Ballot issues. How I'm voting.

[Touchdown]

A34- Construction Liability. Limits fraud, faulty workmanship compensation to $250,000
No WAY! This is nothing but the creeping bugaboo of "tort reform" that Repugs have been harping about for years, in order to help shady contrators stay shady. Remember the escalators at Coors Field? Is $250,000 enough for that?

A35-Tobacco tax
No. Most of these sin taxes go to useless things and not towards the intended, or promised purpose...besides I still smoke (selfish!):D

A36- Presidential electors.
NO! If Kerry wins Colorado. You'll be sorrrrrrrrrrry! The blue book says this WILL be retroactive to 2004. The poll are even up, and we all know how they aren't including the tons of new Dem voters this year. I say let's take our chances in making Co. Springs votes going to Kerry, just like mine went to Chimpy in 2000. Revenge is sweet.

A37-Renewable Energy
Yes. It's necessary, and it's time.

Ref-A State personel system.
No. This is pure evil in disguise. Giving hiring powers for state employees to political appointees, and elected officials is a violation of every pro-labor fiber in my body. Some of the provisions are good, but on the whole, some really draconian measures have been added into this. It's graft and political abuse in a box.

Ref-B Obsolete Constitutional Provisions
Yes. Constitutions are living documents. If you get a zit popped, it's no longer a part of your body. Likewise, a judge strikes down a law, then it should be taken out of the Constitution. The "historical relevance" argument holds no water, since libraries still exist.

So what do all of you think of these?

[Jeff1965]

1. A34

A34, I thought this ballot measured removed lawsuit limits and made previous homeowners/contractors responsible for selling houses w/o revealing defects.

I am voting against this one.

I also agree with you, Kerry had a very good chance of winning Colorado, look how many new voters have registered. I will vote against the electoral reform.

I haven't decided on the cigarette tax. It is very regressive and it seems wrong for the state to make more money off tobacco than the tobacco farmers. Then again it might encourage people to quit.

[CO Liberal]

6. A34 Reverses a Law the Developers Had Their GOP Friends Enact

It restores the homeowner's fight to sue for poor workmanship, and damages resulting from it.

Besides, when you sell a home, it's inspected. Any competant inspector would find any such defects, and that should absolve the homeowner of any liability. The developers are behind a big ad effort to turn public opinion away from this one. I collected signatures on it because I believed in it.

[F.Gordon]

17. Can the inspector be held liable?

This will hurt all small businesses in Colorado. Our business liability premiums have already increased 50% in just the last year. I'm afraid that if this passes we will see another trickle down from Builder liability to our business and our premiums will increase again.

After the tort system was put in place last year on auto, we had to purchase large umbrella policies to cover us with the business and personal.

[El Supremo]

2. I agree 100% n/t

[donheld]

3. what about fastracks?

i'm all for it

[Kanary]

8. AGAINST. Also, AGAINST SCFD. Regressive taxes must go!

When they can get it together to make the taxes fair, then I"ll support it.

I'm damned tired of these taxes that the poor must pay along with everyone else, yet get no benefit from tehm.

Start pushing for fair taxes!

NO to regressive taxes!

Kanary

[donheld]

16. you really think fastracks will not help the lower classes

i think you're way off on that. It will benefit them more than anybody

[Kanary]

19. DEMs have always known that regressive taxes HURT THE POOR.

It's so frustrating to see young Dems who don't know that.

*You're* the one who's "way off".

Kanary

[politicat]

11. For... Public transportation benefits the entire community...

Where we will be after the election, we won't even see the benefits of fastracks for years; heck, we've got crappy bus service.

BUT... the brown cloud is getting bigger, the price of gas and insurance is making it more and more impossible for the working poor to commute, and our crappy TABORed roads can't take much more traffic. We have to have public transportation and trains are the most efficient form of transportation. (Busses are ineffective when they're stuck in the same traffic, so unless we're willing to commit to bus only lanes all over the metro area and put busses on all of the major roads including the North Metro area, which is pathetically underserved - busses are not the answer.) We need better RTD service, it's true, but we've got to start somewhere.

I don't like the regressive nature of the tax. I don't like sales taxes. But they're the only thing that has even the most remote chance of passing in this state - we can't get an income or wealth or property tax hike approved to save our schools, our budget, our police forces.... I hate our sales taxes, I really do, but... with the way the state constitution has been butchered, we're stuck. (If we'd just remove it on food, I'd be very happy...)

Pcat

[Kanary]

20. Then Fund It The Proper Way!!!

I'm really sick of middleclass people wanting poor people to fund their projects!

Get back to fairness, or at least make sure poor people can take advantage of what you are gouging them on!

Kanary

[Hand]

4. Thanks for the info...

I'm voting absentee from far away, and a lot of these things are hard to decipher. Back in 2000, it took my wife and me half an hour to figure out that some tax referendum was a well-disguised fundie special.

:hi:

[lakercub]

5. The electoral college

I am voting against this too. Until EVERY state in the union does it, it just makes states like Colorado less important (although in close elections like this one and the last one, that's not quite true). Also, when all the states do it, electoral votes and popular votes will become quite a bit more tied together. Democrats would lose some traction in NY and CA, but they would gain some in TX and the rest of the South.

[JLucas4092]

7. It sucks....

because I DESPISE the electoral college system. But you're right. I still haven't decided how I'm gonna vote on that one. I think I might wait to see what the poll #'s say. If it appears it's gonna fail miserably, I'll vote for it to send a message. Otherwise, I'm not sure.

[El Supremo]

10. Don't depend on the polls. They are often wrong.

And I don't care whether the Presidential candidates pay any attention to Colorado.

The real argument is that we can deliver ALL 9 electoral votes to Kerry. Winner take all is the rule for 48 states. We could very well hurt our cause if we don't follow suit until all the other states change too.

[Kanary]

12. THen, clearly, it won't ever change.

If all states do what you advise, it *can't* change.

Kanary

[Kanary]

9. Changing it at a federal level is a pipedream.

If you want change concerning the Electoral College, this is how it will be done..... one state at a time.

It's time to join Maine and Nebraska on this.

Al Franken endorsed this when he was here.

Kanary

[paulk]

15. one of the main things wrong with the electoral college

is that it over represents rural America - because every state gets two EVs for their Senators regardless of population. For instance - take the most populous state, California, and put it next to the least populous, Wyoming. In the 2000 election one EV in CA represented 193,950 voters. In WY one EV represented 71,017. That is - one EV in WY is worth roughly 3 times one in CA.

Proportional representation in 2000 would have given Gore 6 more EVs than Bush in CA and Bush 3 more than Gore in WY, since the victory margin in WY was better than two to one (68-28).

So... now we have one EV in CA representing - 1,808,000 voters and one EV in WY representing 71,000 voters - or 25 times that of CA. Even if the split in WY is 2-1, that's not much better. It makes the WY EV represent 213,000 voters, or (roughly) nine times that of California.

Proportional representation actually exaggerates the failings of the electoral college.


ps - I'm really torn on Fastracks - a sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation - and this one lasts until 2048 and doesn't even go away then, because a portion will still be used for maintenance. I like the idea of Fastracks, but the way they want to fund it is wrong. I'm leaning against it.


pss - Al Franken doesn't live in Colorado.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi lakercub!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JLucas4092]

13. CU Regents

Any debate on this one or is everyone going with Mello?

[DaveinMD]

22. Jennifer Mello

is my client. She is a wonderful candidate.

[JLucas4092]

24. As a Nugs fan...

I'd hate myself for voting against someone named Melo. I was just curious because it seems like Bosley is really trying to rally the campus here at CU by saying he'll do what he can to get rid of Hoffman.

[Young_LiberalCO]

18. A35

I'm very supportive of the tobacco tax increase. Colorado's current tobacco tax is the lowest in the nation and an increase would be good for encouraging more people to quit an expensive habit and providing increased revenue for important programs. I can see the regressive tax argument, but you have to realize that the benefits are very progressive. Sixty-five percent of the revenue will go to provide health insurance for Colorado kids and families and support health centers that serve uninsured and low-income patients (with the remaining amount going mostly to tobacco-education and cancer-prevention programs).

There was a great endorsement for A35 in the Post on Sunday. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C36~8382~2453037%2C00.html

For the others: undecided on A34, no on A35, yes on A37, and yes on FasTracks

[Touchdown]

21. It's regressive.

Sixty-five percent of the revenue will go to provide health insurance for Colorado kids and families and support health centers that serve uninsured and low-income patients (with the remaining amount going mostly to tobacco-education and cancer-prevention programs).

They also said the State Lottery (another "optional" regressive tax)would go to school improvements, environmental protection, tourism, etc. It didn't.

[DaveinMD]

23. increased in tobacco tax

stop kids from starting the habit. This has been proven everywhere the tax has been raised.

[janx]

25. I voted pretty much the same way you did, but I want to point

out something about the state personnel system.

It means nothing. If a state institution wants to fire you, it can and will do so, regardless of state law. CU, for instance, has one whole army of lawyers who know how to circumvent the state laws.