Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Hard times, difficult ballot make 'yes' a difficult choice, experts say

By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published November 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Bruce and Kelly Stahlman monitor election returns during an Amendment 51 watch party Tuesday evening at Senor Ric's in Aurora. The amendment did not pass.

Photo by Joshua Duplechian / Special To The Rocky

Bruce and Kelly Stahlman monitor election returns during an Amendment 51 watch party Tuesday evening at Senor Ric's in Aurora. The amendment did not pass.

More Elections

More stories »

Call it Colorado's love-hate relationship with its ballot: the thrill of having the power to change the state constitution and the aggravation of actually doing it.

Experts say the process of wading through long lists of confusing amendments can create crabby voters, predisposed to either not vote at all, vote for candidates but not issues or just vote "no" on everything. Although it's impossible to know how many Coloradans chose each of those paths, enough voted "no" to put the kibosh on much of the nation's longest and possibly most complex ballot.

"It's a strange phenomenon," said John Straayer, political science professor at Colorado State University. "On the one hand, we seem to have a public affinity for maintaining procedures that make direct democracy easy. But that's combined with a certain level of disgust and frustration over the ballot itself."

But even as Coloradans turned thumbs down to most local change, a majority said "yes" to change on a national level, electing Democrat Barack Obama with more than 52 percent of the vote.

That's Election-Day apples and oranges, said Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and Stanford University political science professor.

"When you vote for Barack Obama, you're not voting for specific change - you just don't like the way things are in a larger sense. Voting for change like that is saying, 'I trust someone else to bring about change,' rather than 'I will decide specifically what I want to do on this issue,' " he said.

Voters separate issues

But not everybody's into the automatic "no." People definitely do try to sort through the ballot, and the results reflect that, said Norman Provizer, political science professor at Metropolitan State College. He said some amendments packaged together by "no" campaigns - such as 47, 49 and 54 - might have been expected to all meet the same fate, but 47 and 49 fell, while 54 passed.

"I looked at those and thought, 'How does anyone make heads or tails out of this?' But voters manage to make distinctions," he said.

In troubled times, "no" is the safe choice: A crummy economy means voters are probably going to reject anything that affects their wallet. But voters reserved their biggest "no" for a measure that involved no taxes at all: Amendment 48, the so-called "personhood" measure, which would have defined life as beginning at conception.

"I think the 'no' campaign had credible messengers, and they were talking about this as a pretty scary change," said pollster Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies. "When you have that kind of dynamic - far-reaching impact with far-reaching consequences - that stuck in people's heads."

The "unintended consequences" argument is usually one of the most effective tools by a "no" campaign, Weigel said, one that virtually every "no" coalition used this year.

Defaulting to status quo

Another loser was Amendment 51, a feel-good measure that would have increased the sales tax to fund programs for people with disabilities. Marijo Rymer, executive director of The ARC of Colorado, blamed the economy for its loss but said other factors were also at play.

"I think that the length of the ballot and the confusion over business and labor issues played a part in people voting 'no' on things that they otherwise might not have," she said.

Referenda that had appeal early on tend to gather more and more "nos" as they roll toward election day, Krosnick said.

"As the drawbacks of any proposition surface," he said, "the idea of sticking with the status quo appeals to people. If you're not sure, don't do it."

Comments

  • November 6, 2008

    6:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Use any excuse possible, except don't ever credit the voters with enough intelligence to tell special interest bickering from the reality of what affects us all. Shoot, don't even give them the credit of literacy.

    I assume you pulled these so called "experts" out of the politician recycling bin. Nobody can be that dumb to really think that people don't actually pay attention to what they are voting for. I would say it's a true indication that the ballot issues did not address the critical issues that everyone is concerned about, recognized them as the wasteful distraction that they are, saw that they were intended to be on autopilot in the constitution (just like Amd 23), and said no because they actually see the lack of effort that our government is putting into their jobs, and are completely disgusted with it.

    Leave it to the media and "experts" to continue to underestimate the intelligence of the average voter. I guess one consolation is that because they consider us so dumb, they don't try very hard to fool us, and easily get caught. It's like Planet of the Apes, only instead of us locking the humans up, we put them in political offices, media positions, and call them "experts", so we are safe from the real threat of intelligent criminals.

  • November 6, 2008

    6:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Buckwheat writes:

    I think most people that voted this year were allot more careful to understand the wording of the amendents this year. I for one remember last time I voted on some issues, you had to be very careful. A No vote meant Yes, and a Yes vote meant No. It was very confusing. This year I made darn sure I read and understood all aspects of each amendent before voting.

  • November 6, 2008

    8:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Noia writes:

    Well said V!

  • November 7, 2008

    12:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KellyStahlman writes:

    VVV, for being so smug about voter intelligence, you failed to notice that 51 was not a constitutional amendment, but a state statute. And no one was using "sneak" wording. TABOR requires very exact ballot language which 51 followed. Too bad you didn't do all of that homework after all.

    Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Those evil folks who can't cross the street safely are clearly undeserving and angling to take advantage of Colorado voters! Bull! The YES on 51 initiative was run by families NOT special interest groups! I wish you could hear the calls advocates take daily of families in crisis, doing 24-hr, line-sight care for 50+ YEARS or more! Make no mistake, this was a heartless vote. 12,000 families with adult children with developmental disabilities now continue waiting with no hope in sight.

    TODAY was the service for a 49-year-old mother who passed away while the adult child remains. What happens now? Do you know there are 9,000 adult children with developmental disabilities living with parents 60+ years? Do you know that 400-600 parents or caregivers become disabled themselves or pass away every year, leaving their adult children with DD alone in the world, waiting for services? Do you know that Colorado is 46th in the entire country in providing minimum basic supervision and care?

    The greatest urban myth is that "someone" is out there to care for those who are "really" in need. Simply not true. These are REAL people with REAL needs and Colorado CAN do better. Families do everything they can for their children and adult children with developmental delays, they just can't do it alone. Was 2 cents on $10 really too much to ask?

    It's never the wrong time or wrong way to do the right thing.

    Kelly Stahlman