After the June primary I was asked by a friend why I thought one candidate defeated another. I didn't have a good answer because I don't live in that district and didn't experience much of the campaign firsthand, and so forth. I thought about what I know from 30 years of being a voter, activist, observer and amateur pundit and realized that I could explain ballot measure campaigns better that candidate races. I have written for Democratic club newsletters before (and this diary is adapted from my new article) but this is my first diary on DailyKos. Wish me luck.
So why do the propositions win or lose?
More often than not they are unsuccessful. Here in CA we have gone through the last two elections with nothing passing. There were 10 of them total, 8 in the 11/05 special election and two in June of this year. All lost, and good riddance to most of them (especially the ones from Ahhnold). For most people the default position is to vote NO. Proponents of a measure have to convince voters that there is a problem and that their proposition is the way to fix it. Opponents merely have to raise enough doubts about it to get people to vote against it. The opposition ads practically write themselves; "It's just too costly" or "It goes too far" (and some do overreach in their goals).
How do you convince voters in a giant state like California? The biggest factor is money (which is no great surprise, unfortunately.) It takes a lot of dough to even get an initiative on the ballot. Most campaigns pay at least some of their petitioners because you need over half a million signatures to make the ballot and that is a lot of work. You would need an army of volunteers to do it otherwise and then you would still need money for printing and postage and coordinators' expenses. Once you are on the ballot it takes more money to get the message out. Mailings, TV and radio spots, newspaper ads and all the rest don't come cheaply when there are more than ten million potential voters to convince. If one side has a big pile of money and the other doesn't then the richer side usually wins, especially if they are asking you to vote against the bill. sometimes the big money can be defeated if it can be shown that their measure is mostly beneficial only to its private interest sponsors.
A successful campaign needs more than just a big bankroll. It starts with having a good issue that is worth the effort of doing an initiative. The measure has to be drafted well enough to withstand attacks from its opponents on its specific provisions and to survive court challenges if it passes. A clear and simple idea is best; complexity is potential weakness.
Endorsements can be very helpful, especially to the side that has less money for paid media. The best endorsements are from well-known groups seen as supporting the public interest and having expertise in the issues covered by the proposition. Other very helpful endorsements are from groups that will actively spread the information to their membership (like unions and political parties). Endorsements give cues for voters on which way to vote without having to study the details of all the props. If you care about the environment and know that the Sierra Club and CLCV oppose Prop 90 as a deceptive trap that undercuts land use regulation (which is true) you are less likely to be believe any slick ad in favor of it. (Worst one on the ballot this time, though it has competition for that dishonor. Please vote NO on 90.)
People-powered campaigning can be effective in cutting through big money lies, though more often successful in local races than statewide. I believe that direct contact with a volunteer leafletter or phoner is much more persuasive than TV, radio or mailers. It is a whole lot of work to have enough voter contacts around our state to counter the propaganda from the other side. I have been involved with initiatives that carried areas where we had a grassroots presence but lost statewide. It breaks your heart...(I'm remembering my first campaign, Prop 11 of 11/82: the Bottle Bill, that lost that way. We kicked ass in Santa Cruz and lost it in Kern and Orange and SD. Grrrrr!)
There are other factors affecting ballot measure success. The length of the ballot, and position of the measure on the ballot can make a difference. The ones placed on the ballot by the legislature always go first, followed by initiatives in the order they qualified, then referenda, if any. I think ballot order is a lesser factor, but if there are more than one proposition on the same subject on the same ballot, both are likely to lose (as in 79 and 78 on prescription drugs last year). In fact some initiatives are put on the ballot not to pass, but to confuse voters enough to defeat the real reform (as 78 was from Big Pharma).
The Voter Information Guide is important in the fate of ballot measures. The official Title and Summary (which will go on the ballot) is prepared by the Attorney General and can present a bill in a more positive or negative light (another reason to vote for a progressive AG). The arguments and rebuttals and the analyses by the Legislative Analyst give diligent voters more information on the propositions. The signers of the arguments can be almost as important as what they say. There used to be a rightwing CA State Senator named H. L. "Bill" Richardson (not the NM Gov) who signed many. It made it easy; if he was for something it was probably worth opposing. If you haven't received the booklet in the mail (or if you are outside CA and want to know about wacky Golden State politics) you can see it at www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov
It is clear that the "fourth branch of CA government" is as dysfunctional as the other three. Initiatives have the potential to move our politics forward, but it is a difficult path to take. Too often campaigns underestimate the challenges. A good idea by itself is often not enough.
I hope I didn't go on too long with this; you could write a thesis on "direct democracy" as it used to be called. What do you readers think about the props?
Also for bonus points: Why did Alex Padilla beat Cindy Montan~ez for the SFV Senate seat? I thought she was better qualified and more progressive, but he maybe had more money?