CA FINALLY starts fixing budget

[Master of Ossus]

My point was that the amount of in-state advertising apparently didn't matter, because 80% of registered voters went to the polls in November 2008 but only 25% could be bothered the following May. That is, even with advertising pouring out of their assholes, most people, even a huge majority of those people who cared about politics during a real election a few months earlier, didn't give half a shit about that special ballot vote.

Or, else, they didn't care about approving of more measures to approve of Californian services.

80% in November followed by 25% in May, that's serious dissonance. My read on it is that maybe there's something wrong with conducting state policy via plebiscites that nobody cares about and are thus easily manipulated by special interest GOTV campaigns, but other people might have a different conclusion.

How the fuck are these people "easily manipulated by special interest GOTV campaigns" but not easily influenced by the "Yes" on the budget initiatives that outspent them 10-to-1 and had such groups as the Governor, Teacher's Union, Firefighter's Union, and Legislature behind them?

Also, can you show evidence that the voters who stayed home would have voted substantively differently? Keep in mind, these measures were so unpopular that none of them (aside from F) passed in a single county.

Moreover, the governor and legislature spent the entire run-up to the election warning voters of disastrous budget cuts if the measures failed. Yet they failed in every county in the state--I'm sure that "well-targeted ads" that were 1/10 as expensive as those of the proponents could easily have swayed so many voters not to bother or stay home.

That fewer people would show up for a special election that affected only the state, as opposed to a national election, was self-evident: national elections have both state and national issues. And, yeah, it's a clear mandate when no county (including the ones that would be most affected by the budget cuts--as well as the least) in an entire state votes for any one of a package of initiatives that were backed by major political figures from both sides of the aisle and which outspent opponents of the measures 10-to-1. Or do you disagree?

[Terralthra]

Please show me where I said I voted no on 1A.

Oh, I see. So you lied about none of the budget measures prolonging tax increases, and said you voted no on "most" of them, but voted yes on 1A because you wanted higher taxes. I had tried to be charitable and assumed you were simply confused about what the ballot measures said, but now I see you are out-and-out dishonest.

Your marvelous ability to distort and conflate statements notwithstanding, no. I was wrong about that one ballot measure. I voted yes on 1A because I support having a larger "rainy day" fund. I voted no on the other measures.

Don't worry though, so long as you keep calling other people dishonest, no one will notice your strawmen! Except people who can read, of course.

Don't generalize the just-more-than-33% of the legislature which are Republicans and have flat out refused to vote for any budget which increases taxes to be the entire legislature. The fact that a supermajority is required to approve budgets due to Prop. 13 makes it possible for an obstructionist minority party to refuse to accept a compromise measure. Several democratic compromise budgets involving some spending cuts and some increased taxes were rejected by both the minority party and the Governator, who promised to veto any budget with increased taxes.

This is so massively dishonest I don't know where to begin. The Governor supported the budget initiatives, including 1A, as did many Republicans because at the time it wasn't clear how staunchly Californians were against them. Immediately after the initiatives were shot down both parties went back and realized that they would have to make cuts to services.

You continue to talk about the budget initiatives as if they were all tax increases. They weren't. You're right, ONE of them prolonged existing tax increases. The others shuffled money around, cutting services while desperately avoiding the appearance of same. For example, 1D was summarized as "PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET." What it actually would've done was redirect money from the California Children and Families Program to fund programs previously funded by the General Fund, effectively CUTTING the early childhood development programs that the California Children and Families Program funds were to be used for. So, the voters rejected a ballot measure that cut services. From which Master of Ossus concludes that the voters want to cut services. And then accuses me of dishonesty.

Is there a rational way for you to synthesize your statement regarding the will of the majority with the fact that the no-tax-increases party is the minority?

Uh... in elections that aren't solely and completely about the budget people care about non-budget issues? Incredible, but true. Moreover, you're missing the fact fewer than 1/5 Californians approves of the Legislature as a whole, so it's not as if the Democrats in the Legislature are wildly popular.

Nice misuse of statistics. That 80%+ of the electorate disapproves of the legislature as a whole does not mean that they disapprove of the majority party. Perhaps it's the constant deadlock caused by the majority party being unable to act effectively (due to Prop. 13) on budgetary matters that people are unhappy with, and they'd be happier with more Democrats, so that the Democratic party platform could actually be enacted. But no, 80% of people disapprove of the current state of the legislature, so they must not like the democrats. Despite the democrats having gained 3 seats in the assembly. Quick, call me dishonest again, before the facts of the matter rear their ugly heads again.

Moreover, you still haven't explained why the legislature hasn't been able to live within the bounds of the law, even though CA's tax-revenues remain above-average in spite of Prop 13. So even though the Republicans are just so unreasonable and run the whole state's fiscal policy, the State somehow has the most progressive state income tax in the country and overall collects well above-average tax revenues per capita.

The obvious explanation that the state could possibly be providing more services than other states really didn't occur to you?

[Master of Ossus]

You continue to talk about the budget initiatives as if they were all tax increases. They weren't. You're right, ONE of them prolonged existing tax increases. The others shuffled money around, cutting services while desperately avoiding the appearance of same. For example, 1D was summarized as "PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET." What it actually would've done was redirect money from the California Children and Families Program to fund programs previously funded by the General Fund, effectively CUTTING the early childhood development programs that the California Children and Families Program funds were to be used for. So, the voters rejected a ballot measure that cut services. From which Master of Ossus concludes that the voters want to cut services. And then accuses me of dishonesty.

I conclude that they want the Legislature to cut services from the general fund (e.g., the sorts of services that we're clearly talking about since those ones are influenced by general taxes like the state income and property taxes).

Only total fucktards who have had way too much liberal Kool-Aid look at a package of measures like this:

1. Continue high-taxes.
2. Shift spending to general fund programs (effectiveness contingent on passage of 1)
3. 4. 5. (substantively as 2.)

observe that none of these measures come even close to passing, and conclude that the voters are demanding higher taxes.

Nice misuse of statistics. That 80%+ of the electorate disapproves of the legislature as a whole does not mean that they disapprove of the majority party. Perhaps it's the constant deadlock caused by the majority party being unable to act effectively (due to Prop. 13) on budgetary matters that people are unhappy with, and they'd be happier with more Democrats, so that the Democratic party platform could actually be enacted. But no, 80% of people disapprove of the current state of the legislature, so they must not like the democrats. Despite the democrats having gained 3 seats in the assembly. Quick, call me dishonest again, before the facts of the matter rear their ugly heads again.

Which was before the budget disaster. Moreover, can you provide any evidence whatsoever that a majority of Californians actually want higher taxes? Because they voted no on the only measure that directly dealt with that issue.

The obvious explanation that the state could possibly be providing more services than other states really didn't occur to you?

Apparently, it can't. My whole point was that a competent Legislature works within the realistic bounds of its earnings, and if Prop 13 makes it totally impossible to raise taxes above some amount (which is actually higher than most other states), then they would have to make sure that state spending came in at or below the level that their tax revenue could support.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Also, can you show evidence that the voters who stayed home would have voted substantively differently? Keep in mind, these measures were so unpopular that none of them (aside from F) passed in a single county.

Can you show evidence that the voters who stayed home would have voted substantively the same? The answer is no. It is impossible to prove either supposition because they didn't vote, so that there is no evidence of their attitude except to the extent they obviously didn't care.

That fewer people would show up for a special election that affected only the state, as opposed to a national election, was self-evident: national elections have both state and national issues.

In that case, maybe a "competent Legislature" and a "competent debater" would recognize the fact that off-schedule non-election plebiscites held on a midsummer Saturday which consequently draw less than a quarter of registered voters, in spite of a huge advertising campaign, are a useless way to gauge popular sentiment.

And, yeah, it's a clear mandate when no county (including the ones that would be most affected by the budget cuts--as well as the least)

Oh, I get it. Now that I've demonstrated that voter turnout was hilariously low and useless for determining the electoral consensus, you want to talk about counties, because you can't honestly talk about the will of the voters anymore. Let me pose a question about those counties to you, Ossus. Los Angeles county, the massive urbanized hub of SoCal, where Democratic registrations outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1, with a huge population of low-income people who depend on the state for services, which would be expected to suffer the most of any county in the wake of sweeping budget cuts, voted against the ballot measures 65-35. Does that make sense, at all? Do you really think the silent majority of 85% of registered voters in LA County who stayed home on May 19 were tacitly in favor of massive spending cuts?

in an entire state votes for any one of a package of initiatives that were backed by major political figures from both sides of the aisle and which outspent opponents of the measures 10-to-1. Or do you disagree?

From the start, your claim has been that this silly plebiscite, this ludicrous special election, which in spite of your claims of enormous advertising spending only motivated about 1/4 of the electorate to come to the polls, represents a clear consensus. My claim is that that is self-evidently stupid. The election is nothing but an indictment of the very idea of trying to run a state government by such a non-functional mechanism. Obviously what happened is that the average California voter (a Democrat, obviously) did not believe that the emergency was as severe as claimed, or he believed that it wasn't his responsibility to vote on a solution to it, or he wanted a more aggressive solution than the budgetary prestidigitation represented by Props 1A-1E, so he stayed home, while the specific subset of people who want to watch the state burn (CA Republicans) turned out in droves.

Without exit polling it can't be said for sure, but given the head-bursting dissonance between overwhelming victory for Obama, a man who explicitly promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and "overwhelming" opposition to the propositions in May, I'd say that the GOP turned out and the Democrats didn't. So what I'm saying is these results you are so keen to masturbate over are a completely uncontrolled and probably utterly-nonrepresentative sample, useless for even guessing at the consensus of California voters. If you worked for Gallup and you conducted a poll after the fashion that the May 19 vote came in, they'd fucking fire you.

[Master of Ossus]

Can you show evidence that the voters who stayed home would have voted substantively the same? The answer is no. It is impossible to prove either supposition because they didn't vote, so that there is no evidence of their attitude except to the extent they obviously didn't care.

And, yet, polls of registered voters in the lead-up to the election showed several things that put the lie to your theory:
1. Prop 1A, and all the others, were trailing badly among likely voters, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the "likely voters" category.
2. More than 70 percent of likely voters agree that defeating the ballot measures would send a message to the governor and legislators "that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes."

Show polls suggesting that the measures were broadly popular among registered voters who didn't show up.

In that case, maybe a "competent Legislature" and a "competent debater" would recognize the fact that off-schedule non-election plebiscites held on a midsummer Saturday which consequently draw less than a quarter of registered voters, in spite of a huge advertising campaign, are a useless way to gauge popular sentiment.

What about polls of registered voters?

Oh, I get it. Now that I've demonstrated that voter turnout was hilariously low and useless for determining the electoral consensus, you want to talk about counties, because you can't honestly talk about the will of the voters anymore. Let me pose a question about those counties to you, Ossus. Los Angeles county, the massive urbanized hub of SoCal, where Democratic registrations outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1, with a huge population of low-income people who depend on the state for services, which would be expected to suffer the most of any county in the wake of sweeping budget cuts, voted against the ballot measures 65-35. Does that make sense, at all? Do you really think the silent majority of 85% of registered voters in LA County who stayed home on May 19 were tacitly in favor of massive spending cuts?

Yes. That's how unpopular these measures were. Again, they couldn't even win in LA county. What the fuck makes you think that there's a "great silent majority" in favor of higher taxes? Furthermore, it's an outright lie that only 15% of the state voted. The Secretary of State said that over 28% showed up. In Los Angeles County, 20% of voters voted, and nearly 70% of them opposed the budget measures.

From the start, your claim has been that this silly plebiscite, this ludicrous special election, which in spite of your claims of enormous advertising spending only motivated about 1/4 of the electorate to come to the polls, represents a clear consensus. My claim is that that is self-evidently stupid. The election is nothing but an indictment of the very idea of trying to run a state government by such a non-functional mechanism. Obviously what happened is that the average California voter (a Democrat, obviously) did not believe that the emergency was as severe as claimed, or he believed that it wasn't his responsibility to vote on a solution to it, or he wanted a more aggressive solution than the budgetary prestidigitation represented by Props 1A-1E, so he stayed home, while the specific subset of people who want to watch the state burn (CA Republicans) turned out in droves.

Now you've just crossed into looney-territory. If Democratic voters didn't think the problem was serious, why would the Republicans have felt that it was? Are Republicans simply smarter or better informed than Democrats? Moreover, by all means: show a poll of registered voters that showed the propositions ahead in the run-up to the election. How the fuck do CA Republicans "want to watch the state burn?" Prove it. Note, particularly, that these oh-so-wonderful propositions that allegedly would have kept the state from burning (somehow) were written by two Republicans in the Assembly, and sponsored largely by the Governor.

Without exit polling it can't be said for sure, but given the head-bursting dissonance between overwhelming victory for Obama, a man who explicitly promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and "overwhelming" opposition to the propositions in May, I'd say that the GOP turned out and the Democrats didn't.

This is a fancy way of saying, "I can't prove it at all, or even justify my beliefs, but this is what I believe!"

Seriously, your entire thinking on this topic appears to be "Something seems to me to be going wrong! Quick, blame some Republicans!"

So what I'm saying is these results you are so keen to masturbate over are a completely uncontrolled and probably utterly-nonrepresentative sample, useless for even guessing at the consensus of California voters. If you worked for Gallup and you conducted a poll after the fashion that the May 19 vote came in, they'd fucking fire you.

First of all, the purpose of Gallup polls is to predict the outcomes of elections.

More importantly, though, even among "likely voters," where Democrats outnumbered Republicans, the budget initiatives were seriously unpopular in the lead-up to the election, and were actually fading in the race.

Moreover, if instead of "will of the people" I had said "will of the voters," then this would make no difference to my fundamental claim that the legislature shouldn't continue to raise taxes but would destroy this entire argument that you're making about non-representative sampling. Who cares?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Can you show evidence that the voters who stayed home would have voted substantively the same? The answer is no. It is impossible to prove either supposition because they didn't vote, so that there is no evidence of their attitude except to the extent they obviously didn't care.

And, yet, polls of registered voters in the lead-up to the election showed several things that put the lie to your theory:
1. Prop 1A, and all the others, were trailing badly among likely voters, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the "likely voters" category.
2. More than 70 percent of likely voters agree that defeating the ballot measures would send a message to the governor and legislators "that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes."

Show polls suggesting that the measures were broadly popular among registered voters who didn't show up.

Interesting article.
"That's bad news for Schwarzenegger and his allies because Republicans will play a big role in what's expected to be a low-turnout election. Democrats have a 42 to 40 percent edge over Republicans in likely voters for the special election, well below their 13-point lead among registered voters."

So Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the "likely voters" category... by 2 percent, even though they should have had a 13-point lead. That sounds like something I said earlier, something about Republicans being disproportionately interested in the results.

""Voters have been educated about what Prop. 1A is supposed to do, they just don't believe what they're being told," DiCamillo said.

That cynicism continues down the list of ballot measures, although voters are less clear about what their effects will be."

In other words, in spite of heavy advertising, the state completely failed to make voters understand what the initiatives were about, and failed to make them believe that they would fix anything. If Field's "likely voters" selection at all resembled the cross-section of voters that actually went to the polls, then we're still talking about a minority of people. Even allowing that the nays all wanted to send a message about lowering taxes and lowering spending, we're still talking about only 18% of registered voters (65% of 28%) who believed it strongly enough to get out of bed on a Saturday.

Yes. That's how unpopular these measures were. Again, they couldn't even win in LA county. What the fuck makes you think that there's a "great silent majority" in favor of higher taxes? Furthermore, it's an outright lie that only 15% of the state voted.

That would be a good point if I ever said that, which I didn't.

The Secretary of State said that over 28% showed up. In Los Angeles County, 20% of voters voted, and nearly 70% of them opposed the budget measures.

My mistake, I looked at the "eligible" column instead of "registered" by mistake. 20% in LA County instead of 15%, for all the difference that makes.

Now you've just crossed into looney-territory. If Democratic voters didn't think the problem was serious, why would the Republicans have felt that it was?

Well, since the article you cited above apparently proved that Republicans were disproportionately interested in the outcome, I think we can move on from here.

How the fuck do CA Republicans "want to watch the state burn?" Prove it.

They vote for CA GOP legislators, who literally were willing to hold up the budget during fire season and potentially make the state unable to pay its firefighters. So...

Note, particularly, that these oh-so-wonderful propositions that allegedly would have kept the state from burning (somehow) were written by two Republicans in the Assembly, and sponsored largely by the Governor.

One wonders if they were a serious attempt to save the budget, then. Gasp, maybe voters realized that they were being handed a cynical, heavily compromised magic trick, rather than a serious effort to fix the budget. But obviously the California Republican Party would be above floating ballot initiatives that were designed to fail, in order to make political hay.

This is a fancy way of saying, "I can't prove it at all, or even justify my beliefs, but this is what I believe!" Seriously, your entire thinking on this topic appears to be "Something seems to me to be going wrong! Quick, blame some Republicans!"

It's not like my position is without support. Look at the platform of the California Democratic party, and look at the California Legislature. If California voters believe what you think they do, why do they return huge majorities for the Democratic party, which has the opposite platform, in election after election?

More importantly, though, even among "likely voters," where Democrats outnumbered Republicans,

By 2% in a state which is heavily dominated by Democratic registrations. This alone proves that the vote was heavily skewed.

the budget initiatives were seriously unpopular in the lead-up to the election, and were actually fading in the race. Moreover, if instead of "will of the people" I had said "will of the voters," then this would make no difference to my fundamental claim that the legislature shouldn't continue to raise taxes but would destroy this entire argument that you're making about non-representative sampling.

The problem with this idea is that in actual elections more than a quarter of the people vote, so the results to which legislators actually have to pay attention are always completely different and, again, return huge majorities for the party which is most identified with more state spending. If they wanted to shrink the state budget and lower taxes, why do they never ever return a majority for the party that explicitly promises to do that?

Who cares?

Who cares is a good question, you're right that this argument is unproductive.

[Master of Ossus]

And, yet, polls of registered voters in the lead-up to the election showed several things that put the lie to your theory:
1. Prop 1A, and all the others, were trailing badly among likely voters, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the "likely voters" category.
2. More than 70 percent of likely voters agree that defeating the ballot measures would send a message to the governor and legislators "that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes."

Show polls suggesting that the measures were broadly popular among registered voters who didn't show up.

Interesting article.
"That's bad news for Schwarzenegger and his allies because Republicans will play a big role in what's expected to be a low-turnout election. Democrats have a 42 to 40 percent edge over Republicans in likely voters for the special election, well below their 13-point lead among registered voters."

So Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the "likely voters" category... by 2 percent, even though they should have had a 13-point lead. That sounds like something I said earlier, something about Republicans being disproportionately interested in the results.

But also showing that, in spite of more Democrats voting than Republicans, the propositions were all expected to lose quite badly in the lead-up to the election. It's not a matter of disproportionate voting: it's the fact that the measures were unpopular either way, and having more people vote wouldn't have changed that. (Moreover, 11% more Democrats showing up would not have led to anything passing, even if 100% of those voters voted in favor of the measure (1A, for instance, was voted down by nearly a 2-1 margin). You cannot discount this as the result of greater Republican interest: even if we shift the actual vote 11% more towards the "Yes," side then it's still voted down 45%-55%, which is still quite a decisive defeat. And no one can honestly expect additional voters to be entirely behind a measure (or against it). You still haven't shown that the additional voters would've gone dramatically differently than the ones who actually bothered to show up.

""Voters have been educated about what Prop. 1A is supposed to do, they just don't believe what they're being told," DiCamillo said.

That cynicism continues down the list of ballot measures, although voters are less clear about what their effects will be."

In other words, in spite of heavy advertising, the state completely failed to make voters understand what the initiatives were about, and failed to make them believe that they would fix anything.

YES! That's the whole stinking point: the measures were unpopular even among educated voters.

If Field's "likely voters" selection at all resembled the cross-section of voters that actually went to the polls, then we're still talking about a minority of people. Even allowing that the nays all wanted to send a message about lowering taxes and lowering spending, we're still talking about only 18% of registered voters (65% of 28%) who believed it strongly enough to get out of bed on a Saturday.

Again, show that the others were voting differently--they didn't even care enough to show up. Additionally, we're not talking about "just" all of the no-voters: 70% of all likely voters believed that voting down the measures would've sent a message about lower taxes and spending to the Legislature.

My mistake, I looked at the "eligible" column instead of "registered" by mistake. 20% in LA County instead of 15%, for all the difference that makes.

What percentage of voters would you require to show up before you believed that they represented a reasonable sampling of the populace? Keep in mind, the record is somewhere around 80% of registered voters. Do you think that the Presidential election constituted a fair sampling, even though 1/5 of all registered voters stayed home? What if it were 50%?

Well, since the article you cited above apparently proved that Republicans were disproportionately interested in the outcome, I think we can move on from here.

Show evidence that Democrats were broadly in favor of the measure.

They vote for CA GOP legislators, who literally were willing to hold up the budget during fire season and potentially make the state unable to pay its firefighters. So...

So what you're saying is that Democrats want the country to be nuked because they've opposed ABM? Gotcha.

One wonders if they were a serious attempt to save the budget, then. Gasp, maybe voters realized that they were being handed a cynical, heavily compromised magic trick, rather than a serious effort to fix the budget. But obviously the California Republican Party would be above floating ballot initiatives that were designed to fail, in order to make political hay.

This has no effect on my argument, which was merely that Californians were broadly against the propositions and that the propositions in aggregate represented an attempt to raise taxes. Moreover, if Republicans were so unreasonable as has been claimed, why did they write bills that involved higher taxes? What evidence would it take to convince you that the Republican party leadership wanted these propositions to pass before the vote?

It's not like my position is without support. Look at the platform of the California Democratic party, and look at the California Legislature. If California voters believe what you think they do, why do they return huge majorities for the Democratic party, which has the opposite platform, in election after election?

Again, other elections are about more than the budget. Obviously they agree with Democrats about other issues, but not with regards to the budget where they argue for lower taxes and lower spending.

By 2% in a state which is heavily dominated by Democratic registrations. This alone proves that the vote was heavily skewed.

You have shown precisely ZERO evidence that the budget measures were popular among Democratic voters. Prove it, since your entire position rests entirely upon that proposition.

The problem with this idea is that in actual elections more than a quarter of the people vote, so the results to which legislators actually have to pay attention are always completely different and, again, return huge majorities for the party which is most identified with more state spending. If they wanted to shrink the state budget and lower taxes, why do they never ever return a majority for the party that explicitly promises to do that?

Once again, they obviously agree with Democrats about non-budget issues. You appear to assume that people only vote for candidates with whom they agree with about all topics, but evidently that wasn't true since the Budget Initiatives enjoyed broad support from BOTH sides of the aisle in the California Legislature, as well as the Governor's office, but clearly enjoyed nothing similar among the normal populace.

[Master of Ossus]

Alright, here. According to the last poll result released before the vote, 72% of Republicans and conservatives opposed 1A. Among Democrats the measures were so much more popular: an entire 42% supported the measure.

Moreover, let's suppose that among voters who showed up, 50% were Republicans and 50% were Democrats (we both observed that Democrats enjoyed a slight advantage in the "likely voter" category, even though in the poll leading up to the election only 35% of likely voters were Republicans and 42% were Democrats indicating that the "non-representativeness" was half of what your prior argument relied upon). That would indicate that somewhere around 60% of Democrats voted against the measure.

You might claim that the shift away from even these poll results indicates that Democrats decided on voting day to stay home even when they claimed, earlier, that they were likely to vote. There's an easier explanation, though: the more voters learned about the measures, the more they hated them. That suggests that undecided voters would've swung largely against them.

Essentially, what we have here are Democrats being (at BEST) evenly divided over these measures, and likely opposing them considerably, and Republicans opposing these initiatives.

As for being non-representative of the state's voting patterns, the measures were opposed by every demographic group--old and young, whites, Asians, and Latinos, male and female--except for blacks who were precisely evenly split a week before the vote (and remember: the measures were getting less popular as people learned more about them). While the vote itself was arguably non-representative, there is nothing non-representative about the opposition to 1A: every group hated it.

So if you want to claim that there was some great, silent majority that was in favor of higher taxes, I think you have your work cut out for you. A majority of voters voted against the initiatives. Every demographic group (except possibly blacks, who would have been about evenly split) voted against the initiatives. Every age group voted against the initiatives. Both genders voted against the initiatives. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents voted against the initiatives. Every region voted against the initiatives. Every county in the state voted against the initiatives.

How does this not constitute a mandate against the initiatives?

Put another way, your claim is that the disproportionate number of Republican voters were responsible for the defeat of the budget initiatives. This is totally untrue. In fact, if we take this to the opposite extreme and by act of Yahweh or Zeus had zero Republicans show up at the polls, the initiatives still would have lost, because Democrats and Independents would have savaged 1A. But go on, continue with your insane rambling attacks on the motives of Republican lawmakers, voters, and everyone else. Any reasonable observer will see that you are floundering because those ignorant California voters put the lie to your ideological dogma that people really, really want higher taxes deep down, and that only nutcase Republicans are opposed to such "sensible" policies.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I've been away from the internet for a bit but honesty demands that I concede the argument to you. You are correct that, despite the low turnout, polls indicate that the voters rejected the initiatives that were voted on in May. It's arguable whether those trends represented a general anti-services revolt as opposed to a specific opposition to the kind of half-measure that I think the initiatives represented, but since that supposition isn't falsifiable it's not worthwhile, either.