Forums | MacLife

Opps forgot mine

http://www.brevardelections.org/g128sb/49-1-NP-FB.pdf

This is our only referendum: Do you favor the incurring of indebtedness by the Commonwealth of $400,000,000 for grants and loans to municipalities and public utilities for the cost of all labor, materials, necessary operational machinery and equipment, lands, property, rights and easements, plans and specifications, surveys, estimates of costs and revenues, prefeasibility studies, engineering and legal services and all other expenses necessary or incident to the acquisition, construction, improvement, expansion, extension, repair or rehabilitation of all or part of drinking water system, storm water, nonpoint source projects, nutrient credits and wastewater treatment system projects?

god, your state really loves voter initiatives.

I'm voting no on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. Something in the way it's worded strikes me as not only no marriage but no rights. I'm not big on gay marriage as marriage but think there are certain comparable rights that should be afforded.

CG5Addict wrote:

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

Yes on prop 8

ehhh, no.

doesn't hurt me one bit. doesn't hurt anyone else one bit.

We don't believe in such nonsense up here. Next week's election is about candidates only.

The only thing very noteworthy is our mandated 20 year "do we want a constitutional rewrite convention" question.

This is something worth following, I'd say.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/ele08/ba … uest_1.htm

QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
State Personal Income Tax

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2008?
SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General, and the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.

I am no longer a MA voter, but I'm interested in how this turns out.
The Globe:

...
The last time the income tax question was on the ballot, in 2002, it received little attention but stunned political observers by collecting 45 percent of the vote. At the time, a gallon of gas cost less than $1.50, home prices were soaring, and the economy, if imperfect, was not the dominant issue.
...

jerwin wrote:

I don't live in Arizona, but they have a rather unusual initiative on the ballot

Sounds like the sort of crap change where someone wants to be able to block and/or pass stuff in the future without people necessarily knowing about it or being able to oppose it but is disguising it in the seemingly beneficial act of simplifying the ballot.

ScifiterX wrote:

jerwin wrote:

I don't live in Arizona, but they have a rather unusual initiative on the ballot

Sounds like the sort of crap change where someone wants to be able to block and/or pass stuff in the future without people necessarily knowing about it or being able to oppose it but is disguising it in the seemingly beneficial act of simplifying the ballot.

IIRC, a number of (democratic) countries require absolute majorities of the electorate, though turnout is high. Voting may be mandatory.

Maybe a solution involving quara-- i.e turnout must be at least 50%.

I don't support this, but it's interesting.

ScifiterX wrote:

jerwin wrote:

I don't live in Arizona, but they have a rather unusual initiative on the ballot

Sounds like the sort of crap change where someone wants to be able to block and/or pass stuff in the future without people necessarily knowing about it or being able to oppose it but is disguising it in the seemingly beneficial act of simplifying the ballot.

I looked into that one. It requires 50% or more of the available voting block to pass a tax or other certain bills. As anti-tax I may be, this is the wrong route IMHO. Every person who stays home is effectively a 'no' vote on certain new items.

I circled NO and then wrote JDUDE again.

We've got a Parks and Recreational Facilities Bond. Um, I don't think it will pass.