President: Barack Obama (Democrat)
District 6 Representative: Jeff Flake (Republican)
State Senator, District 18: Judah Nativio (Democrat)
State Representatives, District 18: Cecil Ash (Republican) and Tammie Pursley (Democrat)
Corporation Commission: Barry Wong, Bob Stump, and Marian McClure (Republicans)
County Board of Supervisors: Don Stapley (Republican)
County Assessor: Keith Russell (Republican)
County Attorney: Tim Nelson (Democrat)
County Recorder: Helen Purcell (Republican)
County School Superintendent: Don Covey (Republican)
Sheriff: Dan Saban (Democrat)
Special Healthcare District: Rob Carey
School Board: Steven Peterson, Ben Whiting, and Kate Ali'varius
City Prop 400, Questions 1 and 2: Yes
Prop 100: No
Prop 101: No
Prop 102: Yes!
Prop 105: No
Prop 200: No
Prop 201: Yes
Prop 202: Yes (though I don't like it that much...)
Prop 300: Yes
I hope this helped...or something. Look closely at all the candidates/issues and make your choices wisely for this election. And make sure to go VOTE! on Nov. 4. Cheese out! :)
3 comments:
I have to disagree with you on a lot of propositions. And president we're not even going to touch;)
Prop 100: I voted yes.
Prop 101: Yes
Prop 102: Yes! Yay! I agree!
Prop 105: I agree.
Prop 200: I voted Yes. Payday loans are the only viable option for some people.
Prop 201: Awful law! This means you would HAVE to sue! No one wins on this one
Prop 202: I voted no!
Prop 300: No...ha ha....I was amused by this one. I would like a pay raise too!
Even though we disagree, at least we agreed on the important one, 102. And kudos for being so interested in politics. I love voting! Okay, mostly the sticker that says "I voted today", but hey.
OK, I'm kind of weirded out that two random people posted highly political Anti-202 comments on my post. But anyways, yay, I'm glad we agree on a few! Up until a few days ago, I did support 200, but then I noticed something I hadn't noticed before when we went over the propositions in Government--that the Payday Loan proposition would allow payday loan companies to charge up to 400 percent interest, and is essentially in existence simply because the payday loan industry wants an extension on the lack of restrictions (or a stop on the restrictions, I forgot which one exactly) in effect until 2010. Anyways, that's my sudden rationale. I kind of see your point on 201, I wasn't exactly sure on that one but I thought yes was the right way to go. You're probably right, it's such a multifaceted proposition that I don't know what the effects could be. And as for 202, I grudgingly support it because voting no would keep most of the anti-immigrant status quo in Arizona. This seriously flawed proposition at least makes a small degree of progress and is slightly more fair than the employer sanctions law. That, and Russell Pearce (along with Don Goldwater) opposes it, and if he opposes it, I know there's something unfair about what effect a "no" vote would have. (If you couldn't tell or I haven't told you, I am strongly against his politics and think he has become a windbag with a vicious anti-immigrant vendetta.)
Oh, I forgot 2 of them...mainly because I hadn't thought of something to say, then I thought of something. Prop 100 seems to me to be redundant and unnecessary--there are already strong barriers against additional taxation in Arizona (the Legislature has to approve sending it to the ballot by a 2/3 majority and the people have to vote on it, too, I believe), there is not a strong desire to put this tax on homeowners as far as I know anyway (not that nothing but a strong majority of legislators would have the power to do anything about that desire), and this simply ties the Legislature's hands in a growing and rapidly changing market. Prop 101, as far as I have looked at it (most of this info, by the way, comes from a packet we got in Government that presented both of the arguments for each proposition, it was really helpful...), does little to give citizens freedom of choice. Again, it ties the government's hands and simply is trying to prevent Arizona from being subject to universal healthcare, among other things. And as for Prop 300, I think our state's legislators (MOST of them...maybe not Pearce) deserve more than $24,000. That kind of salary requires another job, and often, that eliminates the time legislators have available for their office, and also keeps people who can't balance the Legislature and their job--people who would otherwise be highly qualified--from even thinking about running. (Hey, if Pearce, heaven forbid, gets elected to the Senate, I'm all for them saving money by just making him 'work' for free. I say 'work' because all he does, in my opinion, is just chase after illegal immigrants the whole 100 days or so in session.)
Post a Comment