Why I VOTED REPUBLICAN on Nov 5th

by cellomould 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cellomould

  I voted for only one Republican in this mid-term election. I do think that governmental positions should be filled by a diverse group of well-qualified people.

  But it is very dangerous to allow one party (Republican in particular) to have a majority, as has happened in the Senate. Now Republicans have control of legislation that passes both the House and Senate.

  Would you like to know how Republicans here in voted for an issue very crucial to your health?
  The bill was about drinking water.
  _____________________________________________________________________________
  AB 1972: Right To Know About Drinking Water Contamination
  This bill would have provided consumers with information about health risks caused by contaminants in drinking water. Currently, consumers are not informed of major health risks posed by contaminated drinking water. This bill was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor.

  D for: 49
  D against: 1

  R for: 2
  R against: 28
  Total: 80

  Percentage of Democrats voting yes: 98%
  Percentage of Republicans voting no: 93%

  Souce of data: http://www.calpirg.org/scorecards/assembly.pdf
  ________________________________________________________________________________

  The good news:
  Republicans occupy only 37.5% of the seats in the California Assembly
  The bad news:
  The governor, a democrat, vetoed the bill.
  I don't claim to speak for him.
  
  cellmould

  Edited by - cellomould on 7 November 2002 16:15:51
• 

  Brymichmom

  Well Cello, I voted against our Gray Davis. I think he is a terrible governor and I didn't like Bill Simon much either. So I think we had the choice between dumb and dumber over here in CA. I just want someone to explain to me why if California has the 7th largest economy in the world, WHY did we have rolling blackouts? (That only happens in 3rd world countries, right?) Seems to me that good ol' Gray Davis should have had some kind of control over that. State income tax was raised and I don't see anything more for my money.

  The other thing that made me upset was that Davis cut 15% from the Education budget. Now I work in a school district and it just upset me to see how anyone could take anything away from our school children.
• 

  borgfree

  I have not read the bill, but, it looks like there are some serious

  problems with it, according to the Governors letter. 

   BILL NUMBER: AB 1972 VETOEDDATE: 09/27/2002 SEP 27, 2002

   To Members of the California State Assembly:

   I am returning Assembly Bill 1972 without my signature.

   This bill requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard

   Assessment to prepare a statement of health concerns associated

   with the ingestion in drinking water of any contaminant for which

   there is a public health goal and include this information in the

   consumer confidence reports. This bill imposes new requirements

   that have the unintended effect of confusing, rather than informing,

   the public by potentially overstating the health risk effect.

   Moreover, the bill will result in a cost of $75,000 to the Office

   of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment at a time when the state

   is dealing with a $24 billion shortfall.

   Sincerely, GRAY DAVIS 

  
  

  Edited by - borgfree on 7 November 2002 16:32:36
• 

  cellomould

  Brymichmom,

  I didn't vote for Gray Davis either.

  You know, since only about 53% percent of registered voters showed up at the polls, we lost a lot of votes that could have gone to a third party candidate. Makes you wonder, eh?

  If people stop thinking they have only two choices (for example, by reading the voter booklet you get statements from 5 or so candidates), politics could work much better.

  The problem I do see with that is third party candidates can take votes away from the second place candidate. (i.e. Ralph Nader/Al Gore). In the presidential election, Al Gore was clearly the more qualified of the top two. If Nader had withdrawn...

  cellmould
• 

  William Penwell

  Yes it is sad that people have put their faith in one party. Unfortunately for all of us, with W Bush having control of both houses we maybe on the brink of a 3rd world war. Not to bad for a guy that was not voted in by the majority of Americans.

  Will
• 

  caligirl

  I certainly would have voted, but I did not qualify to vote this time around because I moved too recently to be allowed to by California law. However, of the 53% of ELIGIBLE voters who did show up at the polls, does anyone have a theory to explain why they would vote AGAINST a measure that could have made it possible for people who WANT to vote (but can't because of totally ridiculous, stupid restrictions) to register at the polls? Seemed counter productive to me, and one cannot moan about low turnout when there are all those stupid restrictions that keep many. many people from being allowed to vote. Not really ranting at you cello, just a general gripe to add to the pot! I certaily agree with the analogy of dumb and dumber regarding our choice for governor, but had I been elligible to vote I would have voted for Simon just to get rid of Gray Davis.
• 

  Jankyn

  While I've come to truly dislike the way the two-party system has evolved, at this point it's impossible to accomplish much outside of it. Green Party candidate Peter Camejo, darling of the left, only polled 16% in San Francisco. SF is the bastion of left-wing politics in CA, and Camejo could only pull 16% of the vote. That makes him nooo threat at all to the Republicans, and a very small threat to the Democrats.

  What would really shake things up would be Instant Runoff Voting, in which we could rank candidates in order of preference. That would allow folks to select their first choice, even if it's an alternative party candidate without a hope in hell of winning, while not automatically hurting the second-best (and probably major party) candidate.

  Of course, it would force the Demublicans and the Republicrats to be more accountable to the electorate--they'd have to do more than simply campaign against the other major party. They'd have to take into consideration the often innovative ideas put forward by so-called "third" party candidates. They'd have to actually listen to constituents, rather than using special interest money to finance attack ads. In short, they'd have to act more like public servants and less like politicians, so it won't ever happen.

  Best,

  Jankyn
• 

  freedom96

  We need to remember, that in the case of voting for president, it is not always who has the most votes. Should it be that way? I think so. But it is done by the electoral voting system. Therefore, it is quite possible, and does happen, that the one with the most votes, does not win. It is a shame.

  That being said however, I am very pleased that Bush is in office, instead of Gore.
• 

  borgfree

  Hi freedom96,

  I used to think we should have direct voting instead of the electorial college, but, after this year I have changed my mind.

  Algore got most of his votes in a few very large cities, while most of the country voted for GW. I would hate to have just Ny, Chicago, LA and a few other cities select our president every election.

  Borgfree
• 

  freedom96

  Hi Borgfree,

  I see what you are saying, and there sure are a lot of ways to look at things. I am sure there are a lot of good points either way. One point to consider, though, if there was direct voting, then the farmer in the middle of Kansas would have the same voting power is a corporate CEO of a large downtown city.

  Just a thought.