CA-SurveyUSA: Gay Marriage Ban likely to be approved

[Tender Branson]

Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of Same-Sex Couples to marry. It changes the California Constitution so that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California. On Proposition 8, are you ... Certain to vote yes? Certain to vote no? Or not certain?

Yes - 47%
No - 42%

SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 California adults 10/4/08 and 10/5/08. Of the adults, 879 were registered to vote. Of the registered voters, 670 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely voters in the 11/04/08 general election.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b46ce159-115e-4f44-8be2-ce9b8eca657e

[exopolitician]

Dissapointing.

[dead0man]

Yeah, those brave Californians, always leading the way to social justice!

[Eraserhead]

Eh... it's still close and this is SUSA. They have been all over the place lately.

[Verily]

The Field Poll has been showing this going down by 10+ points. I'm going to go with them; SUSA's far too erratic to take seriously on a ballot proposition.

[Eraserhead]

The Field Poll has been showing this going down by 10+ points. I'm going to go with them; SUSA's far too erratic to take seriously on a ballot proposition.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. That is unfortunate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

SUSA also had Kerry up only 1 point in California in one poll.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would be more inclined to trust the Field Poll, for a couple of reasons.

[Brittain33]

DOMA initiatives always underpoll their support. Lots of people will vote to ban gay marriage but won't admit it to pollsters. That said, this poll is an outlier so far.

[Dan the Roman]

The strongest supporters of the ban in this poll are young voters who have flipped 30 points in a week. Rather than concluding that this indicated bad sampling, SurveyUSA has instead issued a press release with the shocking news that 18-29 year olds have flipped decisively. This is nonsense.

[Verily]

The Field Poll has been showing this going down by 10+ points. I'm going to go with them; SUSA's far too erratic to take seriously on a ballot proposition.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. That is unfortunate.

I think you misunderstand me; the Field Poll thinks the ban is going to fail badly.

[Angel of Death]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

[Brittain33]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

Very common to state constitutions.

[ChrisFromNJ]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

Not in Florida. It is 60%, I believe.

[angus]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

[Reaganfan]

Let's "hope" it is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

Not in Florida. It is 60%, I believe.

     Which is fortunate, since it looks like the Florida amendment will finish in the upper-50s.

[NDN]

The strongest supporters of the ban in this poll are young voters who have flipped 30 points in a week. Rather than concluding that this indicated bad sampling, SurveyUSA has instead issued a press release with the shocking news that 18-29 year olds have flipped decisively. This is nonsense.

[muon2]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

The problem occurs when the leadership of the state realizes that letting constitutional questions out for a vote only weakens their control. If their is no mechanism for direct public amendments, then power can be skillfully consolidated. IL is an excellent example of this, where there are clear court issues pointing out problems in the constitution, but no questions to the voters in the last 10 years.

[angus]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

The problem occurs when the leadership of the state realizes that letting constitutional questions out for a vote only weakens their control. If their is no mechanism for direct public amendments, then power can be skillfully consolidated. IL is an excellent example of this, where there are clear court issues pointing out problems in the constitution, but no questions to the voters in the last 10 years.

Other side of the coin.  The insider's view is always helpful, but the main question to the voters is probably the most relevant:  do you want muon2 to continue to represent you?  We layfolks simply don't have the time or the inclination to make informed decisions.  That's why we elected you in the first place.  We assumed you had the interest and the ability to think long and hard about the issues confronting us, and went into the deliberations without pride or prejudice or passion, listened to all arguments, arrived at a logical conclusion, and voted in a way that you think best serves the people of the district and of the state. 

[muon2]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

The problem occurs when the leadership of the state realizes that letting constitutional questions out for a vote only weakens their control. If their is no mechanism for direct public amendments, then power can be skillfully consolidated. IL is an excellent example of this, where there are clear court issues pointing out problems in the constitution, but no questions to the voters in the last 10 years.

Other side of the coin.  The insider's view is always helpful, but the main question to the voters is probably the most relevant:  do you want muon2 to continue to represent you?  We layfolks simply don't have the time or the inclination to make informed decisions.  That's why we elected you in the first place.  We assumed you had the interest and the ability to think long and hard about the issues confronting us, and went into the deliberations without pride or prejudice or passion, listened to all arguments, arrived at a logical conclusion, and voted in a way that you think best serves the people of the district and of the state. 

Yes for the vast majority of issues, but for instance who should set the rules for the elected officials? There are times that the rules need an outside look or the officials will set rules primarily for their own sake, not that of the public. Gerrymandering of districts is a classic example of this. I think a balance between the amendment-happy system in CA and the lack of direct input I see here in IL would be preferred.

[CARLHAYDEN]

DOMA initiatives always underpoll their support. 

Don't tell Alcon this!