This post only really applies to California voters because I'm going to give you all my voter guide for the California propositions. If you don't live in California, feel free to comment about them. If you do live in California, go to: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ and read what these are.

First the four bonds:
Prop 1A-SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
Prop 3-CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Prop 10-ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Prop 12-VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.
My vote: NO-on all four. It's not that I don't support hospitals for children, alternative fuel and/or energy, a high speed train in California, or veterans. My issue is that California is addicted to bonds. Bonds mean borrowing and California does WAY too much of that. We (the tax payers) have to pay these back with INTEREST. Borrowing is one of the reasons that the government can't get a balanced budget done. It's time to stop this. Every election, we are asked to approve at least a few of these, and they almost always pass. I will not even look at the text of the proposition. I will vote NO on just about ANY bond measure that I can. And, I encourage ALL Californians to do the same. BTW, I will also vote no on any L.A. County or Torrance (there are a couple of Torrance school bonds on the ballot) bond issues.

Prop 2-STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: NO This prop is aimed primarily at chicken farms. I personally do not really care how my food is grown as long as it is 1. safe 2. cheap 3. the animals are not being tortured. On the last point, as far as I know no chicken is being tortured by being kept in a small cage. I also buy the notion that if chicken raisers are forced to do this, they will move their farms elsewhere and it will cost more for eggs as a result. BTW, California is the 6th biggest egg producing state.

Prop 4-WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: YES This is a very mild prop. It allows for PARENTAL NOTIFICATION, not CONSENT. I would rather have consent, but notification is OK. At least this keeps SOME control in the hands of parents over their kids. There are also loads of provisions that allow the minor girl to get around this law if say her parents are abusive, etc...

Prop 5-NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: NO This would stop nonviolent drug offenders from going to prison and allow a bunch of them out of prison. It would also put some more money into drug rehabilitation programs. I vote no because I've heard from several officials who know more about this than I do that this would allow ANY person who has committed a violent offense to claim that he/she was on drugs at the time. That could make that crime a nonviolent offense and that person would get drug counseling instead of prison. That is nonsense. Plus, this was financed primarily by George Sorros. Enough reason for me to vote no on this.

Prop 6-POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: YES This would mandate almost $1 billion in the budget for law enforcement efforts in California primarily to local law enforcement. It would also increase the penalties for certain gang and drug-related crimes. There are a few other provisions. The $1 billion mandated bothers me, but that money would come from the budget so the Socialists in Sacramento would be forced to put at least that amount into their budget every year. And, I am very much in favor of increasing penalties for gang members. Next, we need to build more prisons in this state.

Prop 7-RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
My vote: NO This prop is extremely complicated but has to do with making public utilities in California subject to something called a Renewables Portfolio Standard. Privately owned and operated utilities are currently required by the state to increase the amount of renewable energy they generate by 1% a year. This would require the same from the public utilities. It would also give A LOT more power to California's Energy Commission and take power away from local government who generally regulate their own public utilities, if they have one. I have an issue with this last part. I think public utlities should be run by locals not a big state organization that is not responsive to local interests. Plus, this prop is VERY complicated. I tend to vote no on propositions that are this complicated.

Prop 8-ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
My vote: NO This is the anti-gay marriage initiageive. It would prohibit same-sex marriage and it would put it in the California Constitution. I wavered a bit on this but ultimately I am against this because I don't think California government (or ANY government) has any business getting involved in MARRIAGE. Marriage in my mind is primarily a religious institution. I DO think same-sex couples should have the same rights that straight couples do. But to my mind, that is not marriage, it's a CIVIL UNION. I personally don't care if same-sex couples get hitched. But the fact is that most religions will NEVER allow same-sex marriage. And we MUST respect that. But, the government getting involved in marriage is not right.

Prop 9-CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
My Vote: YES This prop changes the rights of the victims of crimes. It allows them to include more of their family in parole hearings. And it allows representatives to attend these hearings to speak for the family. The prop changes quite a few provisions having to do with parole hearings. One of the better ones is a mandate that a judge when deciding on a parole must consider the safety of the victim of the crime first and foremost. Another is that when a criminal has to pay restitution for his/her crimes, the money goes first to the victim(s) of thier crime. I really like this prop. I REALLY like the last two items I listed. I am quite frankly surprised that restitution is NOT given to victims first. So, this is a BIG yes.

Prop 11-REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
My vote: 100% YES The main provisions of this prop would take the power to redraw state legislative districts from the legislature and give it to a new "Citizens Redistictring Commission." Most of this commission would be chosen at random from a list of eligiable candidates. The rest of the committe would be chosen by the committee itself. Their would be 14 commissioners, 5 from each major party and the other 4 from other parties are independents. This commission would be responisble for redistricting for the next decade. There are also some changes in the considerations that must be used to redraw districts. This would affect primarily the state legislative districts and Board of Equalization (taxes). There are provisions in there to change the considerations for U.S. Rep districts, but the actual responsibility for drawing those districts would remain with the CA legislature. I have NEVER been a fan of the state legislature drawing its own districts. It always guarantees the same distribution of Democrat and Republican seats. I am tired of hearing about state districts that are so gerrymandered that it looks like the Amazon River. This is a very sensible sollution. Plus, I am happy with the amount of compensation these commissioners would get, $300 per day plus expenses. That is not much, but it is enough for a job that needs to be done once every ten years. I say YES YES YES!!!! Anything to get the legislature out of the job of drawing their own districts.