Me and My Nine Iron

November 1, 2010

My Election picks

Filed under: On the 6 o'clock news — BJ @ 3:58 pm

To many, tomorrow is Election Day. But to me, it’s the last day I’m forced to hear candidates bash on each other to the point where I don’t want to vote for either candidate. The last day of receiving countless spam mail, voicemails and commercials. That is, if I did vote. But, I don’t vote for several reasons: 1) You don’t truly know what you’re voting for and 2) How much does your vote even count? a) Electoral vote vs. popular vote and b) judges overturning voting results (see Prop. 8).

1) Candidate speeches are like high school student government speeches, “Vote for me because I’ll do x, y and z.” Put up a whole bunch of print and go around campaigning. The content of the speeches is exactly the same too; how can a City Council Member have the same agenda as the President? In reality, you give up as much to luck as an NBA GM drafting players. You see the potential and skills, but you don’t always know if they’re better than the next guy.

A “friend” spammed on my Wall (don’t bother looking, I deleted it), “Vote or don’t complain.” I’m fine with that because I don’t complain. I’ve stopped criticizing and now defend leaders because they can only do so much and truly have the country’s interest at heart (e.g. President Obama, Gov. Schwarzenegger). Maybe, that comment should read, “Vote and don’t complain.” This country allows way too much protesting and is a serious folly to our nation’s progress. You voted and you lost so you should’ve lost the right to protest.

2) The most important vote is the vote for President and unfortunately, the system’s set up so that each state gets an arbitrary number of votes (electoral votes) and there’s no splitting of votes within a state. That means with a historically partisan state like California, the millions of people who voted for the Republican candidate just threw their vote away. It’s almost as if they never had their vote in the first place.

Like driving, voting should be a privilege not a right, and if you’re uninformed about this all, which I’m inclined to believe a lot of damn people in this country are, then voting for the wrong person is worse than not voting at all. Thus, it’s a mistake to get as many people to register to vote so stop forcing the issue. Plus, it’s almost as annoying as Christians spreading the word.

If I were to vote, I can see the Props. as being enjoyable and where your vote means the most – or, at least it should. Got to love California; I’ll never forget the conversation I had with an Indiana native who said, “Oh yeah, you guys vote on everything.” Somehow, I take that as a bad thing. But maybe, I should start just in case I decide to run later in life and don’t have that thrown in my face. Right, Meg?

Without further ado, my select General Election picks for 2010 as a California resident a la Oscars format (if I were to vote):

GovernorMeg Whitman (REP) (Jerry Brown’s the safe pick and until I saw an ad a few days ago, he was the guy I had going for the top state position. In a TV interview after his gubernatorial term, Brown admitted he had no plan in office. Put that together with his ad where he says he’s “not going to give us a phony plan,” and I’m starting to wonder if he even has one – again. I’d like to see a genius businesswoman tackle our fiscal troubles. Even if she has to smack a bitch.)

Attorney GeneralKamala Harris (DEM) (The Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate showed us how one bad remark can ruin your entire campaign, and that’s exactly what Steve Cooley did for me when he shamelessly admitted that he would double dip in his pension because the $150K Attorney General salary “is incredibly low.” Not something financially struggling voters want to hear. As for Harris never using the death penalty, it’s not like we were going to use it anyway. Our state’s caught up in so much legal bullshit that’s not expected to end anytime soon, we haven’t killed anyone in almost five years.)

United States SenatorCarly Fiorina (REP) (I had to look up what the term limit on a senator was; there is none. That clearly should be changed and despite the economic cycle we experience, I’m all for clearing house and rewarding the GOP for going all ex-CEOs. All the smear ads on Carly Fiorina paying herself well and cutting jobs doesn’t make me think any less of her. Every CEO looks to cut costs, and her nice pay tells me that she’ll be financially independent to decline bribes.)

19 – LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW No. (The only people that would vote for this Prop. are weed users and sellers. Plus, there are enough people on the road that drive slow. I can’t take any more. But in all seriousness, you can see the flaw in legalizing something just because it can bring in money, right? Don’t worry about the budget, that’s what Meg’s for.)

21- ESTABLISHES $18 ANNUAL VEHICLE LICENSE SURCHARGE TO HELP FUND STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFENo. (Most people, including myself, go to a state park less than once a year. Why would I pay $18 a year for it on top of a pass you would still have to purchase when you do go? I know the parks are hurting, but we all are and I’m not for another surcharge.)

23 – SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW No. (You’ve seen the ads; this Prop. is funded by the two Tex-Mex oil companies. What unemployment rates have to do with clean air laws is beyond me, but 5.5% unemployment rate or higher, say no to dirty air. And if you don’t believe me, drive through L.A. every once in a while so you stay grounded. By the way, our unemployment rate is currently at 12.4% so they’d be abusing our air for years to come.)




  1. Strange this post is totaly unrelated to what I was searching google for, but it was listed on the first page. I guess your doing something right if Google likes you enough to put you on the first page of a non related search.

    Comment by potenzmittel frau — November 9, 2010 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  2. Please, can you PM me and tell me few more thinks about this, I am really fan of your blog… 34

    Comment by potenzmittel fuer frauen — November 9, 2010 @ 6:11 am | Reply

  3. I remember those; this was worse. The worst spots were 1) Malvern and Gilbert (you couldn’t see an inch of that fence) and 2) Rosecrans facing Euclid, where all the “Free Coyote Hills” signs are. Even Sunny Ridge had its own Roland Chi-designated zone, where his signs were posted every 20 yards up that road. It is unsightly, and I thought about setting fire to the Malvern and Gilbert scene. That would be a spectacle, huh?

    Comment by Bryan — November 4, 2010 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  4. How were the streets of Fullerton during this election? This summer, I hated seeing streets littered with unsightly posters on every upright structure, like the orange “Sidhu carpetbagger” posters. But free speech i suppose…

    Comment by Dan — November 3, 2010 @ 9:02 pm | Reply

  5. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

    Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

    The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

    Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


    Comment by mvymvy — November 2, 2010 @ 5:05 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: