I agree. Mom and I spent the better part of Sunday afternoon going over the whole ballot. And the majority of it seemed like things I elect folks to do, why am I voting on this?? And yes, to think how many people vote based on a TV spot that is not accurate. Messed up!

California definitely demonstrates that direct democracy is a stupid fucking idea when implemented on a large scale.

We want to vote on every tax change (read: increase). And then, oh noes, it's a tax, vote noooooooooo!

So our schools suck and my town is scrambling for fire department coverage. Fire coverage! How is this America? Some things need to be whatever the community- or country-based version of crowdsourcing is. Like a Fire Dept.

I understand that people are concerned with their immediate needs. It's why there should be groups that look farther and broader and prepare for the possibilities like huge storms and people breaking into your home. Not voting on every thing because very few people plan personally on how to defend their homes from unexpected fire. We think (hope) that it won't happen to us. But it does happen, so it happens to some of us.

Agreed that the ballot initiatives in California are always a mess, but that's why it's important you vote. So we can outnumber the crazies and the outrageously uninformed.

We voted today. Hubby voted for Romney. He wouldn't have told me, but I did ask, even though politics is rarely a comfortable topic in the House of Neil. I actually stopped in my tracks, stared at him, then gasped "Why??" Turns out Hubby is suspicious of something he says he heard Obama say about future plans for tighter gun control. I knew better than to delve further, because it was being a good day up till then, and we never convince each other to change a position. I guess I should be pleased that he can still surprise me after 26 years.

Turns out Hubby is suspicious of something he says he heard Obama say about future plans for tighter gun control.

Seriously?

He heard that Obama said something about gun control? After three and a half years where he's said (and DONE) nothing about gun control?

I would be less appalled if Obama actually were campaigning for gun control or tried to enact legislation and it were a valid difference of opinion. Those exist and I respect them.

But I am less concerned with the whispered fears that maybe a potential president would try to take away my rights when he's never even hinted at it than the candidate who has promised that is his precise intention.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

edit: that got ranty. I honestly respect people who vote differently than I do but I expect them to do it based on anything factual or idealogical. And the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim who isn't a citizen and wants to take away your guns? It's just not based on reality. We can debate fiscal policy, but we can't debate that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Wow Connie. This is why you are a loving spouse. I think I would lose my cheetah shit if Beau told me he voted for Romney.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

H.L. Mencken said that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Jefferson said democracy is legalized mob rule.

Mobs are not often smart.

This post brought to you by insomnia.

Going to meet Mom and Stepdad in RI today. They are still without power in their area (where we are not meeting), and I think going a little stir crazy. We're going to try to meet up with my cousin and her baby too, because of course I have a Halloween book for her.

Yeah, I remember reading a breakdown of how good Obama has been for the NRA, yet they still bedevil him. It's weird--basically more gun freedom, but I guess they're inherently Republican at the core? I don't know why they'd ignore the past 4 years--maybe he has something up his sleeve.

If you reduce platforms in terms of what needs to be protected--I do think it's ignoring history to decide a vote against Obama is a vote for guns, but if a vote for Republicans is a vote for guns, is a vote for Republicans a vote against wombs? And if so--is that a statement that guns are more important than wombs, or that the Republicans can not usefully be summarised in that way about women's reproductive choices?

It would be overly simplistic, but kind of interesting to list a bunch of hot button topics, ask people which party they thought would do better for the people on them, and then ask which topics they'd be willing to throw under the bus and which they'd prioritise.

As for the California ballots, there is no way I am going to be informed enough to vote on all of them, and even the ones I feel I've done a lot of research on, there's no way, as already said, I can have gotten my hands on all the info or have the education/experience to understand all the ramifications. So.....undecided it will be on those.

And, yeah, I do feel like someone else isn't doing their jobs, for this to come down to me. The biggest political argument I've had at home is about saying I am electing people to make decisions in my place--they will not always make the decisions I feel are right, but that's the weakness of any scalable political system. Or the strength. Maybe they are making that decision because they have access to facts I don't, or they're just brighter than I am. But I don't think I'm meant to suggest that.