about this stuff.
but I did think to google endorsements. I don't see any groups I identify with. However, I did see the Tea Party. So tempting to vote against everyone they endorse. They also have some people they recommend but don't endorse--I won't hold recommendation by the Tea Party against anyone.
Dang, I only see endorsements for two races for which I can vote:
Lt. Governor: Dan Patrick
Attorney General: Ken Paxton
And I'd already decided against those guys, so, oh well.
If any of the above makes you think, "No, no! Don't be an idiot!" please let me know. If you have an opinion about any state-wide races I didn't mention or school boards, please let me know. In fact, make any comments you please.
EASY
Well, some things are easy for me this year. Here are those things in order from easiest to least easy.
City Council - District 10
Gregario Casar heard that some construction workers weren't getting paid. The construction workers were afraid to speak up because many of them were illegal immigrants. Casar did something to make sure those people got their pay. Whatever you think of illegal immigrants, surely hotels should not be able to get free labor out of people by breaking their contracts like bullies. Anyone who fights against theft and corruption is my man. His other viewpoints mostly sound good to me too.
Governor
Wendy Davis became known all over the country for taking a stand (literally) on something that's actually important. Her overall stands on some things are a bit fluffly, and I'm annoyed that she lets Republicans take ownership of things like "family values."
But Greg Abbott is scarier than Rick Perry. The latter, at least, could occasionally be reasonable or rational. So the choice is easy.
Lieutenant Governor
I remember figuring out a long time ago that Van dePutte sounded good and Patrick sounded crazy/scary, though I no longer remember the particulars. Patrick sounds sane but misguided on the LWV document, but I think he actually was friends with an undocumented worker he'd hired but then went turncoat on all undocumented workers, as if he didn't realize they were made out of people anymore.
Proposition 1 (city)
This is the proposition to build another light rail route. I love light rail. However, just like the last one, this one doesn't actually go anywhere good. And unlike the last one, it's not because it follows already-built railroad lines; they'd have to build new lines. Those who favor this route say that it's for places that will be growing in the future, places with potential. To me that sounds like something developers want. I think you should build things that are needed right now. I think there is no explanation for the route proposed here but corruption. This route is actually more accessible to me than the more obvious route through the center of town, but I don't care. I'm voting against.
Proposition 1 (state)
This requires half the money from gas and oil taxes that go into the rainy day fund to not just sit there but to actually be spent on transportation projects.
This sounds good to me. Also my old favorite Representative (no longer in my district) endorses it.
Senator
I have received many responses from my current Senator on the ballot (Cornyn) and every single one without exception has pissed me off. He likes to thank me very much for my opinion. He values the time I have taken to send him a response. He believes the exact opposite of what I have requested. He usually gives reasons that are based on bad data or otherwise make no sense, though occasionally he gives reasons that are just based on different priorities. And then he promises to take my opinions into consideration when he makes his decisions. When you lie in my face like that over and over and then also disagree with me on every single issue, it's easy to vote against you. But who do I vote for?
Alameel sounds basically okay, though stereotypically Democratic. Paddock sounds very hateful toward immigrants and mother earth, but I do like that she opposes spying on US citizens and is concerned about the suicide rate for veterans and active military. Sanchez did not submit a response to the League of Women Voters. I guess I'll vote for Alameel.
MEDIUM HARD
Other things are harder to decide.
Railroad Commissioner
(For those outside Texas, this is more important than it sounds.)
The League of Women Voters puts out some good information, but normally I don't care about the issues they ask about. But hey, they have an issue I care about for Railroad Commissioner: fracking. Sadly, I hate every one of their answers.
Steve Brown says "I would also support establishing a baseline of environmental factors through geological surveys and water tests to determine how drilling might impact an area." Um no, we don't need studies. I remember from one of Carl's classes in the 1980's that deep-well injection of hazardous wastes were found to cause earthquakes. Back then, that meant that you couldn't do it. Apparently the natural gas lobby is bigger than the hazardous waste removal lobby. But we don't need studies; scientists already know fracking sucks.
Mark Miller says "The Commission has rules to satisfy many purposes, e.g., prevention of waste, protection of mineral rights, water resources, and public safety. Fracking, per se, requires few additional rules. However, the fracking boom requires consideration of rules related to such things as waste water injection, discharge
of natural gas, and protection of surface owner rights." This doesn't sound like much. On the other hand, when a Libertarian says we need rules, that's pretty serious, so this guy might be my candidate.
Martina Salinas says "The commission also needs to be more vigilant in that only safe and reputable energy companies are allowed to operate in Texas." Only safe and reputable energy companies? There's no such thing. So no energy companies should be allowed to operate in Texas? Yeah, right.
Ryan Sitton says "All of the commission’s rules should be based on sound science and data and properly balance the safety and health of communities with our need to responsibly produce as much energy as possible." Science. And knowing that Americans want their power. Yes. But then he says, "Fracking is a proven, reliable and safe drilling technique that has allowed for tremendous growth in energy production." No, it is a profitable drilling technique that has made loads more natural gas available. Especially if they don't have to pay for any of the damage they do. But it is not safe at all. I hate this guy.
So, okay, I'm voting Libertarian here.
Austin Community College issues
These are
1 - growth bond (increase Highland, add one in Leander, and acquire land in SE austin for a "workforce" campus, whatever that is).
2 - maintenance bond (mostly for Rio Grande) and some other growth (Hays public saftey, Round Rock health force, Elgin sustainable ag and vet tech)
3 - raise the tax cap from 9 cents to 12 (over the next five years) to cover maintenance and "stabilize" tuition. Also finances a Nursing RN to BS program.
Figuring out how I want to vote on these issues requires me to figure out how I feel about three things: what should the ratio of student:taxpayer cost be for community colleges, do I like what these proposals are meant to do, and do I value and trust my particular community college? One could argue that it also matters whether I would personally benefit from any of these proposals.
I love colleges. Even community colleges. Love! But should these things be paid for by the students or by taxpayers? Does having cheaper classes help tax payers by improving the knowledge of some of her residents? At least it's not free--the people who benefit most do have to pay for part of that benefit, and they have a monetary incentive to not blow off the classes they're taking.
Now, what do I actually think about these proposals?
The first one about growth is probably just the sort of thing that makes sense to fund with bonds rather than regular income such as taxes and tuition. Also, I have a bias because it includes expanding the campus that is walking distance from my house. (Slobber, slobber.)
ACC has a nice page on these. They say "The college has since completed all planned bond projects [from the 2003 bond election] on time and under budget. In fact, strategic fiscal planning allowed the college to do more than promised." If that's true, I am impressed and inclined to entrust them with more money.
The second one about maintenance should be funded by regular funds such as tuition and property taxes. On the other hand, I get really sick about people not funding maintenance, so I kind of want to vote for this anyway.
Also, my friends in the School of Nursing at UT have told me that there is a huge demand for nurses (I also know this from my mom, who is a nurse) and that they can train only a certain number of nurses because there is only so much room in the local hospitals for them to practice. Still, if ACC can figure out a way to grant additional nursing degrees, that sounds kind of good.
The third one about raising the cap reminds me of how standard tip percentages have risen over the years. I am opposed to that. Yes, there is inflation. Therefore, things cost more at restaurants. And tips of a constant percentage will increase at the same pace.
So I'm inclined not to raise the cap on the percentage because property values increase and because the number of properties increase as the population grows. But ACC says that compared to other cities in Texas, our taxes are much lower than average and our tuition is much higher. So moving towards more taxes rather than more tuition is not going overboard compared to other cities. But the League of Women Voters says that attendance at ACC has fallen 8% since 2011, so why do they need more money?
I guess currently I'm inclined to vote yes-yes-no.
Representative - District 25
Betz has given the League of Women Voters no response. Montoya sounds surprisingly okay. My current Representative Williams has no response.
Attorney General
The Chronicle endorsements generally can't be trusted because they tend to recommend funding all bonds and voting straight Democratic. However, it's worth paying attention when they go against those trends.
I didn't see that happening for any races I can vote in. But I did read something that might make Robin want to vote for something other than the Libertarian candidate:
"After years of politicized prosecutions under AG Abbott, it's a relief to endorse an experienced lawyer who has pledged to end Abbott's commitment to secret government. There is no public benefit in sealing records of explosive chemicals or state subsidies to private businesses, and Houston will turn a bright spotlight on state operations once more." Sounds good to me; I'll be voting for Sam Houston. In spite of his name.
HARD
Ugh. Tired. Do not want to read any more about this stuff.
but I did think to google endorsements. I don't see any groups I identify with. However, I did see the Tea Party. So tempting to vote against everyone they endorse. They also have some people they recommend but don't endorse--I won't hold recommendation by the Tea Party against anyone.
Dang, I only see endorsements for two races for which I can vote:
Lt. Governor: Dan Patrick
Attorney General: Ken Paxton
And I'd already decided against those guys, so, oh well.
If any of the above makes you think, "No, no! Don't be an idiot!" please let me know. If you have an opinion about any state-wide races I didn't mention or school boards, please let me know. In fact, make any comments you please.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2014-10-25 05:27 pm (UTC)I wish the democratic party were more organized... there are a lot of democrats just not voting because there's no hope.
no subject
on 2014-10-25 11:45 pm (UTC)It's tough when there's no one you can stand to vote for. But I will vote for third party candidates if I like them best--some people say it's throwing away your vote. But not voting is definitely throwing away your vote. And Ross Perot showed me that if third parties get enough votes, then the main parties will steal their good ideas. so that's pretty good.
no subject
on 2014-10-26 02:02 pm (UTC)Voting for a democrat is still throwing away my vote, probably more-so than voting for a libertarian. It's not that there aren't enough democrats to make a difference, but that they're not voting because there's nobody organizing us so there's no hope.