I would never be so presumptuous as to tell someone how they ought to vote. However, there is nothing wrong with throwing a few thoughts out there which, I hope, my reader will consider.
Item by item:
Presidential. My support of Gary Johnson has been well known. I have never feared “handing” the election to a certain candidate because of my voting for a third party; I prefer, so far as possible, to vote based on principle and not being guilted into voting “practically.” However, I know that the fashion is to vote practically, as it has been in the last few decades (landing us nowhere.) Very well; let’s look at this matter practically.
Trump is going to carry Oklahoma by a sizable margin, perhaps even by a landslide. Clinton’s defeat in Oklahoma is a certainty. However, there is one thing that is not so certain: continued access to the ballot for the Libertarian party in the state of Oklahoma. For this to continue, the Libertarians have to receive 2.5% of the presidential vote. The presidential rate was dismal in every way, and the only good that can come of it at this point would be ballot access for next election. This would be a victory itself.
U.S. Senate: As a libertarian, naturally I will be supporting the libertarian candidate, Robert Murphy, against James Lankford. Partly because Lankford is a fraud, but also Robert Murphy is a long-time and well respected Oklahoma libertarian. But there are also two other independents (Mark Beard and Sean Braddy) which are also worth your consideration.
District Four House of Representatives: Again, as a libertarian, I will be supporting the libertarian candidate Servier White.
A long standing habit of those who want to reject the status quo is to reject all the judges, no matter who they are. I feel that usually that would be too hasty and ill-considered, however in this case it would work; there is no compelling reason to keep either of these judges (Douglas L. Comb and James R. Winchester.)
State Question 776, regarding a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of the state government to execute convicted criminals. A yes vote would add this amendment to the state constitution.
I will be voting no on this question, as I oppose the death penalty and think it’s unnecessary to add to our state constitution. Besides, legislation to this effect already is on the books in our state, so this question isn’t necessary at all.
State Question 777, “Right to Farm.” This one is a little difficult. A “yes” vote would prevent the State government from passing additional legislation regulating agricultural activities, unless there is a “compelling state interest.” Regulations that already exist will continue to be enforced.
Personally, I will be supporting this. Granted, the most oppressive agricultural regulations are Federal, not state – however, anytime we can remove a little power from any level of government, it is a sort of victory.
Concerns have been raised about this allowing corporate farms to flourish, bringing about the end of family owned farms, polluting our water supply, etc. I think these concerns are a little exaggerated, but the corporate farm is a very real possibility. Is this something to be concerned about?
The modern tendency is toward corporate farms because they are ultimately more efficient and offer more inexpensive food to the consumer. This is a tendency of the free market. If we fear the aforementioned effects of this question, then we fear the effects and tendencies of the free market in operation.
Sure, we can be nostalgic for the days of family owned farms, but are we going to let a little nostalgia get in the way of the progress made by a free market?
State Question 779, Boren’s Sales Tax plan, to add 1% to the statewide sales tax rate for educational purposes.
I will also be voting no on this one, as this will make our sales tax rate the highest in the nation and it would adversely affect our economy. Furthermore, it’s not like more money given to the schools has ever “improved” education – for decades, we have been appropriating more and more money for the use of public schools, and what has come of this? The same, mediocre result.
State Questions 780 and 781: I will be supporting these measures. I have long been of the opinion that Oklahoma’s drug laws are too harsh for what essentially amounts to a nonviolent crime.
State Question 790: Regarding the appropriation of public funds for religious purposes. This one is easy; I will be voting no. Always looking for ways to save taxpayer money, this is one obvious way.
State Question 792: Even easier. Should consumers have more choices regarding where they can buy alcoholic beverages? I think so; vote yes.