Suffice it to say that California’s 2010 elections will be an interesting process. Because the state is so huge and so diverse, campaigns for statewide offices often take on a life of their own. In terms of their hardball win-at-all-costs attitude, California politics play second fiddle only to Chicago and Louisiana. After all, who could forget Pete Wilson’s incredibly destructive 50%+1 electoral tactics or former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s dictatorial control over the Assembly? The 2010 elections will certainly be no different. This election’s dynamics, however, are even more interesting than usual. Ebay CEO Meg Whitman is squaring off with ex-Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown for the unenviable privilege of keeping California from financial collapse. Each brings their strengths and weaknesses to the campaign, and the 2010 elections will certainly prove hugely decisive for Californians in general and young people in particular.

Before analyzing the actual 2010 horserace, it is important to understand the political context of the elections. California happens to suffer from a debilitating disease known as “term limits.” Under California law, no state legislator may serve more than six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate, and no statewide elected official may serve more than two terms. These voters adopted these restrictions, probably the most onerous in the nation, during the 1990’s. Back during those heady days, the State Legislature was ruled by a charismatic and legendary man named Willie Brown. Brown, who dubbed himself the “Ayatollah of the Assembly” ruled the State Assembly with an iron fist, serving in the State Assembly for nearly 30 years. Brown served as Speaker of the State Assembly for nearly 16 years, including two years where the Democrats were in the minority. Although Brown was a spectacularly gifted politician and legislative leader beyond compare, his almost farcical corruption and very liberal personal politics left a rather foul taste in many voters’ mouths. In response to Brown’s political shenanigans, the voters passed Prop 140, the term limits initiative, which passed with 53% of the vote despite being outspent 3 to 1. The important point behind term limits is that 6 and 8 year tenures, frankly, aren’t enough time to build up a substantial power base. Say what you will about Willie Brown, but nobody can deny that he didn’t know how to operate the Rube Goldberg Machinery of State. Brown could make the State Assembly behave, and could even muster the 2/3rds requirement to pass new taxes and a budget. Today, California’s term limits mean that virtually all legislators are amateurish, and the really good politicians are always looking for their next election. Whoever becomes Governor in 2011 will need to learn to cope with a Legislature that couldn’t agree to flush the toilets, much less pass a budget and raise taxes or cut spending.

Handicapping the gubernatorial race, like all California races, is somewhat difficult, but the essential dynamics of the race are fairly clear. Governor Moonbeam, after holding nearly every office in Californian politics, is trying to get his old job back. Because Jerry Brown served before the term-limits law, he is not barred from seeking the Governor’s office. Brown served as California’s governor from 1974 to 1982, back when the Soviet Union still existed and solar power was a pie-in-the-sky proposal for hippies and dirty leftists. If elected, Brown would not only be the oldest Governor in the United States, he would hold the record for the longest interval between serving in office, nearly 26 years. Brown basically personifies California’s Democratic party; he’s old, cantankerous, and fairly liberal. More importantly, he’s a Democrat in one of the more Democratic states in the nation and is only slightly less hated than foot fungus. Meg Whitman, on the other hand, is more hated than foot fungus and has the tremendous misfortune of running as a Republican in California. Whitman’s one saving grace is that she is rich. Very rich, in fact. In the primary race alone, Whitman self-financed nearly $70 million to defeat her fellow high-tech guru Steve Poizner in the Republican Primary. The Republican Gubernatorial primary was the most expensive on record; Poizner and Whitman spent nearly $100 million. Whitman blanketed San Francisco and Los Angeles with vicious attack ads for nearly four months, pummeling Poizner into ignoble defeat. Whitman’s sole saving grace is the fact that she has gobs of money and steadfastly refuses to debate Jerry Brown. Instead, Whitman’s strategy is apparently to hide behind her millions and hope that her ads do their dirty work. Brown, for his part, has only banked about $20 million (peanuts when you consider his opponent spent $80 million on the primary alone), and has a Stalingrad-like strategy of “hope our enemy runs out of bullets before we run out of money.” Though a vigorous campaigner, Brown is obviously trying to rely on his superior public speaking ability and name-recognition among his fellow geriatrics to win the day. The strategy seems to be paying off so far; Brown leads Whitman in most polls despite spending more money on hair-care products than his campaign.

As far as young people are concerned, neither candidate truly inspires a whole lot of excitement or confidence. College affordability, probably the most important issues for young Californians, isn’t a strong plank of either platform. Whitman promises to cut billions from “welfare” and “budget”, which seems counterproductive considering that many of the individuals who need tuition assistance rely on state assistance. Whitman’s $1 billion investment promise also seems attractive, but she’s incredibly vague on where that billion will come from. Brown, on the other hand, doesn’t even advertise his position on college affordability, though it follows the same exceptionally vague plan as Whitman. It is little wonder, then, that youth voters are gravitating towards Whitman. If young people truly want to make a difference in California and elect a candidate who represents them, they should join the growing chorus calling for organized debates and demand that both candidates clarify their positions. If we don’t call our would-be elected officials to task and demand they represent our interests, youth voters will continue to be ignored or taken for granted.

Young Californians have a unique opportunity to be part of the Californian political process. As one of the most influential states in the country, young people have the opportunity to wield far more influence than they might think. I know that reading about political positions is often boring and attempting to divine true intentions from political twaddle is about as fun as jumping on a cactus, but these matters are important. Unless we can take control of our own lives, California will continue to sink lower and lower into the fiscal abyss, dragging us along with it. It doesn’t really matter what your political positions are, but more educated voters deciding how California acts means that the state might survive. We need your votes; the fate of the State, the Country, and the People depend on it.