Julie bemoans our conservative legislature and its social agenda, the gay marriage amendment being a good example. I feel her pain, but want to point out what I believe is the real reason for the gay marriage amendment, and many other issues and initiatives.
And the reason is, to give Republicans a political advantage on election day. The gay marriage amendment brought out R voters but probably didn’t stimulate too many Ds to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have. Assuming that the marriage amendment skewed pretty much Rs for and Ds against, all the time, money and effort devoted to defeating it was not available to help Ds on election day.
It seems like most every election has some vote that breaks this way. Worse, we’re saps about it. We always fall for it. This last year we even did it to ourselves with the school funding initiative, and the previous election with the repeal the right to work initiative. The teachers union is, if not the biggest, at least among the biggest sources of money and campaign workers for Ds in an election. This year the union promoted the school funding initiative and drained away money and support for Ds running for office. I submit that the teachers would be better off in the long run if they get Ds elected who could then in turn help teachers in the legislature.
The first time I became aware of this tactic was back in the early 80s or thereabouts, with the 1% Initiative, which returned in 1996. Perhaps some commenters might be able to suggest other examples. The Secretary of State lists initiatives here.
I’d like to see the Dems try this. Don’t promote an initiative on something we actually care about, like repealing the right to work law, but push one that is designed to drive a wedge in R voters and to drain R money and resources. Perhaps an initiative that prohibits the state from selling or trading any undeveloped state land such that the land goes private, and maybe requiring any other trade to include an easement so the public can access the land. The idea would be to protect undeveloped state land for hunters and recreationsists and to keep it away from developers. Hunters would tend to vote for this so developers would have to put up a pretty big effort to defeat it, requiring money. Dems would be seen as friends of sportsmen and women.
I’m sure there are lots of better ideas, but you get the point. Most Dem initiatives (I’m talking progressive individuals, not the Dem party) try to accomplish something that progressives want and face an uphill battle. Maybe we should take a page from the R playbook and just go for something that the Rs will oppose.
3 comments:
To be fair, we don't actually know that the amendment made a difference. There aren't really any data (that I know of) that could tell us what effect the amendment had on voter behavior this year, and for instance, Latah County had a huge turnout leaning heavily Democratic (a big big improvement over 2004 when Kerry lost Latah). This year could just be a baseline measurement of Idaho voter bigotry. It's hard to predict what political tactics will work, so people tend to just try them all, but for instance, I keep hearing that telephone calls are next to ineffective at mobilizing voters. So why did I spend so many hours calling to remind people to vote? Because they did it last year and the year before. Politics as practiced seems equally about superstition as it is about science, as far as I can tell.
I agree. It was conventional wisdom that the amendment would motivate conservative to go vote, but it's hard to tell how many, if any, conservatives would have stayed home and not voted but for the amendment.
I do have it on pretty good authority that at least some Idaho D's are going to work to put a minimum wage raise on the ballot on '08. That's something Idahoans favor that also gets out Democratic base, such as it is 'round here.
Post a Comment