I finally sat down with my voter information pamphlet last night and attempted to actually figure out what to vote for. Most of it is pretty bland, but there are some initiatives that I'm still mulling over. Feel free to make your arguments.
The smoking ban. Would ban smoking in all public areas, no exceptions. The argument for: being around smoking sucks. The argument against (at least, the only one that carries weight with me): why should the government tell people how to run their places of business? If people want to allow smoking, let them. If that causes customers to avoid them, fine. If that causes them to then ban smoking, that's the free market in effect. But on the other hand -- I and most people I know would go out more if smoking were banned. But on the other hand -- just because the majority wants something does not make it right; let's remember slavery, just to right for the extreme. The one argument I've heard that allows me to waver in favor of my personal preference: consumers have a choice, but the people who work in these places don't (and it's probably not fair to just say: get another job!). I'm still undecided.
The monorail. I've voted for the monorail four times, or whatever it is. My logic all along has been: we need something and the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. Also, light rail does not seem particularly well managed, so let's throw more money at it and let a thousand flowers bloom. But let's be honest. The monorail so far is a train wreck, and it's no longer simply because most of the political establishment is against it. Let's be more honest: the current plan, involving a monorail from West Seattle to Ballard is a complete head-scratcher to me. I can't believe that's what they determined to be the corridor that most needs better transit. I'm thinking we might be better served if we could throw that money at light rail or something else. Still undecided, but considering voting for the monorail again, but for at least one of the people running for the monorail board who promises to be highly critical of any plan.
The whole insurers vs lawyers brouhaha. Somebody has come up with an initiative to cap non-damage awards in medical malpractice suits (i.e. you can still sue for all damages, but there's a limit on pain and suffering). This doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. But the thing seems to be larded about with some other crap, like something about enforced arbitration. The commercials on both sides disgust me. The pro- people basically say EVERYONE AGAINST IT IS A LAWYER, YOU CANT TRUST LAWYERS, which is the kind of thing people say when they don't want you to notice they have their hand in your pocket. This one is tied up with another bill which would try to impose all kinds of penalties on doctors who get nailed with malpractice convictions. I'm leaning towards no on both of these. The whole thing is a mess, and I'd like to try something new, but these seem to stink.
Categories: politics
TrackBack