Prop 19 Post-Mortem: Crunching the Numbers and Pointing the Finger

[kannubis]

According to the media, if it were legalized, the cartel violence would rear its head in the states over the fight for turf and $$$, so that one is shot out of the sky.

 

[Bacchus]

According to the media, if it were legalized, the cartel violence would rear its head in the states over the fight for turf and $$$, so that one is shot out of the sky.

I have NEVER heard that from the media.... any links?

 

[kannubis]

Presented on the new show that popped up the day after the election.
Marijuana, Chronic something or other that seemed to be a complaint about the amount of money spent on the failing drug war since tricky dick declared it.
One of the northern cali LEOs planted the seed of the threat of it happening. It will be brought up again and again, I'm sure.

 

[Mr. Bongjangles]

Close, but not quite accurate. And in this case, the devil is most certainly in the details.

In 2008, an electoral year which because of Obama's presence was literally unprecedented in American history, voters in California aged 18-29 category were 20% of the overall electorate. It was far and away the largest youth vote turnout in decades.

On Tuesday, without the issues of 1) Economic Peril 2) Iraq War 3) An Extremely Unpopular President 4) Extremely Motivated Democratic Voter Base and 5) First Black Candidate for President from a major party? The turnout was 13%.

In other words, the turnout was entirely typical for a mid-term election.

But no, not quite a 2:1 difference.

If we redistributed votes based on age demographics and projected for a 20% 2008 highwater mark youth vote turnout, how would that have effected results? Would Prop 19 have passed? Let's do the math, shall we?

2010 Actual Turnout: 18-29 (13%) 59% Yes 41% No

2010 Total Votes Cast (actual): 7,518,115

18-29 (actual) 977,355 (576,639 Yes)

Project and Gross Up for 2008 20% Youth Turnout

18-29 (Projected): 1,503,623 (887,138 Yes)

Net Result: An increase in 310,499 Yes votes.

So, if the Youth turnout was an unprecedented 20%, the Yes side could have expected an additional 310,499 votes in favor of yes. How would that have affected Tuesday results?

Actual Results

4,046,807 (54%) No

3,471,308 (46%) Yes

Add 310,499 to the "yes", column -- and Prop 19 still fails by ~265,000 votes.

The suggestion that a 20% youth vote can be achieved again - as it was in 2008? It's a highly unrealistic suggestion that bears little semblance to reality. A whole host of factors had to come together to get the historical turnout in 2008 that, in fact, occurred.

But even if you could do that again (a fool's bet), you still don't win a Prop 19 vote based on Tuesday's results.

These ideas sound persuasive on a discussion forum (or over a beer/bong), sure, but when you crunch the actual numbers? You quickly find that you can't quite get there from here.

I'm not saying that your idealism needs to be thrown away and we must all drink the Realpolitik Kool-Aid. I admire your confidence and passion - I truly do.

I am saying, however, that further action on another ballot measure requires a stone-cold-sober-and-good-hard-look before we do something reckless and potentially stupid like doing it again in 2012 without a clear plan for victory.

Even assuming the mythological youth vote could be made to appear again? Well, it just ain't enough to win. The seniors aren't going to die fast enough, either. And the ones in the middle?

Well, they just betrayed us.

So in my estimation, we don't need a plan to make people who don't show up to somehow magically show up next time. That's not a PLAN; that's a HOPE.

No. We need a credible plan to make the people who showed up on Tuesday and voted "No", to show up and vote "YES" next time.

Without that bit of wizardry? I don't see how we make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.

We need to identify WHY the Ganja Gap happened and figure out how to close it.

Man I don't wanna nitpick here, this is a great analysis you have going on here, but I spent like an hour this morning doing math on this very topic and want to uh, nitpick a bit hehe.

OK the 13% turnout thing? Is this right? It is my understanding that 13% of the voters were 18-29, and that turnout was about 20%.

Further, 18-29 turnout in a presidential election is like 50% nationwide, and I can't find California specific numbers, but here's a nationwide graph -

Anyways, I did the math and when you up from 20% turnout to 50%, you end up with similar numbers from upping the total percentage of voters to 20 from 13, so the result is essentially the same. Hense nitpicking hehe, but I wanna bring this up and see if I have made a mistake, and if not, help someone who clearly has a grasp on the issue.

I was straight up shocked when I did the math on an increase from 20% turnout to 50% and it still wasn't even close to enough.

Anyways, you got it man, they need to make substantial change to the prop to court additional voters if they want to have a legit chance in 2012. I think specific tax ideas may be required, as I don't think people bought into the idea that tax revenue was going to be helpful because it wasn't remotely quantifiable.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

The failure of 19 had nothing to do with taxes and economic profit/loss and everything to do with conservative's morals and social fears. I'm not sure how to curtail these characteristics, but until that happends they will always vote no on mj.

 

[Mr. Bongjangles]

The failure of 19 had nothing to do with taxes and economic profit/loss and everything to do with conservative's morals and social fears. I'm not sure how to curtail these characteristics, but until that happends they will always vote no on mj.

Well man, I think the socially conservative people may be the hardest to convince, most of them will prolly never vote yes on legalization, but something had to have spooked the remainder who voted against.

Why did it go from big support among independents in earlier polls, but later the same polls saw them slide back to even or slightly against? I can't imagine some of them suddenly decided cannabis was evil.

I just tossed the tax thing out there as its one of the most consistent criticisms I saw levied at the prop. Predictions of massive price drops prolly added into this fear, legit or not.

Only 59% of the youth vote going for it is pretty sad too... Are 41% of the youth, in california no less where its been legal medically for most of their lives, really that brainwashed that they fit into the socially conservative category? I think something like 40% of liberals voted against too. I gotta imagine a few of them are just hung up on the details or confused and would jump on board with the right prop.

I hope at least, otherwise we're stuck where things stand now.

 

[onegreenday]

More than likely WEEDS is a government show to discredit cannabis.

I watched 4 season in a night & came 2 the same conclusion as you
and it's based in Cali & the loose sex, teen gays with old guyz,
the back stabbing ,cheating it's an obvious gov ops...

Nice graph, good to know who came out and supported prop 19 and who didnt. By the looks of it, the middle aged and old folk where not ready to have a state of stoned Californians building its future. I can't blame them. IMHO if the economy was better and people had good jobs with a sight on the future of California; the bill would have passed.
I think it was a nice idea, but the movement got ahead of its self. Meaning, we started the seeds, but failed to build the grow room first.. I also feel if us Californians are to pass a legalized Cannabis bill, it cant just come from a handful of people. It was a valiant effort on Richard Lee's part to try and get this bill passed (for a handful of people). But I believe Richard Lee found out that its harder to fool people than he had first thought.
When Prop 19 was introduced I did a lot of thinking about it, and talked it over with some old timers that have been in the business for decades.. After many discussions, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't pass. For one, the current growers: so many growers in California at the moment that would be against it (fiscally). Secondly, the old people are still "brainwashed" from the pot prohibition. Lastly I honestly feel that the new generation of young are leaning more towards "uppers" than "downers". The young could honestly give a shit about Cannabis, unless its at a party and they need to regulate their "rush"...
This leads me to another theory. The Television show "Weeds" on Showtime. I have watched that show "DEFILE" the Cannabis movement. I have been in the Cannabis industry all my life (decades) and have NEVER seen or come across the situations I see unfold in that show.. Human trafficking, Cocaine dealing, Gun running, Killing of Federal Agents, outright Murder, Whoring ones self for a "cannabis dealing" advantage, acquiring false legal documentation, etc.. The list could go on and on... When people watch that show, they get a real Negative outlook on the "Cannabis industry".. So IMHO, if you want "Legalization" of cannabis, then you will have to start by NOT WATCHING that piece of shit show and tell Showtime exactly what they can do with that show, via email... Could you imagine the Old folk voter turn out if the show Weeds didnt have so many negative stigmas attached to it? Actually helped out old people, and showed compassion and understanding....?.... Maybe just maybe they would have voted for a "kind" cannabis law. Who knows..? but one thing is for sure, that show Weeds is a Piece of shit show for the "kind" cause of Cannabis..
If we dont change the outlook on Cannabis and the entire movement (you and me) from what uneducated humans are watching on television, then cannabis will never be legalized.

Cannabudz

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Well man, I think the socially conservative people may be the hardest to convince, most of them will prolly never vote yes on legalization, but something had to have spooked the remainder who voted against.

Why did it go from big support among independents in earlier polls, but later the same polls saw them slide back to even or slightly against? I can't imagine some of them suddenly decided cannabis was evil.

I just tossed the tax thing out there as its one of the most consistent criticisms I saw levied at the prop. Predictions of massive price drops prolly added into this fear, legit or not.

Only 59% of the youth vote going for it is pretty sad too... Are 41% of the youth, in california no less where its been legal medically for most of their lives, really that brainwashed that they fit into the socially conservative category? I think something like 40% of liberals voted against too. I gotta imagine a few of them are just hung up on the details or confused and would jump on board with the right prop.

I hope at least, otherwise we're stuck where things stand now.

The reality was prop.19 was two years too late. Had this been during the 2008 elections, I think us yes on 19ers would have been celebrating. The fact is Obama has created such a opposition with republicans/teabaggers that they cane out in full force in this election and will continue to do so in the 2012 election. Now that 19 failed they are trying to do it again in 2012 which I believe will be even more of a obstacle to overcome than we saw in this election. So my hopes of legalization have passed. I really doubt we will see any serious chance for quite some years. Hopefully I am wrong in this assumption...

 

[humble1]

So was it a waste to even attempt a vote on Prop-19 in 2010?

Most Definitely.
Combine all the factors that the OP listed, regardless of how minor each one was individually, and there are still hurdles to overcome. 2012 prolly won't be much better unless Obama can pull out a re-election landslide, which I think is doubtful unless the Republicans run Palin or some other laughable nincompoop.
ATM I think 2016 is the best hope, and that only if Obama is defeated in 2012 and we have another Republican to sweep out of office.
So people, we've got a little over 5 more years to craft some legislation without the many flaws of prop. 19. That's the only way to affect actual and fair legalization. Otherwise, if another flawed initiative is propped up in 2012, it could wipe out prospects for quite some time.

 

[fatigues]

Man I don't wanna nitpick here, this is a great analysis you have going on here, but I spent like an hour this morning doing math on this very topic and want to uh, nitpick a bit hehe.

OK the 13% turnout thing? Is this right? It is my understanding that 13% of the voters were 18-29, and that turnout was about 20%.

I was correct (and you probably were too). Problem was, I was imprecise and used the wrong terminology interchageably when I should not have. My bad.

"Turnout" is usually used to refer to the percentage of eligible voters who show up to vote.

Clearly, more than 13% of eligible voters in the 18-29 category showed up to vote. The number I was referring to when referring to "turnout" was that the results of that turnout yielded a percentage of the overall electorate of 18-29 voters that was 13% this year -- and it was 20% of the overall electorate in 2008. I was correct, but used the term "turnout" with less clarity than I should have.

The terminology got a little muddled -- but my math was correct. If you got to the same number results - yours sounds correct as well.

End result: When you crunch the numbers, it's quite a steep hill to climb.

Anyways, you got it man, they need to make substantial change to the prop to court additional voters if they want to have a legit chance in 2012. I think specific tax ideas may be required, as I don't think people bought into the idea that tax revenue was going to be helpful because it wasn't remotely quantifiable.

Maybe. It's a number of different things, and the problem is, we lack the central vision to co-operate to achieve these goals. When your only shared goal is legalization of marijuana -- and allies within the movement otherwise have a vastly different political agenda -- it makes it very hard to achieve consensus within the movement itself.

In terms of broad brush strokes, there is a strong Libertarian streak among a minority of marijuana activists, with the majority being on the Liberal/Democratic political spectrum. Small surprise that the Ron Paul supporters and the Nancy Pelosi supporters don't see eye-to-eye on very much.

By way of example, the late Jack Herrer was a great activist, but the man's other political views scared the hell out of me.

Marc Emery? Same thing. Emery's libertarian views put him in the political minority in America. In his native Canada, Marc Emery's libertarian politics render him an outright political nutbar. He might as well be a Stalinist or a Nazi. (Yes, seriously.) Being anti-medicare in Canada is akin to burning the Stars and Stripes while pissing on the Lincoln Memorial and claiming the 9/11 attackers were Real American Patriots.

The mainstream political operatives within the marijuana movement are found in the larger activist groups. NORML, MPP, DPA, ASA. A lot of people knock NORML for being "too conservative". NORML was against the idea of Prop 19 being on the ballot for this mid-term election. But you know, they were against it for some very good tactical reasons. They know the electoral math and very few of them call "hope" a "plan".

Was Prop 19 something which was better left to another day? Uhm, yes I don't think there can be much rational debate about that now. That's easy to say in hindsight though. It's always easy to be right when you are looking backwards. Forwards? Not so much.

I'm encouraged that the press for 2012 is coming so early. Not because that is a rational reaction to the vote on Prop 19 (it isn't) but because it speaks to the optimism in the movement and people's dedication on the ground. That's an important sign that the movement is still healthy and people's hopes and dreams have not been irretrievably shattered.

The morale of activists is a quirky thing though. Imagine the morale if there was another proposal on the ballot in 2012 -- and the numbers came back at 56% NO, 44% YES.

And yes, that could easily happen.

If it did, the perception would be that we're taking steps backwards, not forwards and it's NEVER going to happen. The politicians and prohibitionists would have a FIELD DAY in the wake of that vote. The clampdown would be on not just in Cali - but across the country and, indeed, in other countries in the world, too.

Morale and political perception can be a fragile thing. A wise man does not screw with these things lightly or casually. There can be a lot at stake.

The thing with Prop 19 is that for a time about one month ago, a lot of people -- including those in the mainstream media across the USA and in other countries actually thought Prop 19 was probably going to pass. That was an interesting development, to be sure.

You must have felt it right? I know I did. It was an amazing moment... So much seemed possible and within our grasp. Now, that feeling has slipped away for the nonce, sadly.

Still... four percent of the electorate is all we need to change their minds. That's not undoable. Sane, firmly grounded, wise and pragmatic activists can close that gap, given time and money.

And above all, a plan.

 

[coconutree]

what were rationale behind NO to cali bill?

what were rationale behind NO to cali bill?

That was on the news here in the UK for a while - they were doing loads of reports about the american vote to legalize pot

so they said no. that is such a pity, it looked like a really good economic reason (aswell as a good one in general for people) which is just so sad and shows the ignorance and complete shit so many people believe, their limited belief system, not knowing of it other than mass media portrayal of it, which of course enough has been said about and we dont need to go into here

so with the health, economic, and social benefits of Yes the ballot was 53% NO to legalizing pot partially, in california

saddens me, truly.

why were people against it, so many pro-s, so few cons

 

[Japanfreakier]

Here's the thing, anybody who voted "No" on this board is insignificant when you think about it, a few dozen growers maybe if that. So let's forget about them and start thinking about why Californians voted no.

 

[coconutree]

thats what i am talking about, the rational of the general majority of californians. a state where it is almost publically accepted being prescribed for many common medical issues. and tolerated, or so it seemed

but most people dont want it legal?
strange, for the tax benefits, and the money would go to the communitys, reliable businesses with quality control at high priotities, and good for economy and government too

some guys here voted, and voted no, more than 1? wow, that is very sad indeed

 

[Japanfreakier]

It is sad, but as far as the general public goes, well it's not like people actually vote for the benefit of themselves or their loved ones. I think you can look at scare campaigns and decades of drug war propaganda for reasons people voted no. The scene still has a lot of work to do to change those minds, but can you believe how far it's come? A few more years and you know it will be legal.

 

[Mrs.Babba]

 

[coconutree]

some growers voted no? thats unbelievable, why would they say no, it puts them from being in a position of possible jailtime and asset seizure, to building a legitimate business

 

[coconutree]

..... scuze me misses babba, has me opened big can of worms?
if it is so me is sowwee

 

[Young Trees]

45% of Cali voted yes for recreational pot.
Many informed MJ users believe that badly written law restricts MJ and criminalizes users more than the existing laws...

The only benefit I saw to this law would be the creation of a standard tax rate...

 

[Mrs.Babba]

Sorry, it just feels like its been beat to death and theres nothing we can do for a cpl of years, things are just like they were before the vote and lets hope for a better time to come. Its out in the open more and more every day. I dont think it would have been as bad as some of the growers thought, prices wouldnt have dropped to nothing, but we will never know now[or a cpl or years] anyway.
I didnt mean to disrespect your thread, just bummed me out it didnt pass. I apologize.

 

[Young Trees]

I'm not bummed at all, I'm glad Cooley lost and Kamala and Ol Two-some Newsom won!!
Canna friendly and not anti-MMJ