Disgusted

Wow, what a disappointing Election Day.

I suppose I could blame the 60.3% of Ohioans who couldn't be arsed to actually go to the polls on Tuesday. But even had the turnout been better than the 39.7% who did show, I don't think that it would have made a lick of difference. Issue 1 passed fairly easily, while Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 were soundly defeated by similar margins (ranging from 63%-37% to 69%-31%). Considering the polling numbers of the normally-reliable Dispatch Poll released this weekend (and conducted between October 24 and November 3), there are many questions to be raised.

Issue 2 was up in that poll by 26% (59%-33%) and Issue 3 was up by 36% (61%-25%). Even Issue 5 was polling close to even (41% for, 43% against). Only Issue 4 ended up anywhere near accurate to the polling (31% for, 45% against). Again, this is a normally reliable poll, and one with only a 2.5% +/- margin-of-error. It seemed that Issues 2 and 3 were likely to pass, with Issue 5 in a close battle. Instead, they were all soundly whipped, by similar margins.

My gut instinct wanted to cry "foul". I wanted to call "shenanigans". How could things shift so quickly without fraud being at the root? Especially since 44 counties were using touchscreen voting for the first time. And considering that Issue 5 was going to take control of the elections away from the Republican Secretary of State, why wouldn't he urge his friends at Diebold to ensure that these reform issues would fail?

But then I slept on it, and looked into what was being said in the aftermath. While I wasn't, and am not, happy with the "oh, we just didn't do a good enough job" defeatism I've encountered on other blogs, I'm not so quick to find no other explanation than fraud, either. This isn't to say that I don't think that there isn't some possibility that fraud came into play here. I just don't think it was the only thing that contributed to this wild swing.

First, the packaging of the issues. All of the pro-issue ads refered to them as a group. While we did want all four issues to pass, this may have led voters who were uncertain about one issue to vote against them all, feeling that they were parts of a whole. The only ads that treated any of the issues separately were ads opposing Issue 3 (the one that was passing by the greatest margin in the Dispatch Poll). Given that the pro-issue ads were treating the four issues as a whole, it would be understandable that the four issues would fall by similar margins.

Second, the partisan support. The GOP lined up early to defeat the issue. The Democrats stood aside, in part because the reform advocates did not want it to appear as if there were partisan motives behind the issues. While this is all well and good, and reform ought to be a non-partisan issue, it also ended up biting the pro-reform campaign in the ass. While Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Democratic Party chair Jimmy DiMora lined up with the GOP to defeat the proposals, state party chair Denny White (one of the most inept party chairs I've ever met) refused to support the issues. Perhaps what's most telling in that is that it gave the impression that the Democrats, as a party machine, were no more interested in real reform than the GOP was. Maybe they're hoping to seize the Governor's Mansion and the Secretary of State's chair in 2006, holding them in 2010 and repaying the GOP for what will be the previous 20 years when they get their crack at reapportionment. Of course this is assuming a lot of things, and it's also assuming that Ohio can deal with another 5 years or more of GOP legislative neglect. After all, these are the people who have yet, after nearly 8 years, refused to reform how public schools are funded, despite an order to do so from the State Supreme Court.

Third, where the RON campaign did find political support. By this, I mean the support that came from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Again, I'm all for the idea that reform should be above partisanship, so Arnold's support for the issues, and for Issue 4 in particular (which was nearly identical to California's Proposition 77, which also was defeated), wasn't an issue for me. However, when an Ohio Democrat is being asked by a famous Republican, in robo-calls and radio ads, to support an issue, the knee-jerk reaction will be to oppose them instead. Trying to use Arnold's star power to swing votes to the pro-reform side probably hurt as much, if not more, than it helped. Add in the fact that on progressive talk radio you would encounter individuals (Ed Schultz, I'm looking at you) who would talk up the Ohio reform issues including Issue 4, and talk down Prop 77, only added to partisan feel of the reforms.

Fourth, the campaigning on Sunday. Specifically, the literature that was to be distributed with church bulletins this week, and the sermons from pulpits around the state. I have serious issues with whether or not these actions aren't violating the spirit of non-participation that is supposed to come with the churches tax-exempt status. Regardless, the churches were given literature designed to deceive, which was to be placed in the bulletins on Sunday. These fliers depicted the reforms as "anti-family", the tool of out-of-state interests, and the first step on the road to same-sex marriage and rampant abortion.

Finally, the ballot language. It was ponderous. Sure, some of it couldn't help but be. Issue 3 needed to spell out the contribution limits being proposed. But other issues could have been summarized much more concisely. And who is it that is involved in crafting the ballot language? The Secretary of State, of course. Sure, both the pro and anti campaigns get to review it, and lodge complaints. But in the end, the language is usually that which the Secretary of State's office decides on which ends up on the ballot, though perhaps with minor changes. The sort of changes that would have made these issues more concise would likely have been opposed by the anti-issue campaign, and thus the language would would not have changed much anyhow.

So there were many reasons beyond the voting machines that could account for the sudden change in the support in the last week of the campaign. All the same, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the machines as a cause, either. Some precincts in Lucas County (Toledo) and Wood County (Bowling Green) were apparently having getting their machines up and running yesterday morning and were turning voters away and telling them to come back later. That's never the appropriate way to deal with voters when these problems arise. So there were at least some problems, even if they were minor, with the machines. However, there were many other problems as well.

As for my ward and precinct, we had extremely low precinct turnout (90 voters total, which was at best 1/3 of the turnout in the presidential election last year but probably much closer to 1/10 or less). Among those who bothered to show, all of the statewide issues were favoured except Issue 4, which tied at 43 votes for and against. On a ward-wide basis, Issues 1, 2 and 7 were favoured, while 3, 4, and 5 were not.

My hope for the future of elections reform in Ohio is to get Issues 2 and 3 passed, which will open up voting to more people, and reduce the influence of the special interests. After that, go after the Secretary of State's role (Issue 5), and get the control of elections into a party-neutral body's hands. Then bring in the districting reform. While I feel that is the most important of the reforms, it will be the most difficult to get passed while the interests and the SoS still control the machinery of politics in Ohio. But all of these reforms need to be passed, and the sooner that they are, the better for all Ohioans.