TL;DR
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
An Astral Codex Ten essay titled “My California Ballot, 2026” offers its author’s personal recommendations on several California ballot measures, including housing, budget reserves, a temporary tax and campaign finance. It is commentary, not an official voter guide; the supplied material does not include measure numbers, full ballot language or a complete account of every proposal.
Astral Codex Ten has published a personal guide to selected California ballot measures for 2026, recommending a mix of yes and no votes while stressing uncertainty about costs and effects. The essay is an individual’s analysis, not an official state guide, and the available source material does not identify the measures by proposition number or reproduce their full ballot language.
On a housing proposal, the author says supporters project that it will build or renovate 40,000 homes. The writer asked an AI “superforecaster” to estimate the number that would actually be built; it estimated 22,000. Based on that estimate, the author calculates a cost of about $500,000 per home, with other funding potentially lifting total public and market support above $700,000 per affordable home. These are the essay’s estimates, not figures independently established in the supplied material. The author says the forecast points to a 0.4% reduction in the cost of market-rate housing and weakly recommends voting no, while noting endorsements from CA YIMBY, YIMBY Action and other YIMBY groups.
The essay supports a separate proposal to let California save more money during strong revenue years. The author says a 2014 policy created a mechanism to build reserves during booms, but limits how much the state can save. The guide also weakly backs extending a temporary tax on wealthy people that, according to the essay, is scheduled to expire in 2030. The writer says opponents of the extension worry about the permanence of temporary taxes, while supporters warn that allowing it to expire could hurt education and health care. The source excerpt provides no official fiscal estimate or measure text for either proposal.
On local public financing of election campaigns, the author weakly recommends a no vote, citing a projected $75 million in additional local taxes, concerns about oversight and mixed research on whether the programs change who wins. The essay says Oakland already has such a policy, so it would not change the author’s own local arrangement. It also discusses a proposal to change how a recalled official is replaced, but the supplied excerpt ends before explaining the replacement procedure or the author’s position on that measure.
Choices on Housing and State Finances
The guide puts several consequential policy trade-offs before readers: whether to fund affordable housing through a state-backed program despite concerns about cost, how much money California should reserve against revenue downturns, and whether to continue a tax the essay says is due to expire in 2030. Its recommendations may help readers identify questions to research, but the arguments depend in part on projections and interpretations that the source excerpt does not independently verify.
The author’s position is also not a single ideological slate. The essay favors expanded reserves and a tax extension, but opposes the housing measure and public campaign financing, in each case describing the recommendation as weak. That qualification matters: the writer presents these as judgments under uncertainty, not firm predictions about what the policies will achieve.
Readers should treat the guide as one voter’s perspective and compare it with official ballot language, fiscal analyses and other reporting. The distinction is particularly important for numerical claims: the 22,000-home figure comes from an AI forecast commissioned by the author, while the 40,000 figure is described as supporters’ claim. Neither is presented here as a completed outcome.
Popular right now
Sony BRAVIA 5 85-Inch Mini LED 4K HDR Smart TV (K-85XR50)
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
Samsung 85-Inch QN70H Neo QLED 4K Smart TV (2026)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Measures Behind the Recommendations
The essay frames the housing question around California’s need for more homes and a dispute over how efficiently the proposed program would deliver them. The author argues that public support could be expensive and that some funding may subsidize demand rather than expand supply. The guide also says a quarter of the homes would be designated for groups including students, veterans, farm workers and Native Americans, while suggesting that housing turnover could make other homes available to the broader market. Those points are the author’s analysis; the excerpt does not provide the proposal’s formal allocation rules.
For the fiscal questions, the guide connects California’s reliance on taxes tied to capital gains with the volatility of state revenue: receipts can rise during market booms and fall during downturns. It says the state adopted a savings policy in 2014, and argues that the existing limit is too restrictive. On the temporary tax, the author’s account is that it was approved in 2012 and is due to end in 2030, but the supplied material does not name the tax or explain the measure’s legal wording.
The campaign-finance discussion concerns public funding for candidates who attract a qualifying number of small donors. The essay says California banned this practice in 1988, with an exception for charter cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland. It cites research the author characterizes as showing more candidates entering races, without clear evidence that incumbents lose more often or donor influence falls. The excerpt does not identify the studies, so readers cannot assess their methods from this material alone.
“I weakly vote NO.”
— Astral Codex Ten essay author, on the housing measure
Ballot Text and Forecasts Still Missing
The supplied source excerpt does not provide proposition numbers, official titles, full legal text or an election date. It also ends partway through its account of the recall proposal, leaving the proposed replacement process and the author’s recommendation unknown. The excerpt therefore cannot serve as a complete guide to the 2026 ballot.
Several central figures are presented with different levels of certainty. The 40,000-home goal is attributed to supporters, while 22,000 is an AI-generated forecast requested by the essay’s author. The calculated per-home costs and projected 0.4% effect on market-rate housing follow from that analysis. The $75 million estimate for public campaign financing is stated in the essay, but no underlying official estimate is included in the material provided.
The excerpt also does not supply the named studies behind the campaign-finance claims, the official fiscal analysis of the reserve and tax proposals, or responses from opponents and supporters beyond the positions summarized by the author. Those details would be needed to independently evaluate the guide’s estimates and conclusions.
Check Official Guides Before Voting
Voters should use California’s official voter information and county election materials to confirm which measures appear on their ballot, read the final language and review any available fiscal analyses. Because this source is a personal essay and the provided excerpt is incomplete, readers should not infer that its list covers every statewide or local contest.
For each proposal, the next useful step is to compare the guide’s account with the measure text and other independently reported explanations. In particular, readers can check the housing program’s spending and construction targets, the reserve proposal’s limits, the tax measure’s expiration terms, and the oversight rules for campaign financing. Further details about the recall proposal are also needed before its effect can be described.
Key Questions
Is this an official California voter guide?
No. It is a personal ballot guide published by Astral Codex Ten. The recommendations belong to the essay’s author and should be checked against official ballot materials.
What does the author recommend on the housing proposal?
The author gives a weak no recommendation, citing cost concerns and an AI forecast of 22,000 homes built or renovated against supporters’ stated goal of 40,000. The forecast is not a verified result, and the essay notes that several YIMBY groups support the proposal.
Which measures does the author support?
The essay gives a yes recommendation for allowing larger state reserves and a weak yes for extending a temporary tax on wealthy people. The excerpt does not include official measure numbers or full ballot language.
Does the source explain the recall proposal completely?
No. The supplied excerpt begins describing a change to the process for replacing a recalled official but cuts off before stating the proposed procedure or the author’s recommendation.
Where can voters verify the ballot details?
Check official California and county election materials for the measures on your ballot, their final wording and available fiscal analyses. The source excerpt is incomplete and does not establish that it covers all contests.
Source: astralcodexten.com
