Advertisement
 

Some early returns on the special election

November 07, 2005

Re "Gov. Vows More Ballot Efforts," Nov. 3

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has attempted to govern by pushing his reform ideas into the voting booth. But wait: Then why do we need any politicians at all? The answer is simple. We elect officials who represent the voters who get a salary to work for us. We didn't elect this governor to throw hissy fits by way of special elections; no wonder nothing is getting done in Sacramento.

The price tag is extremely high for Californians on this special election. Waiting until June would have saved this state millions of dollars.

I would be in favor of one more ballot measure. That initiative would be specifically for the governor's position. It would be something like this: "Actors need not apply for the governor position."

KEN WHITEHEAD

\o7Huntington Beach

*\f7

I was disheartened to read that propositions 75, 76 and 77 are trailing badly in the polls and 74 is a tossup (Nov. 2). Why did we throw out Gov. Gray Davis if we want to continue business as usual? Obviously the public employee unions continue to have a stranglehold on our state, as all the money they've spent on fighting these propositions and maintaining the status quo is turning the tide in their favor.

If your polls prove correct, we should have spared ourselves the time, effort and expense of the recall election.

CLEO SOPP

\o7Whittier

*\f7

Re Proposition 74: As a teacher, I was initially disheartened to see that Schwarzenegger (after attempting to raid our pension funds) is now targeting our job security. I was even more upset to see this paper's support of the proposal. However, I'm beginning to see the light.

A long probationary period might be just the thing this country needs for all our state employees. Why just teachers? Take politicians, for example. Wouldn't it be nice if there were some probationary period for them? We can see what kind of job they do and if after, say, one year, they're not living up to their promises -- they're out. I wonder if Arnold would still have a job.

ANITA LEMONIS

\o7Woodland Hills

*\f7

When I receive mailings from Washington, D.C., urging my "no" vote on Proposition 77 in California with spurious reasons and excuses, I know a chord has been struck on the ability of the corrupt politicians to gerrymander and keep the status quo and protect incumbents. I will vote a resounding "yes" on Proposition 77 to stop these politicians and give the people a chance. Remember, redistricting under Proposition 77 has to be approved by the voters in the final analysis. Read your voting booklet.

ANN TELLING

\o7Thousand Oaks

*\f7

Re Proposition 77: Even if we were to believe that we are somehow "stuck" with current legislators, and that this is because of current district boundaries, the result of redistricting just changes things for a short time.

If, as one recent letter reports, "75% of the state's residents are dissatisfied with the job our legislators are doing" (Nov. 4), then perhaps it would help more if 75% of the state's (eligible) residents would vote.

BOB ABRAHAMS

\o7Los Angeles

\f7

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|