reads this L.A. Times headline (with "narrowly" instead of "barely" on the Web version). The opening paragraph reads, "By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found."
It's only in paragraph 6 that reads learn that the amendment "was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters." It's true, as the paragraph says, that "ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign" and therefore "strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level." But despite this 54%-35% doesn't strike me as "barely"; likewise, the 52%-41% disapproval of the California Supreme Court decision doesn't seem likely "barely reject[ing]" to me.
So while 52% and 54% are indeed not much above 50%, they are much more than barely or narrowly above 41% and 35%. Formulating both the headline and the opening paragraph in terms of "barely" or "narrowly" and "bare majorities," without noting the large margins, strikes me as not the best way of presenting the data to the reader.
I should stress, by the way, that my point here is about the coverage of the poll, not about the likely November results. I suspect that the proposed amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriages will pass (assuming, as seems likely, that it will get on the ballot); but now is not November, and the voters haven't seen the campaigns on both sides. That the view "As long as two people are in love and are committed to each other, it doesn't matter if they are a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple" polls at 59%-35% in favor suggests that public opinion may well be quite movable, if the issue is framed in that way.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Field Poll Shows Majority Support Among California Registered Voters for Same-Sex Marriage:
- Men, Women, and Same-Sex Marriage:
- "Californians Barely Reject Gay Marriage,"
"barely reject" = completely ludicrous.
The lead paragraph of the story (putting aside the headline) reads:Is that more or less misleading than my rewrite of the same first paragraph, which I would suggest has a completely different connotation?But of course, bias in the media is merely a figment of conservatives' imaginations.
I can only speculate about the reason for the disparity between pre-election polls taken immediately before an election and actual elction day results. Other than bias in the polling question, two things come to mind. One is that people are reluctant to tell pollsters that they oppose something that has a whiff of civil rights in the popular media. The other is that intensity is higher among opponents of ssm than it is among supporters. This makes opponents of ssm more likely to vote and, when they do, more likely to reach the part of the ballot where the question is presented, rather than simply marking preferences at the top of the ballot for things like President, congressperson, Senator, etc., and then leaving the rest blank.
Also, the article doesn't say anything about the specific wording of the polling questions. Given how slippery those words can be, its hard to say what the results of this poll actually mean.
There have been numerous examples of this. For instance in Wisconsin, pre-election polls showed that the marriage amendment in that state had fairly narrow support 52%-43%.
When it came to the actual vote, the Amendment won by almost 20 points, 59%-41%.
In Ohio, polls showed the amendment would pass with support in the low 50s. Election time, the amendment passed, 62%-38%.
I once read a spreadsheet which showed that the polls underrepresented opposition each time on this issue, I'll see if I can find it again.
It makes for a more interesting headline. A majority of Californians voting against SSM wouldn't be terribly exciting, but a bare majority doing so would make for one memorable election night.
But, as always, the voters will be swayed by disguised hate speech and manipulative wording, and voila, hate will be enshrined in the constitution of california.
The 35% is misleading because it implies a wide gap. But who cares? A measure passes based on the yes votes, not the lack of no votes.
The California Constitution is one of the easiest state constitutions to amend--a majority vote in one elecetion for either an initiative or referendum (the difference being that an initiative is placed on the ballot by gathering sufficient signatures and a referendum is often, though not always, the result of the Legislature putting an item on the ballot).
I disagree with your contention that the proposed language is "hate speech" or "manipulative." The amendment reads, in ite entirety:People of good will can disagree on the desirability of this measure. Your attempt to brand proponents as nothing more than bigots does a disservice to your cause.
note that i support gay marriage btw.
iow, maybe more people support the amendment than are actually strongly opposed to gay marriage because at some are more concerned by judicial activism.
2) THIS IS SUCH RHETORICAL GARBAGE. i get so tired of the misuse of the word "hate" when people oppose political ideas. i support gay marriage. i know plenty of people who don't who have exactly ZERO hate for gays. limiting marriage to one man one woman no more enshrinse hate against gays, than it does enshrine hate against polygamists.
it's a classic liberal name calling tactic. because nobody wants to be a hater, therefore people who oppose our support of gay marriage (our being defined of as supporters, not liberals) must HATE gays. they are EVUL!!! EVUL i tell you !!
I can understand opposing the amendment while opposing the court decision, based on views about the proper role of the judiciary. But why would people support the court decision but also support the amendment?
The poll also found that 18-34 year olds are the most likely to find same-sex relationships morally wrong. And it found respondents evenly split as to whether they agreed with Schwarzenegger's decision to support the ballot initiative.
All of which seems anomalous.
Your post brings up a speculative thought I had. I thought I read something (but obviously I have no evidence) that the people who were born between 1970 and 1980 have a much stronger 'conservative morality' bent than those immediately older. Post 1980 kids are then the most accepting of homosexuality (usually blamed on MTV).
The 1970-1980 births, for whatever reason, tend to run conservative. I've heard theories blaming abortion among liberals, anti-hippie rebelliousness, and (what I believe) that modern youth are becoming increasingly conservative - with Bush hatred depressing that trend among the current 18-24 year old crop.
Now, someone will probably prove me completely wrong and make me feel really stupid for this speculation.
If the amendment as I worded it passed, gay marriage will be illegal (since pursuant to both Proposition 22 and California Family Law marriage is between a man and a woman).
The actual vote was 57% opposing SSM. This isn't party politics or 'left v right' —these were the same voters that turned out popular and incumbent Sen. Allen.
Nothing personal, but SSM is a loser at the polls that count, hence the judicial end-runs.
That being said, I do think your method of taking this policy issue out of the hands of the courts would accomplish what most people are worried about. But the problem of courts enacting public policy via ruling is a more global one than gay marriage - marriage is just the current hot-button public policy issue.
I would rather trust a majority of the people decide an issue than have you as Emperor of the World.
Nick
It at least helps to be honest about why you are doing what you are doing.
I have no problem with your amendment except the first clause. If the people want to, by initiative, allow same sex marriage, it is all right by me. However, since the current statute prohibiting gay marriage was passed by popular vote, under California law, that is the only way it can be repealed--and I would oppose allowing the Legislature to subvert that part of the California initiative process.
I suppose the counter-argument would be that constitutional change in California is a decision reserved exclusively to the people, in the form of a referendum (or a constitutional convention, which I would imagine is rather rare), rather than to the legislature. But my sense of what constitutionalism means, and its primary advantage over alternatives, is that it doesn't just require some difference between the processes by which constitutional change and ordinary law making occur, but rather than it be more difficult to create constitutional change. That may not mean the onerous hurdles imposed by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, but my (limited) understanding of California politics leads me to believe that popular referenda are part of business as usual in California, and that it is not particularly difficult to get referenda to pass. To me, allowing constitutional change through such a mechanism seems to undermine one of basic principles of a constitutional system of government.
In contrast, California's constitution essentially does not appear to constrain or channel political action in any effective way. Perhaps if ballot initiatives to change the California Constitution were rarer, and tended to succeed only if they addressed some issue perceived as having greater than ordinary political or governmental significance, it would be possible to argue that the constitution would be binding in fact if not in theory, similar to the situation in the UK. But under the circumstances, where amendment by referendum is commonplace and part of the ordinary political process, it does not seem to me that the California Constitution constrains in any way concrete enough to be considered a fundamental and foundational aspect of California's government.
Actually, it's NOT true, Prof. Volokh, when it comes to marriage amendment. Just the opposite is:
Naked Media Bias: LA Times and CA marriage poll
Marriage amendments typically underpoll...significantly.
..The gays and their elite P.R. machine think they can end run the voters and gain their goal by hook and crook. Numerous posters on this and other threads here have tortured poor reason to death trying to prove that this decision was legal. Failing that, they fall back on "hatred" and mobocracy as the reason they will lose their gains in November via Prop. 22.
...Until you change minds, you aren't going to win this battle. Changing a lifestyle characterized by promiscuity, public sex and in-your-face vulgarity might be a place to start. Justice George's ruling speaks to gays being deserved of dignity and respect. When San Francisco's gay freedom parade quits being a pornography based, sex saturated display of perversions, I'll consider changing my opinion of gay marriage.
"In fact, things are probably worse for ssm advocates than this polls suggests. If memory serves, in the state amendment battles so far, ssm fares worse by an average of about 10% in polls taken immediately before election day than it does in the balloting itself. If that's right, and if it holds in California, ssm advocates are in trouble unless at least 55% of voters in pre-election polls oppose the amendment."
"I can only speculate about the reason for the disparity between pre-election polls taken immediately before an election and actual elction day results. Other than bias in the polling question, two things come to mind. One is that people are reluctant to tell pollsters that they oppose something that has a whiff of civil rights in the popular media. The other is that intensity is higher among opponents of ssm than it is among supporters. This makes opponents of ssm more likely to vote and, when they do, more likely to reach the part of the ballot where the question is presented, rather than simply marking preferences at the top of the ballot for things like President, congressperson, Senator, etc., and then leaving the rest blank."
I think these are very important points when discussing polls on same-sex "marriage". It was the first series of point I was going to make regarding this post.
I would also add that Obama will drive much higher turnout among African Americans a group that suffers under a debilitated marriage culture already &shows overwhelming support in preserving marriage.
Their is also the Hispanic population that has grown considerably in both numbers &voter participation. As the poor &displaced they likewise have a serious interest in preserving our shared marriage culture &also show overwhelming support in preserving marriage.
But then, this is a strange election year, and only a fool would have confidence in any predictions.
Happy now?
On the whole your memory’s pretty good. That said, there were some notable exceptions (I believe that PPIC had the vote pretty much nailed in each of the three months prior to Prop. 22’s passage).
I wouldn’t put much stock in the L.A. Times poll for many of the reasons cited above. Even considering the source, the numbers are puzzling.
Separately, the 11% undecided will be cut in half—probably more—by election day. (While "undecided" is a telling statistic in opinion polls, it's meaningless in initiative voting.)
Even if this were a poll I’d credit, there’s too much in play to point to an outcome at this stage. Certainly the core of SSM opposition will likely turn out (and vote) in November. But, Obama supporters (assuming he’s on the ballot) are quite a wildcard for the SSM initiative.
What was clear even without a poll is that SSM proponents have an uphill struggle.
just for the record. i didn't say the CHIEF support for this amendment might be the anti-judicial activism crowd.
i said that "many more" iow an additional component than just the pro-traditional marriage people might also be the anti-judicial activist crowd. iow, if you have 1,000,000 people against it because their against it, but 200k piling on cause they hate the judicial activism stuff, that would be "many more" than just the initial million...
numbers used for illustrative purposes only
it's a subtle distinction and i am not sure i made my point clear
in WA state they do.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
The article is wrong. Pre-vote surveys typically overestimate the No side on state marriage manements. The results usually are far above 50% in favor of Yes. This pattern occured with Proposition 22 in California. Somehow the writer of the article about the upcoming amendment vote got the pattern backwards and also failed to use the most relevant example of that pattern.
Ask yourself why that error occured and why you, Randy, assumed it even plausible.
The survey data is obviously suspect. The article's general observation that support for controversial ballot measures typically erodes during the campaign is true. It was true even of Prop. 22.
As for state marriage amendments, they do tend to poll lower than the ultimate vote. From what I've seen (in vaguely credible polls), the "error" isn't really overestimating the No vote. The error tends to be in underestimating the Yes vote (and overestimating the undecideds).
Of course, there are exceptions. After my earlier post, I went back to reviewed a couple of polling organization's Prop. 22 predictions leading up to that election (March 2000). The Field Poll was off on both the "Yes" and "No" (however, the "No" response was within the margin of error). The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) was, as I suspected, very close to the actual results in each of the three months leading up to Prop.22's passage (well within the MoE).
Note that there's a new Field Poll that contradicts the L.A. Times results. I'm skeptical as to the degree of support for SSM in the Field results. Unlike the L.A. Times poll, at least the Field Poll was internally consistent.