Bob Hertzberg (Democrat) 51,960 59.0 % H.R. Culver (Republican) 27,248 30.9 % Kelley Ross (Libertarian) 6,985 7.9 % David Cossak (Natural Law) 1,899 2.2 %
This is a considerable improvement over the election of 1994, when I received 4201 votes, 6% of the total, in a three way race. It is also one of the better third party showings, and perhaps the best Libertarian showing, in California. My thanks to everyone who voted for me, and please consider volunteering to help in the 1998 campaign!
Return to Table of Contents
for Vice President
Harry and Jo ended up receiving 470,818 votes, or 0.5% of the total. This was the best Libertarian showing since 1980, but was somewhat disappointing. Ralph Nader drew 580,627 votes, many of which may have gone Libertarian if such a well known figure had not attracted many protest votes, especially in California. With so many candidates on most ballots, and with Ross Perot and Nader both in the race, we must assume that the votes Harry got were from people who knew what he was all about. If only a fraction of those people were to actually join the Party, the next Libertarian candidate will be in an immensely stronger position.
Final 1996 Presidential Results
1. Clinton, William J. Democrat 45,628,667 49.2% 2. Dole, Robert J. Republican 37,869,435 40.8% 3. Perot, Ross Reform 7,874,283 8.5% Total of Top Three (>lM votes): 91,372,385 98.5%
4. Nader, Ralph Green 580,627 0.6% 5. Browne, Harry Libertarian 470,818 0.5% 6. Phillips, Howard Taxpayers 178,779 0.2% 7. Hagelin, John Samuel Natural Law 110,194 0.1% Total of Next Four (>100K votes): 1,340,418 1.4%
8. Moorehead, Monica Gail Workers World 29,118 0.0% 9. Feinland, Marsha Peace And Freedom 22,593 0.0% 10. Harris, James Democrat 11,513 0.0% Total of Next Three (>10K votes): 63,224 0.1%
11. Collins, Charles Edwin Republican 7,234 0.0% 12. Hollis, Mary Cal Socialist Workers 3,376 0.0% 13. White, Jerome Socialist Equality 2,752 0.0% 14. Dodge, Earl F. Prohibition 1,198 0.0% 15. Forbes, Malcolm S. Jr. Republican 861 0.0% 16. Birrenbach, John Grass Roots 760 0.0% 17. Masters, Isabell Republican 737 0.0% Total of Text Seven (<10K votes): 16,918 0.0%
Grand Total: 92,792,945 100.0%
Return to Table of Contents
This is the "California Civil Rights Initiative" (the CCRI). It simply contains the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "Affirmative action," if it means preferential policies on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc., violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That the Supreme Court has not enforced the obvious meaning of the Act, because of dishonesty or political bias, means that the State of California must take matters into its own hands. Some people worry that without "affirmative action," the country will simply go back to Segregation. Unfortunately, "affirmative action" is already Segregation, because it involves the same kinds of official discrimination against races, ethnic groups, or the sexes. Segregation was allowed when no attempt was made to enforce the 14th Amendment, which mandates to each person the equal protection of the law. Now "affirmative action" continues to suspend its enforcement. Either the 14th Amendment is going to finally be enforced now, or it should just be honestly repealed. Some people think that the injustice of "historic discrimination" requires reverse discrimination to compensate for the past: But "affirmative action" is used to benefit people arriving from India or Central America who were never victims of anything in the United States; is used to benefit people who are already well off and need no help at all; is never used to benefit people like the Jews or Armenians who were the victims of considerable historic discrimination and would certainly deserve some kind of compensation; is often used to discriminate against people of Chinese and Japanese ancestry (because they are too successful), even though they were the victims of major historic discrimination in California; and is used to penalize individual "white males" (including Jews, Armenians, etc.) who never had anything to do with any kind of historic discrimination and may in fact be laboring under very adverse personal circumstances. The 14h Amendment says that equal protection of the law shall not be denied to "any person." This does not allow for an interpretation of "group rights" or "group guilt" by which individuals now are penalized for the actions of people who looked like them 300, 100, or 50 years ago. It is therefore not surprising that "affirmative action" promotes resentment and probably contributes to the very kinds of racial hatred that its supporters claim it will remedy. Therefore, get rid of it by voting "Yes" on Proposition 209.
Proposition 209 passed by a solid margin.
YES: 5,068,498 54.5 % NO: 4,238,622 45.5 %
Note that the map for Proposition 209 and that for 215 below are almost mirror images. Counties that went heavily against 209 went heavily for 215. This illustrates the manner in which Libertarian principles cut across the ordinary left-right political spectrum. The political left favors social engineering and thus opposes equality before the law, while the political right favors their own kind of social engineering which denies to individuals, for supposedly moral reasons, control over their own bodies. The interesting asymetry is that opposition to 209 appears to have been more concentrated that support for 215. Few counties actually went against 209, while many counties went against 215, even though 215 got a higher percentage of the vote overall.
Return to Table of Contents
When you are sick, it is the business of you and your doctor alone how you are to be treated. But when it comes to the problems of nausea and appetite that people have while under chemotherapy for cancer, or of an effective drug to treat glaucoma, politicians have decided that one of the most effective drugs for these things, marijuana, which is cheap and non-toxic, will be denied to you. I personally have been told by more than one person that the use of marijuana, which legally made them criminals, liable to draconian punishments, was the only thing that had saved their lives while they were being treated for cancer. Evidently, many politicians think that it is better that cancer patients should starve to death than that they should use marijuana. This is a vicious, dishonest, and immoral situation. Recognizing that, the California State Legislature has already twice passed "Compassionate Use" bills to allow physicians in California to prescribe medical marijuana in appropriate cases. This courageous legislation should prove that this is not an issue motivated by aging hippies or drug dealers. Unfortunately, Governor Wilson has vetoed each "Compassionate Use" bill with the rationalization that it might violate federal law. However, Wilson himself should know that such federal laws violate the 10th Amendment and are clearly unconstitutional: The Constitution gives the federal government no say over your control of the medical treatment of your own body. It is about time that the people of California stand up and take back control over our own bodies and our own medical care. One step in that direction is to brush aside the fear and irrationality that is embodied in the drug laws and to allow the sick and the dying the chance to take care of themselves with a very simple and inexpensive drug. Vote "Yes" on Proposition 215.
Proposition 215 passed by a solid margin.
YES: 5,182,881 55.6 % NO: 4,148,423 44.4 %
Note that the map for Proposition 215 and that for 209 above are almost mirror images. Counties that went heavily against 209 went heavily for 215. This illustrates the manner in which Libertarian principles cut across the ordinary left-right political spectrum. The political left favors social engineering and thus opposes equality before the law, while the political right favors their own kind of social engineering which denies to individuals, for supposedly moral reasons, control over their own bodies. The interesting asymetry is that opposition to 209 appears to have been more concentrated that support for 215. Few counties actually went against 209, while many counties went against 215, even though 215 got a higher percentage of the vote overall.
Return to Table of Contents