How are you voting on Prop 22?

OP, those are state propositions on the ballot in Calif only. Not everyone on DL lives there, and only people whose legal residence is Calif are permitted to vote on those.

You have to vote on these weirdly specific rules??

Yes -- it's because (1) the legislature refuses to do its job and passes the buck onto the citizens, and (2) it's not that hard for any crackpot organization to pay people to get enough signatures to get any sort of idiotic proposal on the ballot.

I voted Yes on 16, but skipped both 22 and 23, because I don't think either one of those propositons should be on the ballot to begin with.

The one about dialysis should be something before the state's medical board to decide.

And if uber-lyft drivers want to organize to change their status then they should do that on their own -- same as if they want to start a union or form a group to get things like insurance.

Leave me out of it.

R3 is correct, though the history was less ignoble than his description. The "initiative process" was designed to thwart corrupt legislators who were beholden to the railroad lobby. Since its introduction in 1911, its effects have been both good and bad but I think it's largely outlived its purpose and should at least be curbed, if not dropped altogether.

I voted:

Yes on 22

No on 16

Yes on 23 (I’d change that to “no” if I could)

The LA Times’s endorsements helped but were not decisive.

Nope

Nope

Nope

The general rule is, the more heavily advertised a single viewpoint on a California proposition is, the more essential it is to vote the other way. If tons of ads are being funded, then that's the way the big business and/or wealthy want the vote to go, which means it will fuck over ordinary people like you and me.

For instance, California Prop. 21 is a rent control proposition, and there's this huge "THINK OF THE LANDLORDS, THE POOR POOR LANDLORDS" advertising campaign going on.

I voted no.

Think of the people who have to pay rent because home ownership is way out of reach for first-time buyers.

R6, why did you vote yes on Prop 22? You referenced the LA Times voting guide but you voted the opposite of what they recommended each time.

Here’s the LA Times voting guide:

Proposition 15 (property tax “split roll” for commercial and industrial real estate) — Yes

At long last, here is a fix for one of California’s most intractable problems: a wildly unfair and lopsided property tax system that has starved local governments of revenue and distorted the cost of buying a house and starting a business.

Proposition 16 (repeal of ban on affirmative action in state programs) — Yes

Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action programs in public institutions that voters adopted in 1996, has set back the state’s efforts to promote diversity. It’s past time to remove it.

Proposition 17 (restoring parolees’ right to vote) — Yes

In California, felons who have served their time in prison are denied the right to vote until they finish their parole. That’s an obstacle they don’t need as they reintegrate into society.

Proposition 18 (right to vote in primaries for some 17-year-old Californians) — Yes

It makes sense that the teens who will be 18 years old and eligible to vote in a general election in California should also help decide, when they are 17, whose names will be on that ballot.

Proposition 19 (transfer of property tax assessments when homes are sold) — No

By letting older homeowners keep the property tax break they’ve built up when they move to a new home, Proposition 19 would extend inequality by benefiting those who were lucky enough to buy a home years ago and hold onto it as values skyrocketed.

Proposition 20 (criminal offensive for misgendering) — Yes

California is leading the nation away from decades of foolish and harmful policies of misgendering that prevent trans and non-binary workers from living their fullest and most productive lives. There is no time better than now to reverse course.

Proposition 21 (rent control authority for local jurisdictions) — Yes

Cities are on the front lines of managing the upheaval and suffering caused by the state’s housing crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. They need the flexibility to adopt policies in response, such as limits on rent increases or temporary rent freezes.

Proposition 22 (treating app drivers as independent contractors) — No

California needs a better approach to gig workers. But rather than accepting the bad bargain Proposition 22 presents, voters should demand a better, broader answer from Sacramento.

Proposition 23 (dialysis clinic requirements) — No

There’s no evidence that the measure would protect the health and safety of dialysis patients, but there’s plenty of evidence that it is being improperly used as a labor organizing tool.

Proposition 24 (consumer data privacy) — Yes

The state’s groundbreaking data privacy law has come under attack in the Legislature. This measure would expand the protections for personal data and bar the Legislature from weakening them, while leaving the door open for improvements.

Proposition 25 (money bail referendum) — Yes

This measure would ratify a law to end bail and the use of wealth or poverty in California to determine whether a person accused of a crime stays in jail or goes home before trial.

R12 with the la times no wonder California is a shit hole.and prop 20 is about adjusting certain law penalties for example shoplifters stealing less 900 bucks are cited. in effect shoplifting has increased.

^ with a yes vote it brings down to 250. Above that it will be a felony

I voted YES on 19. I'm old and one of the things that keeps me from moving is the property tax increase if I buy a new house somewhere else.

While I voted YES on 18, I think the NO side had a good argument. On its face, it seems to make sense to allow 17-year olds to vote in primaries, but with the change in our system a few years back, primaries have become actual elections in many cases. That, coupled with the fact that ballot propositions are also decided in the primary cycle, definitely changes the concept of primaries.

Fuck Uber and fuck their bill. Uber = rapacious liars. If they want the law changed, you can bet a kidney that it doesn't serve the drivers' best interests.

R11, yes, I realized that after i posted. My mistake. I voted with the Times on most everything else.

R12 is mistaken about Prop 20. "Gender" doesn't appear in any of the propositions.

LA Times:

Proposition 20 (criminal justice reform rollbacks) — No

California is leading the nation away from decades of foolish and wasteful policies that prevent even low-level offenders from correcting their mistakes and getting on with productive and law-abiding lives. This is no time to reverse course.

I pay the homer tax

Prop 15 helps roll back the old Prop 13 a bit.

I voted for Prop 69. So do my friends Oral and Enos.

I’m confused about the dialysis one, are they saying the centers must be open 24 hours a day and seven days a week? That sounds ridiculous and then staffed always with a doctor? If it’s just regular working hours then yes a doctor should be there, and if they are in medical centers or doctor offices than there is absolutely no issues, they are on staff nearby as needed. These weird strip mall medical marts seem very problematic and most times are owned by doctors themselves as cash cows.

R23, I think it's that doctors have to be there during operating hours. The LA Times is against it and said it's a labor organizing thing, and I voted for it, but now I'd vote against it. Seems unnecessary.

Today, the NY Times is telling California voters to vote FOR Prop 16.

They know what's what.

All types of employment other than independent contracting should be banned because they constitute slavery.

R26, that's a bit extreme. At least in the US, generally employees and employers typically can both end an employment relationships. Slavery is forced servitude that the agent cannot release himself from, and for which he isn't typically compensated. There's no freedom of contract involved.

People are already leaving California and that is going to get worse if Proposition 22 doesn’t pass.

"Latinx"

Oh dear.

I followed progressive guidelines and voted no.

I voted yes for the one that requires cute Uber drivers to present hole.

T31 Their tailpipes?

I actually asked LYFT drivers what they thought about 22 and all said Yes so that’s what I did

Vivian Vance

[quote] People are already leaving California and that is going to get worse if Proposition 22 doesn’t pass.

Why is going to get worse if Uber doesn’t win?

[quote] Proposition 19 (transfer of property tax assessments when homes are sold) — No

[quote] By letting older homeowners keep the property tax break they’ve built up when they move to a new home, Proposition 19 would extend inequality by benefiting those who were lucky enough to buy a home years ago and hold onto it as values skyrocketed.

[quote] Proposition 20 (criminal offensive for misgendering) — Yes

[quote] Proposition 25 (money bail referendum) — Yes

[quote] Proposition 16 (repeal of ban on affirmative action in state programs) — Yes

Fuck the LA Times These ones made me the most angry.

California has less a budget problem than it does a spending problem.

I do intend to vote no on prop 22. The gig economy is stacked against the worker.

I would have loved to have voted NO on this but no longer live in California. All the gig economy has done is skirt regulations, exploit workers for longer hours, less pay and fewer protections and, of course, make the rich richer. Fuck Uber and Lyft, Airbnb and all the others that operate this way.

R39 I agree. I'm surprised that this is the most controversial given the other propositions.

[quote]I’m confused about the dialysis one, are they saying the centers must be open 24 hours a day and seven days a week? That sounds ridiculous and then staffed always with a doctor? If it’s just regular working hours then yes a doctor should be there, and if they are in medical centers or doctor offices than there is absolutely no issues, they are on staff nearby as needed.

Most people that need dialysis go to a clinic in their community close to home...because they have to go three times a week for several hours at a time. There's not usually doctor there and doesn't need to be. The dialysis treatments are done by nurses who know these patients well. They have standing orders for medications/fluids to give in case of common problems, and they can always get in touch with an on-call doctor. If there are serious problems, EMS is called and the patient is sent to an Emergency Room. I really don't see how it's possible for a doctor to be on-site every day in every outpatient dialysis clinic.

R36, that's not Prop 20.

[quote]How are you voting on Prop 16, which would bring back affirmative action? Voting No means they can’t use race in college admissions, even though black and Latinx enrollment has dropped since affirmative action was banned.

I would vote against it just because of "LatinX"

"I’m confused about the dialysis one, are they saying the centers must be open 24 hours a day and seven days a week? That sounds ridiculous and then staffed always with a doctor?"

Any California dialysis nurses here? The "vote no" side is spending a shit-ton of money on horrible manipulative misleading advertisements so of course my natural instinct is to vote "yes", but the fact is... many if not most dialysis patients are on Medicare, and if the costs of dialysis goes up and the medicare reimbursement doesn't change, maybe some dialysis clinics really will go out of business.

No on 22. Yes on 15 and a No on 23. Prop 23 is a SEIU initiative because they could not get even the liberal California legislature to agree to their demands for dialysis clinics. They are pissed because the dialysis staff have voted NOT to join their union. So now that they win a worker to join their ranks, they plan to force their rules upon them in retaliation. In addition, a similar proposition was soundly defeated in the last election This is bullying.

When you can no longer afford to have food delivered to you, it will be your fault if proposition 22 doesn’t pass.

Organized crime is behind all the propaganda bashing gig workers.

Race is already used pretty heavily in college admissions. All the prop will do is make it legal.

I will first admit I do not know what the taxi/cab situation is in California, so maybe it is different from the rest of the country.

That said, Uber and Lyft have FINALLY been able to break the ridiculous taxi lobby and their ridiculous prices and service time.

I am a semi elder-gay, and I fully remember calling for a cab at a bar and told 45 minutes ... maybe.

I remember on “hot” streets hailing a cab, and pulling out a credit card, and told “GET OUT”.

I remember MANY shady people driving a cab with a completely legit medallion/license who took me on the longest route possible (looking at you Vegas).

I’m not thrilled how Uber and (lesser) Lyft treat their employees but their influence is a very positive influence on the industry.

No, I do not drive for either. I just like not drinking and driving.

R44, I have friends who are retired nurses (albeit hospital nurses, not specializing in dialysis) and all of them say that a doctor onsite at these clinics is not necessary. I think R41 is probably right.

r33, the reason your Lyft drivers said to vote "yes" on 22 is because they have been ORDERED to tell passengers to vote yes on 22.

I thought most Lyft/Uber drivers want the control over their schedule and number of hours they work that they have now as independent contractors? Do they really want to become employees just for benefits?

[quote] the reason your Lyft drivers said to vote "yes" on 22 is because they have been ORDERED to tell passengers to vote yes on 22.

Since they're not employees, how can they be "ordered" to do anything?

Is it true that if you don’t want your taxes going up, you should vote No on everything?

R49 same. Cabbies treated us like dicks because they had a monopoly on driving people around. People would not have fled to Uber and Lyft en masse if cabs were a quality service.

If the proposition is "for the children" it gets an instant no from me.

There's no bigger signal that taxes will be raised but the money won't be going to the proper cause.

I talked to a couple of dialysis nurses about Prop 23, they're very much against it and swear all their colleagues are, too.

In addition to the union issues, the proposition requires dialysis clinics to have doctors on staff, which would drive up the costs considerably overall and be much harder on small dialysis clinics than large ones. And most dialysis patients are on medicare, and medicare isn't going to increase payment rates to match increased costs, plus the California nephrologists don't want to quit their practices to do completely routine stuff for dialysis clinics, So the upshot of the proposition would be that it would drive small dialysis clinics out of business, and put patients in the hands of doctors who couldn't get a better job. Sounds like a big "no".

I sometimes deliver food for Doordash on the weekends or shop for Instacart. I just do it for fun because I like shopping and I could get a little extra spending money. If Prop 22 doesn’t pass, does that mean I can’t do this on weekends anymore? This is not my job so I would not want to become a full time employee with them. It’s just something I do a couple hours a week. So should I vote yes or no on 22?

R58, vote yes, obviously. Not sure if you’re trolling, but your scenario is exactly what it protect.

I don’t think R58 is a troll.

So I won’t be able to work Instacart 2 hours a week anymore? Unlike Uber, I don’t think there are full time Instaho shoppers. Most people I know only shop a few hours in their free time. But the thing is I would want the full time Uber drivers to get their benefits though. So I guess what I’m asking is Is this really an “either or” situation? Can it be possible for the full time drivers to get their full benefits AND for the recreational shoppers to still use the app? The Yes rhetoric is making it seem like it isn’t possible for both but would they really kick us all off the app to cut off their nose to spite their face and have no shoppers or is it just a scare tactic? I want to vote no to call their bluff but I also don’t want to lose this job either.

R61, I don’t know that I’ll convince you, R61, but if they’re forced to take individuals on as employees, they’re going to set the hours: it’ll be a full-time job. No, there won’t be low-hour “casual employees.” It doesn’t make sense to do that.

If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. But think about this: you like what you have now. If things change, anything could happen.

If you think I’m a shill, please block me.

[quote] I don’t think there are full time Instaho shoppers.

Are these people who spend all their time on Instagram looking for hot guys?

OP, I voted no to all three.

Giving the government this kind of power is how we ended up with Trump.

Thanks, R62. I don’t think you’re a shill. I just wanted to get all sides. From the polling, it seems like the yes side is winning 60% to 40%.

Please vote yes to Prop 22!

No to Prop 16!

Yes to 15 - undo the damage of the old Prop 13 on local taxation!

If our economy is so great, why do so many people want to all of a sudden become cabdrivers? Because that’s essentially what Uber and lyft are. It’s not a good job and does not pay well either. It can also be dangerous.

[quote] It’s not a good job and does not pay well either. It can also be dangerous.

So's working in a slaughterhouse, but people do that and you consume the output. What's the difference?

Lyft up 7% today. Market knows it's going to pass!

R8 is correct. In California, I voted the opposite of the ones with the carpet bombing of the airwaves.

Does anyone on DL know whether it's illegal in Calif to run political ads on TV the day before the election, or the day of the election?

So far today, after an hour of early morning local news, I've watched only recorded reruns of "Good Eats" and old movies on TCM. But up until bedtime yesterday (Mon), political ads were literally non-stop -- doesn't anyone else want to advertise anything?

Thanks for the discussion. I referred to this thread a lot while filling out my ballot

Prop 22 results.

Prop 16 results.

Washington Post says it’s a YES for Prop 22.

Uber and Lyft are safe.

Prop 16 is projected to fail. No affirmative action.

I voted no on 22 because follow the money. If greedy Uber is for it, I'm against it. Most of the drivers I've met are young, and without health care, I think they are vulnerable when they think they are invincible. Like Walmart employees who receive no healthcare benefits,it seems like they are being exploited at government expense -- sick people without healthcare end up in public hospitals. But it was a tough call. It broke the taxicab monopoly and it was now possible to get rides into and out of my neighborhood at affordable fares. Don't know if I made the right choice for the drivers.

Voted in favor of affirmative action. I am a white male, raised in a blue collar family, but the expectation/environment/culture and certain other privileges were in favor of me going to college and succeeding. My Latino partner, also raised in a blue collar family, had no such support, nor did he ever expect to go to college, let alone graduate summa cum laude. I really pushed my WASPY values on him, and then he just went with it on his own. He got a moderate scholarship that favored minorities, but it gave him a huge psychological boost. Buying a house was a whole other battle; he could not conceive the concept that we no longer had a landlord, had to pay for a new water heater when it broke, that we could paint it any color we wanted, and could hang art on the walls with nails.

Speaking of which... I am now a single eldergay homeowner (bought 26 years ago). I could not afford to buy my own house now. Market rate property taxes would suck up most of my salary. My retirement savings is in the house. I have to retire soon (cancer, mobility issues) and can't physically deal with living in SF anymore. I'll soon need to sell my house and live somewhere much cheaper, and with no hills or stairs. If I move somewhere cheaper, transferring the tax basis to a new property will mean that I could afford to retire, and the only way I can do it will be to buy another place. Buying a house or condo locks in the "rent" at a fixed price, which is necessary on a fixed income. For fire victims who lost their homes (and tax basis), having to but a new home with much higher property taxes would, for most, make it impossibly affordable.

I voted Yes on Prop 17 and I am sad to see that it is behind -- it would allow 17-year-olds (turning 18 by the general election) to participate in the primary and special election process.

We need more youth and less jurassic-era fossils like Diane Fucking Feinstein to be participating in the electoral process.

The outcomes for16 and 22 were so far the only things I’ve been happy about this election. We didn’t flip any Senate seats, etc.

R80, there were no Senate seats to be flipped in California.

R81, I meant the federal Senate. So far no net gain.

You can’t even smoke a joint until you’re 21.

This sucks. I’m not happy with most of the ballot measure results. Why are they so sucky all the time?

R84, the propositions are deliberately written to confuse low-information voters. I don't know if this is how it is in other states, but California props tend to be a shitshow. Half the time, people don't know what they're voting for/against. They get flyers in the mail from special interest groups and they think they're voting for A). but instead end up getting B).

I’m really only happy about Prop 17 winning and Prop 20 being shot down.

^^And I would say I'm at least a decently well-informed voter and it took deeper research for me to not be so confused about the dialysis, internet privacy, and bail bonds measures.

The secretary of state writes the propositions' descriptions on the ballot. He's very progressive. Look at how he wrote prop 16: made it seem only about diversity, never mentioned affirmative action by name. People still didn't want it.,

[Quote]Most of the drivers I've met are young, and without health care, I think they are vulnerable when they think they are invincible.

In CA they can qualify for MediCal for free or get coverage through Covered California depending on their income. Don't pretend they don't have options. Prop 22 would have made sense in places like FL or Louisiana that chose not to adopt ACA provisions. Here, not so much.

I don't live anywhere near Cali, but with regards to Uber, I have mixed feelings on this. I watched a video earlier this year that focused on the high suicide rates among NYC taxi drivers. It was very eye opening about how saddled in debt (to the tune of $250k+) they are just to get government approval, some sort of "coin system", to be independent taxi drivers. Long story short, it sounds like trying to get a liquor license, only exponentially more expensive.

I think there could be some sort of hybrid solution - if a person wants to drive for Uber/Lyft as a side hustle, no they shouldn't be required to provide them health benefits. I know people that are making very comfortable six figure salaries that also drive for ride sharing services once in a while. My friends father owns a bunch of rental properties, he's very financially well off, but he just drives for Uber once in a while out of boredom and to socialize with people.

However for people who rely on Uber as their primary source of income, especially if it's their only source of income, I think Uber needs to start providing them benefits and compensation as a full time worker.

R90, medallion system, yes. It's notorious.

The NYC medallion system is notoriously run by the Russian mob. Michael Cohen (yes, that former Trump "counsel") married into a mobbed up "medallion king" family and later did business with another.

Who knows if organized crime was leaning on cab drivers for payments or threatened their families? The Russian/Ukranian mob isn't known for being as "nice" as the Five Families.

Instacart just sent me this email:

Proposition 22 has officially passed in California, and we’d like to thank you for your engagement on this important measure. With the passage of Proposition 22, Californians have voted to preserve access to flexible earnings opportunities for Instacart shoppers, while enabling Instacart to continue to serve as an essential, affordable and accessible service for shoppers, customers and grocers statewide.

We’re deeply appreciative of our shopper community for their continued dedication to providing a great service for customers, particularly in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing more information directly with California shoppers about the new benefits and offerings they can expect as a result of Proposition 22’s passage, including:

• Guaranteed earnings of at least 120% of minimum wage • A healthcare subsidy if they shop 15+ hours a week • Policies and trainings to protect shoppers

Proposition 22 was created to unlock a better, more progressive solution for all Californians that reflects the preferences of app-based drivers. We look forward to continuing to work with policymakers nationwide to find progressive solutions that acknowledge the flexible earnings opportunities shoppers want while providing them with new earnings guarantees, protections, and benefits.

Thank you for your continued support and for being a part of the Instacart family.

R93, are you a shopper or a customer?

I voted No - the whole idea is that this is a side-hustle. Not a full time job.

The taxi industry was a scam for decades. I'm glad we have more options and at a lower cost.

R95, you mean you voted yes.

R96 -yes, I meant yes. I hate how some of these props are written - it seems willfully confusing. I heard these are written by a progressive, but they fucking need an editor.

Time and again, these props are written in a confusing way where I could vote opposite of what I intended.

[quote]Time and again, these props are written in a confusing way where I could vote opposite of what I intended.

I still think that's how Prop 8 passed

the ride share companies were never going to pay drivers medical, dental, etc. and make them full time employees; they'd have bolted from CA.

AB5, the bill that started all this nearly wiped me out as an IC; I'm a writer and clients were dropping me because of AB5.

I had to incorporate, form an LLC and that cost a lot of money. I'm told I'll make it up in taxes and deductions. I picked a cool company name.

The woman who spearheaded the whole thing is tone deaf to people's pleas.

I called my rep's office and they explained the goal was to get companies to hire ICs as full time employees. I'm like: that's NEVER going to happen.

r94 Customer. I only started using them during the pandemic, and I've only used them for Aldi (mostly) and one time at Stater Bros. They're always sending me discount offers ($15 off, free delivery, etc.) but frankly I've had better luck with curbside pickup at Walmart.

R99, how did you become a freelance writer? How did you get clients? I’m a writer for a big corporation and love to break away and do my own thing and work for myself.

[Quote]I only started using them during the pandemic, and I've only used them for Aldi (mostly)

Did you expect service to be better during a pandemic, even as CEO gave drivers an unceremonious heave ho?

r102 What does that have to do with Instacart?

I'm thrilled and relieved. I don't drive anymore: I take Lyft and Uber everywhere in CA.

Drivers were obviously independent contractors, so it’s good for the law to recognize it.

What is taking so long to count the rest of the vote? So far the propositions are at around 72% counted. I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome of Prop. 19 (allowing seniors to keep their property tax base.) Right now it's winning 51.5-48.5, but it hasn't been called.

[quote] How are you voting on Prop 16, which would bring back affirmative action? Voting No means they can’t use race in college admissions, even though black and Latinx enrollment has dropped since affirmative action was banned.

Wrong. Latino enrollment has, in fact, doubled since then. Which is why the majority voted against Prop 16 and why it didn't pass.

So Prop 16 is only about blacks and not Latinx?