Jose Cardenas' Analysis:

Personally, I think it is a vote between two propositions with bad additions. The reason as to why I would possibly vote in favor of prop 16 is simply because of the logistics of it. A two thirds vote means that only a much larger more defined majority would be able to overcome the other portion of the population, whereas the current method would allow for a two point differentiation. This means that, as of now, a 51 percent majority could overcome the rest of the population. The proposition would make it harder for companies to become the actual providers of certain regions with a two thirds vote. However, that’s to say that the entire population is given the opportunity to vote for their electrical providers. A defining percentage of individuals whom don’t vote might create a majority of a more active minority. Further, because the nominated electrical providers are predetermined it will push the smaller companies out of the election and leave only the larger more efficient providers at work. The only thing that bugs me is that although it becomes harder for companies to rise to power their fall is likewise just as hard. It will require a two third vote for the electrical company in power to be changed meaning that they could change their rates. What might initially look like a cheap price for electricity might develop into a higher rate than people pay now. Monopolies are sure to rise because all that a company needs to do is be able to stay in power for maybe a few years and it will eliminate all its competition. With no competition, the public is bound to a single provider with no other option. The reason that PG&E, Pacific Gas & Electric, supports this proposition is to essentially leave the entire state electric rates up to three major providers. So in the end, I lean a bit towards voting against the proposition just because the enactment of it will create many future problems.