Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Election Results California 2010: Prop 16, 17, Prop 14
Share:
by NowPublic Staff | June 9, 2010 at 11:01 am
41006 views | 4 Recommendations | 13 comments
California Election Results 2010: Proposition 16,17 Fail, Proposition 14 Passes
Among the many decisions voters made on the 2010 California Election Ballots were the choices to oppose or support three Propositions: prop 17, prop 16, and prop 14
Proposition 16 Result: Opposed, Fails
California voters rejected Prop 16. It was a proposal that would require voter approval before a municipality could get into the electricity business, (ie. create a public utility). The proposal was spearheaded by the large private energy company, Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E).
...the San Francisco utility is spending more than $46 million of its shareholders' money to deluge television viewers with what Pruett described as "a vigorous advertising campaign" that touts what the company calls the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act.
Proposition 17 Results: Opposed, Fail
Prop 17 was seeking to provide insurance companies with greater flexibility in setting insurance rates.
Proposition 17 would have allowed automobile insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver's history of insurance coverage, authorizing discounts for those who have kept their coverage even if they changed insurance companies.
The Prop 17 proposal was financed with a $16 million fund from Mercury Insurance.
Proposition 14: Approved, Passed
Prop 14 was a proposal that sought the approval of voters to change the way voting is actually conducted in California.
Proposition 14, also known as the Open Primary Measure, will give every voter the same ballot in primary elections for most state and federal races, except the presidential contest. The two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported Prop 14 saying it would prevent gridlock and provide voters with more control over the names that ultimately will appear on ballots.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Patrick T. (not verified)
Crowd Power
Related Stories
Recommendations (4)
Anonymous users (4)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (13)
at 12:02 on June 9th, 2010
How stuped we people are to vote yes for 17, when did you noticed that INSURANCE companies giving a brake to members? damn we are stone age people!!
at 12:28 on June 9th, 2010
... consider lessons in grammar and spelling
at 07:04 on June 10th, 2010
are we really sharp shooting grammar and spelling on a comment thread?
at 13:28 on June 9th, 2010
Have to be pretty limited if you post a message and can't spell 'stupid' or 'break' in the same sentence. Even cavemen could probably handle those....
at 22:41 on June 9th, 2010
No, Armen is a clever writer! I am sure "brake" was just a play on words, after all he is talking about the Auto Insurance measure. I am still trying to justify "stuped" though...
at 21:21 on June 19th, 2010
Well, I almost always intentionally misspell stoopid. Sometimes I even exaggerate it as stoooopid.... just to drive the point further. Either way... I prefer to refrain from critiquing grammatical errors. Some of us a good at math, some are good at english, some at art. Though I don't know Armen... and this is the first time I've seen this website so I've not seen other posts of his... I would guess that with a name like Armen that english isn't his first language. Actually, most of his (her?) post shouts out ESL.However, Armens point was reasonably logical, so I'd say it was stoopid to chastise that his second or third language skills aren't first rate.
at 05:36 on June 10th, 2010
Not insurance companieS Stupid. it's insurance company (singular) Mercury was the ONLY company that funded the Prop. Mercury offers, by far, the cheapest rates in California to drivers with a good record. The only reason Mercury doesn't insure everyone in California is that they can not compete with other companies that keep their clients by offering a discount that Mercury can't offer. Prop 17 would have removed that block and allowed Mercury to offer the discount to new clients. You didn't see All State or Farmers spending any money to get this prop passed.
at 09:05 on June 11th, 2010
Trickery by the insurance Co.s would have been turned into extra charges for traveling anywhere.And learn to spell stupid.....
at 15:02 on June 9th, 2010
Good that Prop 17 failed. We shouldn't let Insurance companies urinate on our boots and try to tell us it's raining--Mercury Ins--One of the worst. Prop 14. tsk tsk, Califas. We tried open primaries some years ago. We voted them back out because they confused people. If anyone thinks voting was manipulated before, watch what happens with Prop 14 in place. We shoulda flushed the toilet on that one.
at 21:51 on June 9th, 2010
We need to change it so a large corporation can't just buy a prop and put it up for votes. I agree with Robert M. on the outcomes. Prop 14 will also ban parties such as Green and Peace and Freedom from ever getting a candidate on the final ballot. The fact that Arnold was a big backer should have clued the clueless that it was status quo.
at 22:45 on June 9th, 2010
That's your goal, 3rd parties? Getting on the ballot? How about winning for once?Why should we let you continue to throw the election like you did in 2000?... Anyone remember Ralph Nader appointing Bush president? How about Ross Perot appointing Clinton in 1992? I thought we the people chose our leaders, not a single candidate who can influence the results by dropping out of the race or not...When a 3rd party candidate garners enough votes to be in the top 2, that party will finally have a shot at winning the general. It's never gonna happen by throwing the general election every time... people dislike that.
at 22:47 on June 9th, 2010
That's your goal, 3rd parties? Getting on the ballot? How about winning for once?Why should we let you continue to throw the election like you did in 2000?... Anyone remember Ralph Nader appointing Bush president? How about Ross Perot appointing Clinton in 1992? I thought we the people chose our leaders, not a single candidate who can influence the results by dropping out of the race or not...When a 3rd party candidate garners enough votes to be in the top 2, that party will finally have a shot at winning the general. It's never gonna happen by throwing the general election every time... people dislike that.
at 20:06 on June 10th, 2010
I voted NO on 16 17 and 14, I am surprised it passed, but then again, they some people are more than clueless.. Most propositions are so misleading. There should be changes done to how propositions are presented. Some many changes are needed in the electoral department.