• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

California Propositions Discussion for 2020 Election

Deleted member 11637

Oct 27, 2017
18,204
Marking up my Voter Info Guide now...

YES on 14-19
NO on 20
YES on 21
NO on 22

...and then I'm confused. I have NO on 24 currently, because the initiative is being pushed by tech companies, and there might be loopholes to these "expanded privacy rules"?

Prop 23, I honestly don't know. Open to opinions. The arguments for/against and both rebuttals all have their own dialysis patient co-sponsor, so *shrug*

Prop 25...maaaan, I have no idea. It's a choice between paid bail that screws over poor people, or no bail for anyone, but we have to trust some risk-assessment algorithm that'll probably benefit rich defendants anyway?
 
radioactivez0r

radioactivez0r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,276
I follow a lot of privacy lawyers and orgs on Twitter, and they're pretty much unanimously against 24. It doesn't close a lot of gaps, and since CCPA went into effect like 9 months ago, there's not enough data to see where it needs to be improved. The ACLU is in favor of it, but I mean, they're in favor of protecting people.

I haven't made up my mind, but I'd rather we get a good privacy law than a fast privacy law.
 
studyguy

studyguy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,282


Didn't see this thread, also UBER/LIFT etc are all out here trying to shove this down CA's throat.
 
Rufio

Rufio

Member
Oct 27, 2017
395
Sort of related question:

I know early voting starts oct 5. But where? All i have is the voter information book but it doesnt list anywhere to go and vote. It just says to go to the la vote website

Los Angeles County RR/CC

locator.lavote.net locator.lavote.net
and all that says is " A list of locations will be made available 30-40 days before Election Day "

I'm in LA county btw but pretty much in the IE. (diamond bar)

And has anyone gotten their sample ballot book yet either? My parents are high risk and they want to vote in person as soon as possible and were asking me where and i couldnt figure it out.
 
Adder7806

Adder7806

Member
Dec 16, 2018
4,120
Rufio said:
Sort of related question:

I know early voting starts oct 5. But where? All i have is the voter information book but it doesnt list anywhere to go and vote. It just says to go to the la vote website

Los Angeles County RR/CC

locator.lavote.net locator.lavote.net
and all that says is " A list of locations will be made available 30-40 days before Election Day "

I'm in LA county btw but pretty much in the IE. (diamond bar)

And has anyone gotten their sample ballot book yet either? My parents are high risk and they want to vote in person as soon as possible and were asking me where and i couldnt figure it out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, I have received my sample ballot book
 
Tekniqs

Tekniqs

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,216
"support our firefighters. vote no on 'U'"

I've seen these around my town the past couple of weeks. what's this 'U'?
 
Midramble

Midramble

Force of Habit
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,452
San Francisco
The prop 22 ads are endless. Everytime you open the uber app they tell you to vote yes. Endless shameless pro prop 22 ads on YouTube. Am I their target demo or are they really just blasting everywhere?

Edit: here's the one showin up on the Uber app

rpJ21DF.jpg
 
Adder7806

Adder7806

Member
Dec 16, 2018
4,120
Midramble said:
The prop 22 ads are endless. Everytime you open the uber app they tell you to vote yes. Endless shameless pro prop 22 ads on YouTube. Am I their target demo or are they really just blasting everywhere?

Edit: here's the one showin up on the Uber app

rpJ21DF.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They're blasting them everywhere. Huge money going in to passing it.
 
take_marsh

take_marsh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,250
I'm just finished working through the guide book I got in the mail, making notes here and there. After everything, I match the progressive guide 100% so that's kinda funny. Prop 19 was the hardest one for me to understand. The second hardest was the rent control, which took a minute to realize we really need it because the NIMBY still pretty much owns California. Changing zoning laws and related-requirements feels incredibly difficult because so much of the state doesn't want the value of their home to go down (my interpretation anyway).

And fuuuuuuuuck Prop 22 and 20.
 
Macam

Macam

Member
Nov 8, 2018
1,454
Hound said:
What about Prop 19 guys? An exemption of new property taxes seems fair for wildfire victims, but letting all the rich 55 and over boomers buy whatever they want with a lower property tax base seems like 200% pure bullshit to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Per another progressive guide:

Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.
Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978's Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for longtime homeowners. Prop 19 is almost exactly the same as Proposition 5, which was on the 2018 California ballot and overwhelmingly defeated by voters, with 60 percent having voted against the proposition. The main difference in the proposition this year is that Prop 19 includes an additional amendment to Prop 13 that narrows an existing inheritance property tax break and promises to distribute any revenue generated from that amendment toward fire protection agencies and schools.

Why voting NO on Prop 19 matters
  • Proposition 19 widens the generational wealth gap by giving homeowners older than 55 and other qualified groups a way to keep property tax breaks they receive for having bought their homes decades ago if they move anywhere else in the state, up to three times. They can also keep that break if they move to a more expensive property.
  • Proposition 13 caps most property tax rates at 1 percent of a home's sale price and holds annual increases in assessed value to 2 percent or less. This means people who purchased their home a few decades ago already pay significantly less property tax than newer homeowners. Prop 19 further builds the wealth of longtime homeowners and denies wealth-building opportunities to people who don't own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.
  • While Prop 19 does eliminate a $1 million property tax exemption for parent-to-child transfers and could potentially generate state revenue that would be distributed to fire protection agencies and schools, this amendment is being paired with the primary tax break for longtime homeowners to make it more appealing.
Top Funders of Prop 19
Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm a No on it.
 
Macam

Macam

Member
Nov 8, 2018
1,454
radioactivez0r said:
I follow a lot of privacy lawyers and orgs on Twitter, and they're pretty much unanimously against 24. It doesn't close a lot of gaps, and since CCPA went into effect like 9 months ago, there's not enough data to see where it needs to be improved. The ACLU is in favor of it, but I mean, they're in favor of protecting people.

I haven't made up my mind, but I'd rather we get a good privacy law than a fast privacy law.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

24 was tricky, but this progressive guide helped explain it:

Vote NO on Prop 24 to protect consumers' personal information.
Proposition 24 asks voters to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to include pay-for-privacy schemes, which provide better services and internet connection to those who pay more in order to protect their personal information while providing suboptimal services for Californians who cannot or do not want to pay more. Additionally, Prop 24 caters to tech companies by allowing them to upload a California resident's personal information as soon as that resident's device, computer, or phone leaves the state's borders, and permits tech companies to completely ignore a programmable universal electronic "do not sell my information" signal. Under current law, privacy follows a Californian wherever they go, and businesses must honor the electronic signal.

Why voting NO on Prop 24 matters:

  • Prop 24 erodes a consumer's request to delete their data and would completely end CCPA protection of biometric information.
  • California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
  • Prop 24 would disproportionately affect working people and families of color.
  • The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that Prop 24 will cost $10 million annually to create a new state agency that oversees and enforces the more stringent consumer privacy laws with an unknown impact on state and local tax revenues.
Misinformation about Prop 24:

  • "It will better safeguard consumers' information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will only do this for the consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections. Additionally, Prop 24 will end CCPA protection of biometric information.
Top Funders of Prop 24:

  • Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer from San Francisco, donated the majority of the total funds for the support campaign entirely by himself, with a total of $4,892,400.
  • There are no contributions to an opposition campaign.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,144
Macam said:
Per another progressive guide:



I'm a No on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Does Prop 19 change the property tax increase rate, or are they just saying it keeps it as it is and that's a bad thing? I don't remember seeing that language in the bill.

Allowing them to move three times and bringing along their property tax rate instead of one time seems like a bad thing but forcing inheritors to actually have that property as their primary residence in order to keep that rate once the original owners pass away seems like a good thing, depending on how it's enforced. I'm asking because I'm still on the fence on it.
 
SeeingeyeDug

SeeingeyeDug

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,999
The California law they came up with for Uber and Lyft drivers screwed over musicians and other gigging workers. If Prop 22 passes then that entire law that screwed over musicians won't even touch the people the original law was meant for.

If they're going to do this, they should repeal that hair brained law they started with.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,144
SeeingeyeDug said:
The California law they came up with for Uber and Lyft drivers screwed over musicians and other gigging workers. If Prop 22 passes then that entire law that screwed over musicians won't even touch the people the original law was meant for.

If they're going to do this, they should repeal that hair brained law they started with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I thought they passed an amendment for the musicians?

But yes if this prop passes they should scrap the law, because I don't understand what the point of it is.
 
thermopyle

thermopyle

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,981
Los Angeles, CA
matched up well with the Progressive guide but I'm resigned to accepting 16 will fail & 22 will likely pass. The former because CA has been pretty anti-AA for awhile now.
 

Duracell017

Member
Nov 4, 2017
35
Question about 22. While the prop focuses on gig drivers, this will most likely pave way for other gig classifications to be affected if passed through other Props? I know at looking who is supporting for Yes spreading their own fear tactics primarily with layoffs as the main one, it seems that some of those drivers want this to pass since having benefits means less flexibility, defined minimum work hours to receive benefits, and etc? Are they being short-sighted and not looking at the general picture? The way the Props are worded are confusing lol. Just trying to understand each of them.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,144
Duracell017 said:
Question about 22. While the prop focuses on gig drivers, this will most likely pave way for other gig classifications to be affected if passed through other Props? I know at looking who is supporting for Yes spreading their own fear tactics primarily with layoffs as the main one, it seems that some of those drivers want this to pass since having benefits means less flexibility, defined minimum work hours to receive benefits, and etc? Are they being short-sighted and not looking at the general picture? The way the Props are worded are confusing lol. Just trying to understand each of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Early on I remember watching the local news and they had a gig driver on who wanted this to pass because he depends on this for his job, and yet he readily admitted that he needed to work way over 40 hours just to make ends meet and had no benefits. The fear is that these services just pull out completely, but while I understand that people will always fear losing their jobs, I hope they understand that even that is relatively short term because as soon as they can cut costs by replacing drivers, they will. They are not doing it to help you pay your bills.

Prop 23 has a similar message about layoffs, basically Davita is saying if it passes they'll have to close down dialysis clinics and people will die. However they seem to be making money hand over fist and I kind of doubt they would close any clinics, they'd just be making less money because they would require on site medical professionals at all sites. However both props have so much money thrown at them by companies that I cynically think that 22 will pass and 23 will fail.
 

Duracell017

Member
Nov 4, 2017
35
mrmoose said:
Early on I remember watching the local news and they had a gig driver on who wanted this to pass because he depends on this for his job, and yet he readily admitted that he needed to work way over 40 hours just to make ends meet and had no benefits. The fear is that these services just pull out completely, but while I understand that people will always fear losing their jobs, I hope they understand that even that is relatively short term because as soon as they can cut costs by replacing drivers, they will. They are not doing it to help you pay your bills.

Prop 23 has a similar message about layoffs, basically Davita is saying if it passes they'll have to close down dialysis clinics and people will die. However they seem to be making money hand over fist and I kind of doubt they would close any clinics, they'd just be making less money because they would require on site medical professionals at all sites. However both props have so much money thrown at them by companies that I cynically think that 22 will pass and 23 will fail.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you very much for the insight. There are things that I haven't really considered, the long term impact of these props for different use cases. I have been voting on the surface level in the past, that is reading the Props and making a decision then. I have pushed myself to become a better voter for local and state issues.
 
Nelo Ice

Nelo Ice

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,444
Just got my ballot today and time to do some reading. Already blindly voted Biden/Harris and any other Dem I saw.
 
Macam

Macam

Member
Nov 8, 2018
1,454
mrmoose said:
Does Prop 19 change the property tax increase rate, or are they just saying it keeps it as it is and that's a bad thing? I don't remember seeing that language in the bill.

Allowing them to move three times and bringing along their property tax rate instead of one time seems like a bad thing but forcing inheritors to actually have that property as their primary residence in order to keep that rate once the original owners pass away seems like a good thing, depending on how it's enforced. I'm asking because I'm still on the fence on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't believe it changes anything about the tax rate — it just lets them transfer ownership more times (up to 3), while keeping all existing rates and benefits. It also narrows a tax exemption from a similarly worded earlier failed proposition, in order to facilitate this new proposition's passage.

While some fire victims or what have you may benefit, the vast majority of this will be used by the boomer set to retain their financial advantages and to entrench generational wealth, hence the opposition by progressives.
 
Thordinson

Thordinson

Banned
Aug 1, 2018
17,906
Prop 25 seems good on its face but why the complicated risk algorithm? Why does cash bail need to be replaced by anything?
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,144
Macam said:
I don't believe it changes anything about the tax rate — it just lets them transfer ownership more times (up to 3), while keeping all existing rates and benefits. It also narrows a tax exemption from a similarly worded earlier failed proposition, in order to facilitate this new proposition's passage.

While some fire victims or what have you may benefit, the vast majority of this will be used by the boomer set to retain their financial advantages and to entrench generational wealth, hence the opposition by progressives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The clause that says it cannot be passed on to another generation unless it's the primary residence is key, though. Or are there just a lot of ways around it? I kind of don't mind if they can move two more times if it means their kids can't get the tax break unless they actually live in the property.
 
Macam

Macam

Member
Nov 8, 2018
1,454
mrmoose said:
The clause that says it cannot be passed on to another generation unless it's the primary residence is key, though. Or are there just a lot of ways around it? I kind of don't mind if they can move two more times if it means their kids can't get the tax break unless they actually live in the property.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not sure why an able bodied adult should get a huge tax break if they want to move, while no one else does.

This will be far likelier to be exploited and I'd rather it be specifically tailored to impacted groups, if that was the intent.
 
RBH

RBH

Official ERA expert on Third Party Football
Member
Nov 2, 2017
32,827
I am a nephrologist, so I just wanted to share my two cents regarding Prop 23.

If Prop 23 passes, it would be a disaster. The field of nephrology is already suffering from a severe shortage of physicians, and Prop 23 would require a physician to be on-site for a dialysis clinic for all operating hours and stretch us even thinner. The significance of this is that physicians would be taken away from dealing with more critical/emergent patients in the hospital and from seeing our patients in our outpatient clinic. The fallacy in the proposal is that we've already been running dialysis centers with nurses on-site who are already well trained and more than capable of responding to any emergency on-site for years, and a nephrologist is always available over the phone just in case. We also round in-person on these patients on a weekly basis anyways. Having a physician on-site for ALL operating hours of a dialysis clinic (which can be from 500am to 700pm in a typical day) does not improve the standard of care for these dialysis patients. In addition, we already have home hemodialysis patients who are able to do their own dialysis WITHOUT any supervision from a doctor or nurse.

If anything, this proposal is pretty much guaranteed to raise costs if it passes and would cause multiple dialysis centers to be closed, including those in low-income areas who are already suffering from not having enough dialysis centers nearby.

The proposition is not about patient safety, but is more the doing of unions who are trying to get back at dialysis companies for preventing their staff from unionizing, so they are putting up measures like this to hinder dialysis units. Physicians do not work for these dialysis companies, we just see our patients there, and this proposition would create a barrier for us to effectively see all of our patients during the day.

In summary, please vote NO on Prop 23.
 
Last edited:

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,144
Macam said:
Not sure why an able bodied adult should get a huge tax break if they want to move, while no one else does.

This will be far likelier to be exploited and I'd rather it be specifically tailored to impacted groups, if that was the intent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They already get a tax break (or keep a tax break) if they want to move, once. But if you look at the arguments against this proposition, it's this:

Proposition 19 is a billion-dollar tax increase on families. It takes away one of the best tools parents have to help their children—the right, enshrined in California's Constitution since 1986, to pass their home and other property on without any increase in property taxes. VOTE NO ON 19.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This tells me the bigger concern for people against this is keeping generational property taxes artificially low even if they don't live in the property. Again, if the inherited property is the primary residence, they can keep the tax break under this new law, without it they can keep the savings even if it is not the primary residence. As far as taxes go, removing that loophole would seem to either force people to declare CA as their primary residence or make them pay more taxes if it isn't.

Again, I'm not a strong for or against, that's just my initial opinion and I'm trying to get everything researched before I send in my ballot. Like I appreciate RBH's view on Prop 23, I realized it was supported by those who wanted to unionize but obviously I have to look into it a lot more.
 
Heel

Heel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,283
RBH said:
I am a nephrologist, so I just wanted to share my two cents regarding Prop 23.

If Prop 23 passes, it would be a disaster. The field of nephrology is already suffering from a severe shortage of physicians, and Prop 23 would require a physician to be on-site for a dialysis clinic for all operating hours and stretch us even thinner. The significance of this is that physicians would be taken away from dealing with more critical/emergent patients in the hospital and from seeing our patients in our outpatient clinic. The fallacy in the proposal is that we've already been running dialysis centers with nurses on-site who are already well trained and more than capable of responding to any emergency on-site for years, and a nephrologist is always available over the phone just in case. We also round in-person on these patients on a weekly basis anyways. Having a physician on-site for ALL operating hours of a dialysis clinic (which can be from 500am to 700pm in a typical day) does not improve the standard of care for these dialysis patients. In addition, we already have home hemodialysis patients who are able to do their own dialysis WITHOUT any supervision from a doctor or nurse.

If anything, this proposal is pretty much guaranteed to raise costs if it passes and would cause multiple dialysis centers to be closed, including those in low-income areas who are already suffering from not having enough dialysis centers nearby.

The proposition is not about patient safety, but is more the doing of unions who are trying to get back at dialysis companies for preventing their staff from unionizing, so they are putting up measures like this to hinder dialysis units. Physicians do not work for these dialysis companies, we just see our patients there, and this proposition would create a barrier for us to effectively see all of our patients during the day.

In summary, please vote NO on Prop 23.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The more I read into this prop, the more it looked like union sabre rattling than actual concerns for patient care. Ended up being the only prop where I voted against the party line. Thanks for the affirmation, albeit after the fact.
 
Addleburg

Addleburg

The Fallen
Nov 16, 2017
5,062
sqwarlock said:
KNOCK.LA put out an LA county guide that includes propositions, if you're looking for another progressive source:
knock-la.com

The KNOCK.LA Los Angeles Progressive Voter Guide for the November 2020 General Election - Knock LA

Vote: it might be the last chance you get!
knock-la.com knock-la.com
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I ended up using this when filling my ballot out a few days ago. It's interesting to see how there are disagreements between even them and the Progressive Voters Guide posted earlier, which I didn't previously see. The disagreement on Prop 25 is especially interesting. While I'm 100% in favor of abolishing cash bail, I do have concerns about how these algorithms will determine who should or shouldn't be denied bail. Progressive Voters Guide seems to be confident that there are sufficient checks and balances to make sure the algorithms don't unfairly target certain populations while The Knock isn't.
 
OP
OP
crienne

crienne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,166
Addleburg said:
I ended up using this when filling my ballot out a few days ago. It's interesting to see how there are disagreements between even them and the Progressive Voters Guide posted earlier, which I didn't previously see. The disagreement on Prop 25 is especially interesting. While I'm 100% in favor of abolishing cash bail, I do have concerns about how these algorithms will determine who should or shouldn't be denied bail. Progressive Voters Guide seems to be confident that there are sufficient checks and balances to make sure the algorithms don't unfairly target certain populations while The Knock isn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's definitely my concern about 25 as well. Yes, cash is a blocker for poorer arrestees, but it also makes it super easy for those that can afford it to make bail when they probably shouldn't. But what's to say that the new process won't also skew in a similar way?
 
Kintaro

Kintaro

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,331
Thanks for those links, helped out big time. There are always those propositions that sound good and then when hear/read alternate ways to interpret it paints a complete picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.