This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.
This post will deal strictly with the ballot initiatives, and mostly the state-wide amendments. A good non-partisan website to look at for the amendments is Collins Center. I am referencing all of my write-ups to this website. I encourage you to watch the 1-2 minute videos that summarize each of the amendments.
If you have a question on how I would vote concerning something else on the ballot, feel free to ask.
No.1 Constitutional Amendment
Repeal of Campain [sic] Financing Reform
Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
YES
Aside from the misspelled word, which hopefully is fixed on the official ballot--otherwise that could mean the REAL Campaign Finance Law won't be repealed--this is an easy pick for me. Campaign financing is a "noble" fix to what is really a non-problem. You see, for every big spending political juggernaut in Florida, there are plenty more little upstarts who just can't get their message out due to a lack of funds. The state of Florida will give these (typically third-party) politicians money to run their campaign. But of course there's a catch: you have to agree to certain spending limits on your campaign.
So if someone uses the public funds to generate some grass-roots momentum, and then in turn begins to raise their own money, they are locked into certain spending limits because they took the public money. Campaign finance laws essentially come down to an infringement on freedom of speech, as odd as that may sound. Because you are given public funds, the government then tries to tell you how much money you can spend on what is essentially getting your message out (your speech).
Repealing this law is a double whammy. It reduces government spending which would in turn eliminate the restrictions on campaign spending.
No. 2 Constitutional Amendment
Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit for Deployed Military Personnel
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
NO
Don't think that a NO vote here hurts the servicemen. They already receive at least one homestead property tax. This would just be an additional benefit to them. It can be hard to vote against something that seems to benefit our troops, who do so much for our country. But servicemen aren't the only ones working in this terrible economy, and they're also not the only ones who could use a tax break.
I am very much against favoritism in legislation, and this amendment screams favoritism. If we make exceptions here, then it just opens the door for more exceptions down the road. Voting no won't take away anything from the people who have been stationed outside the U.S. It will just keep them from getting ANOTHER tax break.
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment
Referenda Required for Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans
Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
NO
This amendment is the brainchild of a group that wants to give power back to the people. They are tired of elected officials getting cozy with developers and abusing the system, resulting in increased cost, unmet time tables, and in severe cases seizure of private property. However, it is also an example of treating the symptoms instead of the cause.
If the problem is crony capitalism (government in bed with businesses) then the solution should be a form of pushing competition. This can be done by creating a comprehensive bidding system, and if the winning bid goes over the budget they proposed then they are liable for all additional costs; the tax-payer should not be footing the bill.
Government officials, love 'em or hate 'em, are elected to do these things so that we don't have to. Despite the noble intentions of the amendment's backers, a group called "Hometown Democracy," we put these people in positions of authority so that we don't have to go to the polls every time a change is made in a development plan. There's no definitive evidence on how much this amendment would cost/save taxpayers, but the way I see it is that additional ballot measures every voting cycle would inevitably result in the "need" to create a new bureaucratic office to handle these special elections.
Proponents are for Amendment 4 because they claim it puts power back into the hands of the people. But in reality it substitutes one sort of cronyism for another: the developers are now unseated by the voter who may not like a tree in the park across the street being taken out to build a new public bathroom. Like I said before, the best way to protect against these abuses are to create a competitive market for developers and not lock a city into long contracts with a particular company.
Nos. 5 and 6 Constitutional Amendments
Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative (5)/Congressional (6) Redistricting
Legislative/Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
YES
Both of these are the saying the same thing, but one applies to redistricting for U.S. Congressional districts and the other to the Florida state legislature. Part of my confusion concerning Amendments 5 and 6 was that I already thought there was something that prevented gerrymandering, or the act of drawing district lines in odd shapes (like a salamander) to favor a certain political party.
I have some misgivings about these amendments because of the emphasis that districts "shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process..." I didn't realize anyone was denying them the vote; as though we were living before the 1960s again. I think the concern is that in some districts with large minority populations, minority candidates or candidates favoring minority positions rarely run or are elected. There's no telling that with these amendments anything different will occur, though.
The opponent's position, however, is even weaker. Despite Florida having more registered Democrats than Republicans, the state typically votes Republicans into office. Therefore, the Republicans usually get to redraw the district lines. Essentially the opposition point-of-view is "vote NO on 5 and 6 so we can keep favoring Republicans." If that's how you think, then by all means vote that way. But I think you should look at some of the current districts we have and see the ridiculous shapes that they claim are fairly distributed: District 27 stretches across the entire state, District 11 includes only a tiny portion of south St. Petersburg, and District 3 starts in Pine Hills, Orlando and goes north all the way to Jacksonville, taking a huge portion of central Florida with it.
No. 8 Constitutional Amendment
Revision of the Class Size Requirement for Public Schools
The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
YES
I had to do a double-take on this one. My first instinct was "NO," because I thought smaller classes were more conducive to learning and I thought that if the school budget was having trouble meeting needs, cuts could be made in other areas. But it turns out that a Harvard study was done on Florida based on the 2002 law that mandated the smaller class sizes, and they found no discernible differences between scores prior to and scores after. Another thing is that the new amendment would change the class size maximum to the class size average in a school.
So three classes at an elementary school, A, B, and C, under the current law have 17, 18, and 18 students respectively. Two new students transfer into the school and are put in class A, and one student transfers out of the school and class B. The current law would require a student to be moved from class A to class B to keep the maximum at 18 each. But the new amendment would allow things to remain as is because the overall average in the school is still 18 students in each class. The only problem that would arise is if the new maximum of 21 is breached, but then things are treated the same as before and a new teacher is hired and class is created.
The other thing is that an estimated $18.7 billion have been spent trying to meet the class size requirements from the 2002 law. And schools are still not close to meeting the standards by the 2011 deadline. In addition, money is saved overall by not needing to build as many additional schools.
The bottom line is the kids shouldn't suffer but neither should the taxpayer, which is exactly what's happening in this instance. Don't let teachers try to persuade you that it's "FOR TEH CHILDRENZ" and a vote for 8 is a vote against kids (although you're welcome to think that if you don't like kids). It's simply about trying to control government spending so that these kids will have a state to live in when they graduate.
Nonbinding Statewide Advisory Referendum
In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the federal government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?
YES
If a family has to live under a budget, why shouldn't the government? The thing about this ballot item is that it is only asking if there should be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So in other words a YES vote will only get the ball rolling. But I still think it's a push in the right direction. For the same reason's Proposition 19 in California is getting the discussion going on decriminalizing marijuana, this kind of vote will make people consider the unrestrained spending that Congress has been forcing on us for decades.
I hope my synopses help you decide one way or the other on how to vote on November 2nd. The most important part is that you take an interest in your community, your state, and your country and vote on what you think best benefits that which you hold dear. Let's hit the polls hard, people, and let the government know what is important to us.
Same great taste, without the silly sense of entitlement.
Showing posts with label 2010 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 elections. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Election Day Picks Part 1
This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.
Let's get started, shall we?
United States Senator
Alexander Andrew Snitker
I think there's a good theme in Florida's U.S. Senate race this year. Six out of 10 of the candidates listed on the ballot consider themselves Constitutionalists or small-government conservatives. That says that at least in Florida there is a feeling that government is out of control, and a lot of people have taken up that call.
The reason I like Snitker over all other candidates is that I just think he is the most devoted to shrinking government. I don't even dignify Meek with a thought in this race because he probably won't even get a majority of the Democrat votes. Crist is an opportunist who would throw his own mother aside if it got him into a higher office. I like a lot of what Marco Rubio has done as Speaker of the House in Florida, and his stances on property rights and education reform sit highly with me. But some of his other views like being unerringly pro-Israel are kind of a turn-off for me. It's okay to view Israel as a friend and potential ally, but I don't like the idea that we're on the hook for any danger they put themselves in. Israel, after all, is the Lord's nation; they should be able to handle themselves. (They have multiple times in the past)
Of the third party candidates, Snitker and Bernie DeCastro had the most similar views to my own who also looked a little more legit than the candidates that remind me of the hobo under the bypass warning about the dangers of radio waves. I like Snitker's campaign promises to abolish the Department of Education and the IRS and instead enact a FairTax to collect from everyone within the country, citizens and aliens alike. DeCastro is also in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment (direct income tax) which would result in more money in an individual's pocket.
I suppose Snitker gets the vote for me because he is a former Marine and therefore knows the folly of our current foreign policy. A strong military is necessary, but I believe America should first and foremost be a defensive nation. DeCastro makes a play for the Monroe Doctrine, but in my mind that was the first instance of us setting actual foreign policy on the notion that we should police the world, whether nearby in the Caribbean or across the world in Iraq. Our military presence overseas is a huge drain on our economy, and so much money could be saved by removing ourselves from the hundreds of bases we have in foreign lands.
Representative in Congress 24th Congressional District
Sandra "Sandy" Adams
Sandy Adams supports a flat tax rate that could eventually eliminate the need for the IRS (pipe dream I know, but it's nice in theory). I think low taxes are important for jump-starting the economy and keeping it going. But it is just part of the solution; huge slashes in spending (and not slashes in the budget from last year's, but actually cutting and killing wasteful programs) are needed to reduce the size of government, free up capital for businesses, and overall get our country back in to fiscal security.
Because all economic bills start in the House of Representatives, this is potentially a more important choice--given the state of the union--than the Senate race. Believe it or not, Suzanne Kosmas and Sandy Adams are very similar on a lot of the issues, such as NASA, small business support, and energy policy. But their voting records tell a bigger tale.
Kosmas voted to give $40B to green schools. I don't think schools should be funded on whether or not they are ecologically stable. Kosmas also voted to enforce against anti-gay hate crimes. I've laid out my stance on legislating against hate crimes before. And she also voted for the massive expenditures known as the 2009 stimulus and TARP.
Sandy Adams isn't perfect though, either. While she did vote to privatize toll roads and voted to continue to allow the teaching of evolution in schools, she also voted against certain gambling measures, which generate a lot of money for the public school system (so much so that schools are often underfunded by state sources).
It's actually unfortunate that only two candidates are running in this election, as it turns certain issues which aren't so black and white into pretty polarizing topics. A third or even fourth candidate would have helped to draw the lines a bit more clearly.
Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Undecided still... sorry
This is the most difficult to vote for because there are so many candidates and so little known about them (at least by me). While he won't get my vote, I do like C.C. Reed's candidacy, who says we should change "Politics" to "PEOPLE-tics." Unfortunately, he also has the ridiculously expensive idea of "provid[ing] available personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (including holidays) to address taxpayers' concerns and issues." There's also Josue Larose who was the Chairman of the United States Billionaires Federal Political Action Committee.
Farid Khavari sounds like he makes sense until you see some of his extremely expensive ideas like free higher education for all students in Florida, and solarizing the entire state. Daniel Imperato has a lot of experience in promoting businesses but he doesn't have any other information about how he stands on additional issues.
Michael E. Arth (Earth?) is an interesting case. For every sane idea (like decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them) he has THREE insane ideas (like "taxes are the price of admission to live in civilized society" and abortion can be used as a last resort to overpopulation concerns). Still, I love his un-Politically Correct writings. John Wayne Smith is a libertarian candidate, and unfortunately as someone else said, his website looks like what you would expect from a libertarian candidate. Still, I think he speaks his mind about a lot of the topics and takes the same stance I do on most issues. On healthcare, for instance, he says this: "Most people think that this system needs to be overhauled when in fact it doesn't; it simply needs to get the government out of the business to begin with."
Peter Allen looks like he's trying to appeal to everyone with his candidacy, since he's all over the place on the issues. He says healthcare should be provided for all Floridians, but they should also be able to purchase whatever healthcare they want. His website is also in dire need of an editor: "Decriminalize the use and procession of small amounts of Marijuana. [emphasis mine]"
Neither Alex Sink nor Rick Scott look promising. Scott is embattled in cases that pin him as either an idiot for not knowing what happened with his company or as a mastermind that scammed millions in Medicaid. Sink talks the talk when it comes to fiscal conservatism, but as Chief Financial Officer the state lost billions. Sink does seem better on civil liberties like equal rights for gays, and Scott comes off as an idiot saying that children are better off "if they're raised by a married couple."
This election is a doozy, that's for sure. If I had to pick one now, I'd probably go with Smith, who has a very Ron Paul vibe to him. But it will probably end up being a GTD (game time decision).
Attorney General
Pam Bondi
My vote for Attorney General is going to someone who I believe will follow in Bill McCollum's footsteps and continue the federal lawsuit on Obamacare. The individual mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is unconstitutional, and any attempt to knock down that massive piece of semi-aborted legislation is an A+ in my book. So that essentially knocks the Democrat Dan Gelber out of the race.
Pam Bondi has a few things going for her. She's pretty hot, and she's the owner of Beethoven. She is a prosecutor and claims to want to crackdown on Medicare fraud cases. So anyone who wants to stick it to old folks scamming the system is Aces in my book as well. She is willing to take the challenge to Obamacare as far as she can as well.
Jim Lewis comes across a lot like Pam Bondi at first--minus the attractive face and giant dog--but he says one of his goals is to "urge our Florida law schools to reduce enrollment by 25% for the next 4 years" because of an overpopulation of lawyers and too many civil litigation cases. Since my goal is to become a criminal defense attorney in the very near future, this does not sit well with me. There's also the fact that Lewis would have no actual authority to propose such an idea, making him slightly absurd.
Chief Financial Officer
Independent candidate. Ken Mazzie or Tom Stearns
When I hear Chief Financial Officer, it sounds like a glorified name for Treasurer. Like the kind the chess club has. Well apparently even that is giving the position too much credit. But this job is about money, and partisan politics should have no place in this position. So that's why I am voting one of the two independents, and more likely Mazzie since he is a Certified Public Accountant, not a career politician, and knows how to handle money.
Commissioner of Agriculture
Thad Hamilton
I'm sad to see badass Charles Bronson not running again. This is another one of those positions where I just can't comprehend why a political affiliation is necessary. Not that I thought there were any "issues" involved in being Plant Commish, but Scott Maddox has a section for them on his site but nothing listed. Ira Chester looks like a cute but angry grandfather. I'm going with Hamilton because he seems to have the most experience in agriculture, whatever that means exactly. Plus, I don't think I've voted for any black people yet.
State Senator, 24th Senatorial District
Toss up. Steve Edmonds or Thad Altman
Both candidates support measures I like and talk about both in detail. Education reform in the way of merit-pay and school choice vouchers have the most potential. Despite currently living and voting in east central Florida, I am not a big fan of NASA. That is not to say that I don't support the space program. I just don't like government in our country trying to monopolize the space exploration industry. More competition and tax break incentives to bring contractors to the Space Coast are a plus and both candidates are for that.
Member Canaveral Port Authority, Districts 3, 4, 5
No vote
My feeling on these types of positions is that they should not be the voter's choice. 1) There is no reason that someone for the position of Port Authority member should have a party affiliation. You're either for protecting the port and interests of the community, or you're not. B) We elect officials to handle these kinds of appointments so that we don't have to worry about them. While I don't think the system will change anytime soon, I can't vote for any of these candidates knowing they are only using the position as a stepping stone for future office.
Shall Justice/Judge ______________________ be retained in office?
No
I vote "NO" on all of these because I am not a fan of long incumbencies, especially for the judicial branch. Also, these judges and justices are such a low level that any decision they make has the potential to be appealed and overturned, thereby essentially making who is actually appointed unimportant.
Circuit Court Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 3
Jessica Recksiedler
When you get down this far, the candidates' websites are pretty basic. I suppose I chose Recksiedler because of a little snippet on her homepage that said she knew she wanted to become a lawyer because of a project on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence she did in 7th grade.
Member School Board, District 1
Robert Jordan
Not just because he is the author of one of the best fantasy series of all time, but because he knows things and has a tie. Also, Krupp was my principal in high school, and I really didn't like my high school.
[In writing this, I saw how many officials are elected and it is absurd. I thought we elected certain people (i.e. mayor, city council, state legislature) so that we didn't have to elect all of these other petty positions. Makes me think the people we elect do even less than I originally thought.]
Most importantly, it is our responsibility as citizens to educate ourselves before we vote. A good website to check on voting records is Project Vote Smart. But as voters we can only do so much. The people we elect should be held to a high level of responsibility to uphold the mandate passed on to them by the people who elected them.
I will offer my takes on the ballot initiatives and amendments over the weekend.
Let's get started, shall we?
United States Senator
Alexander Andrew Snitker
I think there's a good theme in Florida's U.S. Senate race this year. Six out of 10 of the candidates listed on the ballot consider themselves Constitutionalists or small-government conservatives. That says that at least in Florida there is a feeling that government is out of control, and a lot of people have taken up that call.
The reason I like Snitker over all other candidates is that I just think he is the most devoted to shrinking government. I don't even dignify Meek with a thought in this race because he probably won't even get a majority of the Democrat votes. Crist is an opportunist who would throw his own mother aside if it got him into a higher office. I like a lot of what Marco Rubio has done as Speaker of the House in Florida, and his stances on property rights and education reform sit highly with me. But some of his other views like being unerringly pro-Israel are kind of a turn-off for me. It's okay to view Israel as a friend and potential ally, but I don't like the idea that we're on the hook for any danger they put themselves in. Israel, after all, is the Lord's nation; they should be able to handle themselves. (They have multiple times in the past)
Of the third party candidates, Snitker and Bernie DeCastro had the most similar views to my own who also looked a little more legit than the candidates that remind me of the hobo under the bypass warning about the dangers of radio waves. I like Snitker's campaign promises to abolish the Department of Education and the IRS and instead enact a FairTax to collect from everyone within the country, citizens and aliens alike. DeCastro is also in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment (direct income tax) which would result in more money in an individual's pocket.
I suppose Snitker gets the vote for me because he is a former Marine and therefore knows the folly of our current foreign policy. A strong military is necessary, but I believe America should first and foremost be a defensive nation. DeCastro makes a play for the Monroe Doctrine, but in my mind that was the first instance of us setting actual foreign policy on the notion that we should police the world, whether nearby in the Caribbean or across the world in Iraq. Our military presence overseas is a huge drain on our economy, and so much money could be saved by removing ourselves from the hundreds of bases we have in foreign lands.
Representative in Congress 24th Congressional District
Sandra "Sandy" Adams
Sandy Adams supports a flat tax rate that could eventually eliminate the need for the IRS (pipe dream I know, but it's nice in theory). I think low taxes are important for jump-starting the economy and keeping it going. But it is just part of the solution; huge slashes in spending (and not slashes in the budget from last year's, but actually cutting and killing wasteful programs) are needed to reduce the size of government, free up capital for businesses, and overall get our country back in to fiscal security.
Because all economic bills start in the House of Representatives, this is potentially a more important choice--given the state of the union--than the Senate race. Believe it or not, Suzanne Kosmas and Sandy Adams are very similar on a lot of the issues, such as NASA, small business support, and energy policy. But their voting records tell a bigger tale.
Kosmas voted to give $40B to green schools. I don't think schools should be funded on whether or not they are ecologically stable. Kosmas also voted to enforce against anti-gay hate crimes. I've laid out my stance on legislating against hate crimes before. And she also voted for the massive expenditures known as the 2009 stimulus and TARP.
Sandy Adams isn't perfect though, either. While she did vote to privatize toll roads and voted to continue to allow the teaching of evolution in schools, she also voted against certain gambling measures, which generate a lot of money for the public school system (so much so that schools are often underfunded by state sources).
It's actually unfortunate that only two candidates are running in this election, as it turns certain issues which aren't so black and white into pretty polarizing topics. A third or even fourth candidate would have helped to draw the lines a bit more clearly.
Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Undecided still... sorry
This is the most difficult to vote for because there are so many candidates and so little known about them (at least by me). While he won't get my vote, I do like C.C. Reed's candidacy, who says we should change "Politics" to "PEOPLE-tics." Unfortunately, he also has the ridiculously expensive idea of "provid[ing] available personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (including holidays) to address taxpayers' concerns and issues." There's also Josue Larose who was the Chairman of the United States Billionaires Federal Political Action Committee.
Farid Khavari sounds like he makes sense until you see some of his extremely expensive ideas like free higher education for all students in Florida, and solarizing the entire state. Daniel Imperato has a lot of experience in promoting businesses but he doesn't have any other information about how he stands on additional issues.
Michael E. Arth (Earth?) is an interesting case. For every sane idea (like decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them) he has THREE insane ideas (like "taxes are the price of admission to live in civilized society" and abortion can be used as a last resort to overpopulation concerns). Still, I love his un-Politically Correct writings. John Wayne Smith is a libertarian candidate, and unfortunately as someone else said, his website looks like what you would expect from a libertarian candidate. Still, I think he speaks his mind about a lot of the topics and takes the same stance I do on most issues. On healthcare, for instance, he says this: "Most people think that this system needs to be overhauled when in fact it doesn't; it simply needs to get the government out of the business to begin with."
Peter Allen looks like he's trying to appeal to everyone with his candidacy, since he's all over the place on the issues. He says healthcare should be provided for all Floridians, but they should also be able to purchase whatever healthcare they want. His website is also in dire need of an editor: "Decriminalize the use and procession of small amounts of Marijuana. [emphasis mine]"
Neither Alex Sink nor Rick Scott look promising. Scott is embattled in cases that pin him as either an idiot for not knowing what happened with his company or as a mastermind that scammed millions in Medicaid. Sink talks the talk when it comes to fiscal conservatism, but as Chief Financial Officer the state lost billions. Sink does seem better on civil liberties like equal rights for gays, and Scott comes off as an idiot saying that children are better off "if they're raised by a married couple."
This election is a doozy, that's for sure. If I had to pick one now, I'd probably go with Smith, who has a very Ron Paul vibe to him. But it will probably end up being a GTD (game time decision).
Attorney General
Pam Bondi
My vote for Attorney General is going to someone who I believe will follow in Bill McCollum's footsteps and continue the federal lawsuit on Obamacare. The individual mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is unconstitutional, and any attempt to knock down that massive piece of semi-aborted legislation is an A+ in my book. So that essentially knocks the Democrat Dan Gelber out of the race.
Pam Bondi has a few things going for her. She's pretty hot, and she's the owner of Beethoven. She is a prosecutor and claims to want to crackdown on Medicare fraud cases. So anyone who wants to stick it to old folks scamming the system is Aces in my book as well. She is willing to take the challenge to Obamacare as far as she can as well.
Jim Lewis comes across a lot like Pam Bondi at first--minus the attractive face and giant dog--but he says one of his goals is to "urge our Florida law schools to reduce enrollment by 25% for the next 4 years" because of an overpopulation of lawyers and too many civil litigation cases. Since my goal is to become a criminal defense attorney in the very near future, this does not sit well with me. There's also the fact that Lewis would have no actual authority to propose such an idea, making him slightly absurd.
Chief Financial Officer
Independent candidate. Ken Mazzie or Tom Stearns
When I hear Chief Financial Officer, it sounds like a glorified name for Treasurer. Like the kind the chess club has. Well apparently even that is giving the position too much credit. But this job is about money, and partisan politics should have no place in this position. So that's why I am voting one of the two independents, and more likely Mazzie since he is a Certified Public Accountant, not a career politician, and knows how to handle money.
Commissioner of Agriculture
Thad Hamilton
I'm sad to see badass Charles Bronson not running again. This is another one of those positions where I just can't comprehend why a political affiliation is necessary. Not that I thought there were any "issues" involved in being Plant Commish, but Scott Maddox has a section for them on his site but nothing listed. Ira Chester looks like a cute but angry grandfather. I'm going with Hamilton because he seems to have the most experience in agriculture, whatever that means exactly. Plus, I don't think I've voted for any black people yet.
State Senator, 24th Senatorial District
Toss up. Steve Edmonds or Thad Altman
Both candidates support measures I like and talk about both in detail. Education reform in the way of merit-pay and school choice vouchers have the most potential. Despite currently living and voting in east central Florida, I am not a big fan of NASA. That is not to say that I don't support the space program. I just don't like government in our country trying to monopolize the space exploration industry. More competition and tax break incentives to bring contractors to the Space Coast are a plus and both candidates are for that.
Member Canaveral Port Authority, Districts 3, 4, 5
No vote
My feeling on these types of positions is that they should not be the voter's choice. 1) There is no reason that someone for the position of Port Authority member should have a party affiliation. You're either for protecting the port and interests of the community, or you're not. B) We elect officials to handle these kinds of appointments so that we don't have to worry about them. While I don't think the system will change anytime soon, I can't vote for any of these candidates knowing they are only using the position as a stepping stone for future office.
Shall Justice/Judge ______________________ be retained in office?
No
I vote "NO" on all of these because I am not a fan of long incumbencies, especially for the judicial branch. Also, these judges and justices are such a low level that any decision they make has the potential to be appealed and overturned, thereby essentially making who is actually appointed unimportant.
Circuit Court Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 3
Jessica Recksiedler
When you get down this far, the candidates' websites are pretty basic. I suppose I chose Recksiedler because of a little snippet on her homepage that said she knew she wanted to become a lawyer because of a project on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence she did in 7th grade.
Member School Board, District 1
Robert Jordan
Not just because he is the author of one of the best fantasy series of all time, but because he knows things and has a tie. Also, Krupp was my principal in high school, and I really didn't like my high school.
[In writing this, I saw how many officials are elected and it is absurd. I thought we elected certain people (i.e. mayor, city council, state legislature) so that we didn't have to elect all of these other petty positions. Makes me think the people we elect do even less than I originally thought.]
Most importantly, it is our responsibility as citizens to educate ourselves before we vote. A good website to check on voting records is Project Vote Smart. But as voters we can only do so much. The people we elect should be held to a high level of responsibility to uphold the mandate passed on to them by the people who elected them.
I will offer my takes on the ballot initiatives and amendments over the weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)