Whether you voted for John McCain or Barack Obama, consensus is that we Americans experienced something historic and amazing at the national level. It was all about change and calls for equality.
Many of us, however, are scratching our heads at the decisions that California voters made on November 4th. Californians chose to protect the rights of chickens, but not the rights of committed gay partners. Contrary to what pundits are saying, we didn’t really experience “social change” here in California. And, according to some peoples’ perspectives, we didn’t really vote for social compassion.
Couple this puzzling scenario with the shopping spree voters went on, approving a bagful of bond and tax measures that further saddle our state and local jurisdictions with significant levels of new debt. Aren’t we in the worst economic crisis in recent history? Isn’t our state broke? Voters seemingly made no connection between the ballots they cast and our state’s overdrawn bank account.
We experienced some version of voter schizophrenia that is tough to explain. There was just no consistency. As political professionals, we look for trends and ideological sweeps but really it’s very individualized when voters enter a voting booth.
There was no conservative sweep tied to fears about the economy. If there had been, we wouldn’t have necessarily approved bonds and taxes, and voted for Prop 2’s expensive chicken condos. There was no liberal sweep tied to equity for all. If there had been, would we have approved Prop 8? It’s more like ballot hopscotch.
Proponents of Prop 2 said California’s vote falls in closer line with “values of compassion.” Prop 2 mandates our chickens will now have high-rise, fancy penthouses where they can exercise their right to dust-bathe, peck poo and all things chickens do. On the other hand, a majority of Californians decided gay couples can no longer exercise their right to marry.
Was the electorate so singularly focused on the encompassing presidential campaign that they didn’t truly understand the measures and their impacts? Do they really want to pay more for eggs and potentially get them from Mexico?
Maybe it was the sheer influence of the political campaigns themselves – and their top-line messaging — that influenced the voters? Arguably, whether you support the policy or not, professionals agree Yes on Prop 8 ran one of the best campaigns in California this cycle.
Maybe it was the flood of new, first-time voters whose values aren’t those of the boomers previously in charge and this vast new electorate, and its changing demographics, are now beholden to no one and no particular ideology?
Political strategists will be analyzing these results for days, weeks and months, trying to decipher what strategies were most successful and how to better play hopscotch with voters in the next cycle.
I’m going to eat chicken for dinner tonight – maybe I’ll make an omelet. Then, I’m going to call my friends who aren’t in the business and try to explain California’s moral compass and voting trends.