On the fence about prop 2

Please don't call me an animal hater, but I'm torn about Prop 2.

It should be a no-brainer, because in theory, I'm all for more humane conditions for animals, and I find factory and large-scale farming utterly appalling. This is why I mostly buy eggs and produce from the farmer's market, where I can grill farmers about their farming practices and make sure they're not injecting extraneous hormones into my eggs. (I have enough of my own damn hormones, thank you very much.)

So I'd like to vote yes on Prop 2, because I support the principles.
It would be so easy to do that and be done with it.

But I am voting no on 8 and 4, because I don't think these issues should be under the purview of the voting citizenry. We already have laws about these issues. Why put the ball back into our court?

And thus is my sentiment with prop 2. Why should regulations about farms and animal rights be left up to common citizens? I'd like to vote yes on this, but I don't know enough about the issue to know what the ramifications are if I do vote yes. All I'd do is vote based on my emotions. How does this serve the state and its citizens, if I can get laws passed solely based on my emotions (multiply me by several million voters)? There are people out there who know far more than I do about the effects of enacting such a law. Why aren't they deciding on this instead of leaving it to Joe Voter?

What next? Letting the average voter who knows nothing about government outlays and revenues vote on whether to abolish the state income tax?

Problem #2—suppose this proposition passes, but Prop. 8 doesn't. This means I live in a state where people don't have regard for basic human rights, but are willing to grant animals the right to graze around, stretch their legs and eat steak. I know they're different sorts of rights, but I think the point still holds. How California looks to the rest of the U.S. is really the last of my concerns, but if I were an out-of-stater and saw that California's citizens passed the chicken rights measure, but denied gays the right to marry, I'd probably be judgmental and think all sorts of things about how weird we are.

Which brings me to
Problem #3—perhaps it's a sign of how well-off we are, that we have nothing better to deliberate on than whether a chicken gets to stretch its legs out for 15 or 45 minutes, but it annoys me that we are even debating about this, when there seem to be so many more dire problems, which granted, are out of CA voter's reach, but I find far more pressing.

How could we possibly be arguing over the rights of chickens to get fresh air, when there are tens of thousands of children in India and Pakistan and other parts of the world, as young as 8, essentially imprisoned and forced to sew soccer balls for 18 hours, for example? Who speaks out for these people's rights to get fresh air?

Or the rights of elderly Chinese women who were sentenced to a year of hard labor, because they followed the rules of their government and applied for a petition to protest?

Or the rights of people whose constitutional rights to due process are waived, and are extraordinarily rendited to some undisclosed location by the CIA, despite the fact that this is a flagrant violation of U.N. conventions?

I realize that not voting yes on Prop 2. doesn't address any of these problems.

I'm annoyed that I've already given this much more time and attention than it deserves.

Do I vote in favor of something because I agree with the provisions in the proposition, or do I shoot it down, because I don't support this method of governance via popular vote and find the topic somewhat frivolous?