One other possibly interesting thing - while the debates over elected offices focus on two (maybe a few) specific individuals, sometimes for many months - with the media making at least a half-assed attempt to provide equal exposure through news, interviews, panels, etc.The point-of-focus of a ballot initiative is what - an amorphous "group", "lobby", perhaps minority group, or a combination of all - with the possibility of obfuscating precisely who is behind an effort. It would seem, for example, that Ohio's Issue 2 to create a state board to regulate how food animals are to be raised and slaughtered, while propagandized as a "family farm" issue, was actually the brainchild of (and paid for by) megafarmers hoping to sidestep legal challenges from PETA and other animal activists.
Oh, What Is To Be Done!
- Bill.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> [Posted to the AAPOR list and forwarded with permission. Typo corrected.]
>
> From: Jan Werner <jwerner at JWDP.COM> Date: November 6, 2009 11:30:28 AM EST
> To: AAPORNET at ASU.EDU Subject: Maine ballot initiatives
>
> The Maine ballot initiative to repeal the gay marriage law (Question 1) read:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and
> allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these
> marriages?"
>
> A "Yes" vote on the people's veto was a vote to repeal the same-sex law. A
> "No" vote was a vote to keep the law and allow gay marriage. This effectively
> frames the question as a double negative, a tactic frequently used in many
> other initiatives over the years.
>
> Question 1 passed by 52.75% to 47.25%, a margin of about 28,000 votes out of
> a little over 500,000 cast.
>
> At the same time, another ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana
> (Question 5) passed by 58.6% to 41.4%, a margin of more than 86,000 out of
> roughly the same number of votes cast. Question 5 read:
>
> "Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more
> medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?"
>
> Note that in the first case, a "Yes" vote was actually a "No" vote in regard
> to gay marriage, whereas in the second case, a "Yes" vote was in favor of can
> be called the more "liberal" position.
>
> This raises the question of just how many of those voting "Yes" on Question 1
> did so thinking they were voting in favor of allowing gay marriage in Maine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that a swing of less than 3% of the votes cast would have changed the
> outcome, this is not an idle question.
>
> Jan Werner
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>