![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusOK, let’s take a look at some of the candidates and measures for the 2018 election.
I haven’t done all the research this year, but this is how I’m currently planning to vote, and why.
If you think I’ve overlooked something, or am completely wrong about something, let me know.
First up: US Representative, 4th district.
Art Robinson: He’s a well known nutjob that runs every year. He used to be well financed by out of state institutions like the Heritage Foundation, Center for Prosperity (or whatever they’re calling themselves now) and the Koch brothers. Now that Citizens united has decided that candidates don’t need to disclose their funding, nobody knows where his funding comes from. Yeah, right. Also, he’s a total nutjob.
Mike Beilstein: Green party. If DeFazio wasn’t running again, I’d consider voting for him. I approve of the things his statement in the voter’s guide says he’s for, mostly anti-war, anti-arms dealing, and anti-torture. (Seriously, nobody should have to say that last one. But of two people I’ve listed so far only half of them actually are.) The biggest objection I have to him is that Jill Stein pretty much ruined the Green party for me with her embrace of anti-vax nonsense. As a doctor, she should know better. Yes, I suppose she just did it to win the frings vote. She got about 1% of the votes in the last election. I hope that was worth her integrity. So, yeah, Beilstein is tainted by being associated by the same party that Stein is. Even so, I might vote for him if DeFazio wasn’t running.
Peter DeFazio. Yes, he is running. Much like Bernie Sanders, for every evil thing our government has done in the last 40 years, there’s video of DeFazio fighting against it. He’s not always on the winning side, but he’s always on the right side.
Conclusion: Peter DeFazio. There was really never any doubt.
Governor:
Aaron Auer. “If we do not fight to keep our HERITAGE we will lose the blessings of our LORD.” (Actual quote from his statement.) His motto is “LIFE, LIBERTY, AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT” (All caps are his). Then he goes on to explain that by “limited government” he means he wants to use the power of government to force his religion on the rest of us. Next.
Nick Chen, Libertarian. After a long rambling list of vague meaningless statements, he gets to his most concrete declaration, (concrete used very loosely here), “I believe in building a government that protects every single person, not any group in particular.” Most people who say that say it as code for their desire to dismantle all equal rights protection. “All lives matter!” sounds great if it’s completely devoid of context. But it isn’t, and we all know it and anyone saying otherwise at this point is lying.
Kate Brown: She favors education, health care, and women’s rights. I feel about her much the same way as Hillary: I like her platform, and wish she’d spend more time on that rather than just pointing out what an utter failure of a human being her opponent is.
Knute Buehler: His entire statement in the voter’s pamphlet is a list of things that Brown has failed to do, without a single indication of what he’d do differently other than “solve the real problems”. How? Yeah, if she’s Hillary, he’s definitely trump.
Patrick Starnes: End big money in politics, end gerrymandering. Two things I like a lot. These are his only two issues, and maybe that’s enough. The only thing I’m worried about here is that without the backing of a major party, the only thing voting for him would be doing is giving Knute Buehler a better chance to take it and gerrymander the hell out of the state.
Conclusion: Kate Brown
Ballot Measures:
102: Allows bonds for NGOs to build affordable housing. Housing is one of the biggest issues Portland, and increasingly the rest of the state, faces. I’m not sure if simply building more housing is the best solution, but it is a necessary part of any solution. A lot of good organizations, and the AARP, support this measure, and the only argument given against it is “It’ll raise your taxes!” My vote: YES
103: Not so sure on this one. Blocks taxes on groceries - that seems like a good thing. But also basically gets rid of corporate minimum tax for any company that sells food. So, it looks like this measure mostly helps the big transnational corporations and does nothing for local shops. Tentatively, unless someone here has a better idea, my vote is NO
104: Looks like it mostly reduces taxes on wealthy individuals and cuts health care, education, and other social services to fund it. Unless there’s something I’m missing here, my vote is NO
105: Repeals Oregon’s Sanctuary State status. Sanctuary status gives undocumented immigrants limited legal protections. Contrary to what the tumpers claim, this has been shown to reduce crime significantly. The reasons for this are obvious for anyone wanting to think about it. If people are able to talk to the police, file claims, and work against criminals without being imprisoned or deported for doing so, they will do it more often. Greater community involvement always reduces crime. Repealing this would cause suffering to a lot of people and have no effect on the rest of us other than higher crime. My vote: A resounding NO
106: Prohibits spending public funds, directly or “indirectly” on abortion. Reduces health care access for women. Abortion is part of health care. A women’s medical decisions are between her and her doctor. Opposition to this legal fact is almost exclusively by christians who don’t understand their own bible and “small government” activists who somehow think that the state making medical decisions for women is in line with their ideology of “individual freedom”. Making it harder for poor women to access it will not reduce abortions, it will merely punish the women who have them. You know what WILL reduce abortions? Poverty reduction plans, reality-based sex education, freely available birth control for everyone. Until these are all fully funded, supported, and implemented, I don’t want to hear shit from anyone about any legislation that will accomplish nothing but punishing poor women. My vote: HELL NO.
Local Measure 20-290: Adopt “Score Then Automatic Runoff” (aka STAR) election strategy. Instant runoff strategies give minor third-party candidates a chance. Remember my reticence to support a candidate I like, above, because I was afraid that supporting him would split the ballot and allow someone I didn’t want at all to win? A STAR strategy would eliminate that problem. If you’re not familiar with Score, or “Instant Runoff” stayle voting, there’s a writeup of it here: https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-irv There’re lot of different methods, each of which is better than the primary/general winner-take-all system we have now.
The TL;DR of a STAR system is that it would allow good candidates without the backing of a major party a better chance of winning elections. This measure is only for local elections, but it’s a good start. My vote: YES
I haven’t done all the research this year, but this is how I’m currently planning to vote, and why.
If you think I’ve overlooked something, or am completely wrong about something, let me know.
First up: US Representative, 4th district.
Art Robinson: He’s a well known nutjob that runs every year. He used to be well financed by out of state institutions like the Heritage Foundation, Center for Prosperity (or whatever they’re calling themselves now) and the Koch brothers. Now that Citizens united has decided that candidates don’t need to disclose their funding, nobody knows where his funding comes from. Yeah, right. Also, he’s a total nutjob.
Mike Beilstein: Green party. If DeFazio wasn’t running again, I’d consider voting for him. I approve of the things his statement in the voter’s guide says he’s for, mostly anti-war, anti-arms dealing, and anti-torture. (Seriously, nobody should have to say that last one. But of two people I’ve listed so far only half of them actually are.) The biggest objection I have to him is that Jill Stein pretty much ruined the Green party for me with her embrace of anti-vax nonsense. As a doctor, she should know better. Yes, I suppose she just did it to win the frings vote. She got about 1% of the votes in the last election. I hope that was worth her integrity. So, yeah, Beilstein is tainted by being associated by the same party that Stein is. Even so, I might vote for him if DeFazio wasn’t running.
Peter DeFazio. Yes, he is running. Much like Bernie Sanders, for every evil thing our government has done in the last 40 years, there’s video of DeFazio fighting against it. He’s not always on the winning side, but he’s always on the right side.
Conclusion: Peter DeFazio. There was really never any doubt.
Governor:
Aaron Auer. “If we do not fight to keep our HERITAGE we will lose the blessings of our LORD.” (Actual quote from his statement.) His motto is “LIFE, LIBERTY, AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT” (All caps are his). Then he goes on to explain that by “limited government” he means he wants to use the power of government to force his religion on the rest of us. Next.
Nick Chen, Libertarian. After a long rambling list of vague meaningless statements, he gets to his most concrete declaration, (concrete used very loosely here), “I believe in building a government that protects every single person, not any group in particular.” Most people who say that say it as code for their desire to dismantle all equal rights protection. “All lives matter!” sounds great if it’s completely devoid of context. But it isn’t, and we all know it and anyone saying otherwise at this point is lying.
Kate Brown: She favors education, health care, and women’s rights. I feel about her much the same way as Hillary: I like her platform, and wish she’d spend more time on that rather than just pointing out what an utter failure of a human being her opponent is.
Knute Buehler: His entire statement in the voter’s pamphlet is a list of things that Brown has failed to do, without a single indication of what he’d do differently other than “solve the real problems”. How? Yeah, if she’s Hillary, he’s definitely trump.
Patrick Starnes: End big money in politics, end gerrymandering. Two things I like a lot. These are his only two issues, and maybe that’s enough. The only thing I’m worried about here is that without the backing of a major party, the only thing voting for him would be doing is giving Knute Buehler a better chance to take it and gerrymander the hell out of the state.
Conclusion: Kate Brown
Ballot Measures:
102: Allows bonds for NGOs to build affordable housing. Housing is one of the biggest issues Portland, and increasingly the rest of the state, faces. I’m not sure if simply building more housing is the best solution, but it is a necessary part of any solution. A lot of good organizations, and the AARP, support this measure, and the only argument given against it is “It’ll raise your taxes!” My vote: YES
103: Not so sure on this one. Blocks taxes on groceries - that seems like a good thing. But also basically gets rid of corporate minimum tax for any company that sells food. So, it looks like this measure mostly helps the big transnational corporations and does nothing for local shops. Tentatively, unless someone here has a better idea, my vote is NO
104: Looks like it mostly reduces taxes on wealthy individuals and cuts health care, education, and other social services to fund it. Unless there’s something I’m missing here, my vote is NO
105: Repeals Oregon’s Sanctuary State status. Sanctuary status gives undocumented immigrants limited legal protections. Contrary to what the tumpers claim, this has been shown to reduce crime significantly. The reasons for this are obvious for anyone wanting to think about it. If people are able to talk to the police, file claims, and work against criminals without being imprisoned or deported for doing so, they will do it more often. Greater community involvement always reduces crime. Repealing this would cause suffering to a lot of people and have no effect on the rest of us other than higher crime. My vote: A resounding NO
106: Prohibits spending public funds, directly or “indirectly” on abortion. Reduces health care access for women. Abortion is part of health care. A women’s medical decisions are between her and her doctor. Opposition to this legal fact is almost exclusively by christians who don’t understand their own bible and “small government” activists who somehow think that the state making medical decisions for women is in line with their ideology of “individual freedom”. Making it harder for poor women to access it will not reduce abortions, it will merely punish the women who have them. You know what WILL reduce abortions? Poverty reduction plans, reality-based sex education, freely available birth control for everyone. Until these are all fully funded, supported, and implemented, I don’t want to hear shit from anyone about any legislation that will accomplish nothing but punishing poor women. My vote: HELL NO.
Local Measure 20-290: Adopt “Score Then Automatic Runoff” (aka STAR) election strategy. Instant runoff strategies give minor third-party candidates a chance. Remember my reticence to support a candidate I like, above, because I was afraid that supporting him would split the ballot and allow someone I didn’t want at all to win? A STAR strategy would eliminate that problem. If you’re not familiar with Score, or “Instant Runoff” stayle voting, there’s a writeup of it here: https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-irv There’re lot of different methods, each of which is better than the primary/general winner-take-all system we have now.
The TL;DR of a STAR system is that it would allow good candidates without the backing of a major party a better chance of winning elections. This measure is only for local elections, but it’s a good start. My vote: YES
