[conspire] My election analysis page for Nov. 6th's election is complete

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

> Your hard work is appreciated.   Sometimes it's hard to find the story
> behind different propositions.  Then the campaigns usually focus on
> some particular detail that they think will motivate voters.

Thank you for the kind words.

Basically, all the way back into the 1980s, I realised many ballot
propositions were an iceberg problem:  You needed more background
and a little insider knowledge of who's for/against them and why,
otherwise you won't be able to cast an informed vote.  Since it pissed
me off to realise I might have been gamed a time or two by slick
advertising and surface appearances, I put some effort into studying the
sausage-making.

One of the types of gamesmanship I noticed starting in the 1980s will
probably be familiar: the copycat proposition.  Usually, this happens
because moneyed interests want to sandbag an issue that's likely to make
the ballot, so they deliberately craft one mostly similar but with some
differences, the theory being that many voters will be so annoyed by
excessive votable issues that they'll just vote a blanket 'no'.  This
has a history of working pretty well, actually. 


Ballot propositions are an area where the Web is useful for a change, 
as long as you ignore just about everything said in the last couple of
weeks before Election Day (when the big bullshit releases start), in 
that I can collect all in one place links to what credible sources of
analysis say about the issues/candidates.

Naturally, some sources of editorials turn out to be mouthpieces for
some identifiable interest or other, and some are (obviously) going to
turn out to be cranks and loons, so caveat lector applies -- but I 
try to collect a variety of voices whether I agree with them or not
(though some Overton window boundary-setting is inevitable and
undeniable; but people who think I'm narrow-minded are welcome to 
do their own analyses). 

I find my running semi-dialogue with Pete Stahl interesting, and
recommend comparing and contrasting his views with mine.  Every
California election, Stahl analyses _just_ the ballot propositions
(not any candidates) for his site http://www.peterates.com/ .  

We've corresponded, and compared notes.  You'll find FWIW that we
usually agree, except on bond measures, where I find California's 
(IMO) dangerously high levels of general-obligation bond debt worrisome,
and he has a well-reasoned essay where he argues otherwise.