If I were able to vote in today's election, I would vote No on Proposition 16. I would want electric companies to distribte more power. With the way that Prop 16 is set up, it would make it so that PG&E would make it mandatory for a 2/3rds vote before one may switch companies, and it would overall, ensure their power and source of revenue from powering the majority of the districts. I feel that this would just promote monopolies and take away the people's options.
I do not agree with prop 16 beacuse it does seem like all the power regarding electricity would be provided by PG&E. This will create a monolopy of a power hungry buisness which will cause other electricity buisnesses to fail, thus causing unemployment which is not what our state needs right now. Given that this proposition was mainly funded by PG&E makes me a bit skeptical. But if I could vote in the election today, I would vote NO on prop 16.
This year I will be voting NO on prop 16, I think that while it seems like it means well with notifying taxpayers where their money is being spent it will make it more difficult in the long run for electrical companies to start new projects. With requiring a 2/3’s vote approval for passing new projects it will make it more difficult and it will allow certain electrical companies to take over others and will monopolize the electrical companies. I vote no because I don’t want certain power companies to have more power than others and overtaking other companies. I also would vote no because it would raise prices on electricity and would take away the choice and rights of customers to choose who they want to purchase their electricity from. No on Prop 16!
I will vote no for prop 16 because it creates greater competition amongst electric companies. For example, my family does not get energy from PG&E and I do not think it is fair for people to change companies because of this prop. It creates a monopoly which creates competition and it does not make the customers happy.
I will be voting no on prop 16 during this year’s California Primary. The wording of this proposition is tricky because it makes some voters think that they should vote no on it because it would limit government control in the private arena of electronic services business. In actuality, this would be harmful to consumers in California because the government is really trying to break the monopoly that the electricity company, PG&E has on electric services in California. Because PG&E has a monopoly on the industry, they can set the prices at the rate they want. The government is trying to expand the control of the industry to outside electronic service providers in order to give consumers more of a choice in what price they are going to pay for their electricity. I also do not trust the proposition because PG&E has contributed 34.5 million dollars to the campaign for yes on prop 16. Given that I know the proposition will only benefit their company, I will be voting no on Proposition 16.
I would vote NO on Prop 16. I believe that PG&E wants less competition and by having this proposition passed, they would be the most popular and have a lot of customers so in reality, they would make a profit off of this prop. The wording of this prop is really confusing but if you read carefully, you can see that this prop is trying to benefit only one group of people or in this case, PG&E alone. PG&E spent over 30 million dollars to campaign for this prop to be passed and to me, that seems like they are only trying to pursue their own interests.
Today, I voted no on Prop 16. this was so because I do not understand why it demands for a two thirds vote. This prop is indeed trying to benefit only one group. This also causes an increase in competitions for electric companies and it will just cause rivalry and have a bad outcome.
I would vote no on Prop 16 because it would make the wealthy companies benefit while the consumers are pretty much forced to suffer. It would make companies that work in the private sector, like PG&E, benefit and give them more freedom to do as they please by decreasing the government's ability to do anything by calling for the 2/3s vote. With this information, I would vote no on Prop 16.
I would vote no on proposition 16 because it would only benefit the big companies while those who receive service from these companies have to deal with certain problems
I would support prop 16 because it would allow the people to vote for electricity and how to get it as well. This will promote alternative energy. It would take a 2/3 vote from the people in order for the government to expand its electric services. This is important because the government has to get consent from the people which promote greater democracy. If the government spreads too much all electricity would be run by the government. -Anthony Chheng
I would vote no on proposition 16 because it reminds me of proposition 17 and how it sounds like it can only help people but there is probably a lot of small print written into the proposition. It seems to me like the big companies will benefit from the passage of the proposition. PG&E will be benefiting from this proposition and I do not support that and that is why I would vote no on proposition 16.
I would vote yes on Prop 16 for the purpose that it will establish new entities for both the consumers and the competitors. Aside from this, Prop 16 will promote new markets and establishment of competitor energy companies. This is a good outcome from this proposition because the consumers get to choose the companies that promote the best service and energy rates. Ultimately, Prop 16 will expand electrical power to new frontiers and to developing territories were it can become more accessible.
Today, I would vote no on proposition 16. This proposition would limit the consumers options to purchase energy. Thus, the current energy company has total control over its prices. This would mean that they can increase the prices and citizens will be unable to switch to another company that has lower rates. We must have competition among large companies and that is why I will vote no on proposition 16.
I would vote no on Proposition 16 because it is worded in a tricky way. It makes us think that if you vote yes, you will get to have a say in who provides the electricity. In reality it just limits the amount of companies that will provide the electricity and this can lead to monopolies! This is not good because it will give a company a lot of power to raise the price on electricity because it will have no competition.
After a careful review and analysis of prop 16, I have decided that i will be voting no because its passage will be harmful to the consumers. i noticed that PG&E contributed over 34 million dollars to the Yes on Prop 16 Campaign. i feel that there is some sort of monopolizing going on. if PG&E is the only provider, it has the power to set its own prices and its terms and conditions. science they would be the only ones providing electronic services, consumers who are not in range of public providers, they will have no choice but to make business with PG&E. vote no.
I would vote no on Prop 16 because it will only help the large corporations gain most of the profits. Since many sign up with the big companies, these electric services become extremely powerful creating less competition among other electric companies. By voting yes for prop 16, big companies like PG&E will be able to manipulate people in order to gain support although it is the taxpayers that are usually affected if something goes wrong with the company. This proposition would require a two-thirds voter approval before the local government can give electricity service to new customers or communities by using public funds. By saying no to this proposition, people will have more choices for electric services instead on depending on one. It will also allow the government to begin or expand certain services by the voter’s decision while also being in control of the funds. This will lead to profits for the state instead of the monopoly of electric company.
Energy companies are the main endorsers of this proposition. This probably means that it will help them the most and those benefits will not be passed on to us, the consumers. Much like Mercury Insurance, who has sponsored a proposition of their own, this proposition may end in monopolization and domination of the energy and utility industry in California. therefore, I will not be voting in favor of this proposition.
I do not agree with the policies that ahve been put for nergy use that it would not provide real relevance to the ther not being a monolopuy of power that it would not be a great law to that should be taken not into consideration.
I would vote no on Prop 16, if I was able to vote. This proposition would give a lot of power to the large energy companies. According to the proposition, a community would have to have a 2/3 vote in order to change electric company. This makes it harder for other smaller companies to get any customers. The large energy companies would completely control the energy provided and the prices for that energy. And although the proposition is claiming to try to give the people more control over who their energy providers are, it actually makes it more difficult. So I would vote no on Prop 16.
I would vote NO on pop 16 because it seems like a monopoly of the electric system and I think we've had enough with the energy crisis back over the summer with power and suppliers. I would also make it difficult for things to change with 2/3 vote and even harder for starting companies to get customers and help the consumer. Like Mercury insurance I think that this prop is obviously bias and should not be passed. If everyone knew the good things that the electric companies did then they would all get together and talk about it.
This election day I will be voting no on proposition 16. I feel the electrical company has created a massive empire and its involvement in this proposition leads me to believe that corruption is evident. Much like my vote for the over proposition ran by a huge company I will be voting no for proposition 16.
I would vote no on Prop 16 because it will just lead to an unnecessary monopoly. If the 2/3 vote rule would be implemented, things will never get done on time which will lead to dissatisfaction. Plus, the wording and titles are also tricky which makes one realize that the yes vote thinks of people as stupid and ignorant and unable to look for their own information.
I would vote no on proposition 16. That’s because this proposition would limit the consumers options to purchase energy, it would make sure to only offer a certain small amounts of options to the consumers and leave us no way out. This would give them the power to alter on increase the prices and citizens won’t be able to go switch to another company that has lower rates because there won’t be other competitions. That is why I will vote no on proposition 16.
If I were able to vote in today's election, I would vote No on Proposition 16. I would want electric companies to distribte more power. With the way that Prop 16 is set up, it would make it so that PG&E would make it mandatory for a 2/3rds vote before one may switch companies, and it would overall, ensure their power and source of revenue from powering the majority of the districts. I feel that this would just promote monopolies and take away the people's options.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with prop 16 beacuse it does seem like all the power regarding electricity would be provided by PG&E. This will create a monolopy of a power hungry buisness which will cause other electricity buisnesses to fail, thus causing unemployment which is not what our state needs right now. Given that this proposition was mainly funded by PG&E makes me a bit skeptical. But if I could vote in the election today, I would vote NO on prop 16.
ReplyDeleteThis year I will be voting NO on prop 16, I think that while it seems like it means well with notifying taxpayers where their money is being spent it will make it more difficult in the long run for electrical companies to start new projects. With requiring a 2/3’s vote approval for passing new projects it will make it more difficult and it will allow certain electrical companies to take over others and will monopolize the electrical companies. I vote no because I don’t want certain power companies to have more power than others and overtaking other companies. I also would vote no because it would raise prices on electricity and would take away the choice and rights of customers to choose who they want to purchase their electricity from. No on Prop 16!
ReplyDelete-Vanessa Pacheco
I will vote no for prop 16 because it creates greater competition amongst electric companies. For example, my family does not get energy from PG&E and I do not think it is fair for people to change companies because of this prop. It creates a monopoly which creates competition and it does not make the customers happy.
ReplyDeleteI will be voting no on prop 16 during this year’s California Primary. The wording of this proposition is tricky because it makes some voters think that they should vote no on it because it would limit government control in the private arena of electronic services business. In actuality, this would be harmful to consumers in California because the government is really trying to break the monopoly that the electricity company, PG&E has on electric services in California. Because PG&E has a monopoly on the industry, they can set the prices at the rate they want. The government is trying to expand the control of the industry to outside electronic service providers in order to give consumers more of a choice in what price they are going to pay for their electricity. I also do not trust the proposition because PG&E has contributed 34.5 million dollars to the campaign for yes on prop 16. Given that I know the proposition will only benefit their company, I will be voting no on Proposition 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote NO on Prop 16. I believe that PG&E wants less competition and by having this proposition passed, they would be the most popular and have a lot of customers so in reality, they would make a profit off of this prop. The wording of this prop is really confusing but if you read carefully, you can see that this prop is trying to benefit only one group of people or in this case, PG&E alone. PG&E spent over 30 million dollars to campaign for this prop to be passed and to me, that seems like they are only trying to pursue their own interests.
ReplyDeleteToday, I voted no on Prop 16. this was so because I do not understand why it demands for a two thirds vote. This prop is indeed trying to benefit only one group. This also causes an increase in competitions for electric companies and it will just cause rivalry and have a bad outcome.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on Prop 16 because it would make the wealthy companies benefit while the consumers are pretty much forced to suffer. It would make companies that work in the private sector, like PG&E, benefit and give them more freedom to do as they please by decreasing the government's ability to do anything by calling for the 2/3s vote. With this information, I would vote no on Prop 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on proposition 16 because it would only benefit the big companies while those who receive service from these companies have to deal with certain problems
ReplyDelete-Jorge Rayo
I would support prop 16 because it would allow the people to vote for electricity and how to get it as well. This will promote alternative energy. It would take a 2/3 vote from the people in order for the government to expand its electric services. This is important because the government has to get consent from the people which promote greater democracy. If the government spreads too much all electricity would be run by the government.
ReplyDelete-Anthony Chheng
I would vote no on proposition 16 because it reminds me of proposition 17 and how it sounds like it can only help people but there is probably a lot of small print written into the proposition. It seems to me like the big companies will benefit from the passage of the proposition. PG&E will be benefiting from this proposition and I do not support that and that is why I would vote no on proposition 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote yes on Prop 16 for the purpose that it will establish new entities for both the consumers and the competitors. Aside from this, Prop 16 will promote new markets and establishment of competitor energy companies. This is a good outcome from this proposition because the consumers get to choose the companies that promote the best service and energy rates. Ultimately, Prop 16 will expand electrical power to new frontiers and to developing territories were it can become more accessible.
ReplyDeleteToday, I would vote no on proposition 16. This proposition would limit the consumers options to purchase energy. Thus, the current energy company has total control over its prices. This would mean that they can increase the prices and citizens will be unable to switch to another company that has lower rates. We must have competition among large companies and that is why I will vote no on proposition 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on Proposition 16 because it is worded in a tricky way. It makes us think that if you vote yes, you will get to have a say in who provides the electricity. In reality it just limits the amount of companies that will provide the electricity and this can lead to monopolies! This is not good because it will give a company a lot of power to raise the price on electricity because it will have no competition.
ReplyDeleteAfter a careful review and analysis of prop 16, I have decided that i will be voting no because its passage will be harmful to the consumers. i noticed that PG&E contributed over 34 million dollars to the Yes on Prop 16 Campaign. i feel that there is some sort of monopolizing going on. if PG&E is the only provider, it has the power to set its own prices and its terms and conditions. science they would be the only ones providing electronic services, consumers who are not in range of public providers, they will have no choice but to make business with PG&E. vote no.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on Prop 16 because it will only help the large corporations gain most of the profits. Since many sign up with the big companies, these electric services become extremely powerful creating less competition among other electric companies. By voting yes for prop 16, big companies like PG&E will be able to manipulate people in order to gain support although it is the taxpayers that are usually affected if something goes wrong with the company. This proposition would require a two-thirds voter approval before the local government can give electricity service to new customers or communities by using public funds. By saying no to this proposition, people will have more choices for electric services instead on depending on one. It will also allow the government to begin or expand certain services by the voter’s decision while also being in control of the funds. This will lead to profits for the state instead of the monopoly of electric company.
ReplyDeleteEnergy companies are the main endorsers of this proposition. This probably means that it will help them the most and those benefits will not be passed on to us, the consumers. Much like Mercury Insurance, who has sponsored a proposition of their own, this proposition may end in monopolization and domination of the energy and utility industry in California. therefore, I will not be voting in favor of this proposition.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the policies that ahve been put for nergy use that it would not provide real relevance to the ther not being a monolopuy of power that it would not be a great law to that should be taken not into consideration.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on Prop 16, if I was able to vote. This proposition would give a lot of power to the large energy companies. According to the proposition, a community would have to have a 2/3 vote in order to change electric company. This makes it harder for other smaller companies to get any customers. The large energy companies would completely control the energy provided and the prices for that energy. And although the proposition is claiming to try to give the people more control over who their energy providers are, it actually makes it more difficult. So I would vote no on Prop 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote NO on pop 16 because it seems like a monopoly of the electric system and I think we've had enough with the energy crisis back over the summer with power and suppliers. I would also make it difficult for things to change with 2/3 vote and even harder for starting companies to get customers and help the consumer. Like Mercury insurance I think that this prop is obviously bias and should not be passed. If everyone knew the good things that the electric companies did then they would all get together and talk about it.
ReplyDeleteThis election day I will be voting no on proposition 16. I feel the electrical company has created a massive empire and its involvement in this proposition leads me to believe that corruption is evident. Much like my vote for the over proposition ran by a huge company I will be voting no for proposition 16.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on Prop 16 because it will just lead to an unnecessary monopoly. If the 2/3 vote rule would be implemented, things will never get done on time which will lead to dissatisfaction. Plus, the wording and titles are also tricky which makes one realize that the yes vote thinks of people as stupid and ignorant and unable to look for their own information.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on proposition 16. That’s because this proposition would limit the consumers options to purchase energy, it would make sure to only offer a certain small amounts of options to the consumers and leave us no way out. This would give them the power to alter on increase the prices and citizens won’t be able to go switch to another company that has lower rates because there won’t be other competitions. That is why I will vote no on proposition 16.
ReplyDelete