The ballot initiative process is awful

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Did you mean to link to an article about how people treat Africans badly? What does this have to do with ballot initiatives in CA?

And I think you don't give people enough credit. The ones who actually vote, that is. Sure, there will always be some percentage of the population who votes according to the flyers they get, but I have never known one. And I grew up in a blue collar lower middle class family. Most of my relatives and friends never got a college degree. But, they all research the propositions and read their voter's pamphlets, and have intelligent conversations about them.

I think California, in particular, has some very savvy voters and our initiative process works pretty darn good. It allowed us to pass Prop 13, in spite of huge opposition with a ton of money, and lots of doom and gloom prophesies about how the state would go broke, on and on. AND we actually ousted Gray Davis.

Don't sell California voters short. Or the process. IMO.

No, I will sell them short. And the article shows how easily swayed people are by bombastic headlines/flyers/ads without doing any work. In San Francisco's last elections, we had a ballot proposal to give our almost defunct City College more money. That's fine, maybe. But then we re-elected EVERY incumbent that ran for re-election - the exact people who brought the institution to the brink. The # of people who voted to give them more were quite more than the people who voted on who to elect. If this example doesn't convince you that voters don't care, then I really don't know what to tell you.

[Tulemutt]

Unfortunate truth. The reason special interests spend the kinds of money they do on the kinds of cheap, low-class, psychological sophistry they do to support / defeat various campaigns - is because non-rational, non-logical appeal works.

Politics and courtroom process have both learned that best bet is ALWAYS to appeal to the fear-based, hate-fueled reptilian mind. Never to the rational. Plenty of fascinating books about this reality.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Unfortunate truth. The reason special interests spend the kinds of money they do on the kinds of cheap, low-class, psychological sophistry they do to support / defeat various campaigns - is because non-rational, non-logical appeal works.

Politics and courtroom process have both learned that best bet is ALWAYS to appeal to the fear-based, hate-fueled reptilian mind. Never to the rational. Plenty of fascinating books about this reality.

Exactly. Why else do people think that the side that spends more $$$ usually wins.

Less than 1% of challengers and 5% of open seat candidates spending $700,000 or less won election.
More than 45% of non-incumbents with spending of $700,000 or more won election.
75% of non-incumbents spent $700,000 or less.

Does Money Buy Elections? | Americans for Campaign Reform


You also have this.

According to a study of 467 congressional races in 2012 conducted by the nonprofit United Republic, the candidate with more money won the race 91 percent of the time. For individuals running for office, that means out-raising your opponent increases your chances of winning the election nine-fold.

Politics News: Study Shows the Candidate With the Most Money Almost Always Wins the Election | InTheCapital

People are swayed by flyers. If they weren't, politicians and PACs wouldn't be doing it. In San Francisco, we had a flyer that said "so and so worked for GOLDMAN SACHS - a company a former executive called deceitful etc."

You do your research and the candidate worked at Goldman Sachs for 1 year, right after college and then left. So he was an entry level employee for a year. But of course that's not the message the flyer conveys.

[Tulemutt]

There are exceptions to the rules. This just in:
Big soda

[Krispytopher]

Every year I look at the voting results and am 100% convinced that I am the only person that actually reads the blasted things we vote on.