"Misguided survey likely backfired

Friday, October 8, 1999

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

In their campaign finance disclosure forms, Initiative 695 supporters may have to list an in-kind contribution to their effort from an unlikely source: King County government.

Metro Transit's recent survey, which it allegedly conducted to gauge public opinion on budget priorities, comes perilously close to a so-called "push poll," a political tool whose goal is to mold, rather than measure, voters' views on an issue.

It's not necessary "

http://www.seattle-pi.com/opinion/surved.shtml

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 08, 1999

Answers

CRAIG!!!!

This CAN'T be true! PATRICK has said it isn't true, and HE can NEVER be wrong... can he?

Westin

(Who points out that when the Seattle PI agrees with ME, then Patrick and the resyt of the opposition are definitely in trouble)

(ahharyuk!)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 08, 1999.

Uh, nice try Westin, but I believe that I stated the poll wasn't illegal. Nothing in the editorial contradicts that statement. In fact, the PI's editorial had this to say:

"That the poll may be technically legal is evidenced by the nod it was given by the Public Disclosure Commission when the county asked in advance. Indeed, PDC staff went so far as to tab the poll a model for other local governments to emulate."

The COMPLETE editorial (feel free to read it:http://www.seattle- pi.com/opinion/surved.shtml) basically said that it was a poor political move to make. I'd actually tend to agree with that assessment. As we have seen, it gave Eyman an opportunity to make yet another false, but complicated to refute, claim.

Patrick (who takes comfort in the fact that Westin always has to misquote me to "prove" me wrong)

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

The only thing wrong with the article is the last sentence;that it might push some misguided voters to vote the wrong way.

Actually,it might ENLIGHTEN some misguided some voters as to the type of tax mad scum that infest government at all levels and cause them to vote the RIGHT WAY!

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 08, 1999.

Way to go PI!!

The emporer has no clothes and his haberdasher is telling the world about it!!!

Funny they haven't mentioned the little neighborhood seminars that are using the same tactics

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

maddjak-

All those are doing is energizing the transit riders who are natural constituents for the MVET anyway, since it subsidizes their transit use. That gives them a constituency of 3-4% of the voters. Given all the people who do NOT use transit, we ought to have the inside track.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 08, 1999.

Craig:

And again, 695 is not about transit or any other program currently funded by MVET; as you agreed in another thread. When the state gets through reprioritizing funding, anyone could see their favorite programs cut. So the anti-votes should come from anyone, right?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 08, 1999.

Craig said--"All those are doing is energizing the transit riders who are natural constituents for the MVET anyway, since it subsidizes their transit use. That gives them a constituency of 3-4% of the voters. Given all the people who do NOT use transit, we ought to have the inside track."

db said--"And again, 695 is not about transit or any other program currently funded by MVET; as you agreed in another thread. When the state gets through reprioritizing funding, anyone could see their favorite programs cut. So the anti-votes should come from anyone, right?"

db--I'm shocked to say I agree with your entire post. In principle, I also agree with Craig's post (I've no idea if his numbers are correct). I am curious about one thing. Do the two posts have anything to do with one another or have you forsaken the strawman in favor of the red herring?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 09, 1999.

Brad:

Just trying to keep the issues clearly separate. If 695 indicated where the cuts would be made, the programatic discussions would have more validity. Craig would have a point about transit riders; and you could add all those communities that get sales tax equalization, and the other MVET (currently) funded programs; and describe them as the constituency of the MVET. But we who are opposed can't do that because the initiative is not about programs; and we get accused of a campaign of lies, fear, and terror when we point out possible program cuts. The issues would be clearer if the initiative did specify what was to be cut, so we could discuss the merits of those services.

Since it is not about programs, the cuts could occur anywhere. So anyone who relies upon, or supports, any state funded program has something at risk if 695 is approved. That's more of the state than the 3 - 4% Craig mentioned. We don't want to minimize the potential effects to get it passed, and then have some unhappy voters when their pet program is cut, claiming no one told them it could happen. The funding cut will not be painless, and we don't know who will be feeling the most pain after the cuts are made.

I continue to believe that, over several years, the loss of the MVET could be managed by the state. The options for local government are less clear, and the voter approval requirement for all tax and fee increases will mean that any such options will be on the ballot. If you want big changes at all levels of government, 695 will give them to you. I believe changes of that magnitude, through this poorly drafted initiative, would be a monumental mistake.

Based on the polls, the initiative may win on November 2, 1999. I don't believe most people will think that was such a great success, by about November, 2001. Many of the biggest problems will become clearer by about March, 2000, if it is approved; but people won't believe it until they start to see the effects, and that will take some time.

As for straw and herring, your comment is unclear. I am trying to understand how the supporters can hold the opinions they do, and express my own opinions. My opinions make perfect sense to me, and those of the supporters of 695 don't. But that's the nature of opinion, at least until someone has a change of opinion. Very rare on this forum, don't you think? I wonder if any votes were actually changed by all these typed words. Few, if any, would be my guess.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

"Just trying to keep the issues clearly separate. If 695 indicated where the cuts would be made, the programatic discussions would have more validity. Craig would have a point about transit riders; and you could add all those communities that get sales tax equalization, and the other MVET (currently) funded programs; and describe them as the constituency of the MVET. But we who are opposed can't do that because the initiative is not about programs; and we get accused of a campaign of lies, fear, and terror when we point out possible program cuts. The issues would be clearer if the initiative did specify what was to be cut, so we could discuss the merits of those services."

I agree in principle. However, given the context of this thread, it's reasonable for someone to bring up King County's motivation for commissioning the poll (FWIW, I actually think they were trying to do the right thing and it backfired).

I also agree that the no695 camp has been painted as multi-colored FUDmeisters. We'll probably disagree on my next point, but I think they brought the FUDlabel on themselves by releasing one-dimensional/sided statistics and predictions.

"Since it is not about programs, the cuts could occur anywhere. So anyone who relies upon, or supports, any state funded program has something at risk if 695 is approved. That's more of the state than the 3 - 4% Craig mentioned. We don't want to minimize the potential effects to get it passed, and then have some unhappy voters when their pet program is cut, claiming no one told them it could happen. The funding cut will not be painless, and we don't know who will be feeling the most pain after the cuts are made."

Although I believe I've seen people say the cuts will be painless, I don't think most people fit into this category. While few (if any) people know which programs will be cut, it's quite likely most voter's will go to the polls with *reasonable* assumptions about the groups the will be hit hardest initially if I-695 passes.

"I continue to believe that, over several years, the loss of the MVET could be managed by the state. The options for local government are less clear, and the voter approval requirement for all tax and fee increases will mean that any such options will be on the ballot. If you want big changes at all levels of government, 695 will give them to you. I believe changes of that magnitude, through this poorly drafted initiative, would be a monumental mistake."

I personally think the lost revenue issue (part I of I-695) meaningless. Your first sentence above explains why.

In my opinion, part II of the initiative is by far the most important. It's passage has the potential to create a small (IMO. . .yours is probably different) but fundamental change in how state and local government work in Washington.

WRT the initiative being poorly drafted, I disagree with some portions of the initiative. That being said, I often support things and people I don't completely agree with. In this case, I find it better to have 90% of something than 100% of nothing.

"Based on the polls, the initiative may win on November 2, 1999. I don't believe most people will think that was such a great success, by about November, 2001. Many of the biggest problems will become clearer by about March, 2000, if it is approved; but people won't believe it until they start to see the effects, and that will take some time."

I agree with parts of the above. In general, if I-695 passes, I think the whole fee issue is the most difficult thing to be "ironed out." If it's not and the voting requirement proves too onerous, I'd predict this required will be the legislature following the 2 year waiting period. That being said, I'd expect the tax levy portion of the bill to *not* prove to onerous.

One thing I am interested to watch if I-695 passes is how many politicians use it for political cover. Although I'd earlier thought this a "good thing", after further reflection, I see it as potentially positive *and* negative.

"straw and herring"

Since you responded to my post and I understand your motivations, I concede the red herring comment was unnecessary. That being said, I've still seen at least twice where you've created strawman arguments to attack a pro695 poster's position.

Lastly, I agree that few (if any) votes have changed due to discussions on these forums. Personally, I don't think that's the point. . .not that I pretend to know what is.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 10, 1999.

Brad:

Your comments were reasoned, balanced, and well stated. We actually agree on most of the points. On balance, I believe the initiative should be rejected. On that we seem to disagree.

About strawmen, I have had some trouble getting supporters to be clear about what they believe the effect of the initiative will be. You and Craig Carson have usually been understandable; but Westin, Benham and some others make statements that sometimes have inconsistent implications. Stating the implications can be viewed as constructing a strawman, but it usually gets a reaction that clears up their meaning.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 10, 1999.

Dang-

Two more newspaper articles that I agree with. One that tells why I-695 got on the ballot and will likely pass, one that admits that those who decided to do the alleged push-poll weren't playing with a full deck. Great reading if you have the time.

Car-tax revolt has simmered for 10 years

by Jim Lynch Seattle Times Olympia bureau

The state's car tax has been around since the Great Depression. But the citizen anger toward it can be traced to a decision made in Olympia nearly 10 years ago. In an effort to squeeze more cash out of the motor-vehicle excise tax, legislators quietly transformed the car tax into a more lucrative revenue stream in 1990. The side effect was that the tax itself increasingly became viewed as too high, unfair and worse - a rip-off. The new formula for calculating annual license-tab-renewal payments was a tax-collector's dream, but it also was detached from reality. Today, it's one of the reasons polls continue to show strong support for Initiative 695, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would replace the car tax with a flat $30 fee. If I-695 passes, history will likely view it as a revolt that the Legislature should have seen coming but didn't.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/cars_19991010.html

Editorial & Opinion

Posted at 08:55 p.m. PDT; Saturday, October 9, 1999 Editorial County poll smells bad in heat of car-tab fight

SPONSORS of the car-tab initiative are yammering about a poll done by King County asking people what bus service they'd keep and what fare increases they'd accept if Initiative 695 passes. Poll takers never mentioned the initiative by name. The telephone survey was informational, not promotional. But that doesn't make it smart. Spending public money on a poll a few weeks before a highly charged election smells like politicking on the public dime - $24,000 to be exact. It fuels people who distrust government, giving them new reasons to vote for what ultimately is shortsighted public policy.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/polled_1999100

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.