Ballot Initiatives Lose (And the News Is??)
I have no particular insights about the gubernatorial or mayoral elections yesterday, but did follow the ballot initiatives in Ohio and California somewhat closely. Plenty of conclusions have already been drawn: the California results, in which eight initiatives lost, were a rejection of Schwarzenegger and a victory for unions; in Ohio, the defeat of a package of political reform initiatives including nonpartisan redistricting can be ascribed to a well-funded opposition that raised a lot of confusion about the measures. The defeat of an anti-gay measure in Maine is good news on that issue. An initiative in Washington that would have rolled back the state"s gas tax was also defeated, another sign that the anti-tax movement has run out of steam.
But there is a certain amount of over-analysis here. What all these results have in common is that they prove a basic rule: Ballot initiatives lose
most of the time. Complex ballot initiatives like non-partisan redistricting lose more often than relatively simple simple ones like banning same-sex marriage, raising the minimum wage or limiting school class size. The bias toward "No" on complex initiatives is enormous and seems to increase each year.
And why should that be surprising? The idea of direct democracy is appealing, but faced with complex questions, most voters will react with a sense that they're not quite knowledgeable enough to evaluate all the possible consequences and weigh competing claims that they've only heard vaguely, and so the default option is to vote no, in favor of not messing with the status quo. That's particularly true in states that have "initiative fatigue," like California or Oregon. (In those states, early polling on an initiative needs to show close to 2:1 support before there's any real likelihood of winning.) But it's an easy emotion to invoke, even in Ohio where initiatives are not overused.
For years, liberals have wanted to play the state initiative game with the intensity of Grover Norquist on the right, particularly the ability to put multiple initiatives on multiple state ballots simultaneously -- tax limits, term limits, anti-gay and anti-gay marriage, the "paycheck protection act" which returned as one of Schwarzenegger's initiatives. There have been some liberal (defining that term broadly) successes, such as on minimum wage, on campaign finance reform, on medical marijuana, etc. In most cases, initial successes have been followed by defeats, so that the overall record is almost always mixed. (The best resource on all these results and the use of initiatives for progressive causes remains the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which also has out a nice instant analysis of the 2005 results.) When traditional legislative politics seems deadlocked, static, irrelevant, out of touch, or wholly controlled by one party, the fantasy of going around it to The People remains ever-appealing.
But we don't play the game the same way the right does. We play it literally: We try to win the things we care about because we think they're good policy. The right sometimes does that, but more often they use initiatives as a way to fire up their base, to change the agenda, to force the other side to spend money, to break up liberal coalitions, or to achieve other goals that are incidental to victory. The win- loss record on many of the conservative initiave topics is equally mixed, but they have surely gotten more residual benefit from their losses.
In the future, I'd like to see a lot more creative use of initiatives that go directly to things people care about, that inspire groups of people who don't think politics speaks to them, that can split the right, and/or that are simple and basic assertions of our values, such as that no one should work for less than $5.15 an hour. And there should be much more wariness of strategies that call for using initiatives to achieve complex goals. And the fantasy that initiatives provide some way around the messy, frustrating fights of legislative politics is, sadly, just that.
(I'll have additional comments on Josh's conclusion that nonpartisan redistricting is more important than campaign finance reform shortly.)
But there is a certain amount of over-analysis here. What all these results have in common is that they prove a basic rule: Ballot initiatives lose
So do Democrats, or at least since 9/11. I think what people are really getting excited about with the initiatives and the elections is that it's concrete evidence that the Republicans have run out of steam. It was one thing to see it in opinion polls, to see the mismanagement and ineptitude laid out in the media, but to actually see Republicans not getting their way is a huge thing to people at this point. I've been biting my tongue to avoid making some cynical comments about the election results myself, largely because I think after the past few years people on the left deserve a little celebrating, especially if it gives the party a positive mindset going into 2006. And success, or the perception of it, can paper over a lot of differences, and God knows, the left has a lot of differences that need papering over.
I realize this was one small part of the point you were making, most of which I agree with. But I think what yesterday meant from a morale standpoint shouldn't be played down, even for the sake of making big picture, important points.
November 9, 2005 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is easier to win on defense than on offense. But I would point you to Colorado last week. Moreover, there are subsets of initiatives that win. Minimum wage increases win. Attacks on the rights of homosexuals, unfortunately, are also often in the winning category Maine not withstanding. THe ability to draw simple pictures that resonate is important to winning on offense. But I think your larger point is right as far as real policy changes that are hard to digest (electricity reregulation!).
November 9, 2005 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I’ve observed as a participant in various California ballot initiative campaigns over the last decade and a half, a pretty hard and fast rule seems to apply: if a measure has monied opposition and what it would do can’t be described on a bumper sticker, it loses. I can’t think of a single opposed measure dealing with a complex economic policy issue that has passed in that time. On the bright side, this means economic interests have a hard time hijacking the process, contrary to all the hand-wringing you hear about that.
Given the challenges of enacting complex policy by initiative, I agree, Mark, that progressives should be wary of trying. But on one of our most difficult policy goals, there's actually a glimmer of hope. Last November, a California measure proposing a fairly complicated employer/employee health insurance mandate lost by less than 2%. So don’t give up hope entirely that tough issues can be tackled by ballot initiative -- if we're thoughtful and strategic about it.
November 9, 2005 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ballot initiatives lose? That's news to those of us here in Texas. In 2003, we had an election for 22 constitutional amendments, and every single one passed. Again, 22 of 22 passed!
This year, we voted on 9 amendments. And 7 of those passed. So the 2-election total is 29 of 31 passed.
God, we're a dumb state. Apparently we'll pass damn near anything that's put in front of us.
November 9, 2005 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, you're the blogger I look forward to reading the most, because you often write posts that articulate what I was thinking the day before you post them. And you're a much better writer and actually have a substantial base of knowledge to back up this thought. Kinda cool...
One thing I'd add, as a Californian (from Ohio). The California election had an additional dynamic at work: people from all stripes were willing to vote no on issues that may have been somewhat palatable in order to say "No" to the special election as a concept.
I've become less and less a fan of iniatatives and would see a reasonable reform for California to be the limitation of propostions to the general election. Currently, there is a lot of attempts to game the system (most evident witht the special election) in order to qualify for a low turnout statewide ballot, such as a primary election.
November 9, 2005 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 9, 2005 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time in the 27 years I have lived in CA that this has happened.
Yes on No won a crushing victory yesterday. We had no influence peddlers, no spokesmodels, no robo-calls, no endorsements, no ballot cards, no commericials, no field staff, no fundraisers, no bank account...
Only Californicated government...and we won
November 9, 2005 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've become less and less a fan of iniatatives and would see a reasonable reform for California to be the limitation of propostions to the general election.
I agree with this. As a long-time resident of Oregon, I saw hundreds and hundreds of initiatives over a period of 25 years. Many years ago, I stopped signing the petitions. I am one of the cadre that consistently voted "no" unless I had a compelling and clearly articulated reason to vote "yes."
My opinion was, and is, that we elected the legislators to legislate. If we don't like the way they do their jobs, we should fire them and hire new ones. It's called "representative government," and the ballot box holds the pink slips. The "Oregon System" is a vestigial holdover from the Progressive Era of a century ago, when the initiative was perceived as a mechanism for voters to take back the government from corrupt officials. Those are times gone by and the mechanism no longer is used for that purpose. It's absurd to legislate from your couch.
mp
November 9, 2005 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
California showed it's true color yesterday, Blue. Electing The Terminator was a temporary lapse in judgement brought about by swing voters who were ignorant of the fact that companies like Enron, not Gray Davis, were primarily to blame for California's energy price gouging and crisis.
November 9, 2005 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep,
I'm from Texas too. I remember talking to a state judge some years ago, and he had been around a really long time. And he told me that back in the day (whenever that is), Texas voters almost always voted against constitutional amendments, and that it was a relatively recent change that Texas voters vote for all of them.
I guess most Texans just figure that, well, their legislators voted for it, and that's good enough for them.
I'm biased cuz I live in Travis county, and we were the only county, out of over 200!!, that voted against the gay marriage amendment. From here it's sometimes hard to see the rest of the state, especially when there's so much activism going on in Austin.
But yeah, we vote yes on fucking everything.
November 9, 2005 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
" . . .more often they use initiatives as a way to fire up their base, to change the agenda, to force the other side to spend money, to break up liberal coalitions, or to achieve other goals that are incidental to victory."
Here's an example from the years I spent (for my sins, probably) in Arizona, where one tiny organization kept trying to get on the ballot an initiative to abolish the state income tax. On maybe their third try, they succeeded, throwing the entire Arizona political establisment -- Dem or GOP, conservative or not -- into a panic. The real politicians knew that if the income tax went away, that would require increases in all sorts of other taxes, license fees, and so on, and no one wanted to face the nightmare battle of which ones would be raised by how much.
But as soon as they actually read the income tax proposition, they realized that, as written, it could never pass muster under the Arizona constitution, and was sure to be struck down by the courts. Strange for the product of years of work, backed by who knows how much money -- wouldn't you say? In the end, the proposition was defeated, nevertheless presumably achieving some end we'll probably never know, unless somebody asks the measure's main financial backers -- a bunch of Enron execs who didn't even live in the state.
November 9, 2005 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything hopeful about the fact that the California health insurance proposition lost, because it was placed on the ballot by big-money special interests specifically to overturn a law passed by the legislature. Most people couldn't understand the proposition and thus voted against it, but I think most people also supported the law that was passed and simply couldn't draw the line between the two through the fog of scare tactics and negative campaigning. A prime example of why ballot initiatives are as likely to hurt the public interest as to help it, and why I no longer sign petitions.
November 10, 2005 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the ballot initiative process is pretty dumb. California's government isn't obviously any better that states that make their legislators legislate.
Initiatives almost make you nostalgic for the good old days, when special interests had to buy an actual, live politician. At least the politician has to get reelected.
With initiatives, there's no bum to throw out; just a shadowy coalition accountable to nobody. And if there's a court challenge, how is the the judge supposed to determine legislative intent? Round up a group of petition signers?
Ironically, repealing the ballot initiative would probably need an initiative of its own. So if there has to be a liberal position on this, let's have a ballot initiative to end all ballot initiatives!
.
November 10, 2005 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink