The LA Weekly has their voting endorsements:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/48/news-endorsements.php

And they say to vote NO on Prop. 62. Their reasoning:

Is the center in California not holding? Are our Democratic elected officials too liberal, our Republicans too conservative? Some centrist politicos (Dick Riordan, Steve Westly and, now, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) are proposing a solution that will surely help them and their ilk come election time, but at the cost of damaging the prospects for progressive change in California, and without really addressing the problem of Sacramento gridlock.

Prop. 62 would eliminate the current party primaries except for president, substituting a primary ballot that includes all candidates regardless of party, among whom voters could choose, with the top two finishers, no matter their party affiliation, running off in November. The process favors centrists, and third-party options would disappear from the runoff altogether. Should 62 pass, the Legislature’s not likely to enact the kind of liberal-sponsored health-insurance extensions or clean-fuel standards we’ve seen in recent years. If Californians want more competitive districts, they should have the courts do our reapportioning; if they want less gridlock, they should eliminate the two-thirds requirement for passing budgets. Prop. 62 advantages a particular political tendency in the guise of election reform. We oppose it.

Instead, we support Prop. 60, which ensures that the winner of each party’s primary will appear on the November ballot. That’s the current system. Prop. 60 is necessary only if Prop. 62 passes. In that case, Prop. 60 would nullify Prop. 62 if it gets more votes.

I found another blog (daily kos - political analysis and daily rants on the state of the nation) that analyzes Prop 62:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/27/19410/0289

this blog though is undecided about how its going to vote... but the analysis is informative.

it's also got a poll for what would you vote - YES or NO on the site and so far NO is leading.

hmmm....

Peter Camejo, running mate of Reform Party candidate Ralph Nader, told students third parties are excluded, and Proposition 62 will increase corporate domination in elections...

Camejo said that Proposition 62 would make the two-party system even stronger.

Corporate control over elections would be absolute and the third-party voice would become a whisper if the proposition passes, Camejo said.

The proposition benefits popular candidates or those with the most money, but third-party candidates are rarely the most popular.

"What this law really does is outlaw political parties," Camejo said before the speech. "That makes the power of money total."

Camejo said he is concerned Proposition 62 will spread across the country if it passes in California, destroying third-party presence in politics.

Pushing third parties out of the political system will only make environmental problems worse.

http://www.orion-online.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/20/4175ba20c5231

The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund has an in depth nonpartisan analysis of the proposition:

http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2004nov/id/prop62.html

(they also have in depth nonpartisan analysis of other props: http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2004nov/id/, if anyone is interested)

also, California Connected has a guide to the 2004 statewide ballot measures:

http://www.californiaconnected.org/archives/2004-proposition-guide.html

i'm not allowed to vote for state issues being as i'm overseas. at least california lets me fax my federal ballot in.

although my voter's office hasn't faxed me my ballot yet, so i'm preparing my emergency special write in ballot which i'll fax Friday.